357SIG proving to be an unbelievable manstopper??? [Archive] - Page 3 - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : 357SIG proving to be an unbelievable manstopper???


Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

English
02-18-2010, 11:04
All the evidence I have seen, that is, reports by people who have shot reasonable numbers of people with both, shows that 9mm ball and .45ACP ball have indestinguishable effectiveness. Strangely enough, that fits well with the oh so often repeated stuff about all pistol rounds are feeble and only use a pistol to fight your way back to your rifle and so on. I think we can assume that the same just about holds true for hollow points in both.

What this means is that the extra diameter and mass (and even some KE) of the .45ACP is compensated for by the extra speed of the 9mm. This suggests that, given the right bullet design and mass, we could find some speed for a .22 which would be just about equivalent to the 9mm and .45ACP as well. Equally, if the .38 Super, bullet mass for bullet mass, is a faster 9mm then we should expect its terminal performance to be better than the 9mm. People who use it for hunting report precisely that! Since the 357SIG is slightly faster again, we should expect it to be slightly better again. As sigcalcatrant says, the 357SIG certainly produces a far more impressive wound than the 9mm and it is hard to imagine that such a result does not also prove to be more effective.

As a side issue, various people have talked about the appearance of wounds created by 9, 40, 357 and 45 as being indistinguishable. This is true of an entry wound for simple reasons. The ballistic pressure wave which forces tissue out of the path of the bullet (this is nothing to do with the remote effects on the brain of such waves and is simple physics) pushes tissue mainly ahead and forwards of the bullet. Only a very high velocity, high energy, bullet which expends most of its energy in the first inch or two, like a varmint rifle bullet, will create enough pressure to force tissue to explode backwards in the vicinity of the entry hole. Because of this all that appears on the outside is a smaller than caliber diameter hole in the skin as the skin is flexible and stretches round the bullet to some extent. To see the actual damage done by a bullet it is necessary to transect the bullet track and look at the damage done to tissue to either side of the track. This is not feasible with a living patient.

Even with the wound transected in this way the 9mm and .45ACP show very similar injury characteristics because bullets do not just make a simple caliber or expanded diameter hole. As sigcalcatrant says, the difference of the 357SIG is clear and significant.

English

automan
02-18-2010, 12:44
Pretty much, and for almost the same reasons. However, we now have bonded-bullets, and reliable JHP's. This makes the 357SIG more than the 38 Super was back in its hay-day by quite a margin.

Bullet manufacturer's could do the same thing with 38 Super today if they wanted to, or more to the point, if the demand for it was there.

dadeglocks
02-18-2010, 14:12
i think im going to get a glock 33

unit1069
02-18-2010, 18:01
The impact event with it's immediate displacement of material is not easily measured after the fact. I do think evaluation methods are improving with time.

A product called the Bullet Test Tube has made testing of ammunition much easier than the difficult and expensive ballistic gelatin. The manufacturer, Ballistic Technologies, has worked hard to correlate how their wax relates to calibrated ballistic gelatin. The wax, as the product name implies, is contained in a tube, which is then sectioned to examine matter displacement. Prior to sectioning, the company recommends the cavity made by the bullet be filled with water, which can then be measured to give a good idea of how large a cavity the bullet created.

Test Results

One round of Speer 125-grain Gold Dot .357 Sig was fired from a few feet away into a Bullet Test Tube. It took approximately 3.7 ounces of water to fill the cavity made by the bullet, slightly more than double the displacement of a 230-grain .45 ACP hollowpoint fired into an identical test tube on the same day. The recovered Gold Dot bullet measured approximately 1/2" wide and had expanded symmetrically. It weighed 124.3 grains, weighed on a digital scale by Frankford Arsenal.http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_10_54/ai_n28027452/

glock20c10mm
02-18-2010, 18:59
The impact event with it's immediate displacement of material is not easily measured after the fact. I do think evaluation methods are improving with time.
Nice research! Not saying it proves anything, but the thinking is certainly in the right direction.

+1 :thumbsup:

glock20c10mm
02-18-2010, 19:03
i think im going to get a glock 33
Would you be willing to elaborate? I doubt I'm the only one who would like to hear more on how you arrived at that conclusion.

glock20c10mm
02-18-2010, 19:05
Bullet manufacturer's could do the same thing with 38 Super today if they wanted to, or more to the point, if the demand for it was there.
Maybe the demand will come with time.

glock20c10mm
02-18-2010, 19:08
I'm no big fan of the sig, but seeing how a G32 becomes a G19 after a barrel swap. It would make sense to go ahead and grab a G32/23.
I don't believe you can do a simple barrel swap in a G32. I'm not even sure you can convert a G32 to 9mm at all. You sure about it?

Even if a barrel swap did it, you'ld for sure have to swap mags too.

glock20c10mm
02-18-2010, 19:19
The "average" citizen will never have to shoot someone, and if they do, there is no "average" shooting.
+1000!!! :thumbsup:


You should carry what you feel most confident in.
But for those that may come to a conclusion supporting 25 Auto among other diminuitive cartridges, you may want to take a second look at all your options.


Good Shooting,
Craig

N/Apower
02-18-2010, 19:22
The impact event with it's immediate displacement of material is not easily measured after the fact. I do think evaluation methods are improving with time.

The Bullet Test Tube does not accurately simulate tissue or gel. That is why there is a conversion-factor for figuring penetration of bullets shot into it. We might as well go back to shooting duxseal or lumps of clay, which it is more like than gel in consistancy, and which seem to favor higher velocity rounds.

English
02-19-2010, 07:33
Would you be willing to elaborate? I doubt I'm the only one who would like to hear more on how you arrived at that conclusion.

I am not trying to answer for dadeglocks but my choice of G33 is simple enough.

My criteria are based on the greatest stopping power and magazine capacity for a concealable size. Different circumstances put different limits on what can be concealed for different individuals at different times and there is, of course, a conflict between magazine capacity and stopping power. By stopping power I mean the lowest average number of shots or shortest time to effective incapacitation, and that is more stuff we can't put any precision to. On top of that, I want recoil levels that I can handles without developing a flinch but I am prepared to practice with a lesser loading or calibler in the same type of pistol to get it.

So, for situation where I could carry a full service size pistol, there is no competititon for the 10mm in G20. It is light, relatively small and 15 shots times 10mm power is a better stopping power and capacity compromise than can be found in any other similar size pistol and recoil is no problem.

Next down in size is more difficult because it is a close race between the 10mm G29 and the 357SIG G32. The G32 has less stopping power but more rounds. It is thinner and only a smidgeon taller. 30oz fully loaded with 13 rounds per magazine versus 33oz with 10 rounds just tips it to the G32 for me but I would be happy with either. (2 more rounds in 9mm doesn't do it for me!)

Next down is the G33. Again there is nothing to compete with it for power in that size package. 9 shot magazine and 26.6oz with full magazine in a very concealable but not pocket carry size. This is about as light as I want to go for .40 S&W or 357SIG recoil levels. I can shoot the G33 quite a lot at a time but if I had the opportunity to fire 1000s of rounds a week I would put a 9mm conversion barrel into it for the majority of that. Lone Wolf and others do conversion barrels and the conversion is usually reliable with no more than the barrel and 9mm magazines.

Next down takes us to 9mm in KelTec PF-9, Kahr PM9 or Rohrbaugh in ascending cost. I have the KT and I am quite impressed with it. The KT is only marginally pocketable, but the Rohrbaugh definitely is. In this weight and size pistol I think .40 recoil is too much and 357SIG is not available even if I wanted it.

Then we drop down to the .380 in about 11 to 14oz loaded weight. I have the KT P3AT, which is the lightest option, and I am impressed with that one too, but if I was buying again I woul go for the Diamondback which is just a little heavier. It has the same overall size, but the grip length is better because of the striker firing mechanism. if reports are to be believed it is nicer to shoot as well.

I can't see any point in going lower than that. The KT P32 is nice but for only another 1.5 oz loaded ad the same overall size, the P3AT just has so much more power. The KTs are so small and light that there is no point at all in going to a .25 auto.

All is compromise, but within the compromise graph I think the G33 stands out as the best in class.

English

PS I would not be unhappy with the G31 either but the G20 beats it.

glock20c10mm
02-19-2010, 15:07
By stopping power I mean the lowest average number of shots or shortest time to effective incapacitation...
And that's why I choose 10mm in combination with a G29. I'm not licensed to conceal carry yet, so the G29 works fine for me to open carry. Once I can conceal carry it will still work well most of the time.

One might ask why I just don't carry a G20 now. It's because I simply prefer a longer aftermarket barrel in the G29 without going to a larger platform overall. Plus I have 15 round G20 mags that fit right into my G29 when I choose to carry with 15 round capacity.

Erich1B
02-19-2010, 16:47
My criteria are based on the greatest stopping power and magazine capacity for a concealable size.

Next down in size is more difficult because it is a close race between the 10mm G29 and the 357SIG G32.

Next down is the G33. Again there is nothing to compete with it for power in that size package. 9 shot magazine and 26.6oz with full magazine in a very concealable but not pocket carry size.

English,

I have both G29 & G33 that I CCW. In my personal experience, I don't really perceive a significant difference between either for CCW. For me, both are equally concealable carried at 4:00 PM in a TT gunleather IWB holster. I extended the G##'s capacity with a +2 Pearce grip extender. The G33 is slightly thinner and shorter, but (for me personally) not a noticable difference with the G29.

unit1069
02-19-2010, 18:01
The Bullet Test Tube does not accurately simulate tissue or gel. That is why there is a conversion-factor for figuring penetration of bullets shot into it. We might as well go back to shooting duxseal or lumps of clay, which it is more like than gel in consistancy, and which seem to favor higher velocity rounds.

Well Bullet Test Tube may or may not be equivalent to calibrated gel; I'll let the experts decide that. At any rate it is a neutral medium regardless of the caliber tested as well as being a uniform consistency.

So from the article I linked, why did the 125-grain .357sig Gold Dot JHP displace twice the material as the 230-grain .45ACP JHP? And if you know the conversion factor what's the equivalent displacement and penetration numbers for both calibers in calibrated gel?

What I think is interesting is a medium whereby the "snapshot" of total wound volume can be approximately measured. In many test mediums the elasticity of the material makes it difficult or impossible to measure. Leaving aside the problem(s) of trying to closely duplicate the human anatomy Bullet Test Tube seems to me to be one simple way to make a limited but valid comparison between caliber/bullet wound displacement volumes.

Ticman
02-19-2010, 18:30
I don't believe you can do a simple barrel swap in a G32. I'm not even sure you can convert a G32 to 9mm at all. You sure about it?

Even if a barrel swap did it, you'ld for sure have to swap mags too.


You have been on here since 2004 and haven't seen conversion barrels?

http://www.lonewolfdist.com/Detail.aspx?PROD=983

"Use G19 9mm mag for G23 and G32 conversion." from the link


You can convert a G23 or G32 to a 9mm with the above barrel. You do need 9mm mags and an extractor would help as well but lots of people shoot 9mm out of 23/32's with nothing more that a barrel and mag.

I have shot 9mm and 357 sig out of my G23.

English
02-19-2010, 19:32
English,

I have both G29 & G33 that I CCW. In my personal experience, I don't really perceive a significant difference between either for CCW. For me, both are equally concealable carried at 4:00 PM in a TT gunleather IWB holster. I extended the G##'s capacity with a +2 Pearce grip extender. The G33 is slightly thinner and shorter, but (for me personally) not a noticable difference with the G29.

In a 4 O'clock position it does not make much difference but Glock's figures for the 32, 29 and 33 respectively are:
Length 6.85, 6.77, 6.29
Height 5.00,4.45, 4.17
Width 1.18, 1.27, 1.18
Mag capacity 13, 10, 9
Weight inc full mag 30.16, 32.98, 26.63

Perhaps the most significant differences are the half inch of length and just over a quarter inch of height between the 29 and 33, and the just over half an inch of height of the 32 over the 29. Depending on where the pistol is carried, these differences can mean little or a lot. Under a dress shirt in a belly band type holster appendix position I think the 33 would be a lot easier to keep concealed and would be more comfortable. In a 4 O'clock IWB holster the 32 could be as easy as the 29. Does that group the 29 with the 32 or the 33? I think there is no right answer and that it all depends on the person and the circumstances!

English

N/Apower
02-19-2010, 20:01
Well Bullet Test Tube may or may not be equivalent to calibrated gel; I'll let the experts decide that. The company themselves says it's not equivalent, hence a conversion factor. At any rate it is a neutral medium regardless of the caliber tested as well as being a uniform consistency.

So from the article I linked, why did the 125-grain .357sig Gold Dot JHP displace twice the material as the 230-grain .45ACP JHP? Because the material is of the consistancy that it is. It's like shooting a .22 at some mud. It's going to make a larger hole than a .45 because it's moving faster.And if you know the conversion factor what's the equivalent displacement and penetration numbers for both calibers in calibrated gel? There is no equivalent for displacement. It's like shooting a lump of clay, more velocity=more permenant cavity in this kind of medium. The penetration conversion should be on the website, and is certainly included with the product. I don't remember what it was.

What I think is interesting is a medium whereby the "snapshot" of total wound volume can be approximately measured. In many test mediums the elasticity of the material makes it difficult or impossible to measure. TC is not total wound volume. The bullet test-tube gives a false-sense of permanent wound volume BECAUSE it is not elastic. Leaving aside the problem(s) of trying to closely duplicate the human anatomy Bullet Test Tube seems to me to be one simple way to make a limited but valid comparison between caliber/bullet wound displacement volumes. Only if you care about TC, and even then we know that a .45's TC is roughly equivalent to the 357SIG's from numerous photos of dyed gel we can easily google. Ergo, the "bullet test tube" is good for...nothing other than calculating penetration depth, in my opinion. If you have some wet clay somewhere on your property it's about as informative with regards to wound-volume.

Just my .02 with some fact thrown in.

ETA: Here is what an "Expert" has to say:
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=47730

Erich1B
02-19-2010, 20:23
In a 4 O'clock position it does not make much difference but Glock's figures for the 32, 29 and 33 respectively are:
Length 6.85, 6.77, 6.29
Height 5.00,4.45, 4.17
Width 1.18, 1.27, 1.18
Mag capacity 13, 10, 9
Weight inc full mag 30.16, 32.98, 26.63

Perhaps the most significant differences are the half inch of length and just over a quarter inch of height between the 29 and 33, and the just over half an inch of height of the 32 over the 29. Depending on where the pistol is carried, these differences can mean little or a lot. Under a dress shirt in a belly band type holster appendix position I think the 33 would be a lot easier to keep concealed and would be more comfortable. In a 4 O'clock IWB holster the 32 could be as easy as the 29. Does that group the 29 with the 32 or the 33? I think there is no right answer and that it all depends on the person and the circumstances!

English

I would certainly agree with that.

unit1069
02-19-2010, 21:30
Just my .02 with some fact thrown in.

ETA: Here is what an "Expert" has to say:
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=47730

Well, I didn't see any "fact" at all.

And the "expert" finds fault because the medium doesn't duplicate human tissue. I'd say to the expert, "Calibrated gel doesn't duplicate living tissue either", but it does come close to approximating human tissue's consistency.

Regardless, the Bullet Tube material is a neutral medium the same way that calibrated gel is a neutral medium. Your "expert" has nothing to add, really.

You mentioned a conversion equation in your previous post; can you tell us what that is? I'm not a math whiz but I's sure there are others who can figure the ratios.

N/Apower
02-19-2010, 21:45
Well, I didn't see any "fact" at all.

And the "expert" finds fault because the medium doesn't duplicate human tissue. I'd say to the expert, "Calibrated gel doesn't duplicate living tissue either", but it does come close to approximating human tissue's consistency. Yes, but the bullet-test tube doesn't come close, and this is what the company has to say about how it compares to animal tissue: "The short answer is we do not know and it really does not matter. " There have been studies done of OIS's on expansion and penetration depth that show a VERY good correlation between gel and humans, at least. I will stick with gel.

Regardless, the Bullet Tube material is a neutral medium the same way that calibrated gel is a neutral medium. Your "expert" has nothing to add, really. So is clay, and shooting clay tells me that a .22 CCI Stinger has much larger wound volume than a .45 JHP. See how this is flawed?

You mentioned a conversion equation in your previous post; can you tell us what that is? I'm not a math whiz but I's sure there are others who can figure the ratios.Yes, it's 1.34. Multiply penetration by 1.34 to get a rough estimate of how far the bullet would penetrate in gelatin according to the company that produces this product.


I suppose I could shoot watermellons, lumps of clay, or bullet test tubes. They are all about as meaningful as one another. However, I will stick with what the gel-tests are telling us. I would like the closest thing to flesh as possible.

unit1069
02-19-2010, 22:12
I decided to go to Bullet Test Tube's web site. Here's what I found:

Are the results comparable to ordnance gelatin?

Yes, in some ways. With regard to penetration you can multiply the penetration depth in the Bullet Test Tube by 1.34 to make a relatively accurate prediction of how the bullet would have penetrated inside ordnance gelatin. However, ordnance gelatin does not offer a reliable means for measuring the wound cavity bullets create. And, ordnance gelatin offers a great visual exaggeration of the affects of what has been called the “temporary stretch cavity”.

With the Bullet Test Tube you can physically measure the volume of the “wound cavity” which is the actual material physically displaced by the penetration and expansion of the bullet thru its entire depth of travel.

That's the point I'm making.

N/Apower
02-19-2010, 22:25
I decided to go to Bullet Test Tube's web site. Here's what I found:
Are the results comparable to ordnance gelatin?

Yes, in some ways. With regard to penetration you can multiply the penetration depth in the Bullet Test Tube by 1.34 to make a relatively accurate prediction of how the bullet would have penetrated inside ordnance gelatin. However, ordnance gelatin does not offer a reliable means for measuring the wound cavity bullets create. And, ordnance gelatin offers a great visual exaggeration of the affects of what has been called the “temporary stretch cavity”.

With the Bullet Test Tube you can physically measure the volume of the “wound cavity” which is the actual material physically displaced by the penetration and expansion of the bullet thru its entire depth of travel.


That's the point I'm making.

The point I am making is that there is no way a bullet physically displaces anything beyond the .8" or whatever that it expands to. How could it? If it doesn't touch it, how is it "physically displacing" it?

Ergo, this medium is giving you a false sense of "damage" by measuring part of the temporary cavity. You can see temporary cavity in dyed gel. It's very VERY near the same for .45 and for 357SIG.

AZ Husker
02-19-2010, 22:36
If it's very near, I'll take 14 rounds over 9 anytime. I can now buy practice ammo for the .357 sig cheaper than .45.

N/Apower
02-19-2010, 23:19
If it's very near, I'll take 14 rounds over 9 anytime. I can now buy practice ammo for the .357 sig cheaper than .45.

Wow. If you don't mind, where are you finding 357SIG cheaper than $15/50? That is the going rate for Federal .45 230 FMJ here.

long shot
02-21-2010, 00:55
It's been a long time. Good to see folks like Fastbolt are still around.

Regarding Dr. Roberts ... yes, he is a dentist. IIRC, he performs reconstructive surgery as a specialty. He's also respected by many as a ballistics expert who has been contracted to test for some of the nations largest LE agencies as well as various military operations (to include MEU's), etc. In addition, Dr. Roberts has attended/observed shooting related autopsies and was also a Naval officer as well as a LE officer.

As far as the IWBA/FBI testing protocol ... it has quite simply, had a profound impact on ammunition as we know it today. Every major ammunition manufacturer has bent over backwards to meet the specifications of the IWBA/FBI when it comes to their top of the line duty ammunition. And in doing so, there has been some excellent loads developed as a result. Loads like: Speer Gold Dot ... Federal HST ... Winchester Ranger ... etc.

Testing conducted through various inanimate barriers such as clothing, plywood/drywall, windshields, car panels, etc... is certainly relevant, given the fact that bullets in the real world must most often first pass through one or more of these inanimate barriers prior to striking the primary target.

N/Apower
02-21-2010, 01:01
It's been a long time. Good to see folks like Fastbolt are still around.

Regarding Dr. Roberts ... yes, he is a dentist. IIRC, he performs reconstructive surgery as a specialty. He's also respected by many as a ballistics expert who has been contracted to test for some of the nations largest LE agencies as well as various military operations (to include MEU's), etc. In addition, Dr. Roberts has attended/observed shooting related autopsies and was also a Naval officer as well as a LE officer.

As far as the IWBA/FBI testing protocol ... it has quite simply, had a profound impact on ammunition as we know it today. Every major ammunition manufacturer has bent over backwards to meet the specifications of the IWBA/FBI when it comes to their top of the line duty ammunition. And in doing so, there has been some excellent loads developed as a result. Loads like: Speer Gold Dot ... Federal HST ... Winchester Ranger ... etc.

Testing conducted through various inanimate barriers such as clothing, plywood/drywall, windshields, car panels, etc... is certainly relevant, given the fact that bullets in the real world must most often first pass through one or more of these inanimate barriers prior to striking the primary target.

+1

and here I thought Glock Talk was populated only by the Courtney fanatics.

long shot
02-21-2010, 02:35
+1

and here I thought Glock Talk was populated only by the Courtney fanatics.

I'm not necessarily a fanatic of anyone. However, I do respect Dr. Roberts work. One thing I like ... is that he doesn't necessarily favor light & fast or slow and heavy (ah, the debates of old, lol). While he may prefer larger rounds overall for their potential ability to crush more tissue ... he seems to primarily go by how a given round performs in testing. He recommends everything from the lightweight 9mm Corbon DPX ... to the heavyweight 230gr. Wincher Ranger T.

Additionally, it's simply hard for me to ignore the fact that all of the major ammunition makers strived to meet the IWBA/FBI testing protocol when designing their top of the line duty ammunition; and the results have produced some outstanding loads. Irrespective of service caliber chosen ... when talking about loads like Winchester Ranger T-Series and Federal HST, they all perform well at various weights and velocities. So do loads using the DPX bullet, etc.

The .40 S&W, and in particular the 357 sig ... came along at a time when bullet technology really started making strides. That may have something to do with their 'street' success. Lackluster ammunition from days gone by are plentiful in 9mm and .45 ACP. Current bullet technology has allowed all of the service calibers to perform better.

N/Apower
02-21-2010, 03:22
I'm not necessarily a fanatic of anyone. However, I do respect Dr. Roberts work. One thing I like ... is that he doesn't necessarily favor light & fast or slow and heavy (ah, the debates of old, lol). While he may prefer larger rounds overall for their potential ability to crush more tissue ... he seems to primarily go by how a given round performs in testing. He recommends everything from the lightweight 9mm Corbon DPX ... to the heavyweight 230gr. Wincher Ranger T.

Additionally, it's simply hard for me to ignore the fact that all of the major ammunition makers strived to meet the IWBA/FBI testing protocol when designing their top of the line duty ammunition; and the results have produced some outstanding loads. Irrespective of service caliber chosen ... when talking about loads like Winchester Ranger T-Series and Federal HST, they all perform well at various weights and velocities. So do loads using the DPX bullet, etc.

The .40 S&W, and in particular the 357 sig ... came along at a time when bullet technology really started making strides. That may have something to do with their 'street' success. Lackluster ammunition from days gone by are plentiful in 9mm and .45 ACP. Current bullet technology has allowed all of the service calibers to perform better.

I fully agree. There really were no junk .40 or 357SIG rounds like there have been in other calibers due to technology.

glock20c10mm
02-21-2010, 11:10
...he (Dr. Roberts) doesn't necessarily favor light & fast or slow and heavy
Right, as long as a given bullets end result meets IWBA/FBI testing protocol he'll tell you it's a good bullet in whatever load it was launched from. Nothing wrong with that in my mind.

My problem is that Dr. Roberts claims all of Dr. Courtney's work reguarding enough peak BPW and it's effects toward incapactation some percentage of the time is complete BS, yet will never gives reasoning why. Not ever. He simply states he and a number of collegues looked over Dr. Courtney's studies and found it to be full of holes. Yet he won't point to a single supposed hole, and he has been asked directly a number of times when he choose to get involved in threads reguarding Dr. Courtney's theory of BPW. He has also made mention in threads on GT when asked direct questions that he ignored that he isn't interested in wasting time with anyone he didn't ask a direct question to.

And of course it was Dr. Martin Fackler who was the deciding factor behind much of the IWBA's work in terms of what ended up being termed FBI protocol. Dr. Roberts simply rode on Dr. Facklers coat tails. Not to mention Dr. Fackler has had some pretty negative comments toward Dr. Roberts which may or may not be beside the point.

So again, no doubt Dr. Roberts is an intelligent man, but it doesn't mean he isn't closed minded toward new theories like Dr. Courtney's with plenty of research behind it to back it up. Therefore, IMO, Dr. Roberts leaves some to be desired. Duncan McPhearson, it seems to me, actually did more different supporting work to Dr. Facklers than Dr. Roberts could have ever dreamed of doing.

And yeah, Dr. Roberts may have been contracted to test for some of the nations largest LE agencies as well as various military operations, but so what? Anyone could have done it that had the resources. All he had to do was test it going by the FBI protocol that already existed.

Now a days you can simply call up the likes of ATK among others who have the resources to do the testing (now mobile) and they'll bring it to wherever you want to test your ammo including any ammo you want to test against their Speer and Federal brands.

At the end of the day I don't see Dr. Roberts being as helpful as many are lead to believe. He wouldn't have had to exist for us to know the vast majority we do, and he chooses to be closed minded to Dr. Courtney's work which has zero supporting evidence against it. Therefore I don't hold him in the high reguard so many others do, then again, most others don't know what I know.
Additionally, it's simply hard for me to ignore the fact that all of the major ammunition makers strived to meet the IWBA/FBI testing protocol when designing their top of the line duty ammunition; and the results have produced some outstanding loads.
That has little to do with Dr. Roberts directly.


Good Shooting,
Craig


PS - This was simply my opinion based on a certain amount of fact. Please don't take it negatively toward yourself as I have nothing against you. Just throwing my thoughts out there.

English
02-21-2010, 11:31
The point I am making is that there is no way a bullet physically displaces anything beyond the .8" or whatever that it expands to. How could it? If it doesn't touch it, how is it "physically displacing" it?

Ergo, this medium is giving you a false sense of "damage" by measuring part of the temporary cavity. You can see temporary cavity in dyed gel. It's very VERY near the same for .45 and for 357SIG.

You have told us in other posts about the years you have spent in a science degree studying experimental design. I have to wonder what kind of degree this was and what kind of university ran it.

If I were to punch you in the face when you were standing with the back of your head 6 inches from a wall and the back of your head then bounced off the wall, would the back of your head not have been physically displaced by my punch? Yet I have not touched the back of your head and I would no longer be in contact with your face by the time your head hit the wall. I am at a loss to understand what you might mean by "physical displacement" and why you think that the tissue pushed outwards from the bullet track is not physically displaced by the bullet.

You say, "You can see temporary cavity in dyed gel." If you think about it you might realise that the temporary cavity is what it says on the tin. It is not just temporary, it is very temoprary. So if dye has been put into the cavity it has been done after the temporary cavity has collapsed and what you see is not the temporary cavity but the permanent cavity and the infiltration of dye into the tears created by the temporary cavity. You can get an idea of the size of the temporay cavity by high speed photography or high speed moving photography of the bulge in the outside of the gel block as the temporary cavity briefly expands and collapses.

You seem to think that ballistic gelatin is representative of human flesh. This is a remarkably naive concept for a scientist. It has been developed and adjusted to model just one aspect of human flesh. That is, it has been developed to provide approximately the same average resistance as flesh so that the depth of penetration of bullets can be measured in a repeatable way in a consistent test medium to give an approximatley one to one relationship to their penetration in real people. As it does this, it also produces a similar degree of bullet expansion.

If you try to extend the gel model beyond this, it fails. Its tensile strength is not the same and so its resistance to the expansion of the temporary cavity is not the same. The tears is the gelatin block cannot be the same as the tears in real flesh. Even the permanent cavity cannot be the same since part of the size of the permanent cavity in flesh is a result of the bursting of cells and gelatin has no cells to burst so the mode of disruption has to be different.

The size of the temporary cavity is a function of both the rate of displacement needed by the bullet for it to move through the medium at its instantaneous speed and the resistance of the medium to that displacement. That displacement depends on the tensile strength and power of the medium and the mass being displaced. Its tensile strength allows it to tear or resist tearing and its tensile power allows it to act like a spring resisting deformation by storing and then releasing deformational energy.

The greater the mass surrounding the displacement the greater the inertial resistance to deformation. This mass can come from the density of the material of from the size of the block. A bigger block will have greater resistance to the formation of a temporary cavity. Since such resistance will increase the hydrodynamic pressure in front of the bullet, it will slow it faster, expand it further and reduce its penetration. The rate of expansion of the temporary cavity can be such with a high energy bullet that it bursts the gelltin block and so reduces the hydrodynamic pressure and increases the penetration.

It is obvious that ballistic gelatin must have a standardized formulation and consistency. This is made clear by the fact that it has to be used at a very closely controlled temperature. It should also be clear from the above that any testing via ballistic gelatin can be standardized only with a standard size of block but that such a block will work only within a limited window of rates of energy release. That is, a block size and consistency which has been validated on normal service pistol rounds will become progressively less valid for rounds outside that window. In order to validate the Ballistic gelatin block size and composition it had to be tested agains lots of real world results. That was almost certainly 9mm bullet wounds since they were the most readily available from battlefield autopsies. This has significant implications. If ballistic gelatin is approximately valid for 9mm is will become less valid as we move down to .380 and then .32 or up to 357SIG, 10mm, .44 Mag and so on. As we get to .454 Casull and upwards we can think of it as nearly worthless. Ballistic Gelatin is not a gold standard of universal constancy but a rough and ready means of comparing relative bullet performance in the region of 9mm rates of energy transfer.

So, if we look at the Bullet Test Tube, we should look at it in the same cynical manner. We cannot expect it to model flesh and bone and can expect little morre than a guide to some aspects of bullet performance. The thing it gives the greatest comparative result to is the temorary cavity and it does this precisely because it does not collapse back into shape in the way the ballistic gelatine does. (I imagine this is not entirely true since the containing tube will probably collapse it to some extent.)

This then brings us to the issue of the wounding effect relative to the sive of the temporary cavity. It is hard not to be impressed by the size and violence of the temporary cavity shown in ballistic gelatin in slow motion movies though some people seem to manage this feat without difficulty. We can see a similar impressive bulge of tissue caused by bullets shot into dead human or animal bodies and it seems obvious to me, though not to many, that such a bullet wound must incapacitate a considerable volume of tissue outside the permanent cavity to a decreasing extent as the distance from the bullet track increases. I find this a fascinating subject but I have spent enough time on this for now.

English

glock20c10mm
02-21-2010, 11:49
You seem to think that ballistic gelatin is representative of human flesh. This is a remarkably naive concept for a scientist. It has been developed and adjusted to model just one aspect of human flesh. That is, it has been developed to provide approximately the same average resistance as flesh so that the depth of penetration of bullets can be measured in a repeatable way in a consistent test medium to give an approximatley one to one relationship to their penetration in real people. As it does this, it also produces a similar degree of bullet expansion.

If you try to extend the gel model beyond this, it fails. Its tensile strength is not the same and so its resistance to the expansion of the temporary cavity is not the same. The tears is the gelatin block cannot be the same as the tears in real flesh. Even the permanent cavity cannot be the same since part of the size of the permanent cavity in flesh is a result of the bursting of cells and gelatin has no cells to burst so the mode of disruption has to be different.


English
:agree: I meant to bring this up earlier. Well said.


Craig

N/Apower
02-21-2010, 14:02
You have told us in other posts about the years you have spent in a science degree studying experimental design. I have to wonder what kind of degree this was and what kind of university ran it.
I had one research class. That is all. I never claimed otherwise.

If I were to punch you in the face when you were standing with the back of your head 6 inches from a wall and the back of your head then bounced off the wall, would the back of your head not have been physically displaced by my punch? Yet I have not touched the back of your head and I would no longer be in contact with your face by the time your head hit the wall. I am at a loss to understand what you might mean by "physical displacement" and why you think that the tissue pushed outwards from the bullet track is not physically displaced by the bullet.

You say, "You can see temporary cavity in dyed gel." If you think about it you might realise that the temporary cavity is what it says on the tin. It is not just temporary, it is very temoprary. So if dye has been put into the cavity it has been done after the temporary cavity has collapsed and what you see is not the temporary cavity but the permanent cavity and the infiltration of dye into the tears created by the temporary cavity. You can get an idea of the size of the temporay cavity by high speed photography or high speed moving photography of the bulge in the outside of the gel block as the temporary cavity briefly expands and collapses.

You seem to think that ballistic gelatin is representative of human flesh. This is a remarkably naive concept for a scientist. It has been developed and adjusted to model just one aspect of human flesh. That is, it has been developed to provide approximately the same average resistance as flesh so that the depth of penetration of bullets can be measured in a repeatable way in a consistent test medium to give an approximatley one to one relationship to their penetration in real people. As it does this, it also produces a similar degree of bullet expansion.
It is more representative than the test-tube and has been shown through the study of autopsies to accurately model penetration and projectile expansion, at least, in the case of 20 shootings involving the 147gr 9mm by one agency.

If you try to extend the gel model beyond this, it fails. Its tensile strength is not the same and so its resistance to the expansion of the temporary cavity is not the same. The tears is the gelatin block cannot be the same as the tears in real flesh. Even the permanent cavity cannot be the same since part of the size of the permanent cavity in flesh is a result of the bursting of cells and gelatin has no cells to burst so the mode of disruption has to be different. True, short of shooting some animal/person, it's the best we have though.

The size of the temporary cavity is a function of both the rate of displacement needed by the bullet for it to move through the medium at its instantaneous speed and the resistance of the medium to that displacement. That displacement depends on the tensile strength and power of the medium and the mass being displaced. Its tensile strength allows it to tear or resist tearing and its tensile power allows it to act like a spring resisting deformation by storing and then releasing deformational energy.

The greater the mass surrounding the displacement the greater the inertial resistance to deformation. This mass can come from the density of the material of from the size of the block. A bigger block will have greater resistance to the formation of a temporary cavity. Since such resistance will increase the hydrodynamic pressure in front of the bullet, it will slow it faster, expand it further and reduce its penetration. The rate of expansion of the temporary cavity can be such with a high energy bullet that it bursts the gelltin block and so reduces the hydrodynamic pressure and increases the penetration.

It is obvious that ballistic gelatin must have a standardized formulation and consistency. This is made clear by the fact that it has to be used at a very closely controlled temperature. It should also be clear from the above that any testing via ballistic gelatin can be standardized only with a standard size of block but that such a block will work only within a limited window of rates of energy release. That is, a block size and consistency which has been validated on normal service pistol rounds will become progressively less valid for rounds outside that window. In order to validate the Ballistic gelatin block size and composition it had to be tested agains lots of real world results. That was almost certainly 9mm bullet wounds since they were the most readily available from battlefield autopsies. This has significant implications. If ballistic gelatin is approximately valid for 9mm is will become less valid as we move down to .380 and then .32 or up to 357SIG, 10mm, .44 Mag and so on. As we get to .454 Casull and upwards we can think of it as nearly worthless. Ballistic Gelatin is not a gold standard of universal constancy but a rough and ready means of comparing relative bullet performance in the region of 9mm rates of energy transfer.

So, if we look at the Bullet Test Tube, we should look at it in the same cynical manner. We cannot expect it to model flesh and bone and can expect little morre than a guide to some aspects of bullet performance. The thing it gives the greatest comparative result to is the temorary cavity and it does this precisely because it does not collapse back into shape in the way the ballistic gelatine does. (I imagine this is not entirely true since the containing tube will probably collapse it to some extent.)
Since it wasn't built to model this, how can you say such?

This then brings us to the issue of the wounding effect relative to the sive of the temporary cavity. It is hard not to be impressed by the size and violence of the temporary cavity shown in ballistic gelatin in slow motion movies though some people seem to manage this feat without difficulty. We can see a similar impressive bulge of tissue caused by bullets shot into dead human or animal bodies and it seems obvious to me, though not to many, that such a bullet wound must incapacitate a considerable volume of tissue outside the permanent cavity to a decreasing extent as the distance from the bullet track increases. I find this a fascinating subject but I have spent enough time on this for now.
Do you have a link for this? Based on human anatomy, a TC similar in size to what you see in a gelatin block would seem...unlikely.
English

The BTT has no correlation to flesh, and the makers of it don't care. The only thing it is good for is telling you how a bullet performs in the BTT, with regard to "TC" in the BTT. Beyond that, any correlation has not been defined. Due to the inelaxtic nature of the substance, it would seem pointless to compare it to an animal or human.

long shot
02-21-2010, 15:34
Right, as long as a given bullets end result meets IWBA/FBI testing protocol he'll tell you it's a good bullet in whatever load it was launched from. Nothing wrong with that in my mind.

My problem is that Dr. Roberts claims all of Dr. Courtney's work reguarding enough peak BPW and it's effects toward incapactation some percentage of the time is complete BS, yet will never gives reasoning why. Not ever. He simply states he and a number of collegues looked over Dr. Courtney's studies and found it to be full of holes. Yet he won't point to a single supposed hole, and he has been asked directly a number of times when he choose to get involved in threads reguarding Dr. Courtney's theory of BPW. He has also made mention in threads on GT when asked direct questions that he ignored that he isn't interested in wasting time with anyone he didn't ask a direct question to.

And of course it was Dr. Martin Fackler who was the deciding factor behind much of the IWBA's work in terms of what ended up being termed FBI protocol. Dr. Roberts simply rode on Dr. Facklers coat tails. Not to mention Dr. Fackler has had some pretty negative comments toward Dr. Roberts which may or may not be beside the point.

So again, no doubt Dr. Roberts is an intelligent man, but it doesn't mean he isn't closed minded toward new theories like Dr. Courtney's with plenty of research behind it to back it up. Therefore, IMO, Dr. Roberts leaves some to be desired. Duncan McPhearson, it seems to me, actually did more different supporting work to Dr. Facklers than Dr. Roberts could have ever dreamed of doing.

And yeah, Dr. Roberts may have been contracted to test for some of the nations largest LE agencies as well as various military operations, but so what? Anyone could have done it that had the resources. All he had to do was test it going by the FBI protocol that already existed.

Now a days you can simply call up the likes of ATK among others who have the resources to do the testing (now mobile) and they'll bring it to wherever you want to test your ammo including any ammo you want to test against their Speer and Federal brands.

At the end of the day I don't see Dr. Roberts being as helpful as many are lead to believe. He wouldn't have had to exist for us to know the vast majority we do, and he chooses to be closed minded to Dr. Courtney's work which has zero supporting evidence against it. Therefore I don't hold him in the high reguard so many others do, then again, most others don't know what I know.

That has little to do with Dr. Roberts directly.


Good Shooting,
Craig


PS - This was simply my opinion based on a certain amount of fact. Please don't take it negatively toward yourself as I have nothing against you. Just throwing my thoughts out there.

Craig, no harm done.

Only Dr. Roberts can answer why he considers the work of Dr. Courtney to be complete 'BS' as you stated. Personally, I would look at it this way: if my load already performed to protocol AND I could also potentially obtain another wounding mechanism via BPW, so much the better. While I may not switch to say a faster load (if necessary) soley to potentially achieve BPW ... I would have no problem at all if a certain load I was comfortable with and carried, afforded me the potential to achieve it.

Fackler and Roberts served in the military together. Both worked for years together at the Letterman Army Institute. IIRC, it was at LAI that Fackler was credited with developing the current 10% ballistic gelatin mix.

Fackler, Roberts, and Duncan MacPherson, all served on the IWBA board of directors ... with Fackler serving as President.

I'm well aware that companies like ATK do mobile ballistics testing ... and also have results posted on their sites. I was merely pointing out that some agencies/military operations still chose Dr. Roberts to perform the testing and sought his recommendations. In other words, while ammunition manufacturers are more than capable of conducting their own testing while meeting the protocol ... some folks still chose to utilize Dr. Roberts. IIRC, SOCOM enlisted Dr. Roberts help to both develope and test the 6.8mm rifle round.

In any event, the jest of my posts was that the IWBA/FBI protocol has indeed been one of the primary driving forces behind today's best ammunition.

unit1069
02-21-2010, 19:38
.
So, if we look at the Bullet Test Tube, we should look at it in the same cynical manner. We cannot expect it to model flesh and bone and can expect little morre than a guide to some aspects of bullet performance. The thing it gives the greatest comparative result to is the temorary cavity and it does this precisely because it does not collapse back into shape in the way the ballistic gelatine does. (I imagine this is not entirely true since the containing tube will probably collapse it to some extent.)

This then brings us to the issue of the wounding effect relative to the sive of the temporary cavity. It is hard not to be impressed by the size and violence of the temporary cavity shown in ballistic gelatin in slow motion movies though some people seem to manage this feat without difficulty. We can see a similar impressive bulge of tissue caused by bullets shot into dead human or animal bodies and it seems obvious to me, though not to many, that such a bullet wound must incapacitate a considerable volume of tissue outside the permanent cavity to a decreasing extent as the distance from the bullet track increases. I find this a fascinating subject but I have spent enough time on this for now.

Thanks for an excellent explanation.

unit1069
02-21-2010, 19:53
The BTT has no correlation to flesh, and the makers of it don't care. The only thing it is good for is telling you how a bullet performs in the BTT, with regard to "TC" in the BTT. Beyond that, any correlation has not been defined. Due to the inelaxtic nature of the substance, it would seem pointless to compare it to an animal or human.

As English's excellent post describes calibrated gelatin doesn't replicate living human flesh or tissue. It's an approximation of the consistency of soft human tissue that allows the medium to test a narrow window of data. With that in mind I'd hardly say those who make gel "don't care".

Bullet Test Tube makes no claims to replicating living human flesh or tissue but does state that their formula is consistent to the degree that a calculation can be made to compare with a bullet's penetration of gel.

I see no logic in accepting one artificial but consistent test medium while rejecting another artificial, consistent test medium.

glock20c10mm
02-21-2010, 22:17
Craig, no harm done.
:thumbsup:
Only Dr. Roberts can answer why he considers the work of Dr. Courtney to be complete 'BS' as you stated. Personally, I would look at it this way: if my load already performed to protocol AND I could also potentially obtain another wounding mechanism via BPW, so much the better. While I may not switch to say a faster load (if necessary) soley to potentially achieve BPW ... I would have no problem at all if a certain load I was comfortable with and carried, afforded me the potential to achieve it.
I don't know how much of this thread you've followed, but I think a couple of posts bear repeating since it is such a long thread and good information can get lost in the depth of it.

Therefore I'm copy/pasting parts of post numbers: 376, 379, and 381. The main reason is to show you that more velocity alone doesn't neccessarily equate to more BPW. You may not care, but in case you're interested among possible others, the info is as follows.

The following are the current estimated probabilities of BPW playing a role for humans taking an unobstructed hit to the chest for given pressure wave magantudes:

BPW Probablility
500psi = 15%
700psi = 50%
1000psi = 75%
1300psi = 90%

The probability approaches 100% as BPW continues to increase, but will never really reach 100%. The accuracy in the prediction is roughly 10%.


The equation for JHP handgun bullets with 100% mass retention is -
p = (5*E)/(pi*d)

p is the peak pressure wave magnatude on the surphase of a 1" diameter cylinder centered on the wound channel (in psi). E is the impact energy (in ft-lbs) and d is the penetration depth (in feet).

If a JHP bullet fragments then generally whatever % the bullet fragments is the same % you need to add to the PBPW originally figured for nonfragmentation.

For FMJ handgun bullets the equation changes to a reasonable approximation of -
p = (3*E)/(pi*d)

For FMJ rifle bullets there is much more variation because some tumble deep and some tumble at shallow depths and some fragment. The retarding force profile (the more retarding force the greater the PBPW) is dominated by the depth at which a FMJ rifle bullet tumbles.

An FMJ rifle bullet which does not fragment and tumbles late in the penetration (10" or more) will have a peak pressure wave comparable to the formula for FMJ pistol bullets.

An FMJ rifle bullet which does not fragment and tumbles early (first 4") will have a peak pressure wave comparable to the formula for JHP handgun bullets.

If kinetic energy and penetration depth are equal, bullets that fragment create a larger pressure wave than bullets that retain 100% of their mass because the average penetration depth is shorter than the maximum penetration depth. Less penetration depth with equal kinetic energy = higher PBPW.

The following is why bullet fragmentation increases the level of peak ballistic pressure wave -

If kinetic energy and penetration depth are equal, bullets that fragment create a larger pressure wave than bullets that retain 100% of their mass. This is because the average penetration depth is shorter than the maximum penetration depth. Recall that the average force with no mass loss is given by [COC06c]

Fave = E/d,

where E is the kinetic energy and d is the maximum penetration depth.

If we consider the case of a bullet with some fraction, f, of mass lost to fragmentation, the fraction of retained mass is (1-f) and the average force is then given by

Fave = (1-f)E/d + f E/df,

where df is depth of the center of mass of the bullet fragments. In other words, df is the average penetration depth of the fragments. Most fragments do not penetrate as deeply as the maximum penetration depth d, so that the average fragment penetration depth df can be expressed as a fraction of the maximum penetration depth

df = d/k,

where k is greater than 1. Consequently, the average force becomes,

Fave = (1-f)E/d + f k E/d.

This can be rewritten as

Fave = [1 + f (k-1)]E/d.

So we see that the enhancement factor for the average force is [1 + f(k – 1)], where f is the fraction of lost mass, and k describes the relative penetration depth of the mass lost by fragmentation. If the mass lost by fragmentation penetrates ½ of the maximum penetration depth on average, k = 2, and the enhancement factor for the average force is (1+f). In other words, a 40% loss of mass increases the average force (and thus the pressure wave) by 40%.

If the mass lost by fragmentation penetrates ⅓ of the maximum penetration depth on average, k = 3, and the enhancement factor for the average force is (1+2f). In other words, a 40% loss of mass increases the average force (and thus the pressure wave) by 80%.

Consequently, bullets that fragment can create larger pressure waves than bullets that do not fragment but have the same kinetic energy and penetration depth. Most fragmenting bullets have an average fragment penetration depth of ⅓ to ½ of their maximum penetration depth, so that the pressure wave enhancement factor is between (1+f) and (1+2f).

In other words, a bullet which loses 10% of its original mass has a BPW 10-20% larger than one which retains 100% of its original mass. Likewise , a bullet which loses 30% of its original mass to fragmentation has a BPW 30-60% larger than one which retains 100% of its original mass.


I have run the numbers for various common SD loads where I could get the pertinent apples to apples comparison data so we can see how different loads stack up against each other. The list is as follows -

The kinetic energy is listed after "KE", penetration depth is listed after "P" and is based on clothed gel for ALL rounds, expanded bullet diameter is listed after "E", wound volume is listed in cubic inches(ci) and is based on 12" penetration for ALL rounds unless a specific round couldn't manage 12" penetration, and in the last column in pounds per square inch(psi) is the peak ballistic pressure wave. Please note - for PBPW, for any round that fragmented to any extent, the PBPW is actually higher than what's shown. All PBPW numbers assume zero fragmentation. Very generally, for the PERCENTAGE a round fragments, that same percentage would be added to the PBPW in psi.

Most of the HST #s and Speer Gold Dot #s are based on averages from the ATK workshop results with various police departments. Those that aren't based on an average were tested only 1 time. Those workshop results can be viewed in their entirety here - http://www.le.atk.com/general/irl/woundballistics.aspx

Win 380auto T Series, 95gr, 1000fps, KE=211, P=7.95, E=.64, 2.6ci, 507psi

Speer 38special+P GD, 135gr, 860fps, KE=222, P=11.75, E=.59, 3.2ci, 361psi
Win 38spcl T Series+P, 130gr, 925fps, KE=247, P=12.00, E=.67, 4.2ci, 393psi

Win 9mm+P+ Ranger, 115gr, 1335fps, KE=455, P=8.50, E=.81, 4.4ci, 1023psi
DT 9mm+P Gold Dot, 115gr, 1415fps, KE=511, P=12.00, E=.70, 4.6ci, 813psi
DT 9mm+P Gold Dot, 124gr, 1310fps, KE=472, P=13.25, E=.70, 4.6ci, 684psi
Federal 9mm+P HST, 124gr, 1200fps, KE=396, P=12.50, E=.66, 4.1ci, 605psi
Federal 9mm HST,,,, 124gr, 1150fps, KE=364, P=13.90, E=.64, 3.9ci, 501psi
Win9mm+P T Series, 124gr, 1180fps, KE=383, P=13.90, E=.67, 4.2ci, 526psi
Win9mm +P Bonded, 124gr, 1180fps, KE=383, P=18.70, E=.54, 2.7ci, 392psi
Win9mm+P+TSeries, 127gr, 1250fps, KE=441, P=12.20, E=.68, 4.4ci, 691psi
DT 9mm+P Gold Dot, 147gr, 1125fps, KE=413, P=14.00, E=.66, 4.1ci, 563psi
Federal 9mm HST,,,, 147gr, 1000fps, KE=326, P=14.40, E=.66, 4.1ci, 433psi
Speer 9mm GD,,,,,,,, 147gr,, 990fps, KE=320, P=15.25, E=.58, 3.2ci, 401psi
Win 9mm T Series,,,, 147gr,, 990fps, KE=320, P=14.50, E=.66, 4.1ci, 422psi
Win 9mm Bonded,,,,, 147gr,, 995fps, KE=323, P=16.50, E=.59, 3.3ci, 374psi

DT 357SIG Gold Dot, 115gr, 1550fps, KE=613, P=12.12, E=.71, 4.8ci, 955psi
DT 357SIG Gold Dot, 125gr, 1450fps, KE=584, P=14.50, E=.66, 4.1ci, 770psi
Win357SIG T Series, 125gr, 1350fps, KE=506, P=12.10, E=.66, 4.1ci, 798psi
Win357SIG Bonded,, 125gr, 1350fps, KE=506, P=15.90, E=.57, 3.1ci, 608psi
DT 357SIG Gold Dot, 147gr, 1250fps, KE=510, P=14.75, E=.73, 5.0ci, 661psi

DT 357mag Gold Dot, 125gr, 1600fps, KE=710, P=12.75, E=.69, 4.5ci, 1063psi
Speer SB 357magGD, 125gr,,, 990fps, KE=294, P=14.50, E=.65, 4.0ci, 388psi
Win 357magSilvertip, 145gr, 1290fps,, KE=536, P=12.50, E=.59, 3.3ci, 819psi
DT 357mag Gold Dot, 158gr, 1400fps, KE=688, P=19.00, E=.56, 3.0ci, 692psi

DT 9X25 Gold Dot, 115gr, 1800fps, KE=827, P=10.00, E=.64, 3.2ci, 1579psi
DT 9X25 Gold Dot, 125gr, 1725fps, KE=826, P=15.00, E=.74, 5.2ci, 1051psi
DT 9X25 Gold Dot, 147gr, 1550fps, KE=784, P=17.50, E=.68, 4.4ci,, 856psi

DT 40S&W Nosler,,,, 135gr, 1375fps, KE=567, P=12.10, E=.72, 4.9ci, 894psi
DT 40S&W Gold Dot, 155gr, 1275fps, KE=559, P=13.00, E=.76, 5.4ci, 825psi
DT 40S&W Gold Dot, 165gr, 1200fps, KE=528, P=14.00, E=.70, 4.6ci, 721psi
Rem Golden Saber,,, 165gr, 1150fps, KE=485, P=14.00, E=.67, 4.2ci, 662psi
Federal 40S&W HST, 165gr, 1130fps, KE=468, P=14.00, E=.75, 5.3ci, 637psi
Win40S&W T Series, 165gr, 1140fps, KE=476, P=13.20, E=.70, 4.6ci, 690psi
Win 40S&W Bonded, 165gr, 1140fps, KE=476, P=19.00, E=.55, 2.9ci, 479psi
Speer 40S&W GD,,,, 180gr. 1025fps, KE=420, P=11.75, E=.72, 4.9ci, 683psi
DT 40S&W Gold Dot, 180gr, 1100fps, KE=484, P=14.75, E=.68, 4.4ci, 626psi
Federal 40S&W HST, 180gr, 1010fps, KE=408, P=13.40, E=.77, 5.6ci, 582psi
Rem JHP (not GS),,,, 180gr, 1015fps, KE=412, P=13.25, E=.69, 4.5ci, 594psi
Win40S&W T Series, 180gr,,, 990fps, KE=392, P=14.30, E=.70, 4.6ci, 524psi
Win 40S&W Bonded, 180gr,, 1070fps, KE=458, P=21.80, E=.51, 2.5ci, 402psi

DT 10mm Nosler,,,, 135gr, 1600fps, KE=767, P=11.00, E=.70, 4.2ci, 1332psi
DT 10mm Gold Dot, 155gr, 1475fps, KE=749, P=13.50, E=.88, 7.3ci, 1061psi
DT 10mm G. Saber, 165gr, 1425fps, KE=744, P=14.75, E=.82, 6.3ci, 964psi
DT 10mm Gold Dot, 165gr, 1400psi, KE=718, P=14.25, E=1.02, 9.8ci, 962psi
DT 10mm Gold Dot, 180gr, 1300fps, KE=675, P=15.25, E=.96, 8.7ci, 846psi
DT 10mm G. Saber, 180gr, 1330fps, KE=707, P=16.00, E=.85, 6.8ci, 844psi
DT 10mm Hor. XTP, 180gr, 1350fps, KE=728, P=17.25, E=.77, 5.6ci, 808psi
DT 10mm Hor. XTP, 200gr, 1250fps, KE=694, P=19.50, E=.72, 4.9ci, 680psi

Win 45GAP T Series, 230gr, 905fps, KE=418, P=12.70, E=.72, 4.9ci, 630psi

DT 45auto Gold Dot, 185gr, 1225fps, KE=616, P=12.75, E=.82, 6.3ci, 923psi
Rem45auto G Saber, 185gr, 1140fps, KE=534, P=14.25, E=.70, 4.6ci, 716psi
Win45auto Silvertip, 185gr, 1000fps, KE=411, P=13.25, E=.70, 4.6ci, 593psi
DT 45auto Gold Dot, 200gr, 1125fps, KE=562, P=14.25, E=.88, 7.3ci, 753psi
DT 45auto Gold Dot, 230gr, 1010fps, KE=521, P=15.25, E=.95, 8.5ci, 653psi
Federal45auto+P HST,230gr, 950fps, KE=461, P=14.60, E=.85, 6.8ci, 603psi
Federal 45auto HST, 230gr,, 890fps, KE=405, P=14.40, E=.86, 7.0ci, 537psi
Speer 45auto G Dot, 230gr,, 890fps, KE=405, P=13.50, E=.70, 4.6ci, 573psi
Rem45auto G Saber, 230gr,, 875fps, KE=391, P=14.00, E=.74, 5.2ci, 534psi
Win 45auto T Series, 230gr, 905fps, KE=418, P=12.70, E=.72, 4.9ci, 630psi
Win45auto+PTSeries, 230gr, 990fps, KE=500, P=15.20, E=.78, 5.7ci, 628psi
Win 45 auto Bonded, 230gr, 905fps, KE=418, P=15.80, E=.67, 4.2ci, 506psi

Bottom line, a number of different factors alone can increase or decrease the level of peak ballistic pressure wave. So if nothing else in the equation changes, the following by themselves will change the PBPW - penetration depth, velocity, kinetic energy, and bullet design/construction.

Here are some examples using the above data:

First lets take this load -
Federal 9mm+P HST, 124gr, 1200fps, KE=396, P=12.50, E=.66, 4.1ci, 605psi
We'll leave everything else the same but change the velocity to 1100fps. This change changes PBPW to 509psi.

Then this load -
Federal 40S&W HST, 180gr, 1010fps, KE=408, P=13.40, E=.77, 5.6ci, 582psi
We'll leave everything else the same but change the penetration depth to 12". This change changes PBPW to 650psi.

Those two examples should be enough to give you an idea of how not only can velocity change the PBPW, but how it and other factors alone can change it too.

I hope the above, if you cared to read through it, helps you understand more clearly where Dr. Courtney's theory is coming from.
In any event, the jest of my posts was that the IWBA/FBI protocol has indeed been one of the primary driving forces behind today's best ammunition.
:agree:


Good Shooting,
Craig :cheers:

glock20c10mm
02-21-2010, 22:23
+1

and here I thought Glock Talk was populated only by the Courtney fanatics.
Since I just reposted a lot of the info we talked about days ago, and you had mentioned going through/over some of the numbers yourself to see how you thought they panned out, did that ever happen, and if it did, did you arrive at any conclusions or form any new opinions or maybe think about things in ways you hadn't thought of before? Or didn't you get the chance to dig into it yet? I've been quite curious to hear your thoughts.


Craig

long shot
02-22-2010, 00:38
Craig, thanks for taking the time to share the info. Interesting.

It still seems in many cases, that the lighter/faster loads in each caliber often generate the highest PSI (BPW probability). I also realize that velocity is not the sole determinig factor regarding BPW ... which is why I mentioned (if necessary) in my previous post.

In 9mm for instance ... I would prefer to carry the 127gr.+P+ Ranger T vs. the 115gr.+P+ Ranger, even though the 115gr.+P+ load carries a higher potential for achieving BPW. Why? Well, I would get a good mix of lab performance (IWBA/FBI protocol), street performance, and a near 50% probablility of adding BPW as an additional wounding mechanism.

Thanks again. :cheers:

glock20c10mm
02-22-2010, 09:42
It still seems in many cases, that the lighter/faster loads in each caliber often generate the highest PSI (BPW probability).
That's true. Most of the time in common SD loads the lighter/faster loads in each caliber will yeild the highest PSI. But it's not so much because the velocity is higher than that penetration depth will be less. It's all about the retarding forces on the bullet by the human/animal body.

The more energy you can stop quickest will give the highest PSI. Switch the bullet from JHP to FMJ, and PBPW drops off dramatically because of minimal retarding forces on the FMJ no matter how much kinetic energy it carries. Obviously a load must always be choosen that will reliably make it to the vitals, with BPW being looked at secondarily.
I also realize that velocity is not the sole determinig factor regarding BPW ... which is why I mentioned (if necessary) in my previous post.
:thumbsup: I just like to make sure. Way too many misconceptions floating around about Dr. Courtney's theory out there!
In 9mm for instance ... I would prefer to carry the 127gr.+P+ Ranger T vs. the 115gr.+P+ Ranger, even though the 115gr.+P+ load carries a higher potential for achieving BPW. Why? Well, I would get a good mix of lab performance (IWBA/FBI protocol), street performance, and a near 50% probablility of adding BPW as an additional wounding mechanism.
:agree:
Thanks again. :cheers:
Your welcome. Never hurts to know more than less.

Dreamaster
02-22-2010, 10:06
I think after talking to enough people with experience in the field and seeing a few gunshots (on video admittedly) I'm pretty convinced the part about a pressure wave killing instantly by "shocking" the brain or what not is indeed a myth, especially at handgun velocities.

However, I'm also nearly convinced that a bigger secondary cavity caused from the pressure wave can in some cases cause enough additional trauma to speed incapacitation. I've seen a video of a 30-06 rifle not only explode the ballistics gel into smithereens, but it also broke the table in half!

Borris once told me he didn't trust 115grain +p ammo, because he'd had problems with it reaching the CNS on some larger animals, yet at the same time he noted it had some very impressive entrance wounds. And that tells me the entire story right there... you simply MUST have good penetration, but if you can find a bullet that can give you both good penetration and explosive cavity wounds, go for it! That's why I think .357 does so well. It gets the penetration needed but has that extra edge of velocity to tear #$IT up on it's way in.

Just my humble opinion.

glock20c10mm
02-22-2010, 10:56
I think after talking to enough people with experience in the field and seeing a few gunshots (on video admittedly) I'm pretty convinced the part about a pressure wave killing instantly by "shocking" the brain or what not is indeed a myth, especially at handgun velocities.

However, I'm also nearly convinced that a bigger secondary cavity caused from the pressure wave can in some cases cause enough additional trauma to speed incapacitation. I've seen a video of a 30-06 rifle not only explode the ballistics gel into smithereens, but it also broke the table in half!

Borris once told me he didn't trust 115grain +p ammo, because he'd had problems with it reaching the CNS on some larger animals, yet at the same time he noted it had some very impressive entrance wounds. And that tells me the entire story right there... you simply MUST have good penetration, but if you can find a bullet that can give you both good penetration and explosive cavity wounds, go for it! That's why I think .357 does so well. It gets the penetration needed but has that extra edge of velocity to tear #$IT up on it's way in.

Just my humble opinion.
:agree: 100%

N/Apower
02-22-2010, 14:40
Since I just reposted a lot of the info we talked about days ago, and you had mentioned going through/over some of the numbers yourself to see how you thought they panned out, did that ever happen, and if it did, did you arrive at any conclusions or form any new opinions or maybe think about things in ways you hadn't thought of before? Or didn't you get the chance to dig into it yet? I've been quite curious to hear your thoughts.


Craig

I don't really buy into TBI's causing incapacitation, however, I do think that TC is more important than Fackler's camp would propose. I have looked at a lot of stuff, and I think on a non-determined attacker, TC matters. Against a determined, 100% committed assailant, I think CNS disruption or 20% blood-volume loss, or blood-pressure loss, or oxygen deprivation (double pneumothorax, basically) are the only ways to get a stop.

To put it in perspective, I feel that a 9mm bullet at .6" diameter expanded is going to stop someone a lot more effectively than if I were to stab them with a .6" piece of re-bar. Both would be fatal (depending on location), but I do think the "shock" of the 1200fps projectile vs. the poke from my re-bar would matter. How much, I cannot say, but I cannot believe that TC is totally worthless after reviewing the evidence at hand.

NYPD has a damn lot of stories of the 9mm not putting the BG down too! I can't say definitively if this matters or not, because the report I read did not say where the assailant was hit, though, and obviously 10 shots to the thighs and buttocks is not going to kill unless the femoral is hit or something. You don't hear these stories about the 357SIG, and it's not like NYPD is using junk ammo in the 9. Just food for thought.

glock20c10mm
02-22-2010, 21:04
NYPD has a damn lot of stories of the 9mm not putting the BG down too!.....You don't hear these stories about the 357SIG, and it's not like NYPD is using junk ammo in the 9. Just food for thought.
Are there stats available on NYPD shootings?

N/Apower
02-22-2010, 21:33
Are there stats available on NYPD shootings?

Yes, I posted them in the "real shooting stories" or something thread in this forum.

glock20c10mm
02-22-2010, 22:10
Yes, I posted them in the "real shooting stories" or something thread in this forum.
Thanks. I didn't get a chance to read through it all yet. Hopefully tomorrow.

SDDL-UP
02-22-2010, 23:51
greyeyezz,

The charts I've seen I don't think show quite that much difference, but even so I can't say it matters much for a defensive handgun round. Hype more than anything. Anyone really capable of shooting something at 100 yards with the 357 Sig is just as capable with a 9mm, 40 S&W or 45 ACP.

Same goes for the "better feeding" claim - more hype. A good gun will feed 9mm, 40, or 45 all day long - no problem.

PghJim
02-23-2010, 04:09
greyeyezz,

The charts I've seen I don't think show quite that much difference, but even so I can't say it matters much for a defensive handgun round. Hype more than anything. Anyone really capable of shooting something at 100 yards with the 357 Sig is just as capable with a 9mm, 40 S&W or 45 ACP.

Same goes for the "better feeding" claim - more hype. A good gun will feed 9mm, 40, or 45 all day long - no problem.


Have you done much comparitive shooting at 100 yards? It is much easier to hit something with a 357 sig than a 40 or 45. Maybe if the yardage is known and you have your 40 and 45 dialed in. In my reloading, I have been able to get significant greater accuracy from the 357 sig than the 40, which makes a difference at 100 yards. A 45 has such a rainbow curve, you almost have to have it dailed in at the exact yardage. You can pick up your carry 357 sig and have pretty good luck at hitting and 8" plate at around 100, but not so with the 45.

unit1069
02-23-2010, 22:17
The charts I've seen I don't think show quite that much difference, but even so I can't say it matters much for a defensive handgun round.

Federal's web site comparison chart shows the .357sig having the same ft. lbs. energy at 100 yards as their 9mm does at the muzzle. I'd have to say even though power isn't the be-all-end-all of successful self-defense it is noteworthy.

The chart also shows .357sig loses about half the accuracy over 100 yards as the 9mm. I doubt many self-defense situations occur at that distance but there it is nevertheless. I do know that I can accurately hit targets much further out with my .357sig than I can with my 9mm; both pistols having a 4" barrel.

N/Apower
02-23-2010, 22:51
Federal's web site comparison chart shows the .357sig having the same ft. lbs. energy at 100 yards as their 9mm does at the muzzle. I'd have to say even though power isn't the be-all-end-all of successful self-defense it is noteworthy.

The chart also shows .357sig loses about half the accuracy over 100 yards as the 9mm. I doubt many self-defense situations occur at that distance but there it is nevertheless. I do know that I can accurately hit targets much further out with my .357sig than I can with my 9mm; both pistols having a 4" barrel.


I think someone with a P210 would beg to differ with that chart.

SDDL-UP
02-27-2010, 02:07
I'm not going to argue with anyone's personal experience... it is what it is.

Does the 357 Sig offer advantages over a 9mm +p+? Yes. More velocity and greater energy.

Does the 9mm +P+ offer advantages over the 357 Sig? Yes. More capacity and less recoil.

The 357 Sig is a perfectly capable round - no doubt about it! My concern is when people act like since they are armed with a 357 Sig that they are carrying an "instant death ray", hence the name of this thread.... "357 Sig proving to be an unbelieveable manstopper". Sorry but the 357 Sig is not an "unbelieveable manstopper". A perfectly capable manstopper? Yes! Does it have advantages over other calibers? Yes! Does it have disadvantages to other calibers? Yes!

It is my opinion that a 38 Super would be a better choice for a defensive round because you don't loose any capacity over a 9mm.

N/Apower
02-27-2010, 02:44
I'm not going to argue with anyone's personal experience... it is what it is.

Does the 357 Sig offer advantages over a 9mm +p+? Yes. More velocity and greater energy.

Does the 9mm +P+ offer advantages over the 357 Sig? Yes. More capacity and less recoil.

The 357 Sig is a perfectly capable round - no doubt about it! My concern is when people act like since they are armed with a 357 Sig that they are carrying an "instant death ray", hence the name of this thread.... "357 Sig proving to be an unbelieveable manstopper". Sorry but the 357 Sig is not an "unbelieveable manstopper". A perfectly capable manstopper? Yes! Does it have advantages over other calibers? Yes! Does it have disadvantages to other calibers? Yes!

It is my opinion that a 38 Super would be a better choice for a defensive round because you don't loose any capacity over a 9mm.

The .38 Super is 1.280" in OAL, while the 357SIG is 1.140" in OAL. The 10mm is 1.260" in OAL, and the .45ACP is also 1.260" OAL.

The 9mm you compare the .38 Super to with regards to capacity is 1.169" OAL. The .45 GAP is the answer to the desire for a smaller-frame than the .45 ACP. If the .45 ACP is .02" OAL SHORTER than the .38 Super and it still prompted a manufacturer to design an entirely new pistol and caliber to reduce grip-size relative to OAL of the cartridge, how popular do you think the 38 Super is going to be in a double-stack magazine configuration? I will give up 2-3 rounds capacity for the sake of having a more ergonomic grip.

glock20c10mm
02-28-2010, 15:35
Sorry but the 357 Sig is not an "unbelieveable manstopper". A perfectly capable manstopper?
What if we took out the term unbelievable, as it is a very strong word, and changed it to better. Does your view change then?

glock20c10mm
02-28-2010, 15:38
My concern is when people act like since they are armed with a 357 Sig that they are carrying an "instant death ray".....
No, most people know the 10mm Auto is the equivelant to the "instant death ray". :supergrin: 357SIG can't touch it. :outtahere:

N/Apower
02-28-2010, 18:37
What if we took out the term unbelievable, as it is a very strong word, and changed it to better. Does your view change then?

Actually, I would prefer removing the term "manstopper", as when you say it a few times in a row, it just sounds/feels awkward. Kindof like "manhole cover".

It is also politically incorrect from a sex standpoint. Further, many dogs and other animals are shot with service calibers as well.

I think the statement could have been changed to "Is the 357SIG showing itself to be especially capable of negatively affecting a target to produce a cessation of activity on the part of the shootee?"

Then again, screw it. We know darn well what was meant by the title, even if there was a little hyperbole.

N/Apower
02-28-2010, 23:42
Well, I have come to a conclusion in this matter.

The 9mm and the 357SIG, when loaded with Gold-Dots of optimal weight for caliber, crush almost the same amount of tissue. They should offer identical performance.
http://i47.tinypic.com/9qzo06.jpg

They don't.

The people who I have communicated with who have first-hand experience with agencies that use the 357SIG has reported that it is more effective than what they transitioned from. Especially stated, was about the TX DPS, who switched from the 9mm, and the .45. The shots-per-stop required were reported to have decreased across the board compared to .45 and 9mm. The agency is quite pleased with the round. This information comes from Todd Green and was posted publically on another forum.

His account mirrors that of others whos accounts I have either solicited or read, who directely interact with agencies issuing this caliber.

In my unprofessional opinion, the 357SIG is superior to other calibers in "it's league".

Does it cause TBI? Does it create a pulsitile wave-form? Will being hit in the hand with it cause premature erectile disfunction? I don't know the answers, and to be honest, beyond the academics, I really don't care. I believe the round to be superior in its on-target effect, and the dynamics of that superiority don't change the results one bit.

*one of the main arguments against the experience of TX DPS is that better training could have resulted in better shot-placement. There is no proof this occured, and further, it deflates the argument (and I do believe this is fact) that the 357SIG is harder to control (fire rapidly and accurately) than the 9mm and according to some, the .45.

Anyways, for me, the case is closed. I am happy with my choice, I base this happiness on facts and experience garnered from qualified individuals, and the rest is just details until new information exists.

Alaskapopo
03-01-2010, 00:15
Well, I have come to a conclusion in this matter.

The 9mm and the 357SIG, when loaded with Gold-Dots of optimal weight for caliber, crush almost the same amount of tissue. They should offer identical performance.
http://i47.tinypic.com/9qzo06.jpg

They don't.

The people who I have communicated with who have first-hand experience with agencies that use the 357SIG has reported that it is more effective than what they transitioned from. Especially stated, was about the TX DPS, who switched from the 9mm, and the .45. The shots-per-stop required were reported to have decreased across the board compared to .45 and 9mm. The agency is quite pleased with the round. This information comes from Todd Green and was posted publically on another forum.

His account mirrors that of others whos accounts I have either solicited or read, who directely interact with agencies issuing this caliber.

In my unprofessional opinion, the 357SIG is superior to other calibers in "it's league".

Does it cause TBI? Does it create a pulsitile wave-form? Will being hit in the hand with it cause premature erectile disfunction? I don't know the answers, and to be honest, beyond the academics, I really don't care. I believe the round to be superior in its on-target effect, and the dynamics of that superiority don't change the results one bit.

*one of the main arguments against the experience of TX DPS is that better training could have resulted in better shot-placement. There is no proof this occured, and further, it deflates the argument (and I do believe this is fact) that the 357SIG is harder to control (fire rapidly and accurately) than the 9mm and according to some, the .45.

Anyways, for me, the case is closed. I am happy with my choice, I base this happiness on facts and experience garnered from qualified individuals, and the rest is just details until new information exists.
I can make unspecific statements about the performance of any caliber. Show us the data from Texas DPS. Who did you talk to? how many shootings? what were the circumstances? Sorry war stories passed among friends at a poker game do nothing for me.
Pat

N/Apower
03-01-2010, 04:51
I can make unspecific statements about the performance of any caliber. Show us the data from Texas DPS. Who did you talk to? how many shootings? what were the circumstances? Sorry war stories passed among friends at a poker game do nothing for me.
Pat

Todd Green. You know him as "ToddG". Shoot him a PM, he can tell you what all he knows better than I can.


Aside from that, many agencies have used the caliber for a good while. Long enough to have gone through at least 1 "replacement of platform" during which they could have dumped it in favor of their former caliber, I would think. (FAMs is one example who changed entire platforms but kept the caliber). They are sticking with the caliber--even though it is blasty, has increased wear over 9mm, and is more expensive.

uz2bUSMC
03-01-2010, 06:01
Actually, I would prefer removing the term "manstopper", as when you say it a few times in a row, it just sounds/feels awkward. Kindof like "manhole cover".


:rofl::rofl::rofl:...

automan
03-01-2010, 06:29
The Texas DPS story that I've read was that a veteran LEO was using a 45 auto whereas a rookie LEO was using a 357SIG in a shooting involving a tractor trailer. The 45 auto didn't penetrate the cab glass but the 357SIG did and stopped the rouge driver. That incident, and other similar auto body penetration incidents, compelled DPS to look hard at adapting the 357SIG for its auto body penetration effects, which it subsequently did.

N/Apower
03-01-2010, 14:49
The Texas DPS story that I've read was that a veteran LEO was using a 45 auto whereas a rookie LEO was using a 357SIG in a shooting involving a tractor trailer. The 45 auto didn't penetrate the cab glass but the 357SIG did and stopped the rouge driver. That incident, and other similar auto body penetration incidents, compelled DPS to look hard at adapting the 357SIG for its auto body penetration effects, which it subsequently did.

I am referring to what the TX DPS conveyed to SIG about their over-all satisfaction with the 357SIG after an analysis of their OIS's indicated that it performed superior to the 9mm and .45 with regards to shots required to stop criminal activity. Not an isolated incident.

glock20c10mm
03-01-2010, 15:39
Actually, I would prefer removing the term "manstopper", as when you say it a few times in a row, it just sounds/feels awkward. Kindof like "manhole cover".

It is also politically incorrect from a sex standpoint. Further, many dogs and other animals are shot with service calibers as well.

I think the statement could have been changed to "Is the 357SIG showing itself to be especially capable of negatively affecting a target to produce a cessation of activity on the part of the shootee?"

Then again, screw it. We know darn well what was meant by the title, even if there was a little hyperbole.
UGH!!!, don't even get me started on political correctness... :notlistening: :fist: :soap: :rant:

Otherwise, nice post. :supergrin:

glock20c10mm
03-01-2010, 15:48
The 9mm and the 357SIG, when loaded with Gold-Dots of optimal weight for caliber, crush almost the same amount of tissue.
http://i47.tinypic.com/9qzo06.jpg

They don't.
Yeah, there's a fair amount of difference there. It's more noticeable when you take a sheet of paper, or whatever, and cover the first 3" (according to the 3" mark of the rulers) of penetration in both pics at the same time.

N/Apower
03-01-2010, 17:11
Yeah, there's a fair amount of difference there. It's more noticeable when you take a sheet of paper, or whatever, and cover the first 3" (according to the 3" mark of the rulers) of penetration in both pics at the same time.

If anything, the 357SIG round was less traumatic. Kindof suprising.

glock20c10mm
03-01-2010, 18:44
If anything, the 357SIG round was less traumatic. Kindof suprising.
Yeah, but I see it as a result of bullet design. Too bad we couldn't see what total penetration depth would have ended up being. Seems the Gold Dot bullet design didn't allow for much retarding force at 357SIG velocities, or at least the Gold Dot bullet (don't know the weight) in the 9mm worked better for more retarding force. I see it as simply a function of individual bullet design. The Gold Dot bullet may not be the best choice in 357SIG for those of us that want maximum energy transfer while still reaching an acceptable penetration depth.

SDDL-UP
03-01-2010, 20:05
N/Apower

You cannot underestimate the phsycological effect of having confidence in one's weapon, I'm glad you have confidence in yours. I have many calibers and, given the right load, I feel comfortable with any of them. Is one better than the others? Not in my opinion. There are always trade-offs, even with the 357 Sig.

I really have to wonder what would have happened if Sig had decided to market it as the 9mm Sig Magnum. They sure have taken advantage of the 357 mystique.

N/Apower
03-01-2010, 20:24
N/Apower

You cannot underestimate the phsycological effect of having confidence in one's weapon, I'm glad you have confidence in yours. I have many calibers and, given the right load, I feel comfortable with any of them. Is one better than the others? Not in my opinion. There are always trade-offs, even with the 357 Sig.

I really have to wonder what would have happened if Sig had decided to market it as the 9mm Sig Magnum. They sure have taken advantage of the 357 mystique.

I agree, just don't mistake it for over-confidence. I understand it's a pistol, not a howitzer. I feel the 357SIG has an edge, though.

I think the marketing was good, the ONLY thing that went wrong was what often does. The product was not QUITE as mature as it should have been when it hit the market. If setback had been taken care of already, and better bullets were on the market (such as the Gold Dot, instead of the Federal load), I think the round would have done a LOT better, popularity-wise.

Whether it deserves it or not, the 357 Magnum was/is a legend. To capitalize on this and follow in it's footsteps, SIG had to have gotten it perfect. Right fron the start. When you are following a legend, you can't stumble. You can't even slip. The 357SIG slipped a little, and it lost the momentum that its name and claimed purpose gave it initially.

glock20c10mm
03-01-2010, 22:20
You cannot underestimate the phsycological effect of having confidence in one's weapon, I'm glad you have confidence in yours.
Much more often than not, psychologically not having confidence in a weapon is brought on by one psychologically talking/thinking themselves out of it based on misconceptions they have or lies (not necessarily on purpose) they've been told.

Not saying this to argue what you posted, just saying, as reguardless what I posted, I see what you posted still being true.

davetron
09-20-2012, 07:13
I know this is an old thread but I just stumbled across it so it's new to me :)
I have a friend in the NC Highway Patrol and they switched from the .40 to .357 sig a few years ago because they had several instances of the .40's deflecting off windshields. For LEO's barrier penetration is more of an issue than it is for civilian SD so I can see why they switched. I currently shoot 9mm, .40 , and .45 but I'm going to get a .357 sig barrel for my Glock 23. For some reason people seem to have a knee jerk reaction to .357 sig, either they love it or hate it. I love all calibers! I think it is itonic however that a lot of the 9mm only lovers will trash .357 sig and then go on other boards and tell how "light and fast" is better than "heavy and slow" if that is true for them then you would think that all pro-9mm folk would love .357 sig because it's light and FASTER!

dkf
09-20-2012, 07:52
I have noticed what you mentioned towards the end of your post also.

The above gel photos of 9mm GD vs .357sig GD is completely backwards to what I have seen with MANY other tests. Looks like they put the round on the wrong gel for the photos.

cowboy1964
09-20-2012, 08:15
The Gold Dot bullet may not be the best choice in 357SIG for those of us that want maximum energy transfer while still reaching an acceptable penetration depth.

If the bullet doesn't exit the body then ALL of the energy HAS been transferred.

brokenprism
09-20-2012, 09:08
"I carry 357sig, so I do like the round and would like to hear of popularity among Law Enforcement."

No offense to the author of this comment, but I think he accidentally revealed the psychology behind these kinds of posts: he carries it, and is looking for validation of his choice. Nothing wrong with that. Couldn't tell if the OP was leading with a statement, a question, or... a commercial.

JW1178
09-20-2012, 13:22
Ahh-choo! The dust from the old thread!

Well it's a good thread, despite the title. It does seem the .357sig is well liked by almost everyone who actually has one, whether it's joe blow, a enthusiast, law enforcement, ect. If all it were was a "hot nine" I think there would be a lot more let down by now. Those who show such protest for it usually are the caliber fanboys (one in particular) who don't even own one. I think if all it were is a "hot 9" or a fad there would be a lot more let down by now.

I wish these caliber fanboys would grow up. They all seem to think they are the smart one's that have seen some kind of light with their way of thinking that the majority of us are too stupid to see.

Bigpoppie50
09-20-2012, 14:19
I carry a S&WM&P357Sig daily or with a barrel change S&WM&P40 and occasionally a Gen4 Glock22.

Roering
09-20-2012, 17:53
Nope. :wavey:

avenues165
09-20-2012, 23:49
Love the 357 auto, it works for me.

cowboy1964
09-21-2012, 00:33
http://i47.tinypic.com/9qzo06.jpg


Anyone know the original source of these pics? What 9mm load was it? Do even know know for certain those ARE Gold Dots?

JW1178
09-21-2012, 10:30
Anyone know the original source of these pics? What 9mm load was it? Do even know know for certain those ARE Gold Dots?

Well they are in black and white.....

SCmasterblaster
09-27-2012, 18:59
I believe it. The .357 Sig with the 124gr bullet achieves a similar power level as the legendary .357 magnum 125gr load.

chewybaca67
09-30-2012, 12:23
Seems that the 357 Sig's potential has not fully been discovered. I safely loaded some 124-5 grian basic Rem. HPs at an average of 1530 fps out of a 5" 357 Sig barrel in my G-35. That's more than "just a little faster" than a 9+p+ or what not, and even faster than some 125 grain 357 mag factory loads out of some 4' revolvers.

avenues165
09-30-2012, 13:26
Seems that the 357 Sig's potential has not fully been discovered. I safely loaded some 124-5 grian basic Rem. HPs at an average of 1530 fps out of a 5" 357 Sig barrel in my G-35. That's more than "just a little faster" than a 9+p+ or what not, and even faster than some 125 grain 357 mag factory loads out of some 4' revolvers.

I agree. I'd like to see this cartridge take hold a little more. Hopefully, if it does, the full potential of this cartridge can be exploited.

Tiro Fijo
09-30-2012, 14:07
Another reason why it has not taken hold in the civilian world IMO is because it surpasses the discomfort threshhold for the majority of shooters, as do the hot 135gr. & 155 gr. .40 S&W loads.

The .357 SIG is a fantastic cartridge, but is harder to shoot than 9mm for the average shooter, as is the .40 S&W for that matter, when solid defense loads are used. Accuracy & performance mean nothing if the shooter cannot conquer their flinch reflex.

I will go out on a limb and say that if barrier penetration is not a factor in the equation, e.g., a civilian with a CCW, then I personally believe that any advantage the .357 SIG may have over a street proven +p or +p+ 9mm is not as great as some believe with proper shot placement.

Yes, I own a .357 SIG and love it. :whistling:

ghr1142
09-30-2012, 14:10
Is there anyone around here with the intel behind the 357SIGs growing popularity with LE and the cumulative reasons why?

More/Less, it really is simply a fast 9 with inherently near perfect functioning characteristics in pistols. It has it's own line of 125gr bullets from most bullet manufacturers to handle the added velocity.

Yet it produces a little more recoil than 9mm and LE are still opting for it. Then again it doesn't recoil anymore than 40 (differently yes, more no). I suppose muzzle flash at night isn't much of an issue anymore with the low flash powders availble today.

I don't know what the LEO's carry, but my G-33 loaded with "gold dots" could make my day !! Love it and like to buy another ??

But still, why is LE popularity still growing with the 357SIG? Are they seeing a difference in physical wounding characteristics? We do in animals, so I suppose we do in humans too.

Is it proving to stop fights faster? What's giving this little round so much clout? Anybody know anything definitive?

In Arizona you can get virtually as much of it as you want at just about any Walmart when everything else is sold out. Though most of the Walmarts are still limiting us to 6 boxes per day.


Craig :dunno:
:whistling:

uz2bUSMC
09-30-2012, 14:52
Another reason why it has not taken hold in the civilian world IMO is because it surpasses the discomfort threshhold for the majority of shooters, as do the hot 135gr. & 155 gr. .40 S&W loads.

The .357 SIG is a fantastic cartridge, but is harder to shoot than 9mm for the average shooter, as is the .40 S&W for that matter, when solid defense loads are used. Accuracy & performance mean nothing if the shooter cannot conquer their flinch reflex.

I will go out on a limb and say that if barrier penetration is not a factor in the equation, e.g., a civilian with a CCW, then I personally believe that any advantage the .357 SIG may have over a street proven +p or +p+ 9mm is not as great as some believe with proper shot placement.

Yes, I own a .357 SIG and love it. :whistling:

Man, what is it with you and civilians never having to shoot through barriers? Foolish.

Tiro Fijo
09-30-2012, 16:40
Man, what is it with you and civilians never having to shoot through barriers? Foolish.


Enlighten us, how many people have you had to shoot through barriers?

cowboy1964
09-30-2012, 16:43
Enlighten us, how many people have you had to shoot through barriers?

Brilliant point. :whistling:

If you can't think of at two perfectly legal and possible scenarios where you would have to shoot through barriers, you need to do some more thinking.

unit1069
09-30-2012, 17:13
I own two excellent Austrian 9mm and Austrian .357sig pistols that I have complete confidence in.

I'd choose the .357sig if I could only own one, for its overall greater range of application. The lab and backyard tests I've seen with .357sig caliber demonstrates to me that both bonded and non-bonded .357sig ammo has excellent hard barrier penetration capability.

It could be that most civilian self-defense scenarios don't involve hard barrier factors but defenders don't get the option of choosing the time and circumstances of the encounter. For this reason alone I find myself moving towards bonded ammo when I rely on my 9mm pistol. I don't really have a pronounced preference when I'm relying on my .357sig.

uz2bUSMC
09-30-2012, 17:46
Enlighten us, how many people have you had to shoot through barriers?

How 'bout you tell me how many barriers you will have to shoot through in your future, or better yet... just tell me how your self defense scenario will unfold. I'll make it even more simple, just tell me if you will have to shoot someone in the future.

There was a GT member that had to shoot through his own windshield a few years ago. A female, also some years ago, fired her .357 mag through her car door and killed her assailant.

Often times people like you spout the same non sense, I'm a civilian, leo have to worry about barriers more than I do, blah buh blah. This simple minded approach leaves out the fact that you may never find yourself in a shooting or where the presence of a gun changes the encounter to your favor. If you do find yourself in a once in a life time encounter you should probably plan for something as simple as barrier penetration. The truth of the matter is that you may have to shoot through a barrier as a civilian... it has happened...and it will continue to happen.

You are already prepared with your sig but your midset is what will fail you.

SCmasterblaster
10-01-2012, 09:34
How 'bout you tell me how many barriers you will have to shoot through in your future, or better yet... just tell me how your self defense scenario will unfold. I'll make it even more simple, just tell me if you will have to shoot someone in the future.

There was a GT member that had to shoot through his own windshield a few years ago. A female, also some years ago, fired her .357 mag through her car door and killed her assailant.

Often times people like you spout the same non sense, I'm a civilian, leo have to worry about barriers more than I do, blah buh blah. This simple minded approach leaves out the fact that you may never find yourself in a shooting or where the presence of a gun changes the encounter to your favor. If you do find yourself in a once in a life time encounter you should probably plan for something as simple as barrier penetration. The truth of the matter is that you may have to shoot through a barrier as a civilian... it has happened...and it will continue to happen.

You are already prepared with your sig but your midset is what will fail you.

I have 115gr JHP +p+ in my G17, and I do have concerns about barriers. I am thinking about changing over to 127gr JHP +p+ rounds.

clarkstoncz
10-04-2012, 12:10
This is a cool .357 SIG thread, even if it's 2 years old.

People always say " All handguns are poor stoppers"

I say " Unless you are talking about . 357 SIG!".

It seems to me ( and I'm no expert) that it delivers so much energy to
the bad guy(s), that they can't control the demand of their body to shut down."

Rapid incapacity, and Lightning Bolt effect! dynamic stopping power!

No other cartridge acts like it at the muzzle, except for the lighter 10mms,
but not exactly the same. And 10mm is too powerful for MOST people
and not issue to many police in numbers like the .357 SIG.

I think if Texas DPS loved the .45 ACP so much, they wouldn't have adopted
the SIG caliber.

Same for other agencies that tested 9mm, 40, 45 and settled on .357 SIG.

I don't think it is a death ray, or a magic caliber, but it might be the most
controllable with the most power available.

Unlike a comparable light .40. The .357 SIG recoils far less with its Instant
muzzle blast and rapid push backwards.

All .40s and most 10mms are not fun for me to shoot. Not so with the SIG
round, at least for 30 rounds or so in each gun.

I also like the 147 gr. loads. Very mild on recoil/blast and super accurate!

Higher cost than most other Non Magnum ammo, and the misconception that
it's only a Hot 9mm, are factors that keep it from selling better.

Having an Impressive Stopping Power reputation, and lower recoil and laser like accuracy
over the .40 S&W are the reasons it seems to grow each day.

The ONLY reason I don't carry a CZ in .357 SIG is the fact that they don't offer
a RAMI in the caliber.
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb26/czrami/HIGH%20NOON%20TailGunner%20CZ%20RAMI-2075/rami6.jpg

I really like this video that shows the advantage of .357 SIG
over a .357 Snubbie.

Ruger SP101 (357) vs Glock 33 (357) - YouTube

PghJim
10-04-2012, 16:26
This is a cool .357 SIG thread, even if it's 2 years old.

People always say " All handguns are poor stoppers"

I say " Unless you are talking about . 357 SIG!".



Sshh? Be quiet! We 357 SIG owners do not talk like that. If you do then more people will try the SIG, which, of course, will lead to a lot more people shooting it. That will lead to ammo shortages and higher prices.

When someone says, "It is just a hot 9mm", nod your head and tell them they are probably right.

By the way, did you notice the recoil difference between the 357 Mag revolver and the G33?

Clutch Cargo
10-04-2012, 16:30
I carry .357SIG and .45ACP on all but the rare occasion. I have the upmost faith in either caliber to do what is expected as long as I do my part.

clarkstoncz
10-04-2012, 16:55
yes, the Ruger .357 recoil was on par with what I observed with my old Ruger SP101
Snubbies and hot Double Tap , Remington and Speer 125 and 158s.

pretty much goes straight up, until you pull it down.
Like this pic with it just starting to rise:
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb26/czrami/Rugers/13950604c1.jpg
My G33 recoiled like most Glock. 357s and even the M&P Compact,
and in line with that you see in the video.


His erratic readings from 1.400 down to 1,100 or so is one reason why
I sold my chrono.

Also another reason to dispute my chrono results.

Plenty other people will chrono the exact same load(s) and get different
results.

I'd really rather get up close and nasty with the targets and tell people how
each load recoils and what accuracy, ect.


Have some fun at it.

threads like this one make we want to load up a few boxes and go create
loud BANGs with the awesome .357 SIG!
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb26/czrami/DOUBLE%20TAP%20357%20SIG/DT-125-range.jpg
We kind of feel bad when everyone else clears out of the range, but they could
buy a Glock .357 or other gun and join in the fun!

I've been a fan of the concept and cartridge since first reading about it
in an old Mas Ayoob Complete Book Of Handguns issue, where he talked
of depts getting instant stops with sometimes non vital hits.

That trend continues today, esp. as more CCW holders and individual officers
buy the guns.

I think the reason for the high cost is ammo is that there is
little demand for it (presently) in comparison to other auto
calibers.. If more people get into it, the demand might bring
the price down.

Let your intrigue... turn into infatuation: .357 SIG!
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb26/czrami/DOUBLE%20TAP%20357%20SIG/DT-ammo-range.jpg

Clutch Cargo
10-04-2012, 17:03
One of the best reason for shooting .357SIG at an indoor range.

ELBOW ROOM! Nobody wants the stalls on each side of you as little cartridge roars.

ABNAK
10-04-2012, 21:30
To say that it is just a really hot 9mm is relative. A 9mm +P+ of the same weight (124 or 127gr) will net you ~ 1250fps or so. As long as it is loaded like it was intended to be the 357Sig is roughly 200fps faster. That ain't chicken scratch to me.

NEOH212
10-05-2012, 02:56
I would say it is certainly a good man stopper, as long as the bullet goes where it's supposed to. But looking at it that way, so is the 9mm, 40 and 45. Otherwise, I don't think it's stands above anything else available.

This. As far as I'm concerned, it's no .357 Mag and it's a over glorified 9mm +P+ than anything else. There is nothing the .357 Sig can do that the .357 can't and in every case, do better.

I'll be staying with semi-auto's in which the first number in the caliber starts with a 4. The .357 Sig isn't a bad round but it isn't anything special either. All it does is cost more to shoot.

I put it this way, if hype alone could kill, this cartridge would be placed on the list with weapons of mass destruction and we wouldn't be able to own it as civilians. :supergrin:

NEOH212
10-05-2012, 02:57
This cartridge is more about hype than performance.

It comes near the .357 Mag with only one load but fails otherwise.

No thank you, I'll stay with what I know works and doesn't cost a mint to shoot.

PghJim
10-05-2012, 04:30
This cartridge is more about hype than performance.

It comes near the .357 Mag with only one load but fails otherwise.

No thank you, I'll stay with what I know works and doesn't cost a mint to shoot.

But it is the only load that matters for this purpose. Also, you get all of the performance of the 125gr mag in a 9mm platform that holds more than twice the number of rounds and recoils much less than the revolver.

It is only hype if it does not do what it says it will. This one does it in the only load I would carry in the 357 mag. I really do not care if it is not equal with heavy bullets. But then, it never claimed to be.

Glockbuster
10-05-2012, 06:13
This cartridge is more about hype than performance.

It comes near the .357 Mag with only one load but fails otherwise.

No thank you, I'll stay with what I know works and doesn't cost a mint to shoot.

I have some intersting figures for you:

.357 bullet--4 inch revolver--1450 fps--six shots--big bulky heavy platform-


.355 bullet--4.5 inch G31--1430 fps--sixteen shots--friendly carry platform

I love my G32 and G31 let me tell you. Why not give it a serious try ?

gatorboy
10-05-2012, 08:21
Same goes for the "better feeding" claim - more hype. A good gun will feed 9mm, 40, or 45 all day long - no problem.

It is a better feeder than those cartridges by design. The 9mm being the second best also by design of tapered case. Glock barrels will feed fired, unformed 357auto cases right off the ground. The other's not so. I'm trying to get someone to make .355 130-135 gr. DEJFWC (double ended jacketed full wad cutters) for loading in 357auto and 9x25. Very difficult to get one of the other cartridges to feed full caliber meplat bullets loaded to full length specs.

RichardB
10-05-2012, 08:43
One of the best reason for shooting .357SIG at an indoor range.

ELBOW ROOM! Nobody wants the stalls on each side of you as little cartridge roars.

At the range everyone is wearing ears, right? So I gather if you shoot this load at home or in your car in a self defense situation you will need to be fitted with hearing aids shortly thereafter, (when ever the ringing stops).

My bedside SP-100 357 used to be loaded with 38+P (with ears quickly accessible). Now a G-19 seems good enough and I am more likely not to flinch in a clutch situation.

unit1069
10-05-2012, 09:38
Shooting .357 Magnum is no cheaper than shooting .357sig, if you check online prices (http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/ItemListing.aspx?catid=640).

If I was a hunter perhaps I'd prefer the Magnum, but purely for personal self-defense I'll take my 13+1 G-32. And I still believe there's great opportunity for ammo companies to introduce 130-150 grain rounds in the sig caliber. Sellier & Bellot already offers a great 140-grain truncated cone round that I carry for the rare times I'm in the woods.

dkf
10-05-2012, 09:58
At the range everyone is wearing ears, right? So I gather if you shoot this load at home or in your car in a self defense situation you will need to be fitted with hearing aids shortly thereafter, (when ever the ringing stops).

My bedside SP-100 357 used to be loaded with 38+P (with ears quickly accessible). Now a G-19 seems good enough and I am more likely not to flinch in a clutch situation.

I have found a .357mag is just as loud if not louder than the sig and yes I have shot them side by side outside with no ears on. People are always bringing up the "the .357sig is loud" but usually those people still have shotguns, ARs and .357mags around for HD. Either of those 3 sure ain't any quieter.


As for the .357mag vs .357sig that too has been beaten to death. I like both but for carrying for SD I will take the smaller, lighter, thinner, over double capacity and can meet 125gr mag velocity G32 over a Revolver any day of the week. Especially considering the majority of the 125gr .357mag loads on the market will not come close to 1450fps out of a 3" or 4" barrel let alone a snubbie.

SCmasterblaster
10-05-2012, 10:16
I have found a .357mag is just as loud if not louder than the sig and yes I have shot them side by side outside with no ears on. People are always bringing up the "the .357sig is loud" but usually those people still have shotguns, ARs and .357mags around for HD. Either of those 3 sure ain't any quieter.


As for the .357mag vs .357sig that too has been beaten to death. I like both but for carrying for SD I will take the smaller, lighter, thinner, over double capacity and can meet 125gr mag velocity G32 over a Revolver any day of the week. Especially considering the majority of the 125gr .357mag loads on the market will not come close to 1450fps out of a 3" or 4" barrel let alone a snubbie.

It is interesting to note how long the autopistol cartridge designers took to create a round that equals the vaunted .357 Magnum 125gr JHP. The .357 Sig will never be offered with a 158gr bullet, though. :upeyes:

dkf
10-05-2012, 11:34
It is interesting to note how long the autopistol cartridge designers took to create a round that equals the vaunted .357 Magnum 125gr JHP. The .357 Sig will never be offered with a 158gr bullet, though. :upeyes:

There is a 180gr offering though it is from Double Tap.

The .357mag has more case volume so it is always going to be better suited to pushing heavier bullets faster. Due to that capacity, longer barrels are also preferred to help burn all that powder and increase velocities. For every day carry I just prefer the .357sig, my dad prefers his 7 shot .357mag revolver. For woods carry I would just as soon step up to a .44mag Redhawk.

SCmasterblaster
10-05-2012, 11:47
There is a 180gr offering though it is from Double Tap.

The .357mag has more case volume so it is always going to be better suited to pushing heavier bullets faster. Due to that capacity, longer barrels are also preferred to help burn all that powder and increase velocities. For every day carry I just prefer the .357sig, my dad prefers his 7 shot .357mag revolver. For woods carry I would just as soon step up to a .44mag Redhawk.

WOW - really? A 180 gr bullet in .357 Sig? I wonder what the MV is?

cowboy1964
10-05-2012, 12:31
WOW - really? A 180 gr bullet in .357 Sig? I wonder what the MV is?

1025 fps from a 4" barrel. It's intended as a woods round. Bet it penetrates like crazy because of the high sectional density.

clarkstoncz
10-05-2012, 12:35
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb26/czrami/DOUBLE%20%20TAP/Double%20Tap%20Ammo-Spring%202012/DT-180-2.jpg

I've not shot any animals with it, but it has quite the wallop on both ends and ungodly
accurate at least @ 15 yards or closer.
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb26/czrami/DOUBLE%20TAP%20357%20SIG/DT-range-targ.jpg
A bit smokey to shoot in comparison to other .357 SIG or 9mm loads.
Not as bad as my .44 Special reloads by far.
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb26/czrami/DOUBLE%20%20TAP/Double%20Tap%20Ammo-Spring%202012/DT-2.jpg
It was developed specifically for Glocks!
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb26/czrami/DOUBLE%20%20TAP/Double%20Tap%20Ammo-Spring%202012/DT-180.jpg

Here:

http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_32&products_id=563

dpadams6
10-05-2012, 12:44
This. As far as I'm concerned, it's no .357 Mag and it's a over glorified 9mm +P+ than anything else. There is nothing the .357 Sig can do that the .357 can't and in every case, do better.

I'll be staying with semi-auto's in which the first number in the caliber starts with a 4. The .357 Sig isn't a bad round but it isn't anything special either. All it does is cost more to shoot.

I put it this way, if hype alone could kill, this cartridge would be placed on the list with weapons of mass destruction and we wouldn't be able to own it as civilians. :supergrin:
Sorry NEOH212. I will have to disagree with you. We have carried the 357sig at work for about 15 years. Mostly with the gold dot and then hst. I can assure you that it is not just a "overglorified 9mm+p+. I have seen it shot into just about every object you can think of and many times thru every angle of a car. We've also had approx. 12 shootings with same. VERY IMPRESSIVE. And why I think it is the best self defenese handgun caliber on the planet.

Clutch Cargo
10-05-2012, 16:13
At the range everyone is wearing ears, right? So I gather if you shoot this load at home or in your car in a self defense situation you will need to be fitted with hearing aids shortly thereafter, (when ever the ringing stops).

My bedside SP-100 357 used to be loaded with 38+P (with ears quickly accessible). Now a G-19 seems good enough and I am more likely not to flinch in a clutch situation.

No doubt a confined space would make the .357SIG or ANY magnum an ear splitting round. That said, I doubt the SIG round is very much louder than the .40.

My home round is an ordinary 230gr .45ACP. It is fitted with a can from AAC. No ears required. :supergrin:

dpadams6
10-05-2012, 17:20
At the range everyone is wearing ears, right? So I gather if you shoot this load at home or in your car in a self defense situation you will need to be fitted with hearing aids shortly thereafter, (when ever the ringing stops).

My bedside SP-100 357 used to be loaded with 38+P (with ears quickly accessible). Now a G-19 seems good enough and I am more likely not to flinch in a clutch situation.
Actually. Shooting Outside or inside for that matter. You will barely hear the gun go off and not have a clue how many rounds you fired. Most of the time you will have shot more than what you thought you heard. Pretty much a non issue. I would not worry about that.

gatorboy
10-06-2012, 10:18
At the range everyone is wearing ears, right? So I gather if you shoot this load at home or in your car in a self defense situation you will need to be fitted with hearing aids shortly thereafter, (when ever the ringing stops).

My bedside SP-100 357 used to be loaded with 38+P (with ears quickly accessible). Now a G-19 seems good enough and I am more likely not to flinch in a clutch situation.

There's no doubt the 357mag is louder than 357auto with same weight bullets. 125 and lighter, much louder. The standard pressure 230 gr. 45ACP is one of the best for (less) noise. Some heavier .40 loads are subsonic also. If you're thinking about your hearing as I do, a longer barreled auto with subsonic loads will be better than almost any revolver. Sound comes from muzzle and gap (along with flash, unburnt and burned powder) with a revolver. Any load will have less flash (and sound in most cases) as barrel length increases. Sound may get louder if you manage enough tube to bring subsonic up to supersonic. I do like .40 180's or .45 230's for a nightstand gun with at least a 4" tube with 4.5" being better IMO.

PghJim
10-06-2012, 10:47
Sorry NEOH212. I will have to disagree with you. We have carried the 357sig at work for about 15 years. Mostly with the gold dot and then hst. I can assure you that it is not just a "overglorified 9mm+p+. I have seen it shot into just about every object you can think of and many times thru every angle of a car. We've also had approx. 12 shootings with same. VERY IMPRESSIVE. And why I think it is the best self defenese handgun caliber on the planet.

I believe the 357 Sig HST bullet is the best round for this caliber and I wonder why it is one of the best kept secrets. It goes well over 1,400fps out of my 4.5" G32 and the damage done to the few varmints I have shot at relatively close range have been most impressive. More damage than a .220 Swift. I am not much for Jello testing, but if you compare tnoutdoors9 test video with the HST 357 Sig to the other handgun calibers test videos, I believe it expands faster, causes more damage with great penetration. I wish Federal would sell the bullet for handloading. The last I looked ATG had some for sale.

SCmasterblaster
10-06-2012, 11:49
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb26/czrami/DOUBLE%20%20TAP/Double%20Tap%20Ammo-Spring%202012/DT-180-2.jpg

I've not shot any animals with it, but it has quite the wallop on both ends and ungodly
accurate at least @ 15 yards or closer.
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb26/czrami/DOUBLE%20TAP%20357%20SIG/DT-range-targ.jpg
A bit smokey to shoot in comparison to other .357 SIG or 9mm loads.
Not as bad as my .44 Special reloads by far.
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb26/czrami/DOUBLE%20%20TAP/Double%20Tap%20Ammo-Spring%202012/DT-2.jpg
It was developed specifically for Glocks!
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb26/czrami/DOUBLE%20%20TAP/Double%20Tap%20Ammo-Spring%202012/DT-180.jpg

Here:

http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_32&products_id=563

That is one lethal-looking .357 Sig round. :shocked:

cowboy1964
10-06-2012, 12:51
I believe the 357 Sig HST bullet is the best round for this caliber and I wonder why it is one of the best kept secrets. It goes well over 1,400fps out of my 4.5" G32 and the damage done to the few varmints I have shot at relatively close range have been most impressive. More damage than a .220 Swift. I am not much for Jello testing, but if you compare tnoutdoors9 test video with the HST 357 Sig to the other handgun calibers test videos, I believe it expands faster, causes more damage with great penetration. I wish Federal would sell the bullet for handloading. The last I looked ATG had some for sale.

1400 fps from a 4.5" is not special. The Gold Dot and Golden Saber should do about that. The HST may be a hair faster but not enough to make any practical difference.

All of the .357 Sig tests are producing amazing cavities, and in the case of the Gold Dot and Golden Saber, producing ideal penetration (16"ish).

.357 SIG Federal HST Ammo Gel Test - YouTube

.357 SIG Remington Golden Saber Ammo Gel Test - YouTube

PghJim
10-06-2012, 15:31
1400 fps from a 4.5" is not special. The Gold Dot and Golden Saber should do about that. The HST may be a hair faster but not enough to make any practical difference.

All of the .357 Sig tests are producing amazing cavities, and in the case of the Gold Dot and Golden Saber, producing ideal penetration (16"ish).



Do you know you can be a jerk? The only reason I said they went well over 1,400fps is that they are rated for 1,360fps out of a 4" barrel and I am getting about 1,425-30 out of my 4.5" which only says their advertised velocities are accurate and warmish for major manufacture 357 Sig. Most Winchester, remington and 5-petal Speer are under 1,350fps in my gun. I get over 1,500 fps from BB and close to that with DT, and almost handload to that velocity.

However, it is the design of the HST that I was commenting on. Yes they all cause amazing cavities, but the HST starts to expand faster than let's say the PXD1 and has a long cavity. I think 16" is over penetration. I really would not want anything over 14", however, i must admit that the 6-petal Speer has not over penetrated much in actual shootings.

dpadams6
10-06-2012, 20:09
I believe the 357 Sig HST bullet is the best round for this caliber and I wonder why it is one of the best kept secrets. It goes well over 1,400fps out of my 4.5" G32 and the damage done to the few varmints I have shot at relatively close range have been most impressive. More damage than a .220 Swift. I am not much for Jello testing, but if you compare tnoutdoors9 test video with the HST 357 Sig to the other handgun calibers test videos, I believe it expands faster, causes more damage with great penetration. I wish Federal would sell the bullet for handloading. The last I looked ATG had some for sale.
Pghjim, Ill have to agree 100% with you. We carried the gold dots for about 13 years and then switched to glocks. We then did a test comparing gold dot, ranger t, and hst. Shot them all thru many types of barriers. They all pretty much penetrated the same, except gold dot penetrated thru windshield glass SLIGHTLY better. Comparing expansion, the hst expanded the best thru all barriers and functioned flawless. Had a couple hang ups with gold dot and ranger t 's. We felt the hst was the best of the bunch and have been carrying the hst 's now for a couple years. It has worked very well in the street against both two and four legged creatures.

seed
10-06-2012, 20:33
At the range everyone is wearing ears, right? So I gather if you shoot this load at home or in your car in a self defense situation you will need to be fitted with hearing aids shortly thereafter, (when ever the ringing stops).

My bedside SP-100 357 used to be loaded with 38+P (with ears quickly accessible). Now a G-19 seems good enough and I am more likely not to flinch in a clutch situation.

With all due respect, the absolute last thing I will be reaching for in a high-stress/life and death situation is something to lessen my ability to hear what is going on.

dkf
10-06-2012, 21:29
However, it is the design of the HST that I was commenting on. Yes they all cause amazing cavities, but the HST starts to expand faster than let's say the PXD1 and has a long cavity. I think 16" is over penetration. I really would not want anything over 14", however, i must admit that the 6-petal Speer has not over penetrated much in actual shootings.

I am fine with 16" of penetration. I stock up on HST and the GS Bonded. I can see how a JHP with extra penetration could come in handy. The HSTs just feed really smooth, my G33 likes them.

RichardB
10-07-2012, 09:10
With all due respect, the absolute last thing I will be reaching for in a high-stress/life and death situation is something to lessen my ability to hear what is going on.

Nor I. The "Peltor Classic" hanging near my bed improves my hearing as well as muffling the booms.

http://www.peltor.com/peltor.com/comm_detail.cfm?prod_family=Tactical+7&ind_prod_num=MT1H7A001

SCmasterblaster
10-07-2012, 13:04
Hearing protection is a good thing to have if you know when there is going to be some shooting. I carry a G17 for self protection, not hearing protection. I figure that I won't lose too much hearing from the two or three shots I fire. :cool:

clarkstoncz
10-07-2012, 15:23
Some of those tests show the .357 SIG to have a wider stretch cavity than the vaunted
.357 Magnum.

Not that I'd want to shot by either on of them:)


As for the much hyped HST. That testing shows the HST to actually fragment,
and have a more narrow stretch cavity than the more impressive PDX .357
SIG load, or at least it looks like that to me.

I still think the TAC XP is the best bullet on the market.

100% expansion and weight retention.


No need to shop for bonded or non-bonded.


More than adequate penetration with
no worry of the jacket/core will separate.

cowboy1964
10-07-2012, 15:28
With regards to penetration, the FBI mandates 12-18" so 16" is just about ideal, IMO. That's just over halfway in the acceptable range.

PghJim
10-07-2012, 16:22
As for the much hyped HST. That testing shows the HST to actually fragment,
and have a more narrow stretch cavity than the more impressive PDX .357
SIG load, or at least it looks like that to me.

I still think the TAC XP is the best bullet on the market.

100% expansion and weight retention.


No need to shop for bonded or non-bonded.


More than adequate penetration with
no worry of the jacket/core will separate.

That is it. The 357 Sig HST is not hyped. However, while we are talking about the PDX1 or Winchester Bonded Ranger, it does have a larger diameter at the end, however, it takes almost 2" before expansion starts. Penetration is less than the HST, and in my opinion the damage cavity is less in overall size. The fragmentation you get off of the HST is not worth mentioning. If it were an issue, why does it penetrate more that the PDX1.

I have tried to love the TAC XP bullets, but it is diffcult. The real nice thing about it is that it expands through anything, even leather. The only other bullet that comes close is the HST.

SCmasterblaster
10-09-2012, 07:41
That is it. The 357 Sig HST is not hyped. However, while we are talking about the PDX1 or Winchester Bonded Ranger, it does have a larger diameter at the end, however, it takes almost 2" before expansion starts. Penetration is less than the HST, and in my opinion the damage cavity is less in overall size. The fragmentation you get off of the HST is not worth mentioning. If it were an issue, why does it penetrate more that the PDX1.

I have tried to love the TAC XP bullets, but it is diffcult. The real nice thing about it is that it expands through anything, even leather. The only other bullet that comes close is the HST.

will be in .45 caliber, where I'll not be concerned with bullet expansion. :cool:

Nanuk
10-11-2012, 13:39
will be in .45 caliber, where I'll not be concerned with bullet expansion. :cool:


:rofl:

SCmasterblaster
10-12-2012, 14:07
This thread is getting complicated.

cowboy1964
10-12-2012, 14:26
I think my S&W 642 firing standard pressure .38 Special is louder than any pistol I have, including .357 Sig. Maybe not but that's the impression I get, maybe it's just the blast.

SCmasterblaster
10-12-2012, 14:30
I think my S&W 642 firing standard pressure .38 Special is louder than any pistol I have, including .357 Sig. Maybe not but that's the impression I get, maybe it's just the blast.

About the snubbie being the loudest. The powder charge burns outside the barrel, mostly.

PrecisionRifleman
10-21-2012, 14:05
I would say it is certainly a good man stopper, as long as the bullet goes where it's supposed to. But looking at it that way, so is the 9mm, 40 and 45. Otherwise, I don't think it's stands above anything else available.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

clarkstoncz
10-21-2012, 20:29
Funny how the FBI spent millions to get a better round than the 147 gr. 9 mm,
and went to the 10mm, then the weaker FBI loads.

That they now carry .40s but the best caliber is a lighter weight ( 125) Magnumized version of the 9mm. Plenty of stopping power and tactical penetration, even if
most data is from full sized duty guns.


The .357 SIG is both interesting and very authoritative!

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb26/czrami/DT-357%20SIG/ammo2.jpg

PrecisionRifleman
10-21-2012, 22:10
Funny how the FBI spent millions to get a better round than the 147 gr. 9 mm,
and went to the 10mm, then the weaker FBI loads.

That they now carry .40s but the best caliber is a lighter weight ( 125) Magnumized version of the 9mm. Plenty of stopping power and tactical penetration, even if
most data is from full sized duty guns.


The .357 SIG is both interesting and very authoritative!

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb26/czrami/DT-357%20SIG/ammo2.jpg

I seriously doubt a hot 125gr 357 sig @1400fps is going to make any difference over a 155gr 40S&W @1300fps. I'll take a larger, heavier bullet going fast over a smaller/lighter bullet going a little faster. Really if anything its a wash, but the 40 is more versatile in loads and bullet weights. What evidence do you have showing the 357 sig as being any better?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

clarkstoncz
10-22-2012, 08:53
Texas and other depts could switch to the .40 but they don't.



The .357 SIG offers this over the Forty:

Lower recoil.

Improved accuracy

superior tactical penetration.

Superior Stopping Power with most loads than any other common police
calibers.

Or at least us .357 owners think so.

SCmasterblaster
10-22-2012, 10:15
just how many police departments use the .357 Sig? :cool:

Chuck TX
10-24-2012, 21:09
Who is still making 357sig models besides Sig and Glock?

just how many police departments use the .357 Sig? :cool:

~20 or so agencies seem to have it as the issued caliber. Many seem to be Highway Patrol who were nostalgic for the .357Mag. Guess they couldn't handle the 10mm. :supergrin:

Trigger Finger
10-24-2012, 23:11
I like the 357 Sig, but prefer the 40 cal. I think they are about equal in performance on self defense issues. And those are about 15 yards and less 99% of the time!!! Longer then about 25 or 30 yards and the 357 Sig might have a slight advantage and shooting through barriers of different kinds.

I prefer the 45 ACP and Super over both. Even over the 10mm .

But PghJim stated quite away back that "No round is perfect but I think even comparing it to a +p+ 9 would be rediculous."
How is comparing a 357 Sig to a 9MM +P+ ridiculous? Isn't that just what a 357 Sig is!! A 9MM +P+, or a very little more then that. A very fast 9MM. Yes, that is very good but that's all it is.

OK, the 357 Sig is about exactly like a 9MM +P++. Comparable to a 9mm +P+. But with a very close 9MM+P+ you can hold more rounds of ammo.

uz2bUSMC
10-25-2012, 05:52
I don't think you're going to find a 9+p+ with over 600ft lbs.

dpadams6
10-25-2012, 06:26
I like the 357 Sig, but prefer the 40 cal. I think they are about equal in performance on self defense issues. And those are about 15 yards and less 99% of the time!!! Longer then about 25 or 30 yards and the 357 Sig might have a slight advantage and shooting through barriers of different kinds.

I prefer the 45 ACP and Super over both. Even over the 10mm .

But PghJim stated quite away back that "No round is perfect but I think even comparing it to a +p+ 9 would be rediculous."
How is comparing a 357 Sig to a 9MM +P+ ridiculous? Isn't that just what a 357 Sig is!! A 9MM +P+, or a very little more then that. A very fast 9MM. Yes, that is very good but that's all it is.

OK, the 357 Sig is about exactly like a 9MM +P++. Comparable to a 9mm +P+. But with a very close 9MM+P+ you can hold more rounds of ammo.
Same comparison would be 38 v. 357mag. We all no which one is superior. Same with 9mm v. 357sig.

Trigger Finger
10-25-2012, 14:13
Same comparison would be 38 v. 357mag. We all no which one is superior. Same with 9mm v. 357sig.


There is no doubt that the 357 Sig is superior to the 9MM +P+. I did not mean to infer otherwise!!

It's just that I don't think it is the great panacea that some are calling it. And I have never heard it called an "unbelievable man stopper". :upeyes:

SCmasterblaster
10-25-2012, 18:26
No, most people know the 10mm Auto is the equivelant to the "instant death ray". :supergrin: 357SIG can't touch it. :outtahere:

Odd, I have never thought to make the comparison. But you are correct about a full-powered 10 mm being a death ray. :cool:

dpadams6
10-25-2012, 21:14
There is no doubt that the 357 Sig is superior to the 9MM +P+. I did not mean to infer otherwise!!

It's just that I don't think it is the great panacea that some are calling it. And I have never heard it called an "unbelievable man stopper". :upeyes:

I think its the best all around handgun self defense round on the planet. We carried the 9mm back in the day for my first 5years. Were very unpleased by performance in a few shootings. Granted, that was 15-20 years ago and ammo has improved quite a bit since then. We switched to the 357 sig in around 1997 and have had close to 10-12 shootings with it. Mostly with gold dot and a few with hst. We are very pleased. I also think the 40 is a fantastic self defense round as well. Just feel the 357sig is slightly better. Especially if you have to shoot thru car doors/windshields.

Ruggles
10-25-2012, 21:46
I think the .357 Sig outperforms the 9mm in any of it's + formats, regardless of how many of those +s you tack onto the 9mm.

clarkstoncz
10-25-2012, 22:18
Yes, few Handgunners can find or buy 9mm+P+, but .357 SIG can be found online or in most
shops.

Most 9mms were never made for +P+ but the .357 SIG ( at least the Glocks)
are .40 caliber rated guns with the 3 pins that Glock went to after the CHP
trials.

.357 SIG guns do wear out faster but I don't shoot that much these days..
as I once did with my agency(s) paying for ammo.

Granted it was 9mm+P and .357 Magnum back then.

I truly wish that :

A. Gen 4 Glock 33s were more available.

B. CZ would offer .357 SIG guns to us.
They have been playing around with for a few years now.

SCmasterblaster
10-26-2012, 09:02
Who is still making 357sig models besides Sig and Glock?



~20 or so agencies seem to have it as the issued caliber. Many seem to be Highway Patrol who were nostalgic for the .357Mag. Guess they couldn't handle the 10mm. :supergrin:

This brings up a related thought. I wonder how well the .357 Sig does on engine blocks?

dkf
10-26-2012, 10:21
This brings up a related thought. I wonder how well the .357 Sig does on engine blocks?

For that......Grab the .50bmg and leave the handguns at home.

SCmasterblaster
10-26-2012, 11:24
For that......Grab the .50bmg and leave the handguns at home.

HehHehHehHeh. That's right. A .50 BMG!

Frank V
10-31-2012, 21:11
Heck just get a G22 or G23, add Lone Wolf bbls in 9mm & .357 Sig???:whistling::whistling::whistling::whistling:

The best of all worlds!

Ok nobody shoot!:cool:
Frank

SCmasterblaster
11-01-2012, 13:29
Heck just get a G22 or G23, add Lone Wolf bbls in 9mm & .357 Sig???:whistling::whistling::whistling::whistling:

The best of all worlds!

Ok nobody shoot!:cool:
Frank

is a good idea! :cool:

clarkstoncz
12-08-2012, 09:19
I thunk the 147 is very interested in .357 SIG.

Givs one somehting that you Usually don't see with the 147..that being over
1,000 fps in most guns.

The DT 147 Bonded Defense looks to be a neat addition to the BD line that
uses Gold Dot bullets.

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb26/czrami/DT-357%20SIG/dt-dec-2-1.jpg

Proven Gold Dot performance at enhanced velocity over what what you will find in a
147 grain 9mm load.

The 147s also seem to produce less flash and felt blast/recoil than the hotter
125 and 115 gr. loads, esp. out of the Glock 33.

This Bonded Defense load should be no different.

SCmasterblaster
12-08-2012, 09:31
I don't think you're going to find a 9+p+ with over 600ft lbs.

I get just over 500 FPE with my G17 firing WW 115gr JHP +p+.

9mm +p+
12-08-2012, 11:49
What a truly stupid thread, Not the OP's original question but all of the juvenile bickering over nothing. And praise for a man who is a so called "expert" but does nothing but push what is already known and yet folks just worship this guy. A 300gr XTP is the ultimate 44 mag SD load you know, yeah right. My wang is bigger than yours, really? Carry what you want, i happen to like the 357 SIG, is it better than rd X? Depends, all that really matters is that you can shoot it accurately under stress. Be it a 9 or 357 or 40/45, they all work, if you do your part.

T-Rod45
12-08-2012, 12:21
just how many police departments use the .357 Sig? :cool:

Here is a list compiled from another thread:


Alameda County
Delaware State Police (First to adopt the 357 SIG)
Dallas, Texas Police
Federal Air Marshals
Federal Protective Services (FPS) Special Agents for General Services Administration (GSA) - P229
Keizer Police Department, Oregonhttp://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19675788#post19675788
La Porte County Indiana Sheriff's Department
Las Vegas Metro Police (allowed use of)
Liberty Twp Police Dept, Ohio
Maine Aroostook County Sheriff's Office
Maine Game Wardens (P226)
Maricopa County [Phoenix] Arizona Sheriff's Office/MCSO
Montcalm County (Michigan) Sheriff's Office
Montana State Police
New Jersey Division of Fish & Game
New Mexico State Police
Niles Police Dept, Ohio
Northwood Police Dept, ND
NC Highway Patrol
NC Wake County Sheriff's Department
NC Wildlife Enforcement Officers
Nueces County Sheriff Department, Texas (Sigpro)
Oakland County Sheriff's Dept, Michigan
Oklahoma Hwy patrol
Orange Police Dept, CT (sig pro, SP2340 .357)
Orlando PD (plainclothes officers)
Oxford, Mississippi
Richmond, Virginia
Rocky Mount Police Dept, Rocky Mount, NC
Springfield, IL
Union County Sheriff's Office, Marysville, Ohio (Glock 31)
Texas, DPS
United States (GSA) - Office of Inspector General (OIG) Special Agents - P229
United States Secret Service
Virginia State Police

Agencies using 357 Sig in Tennessee

THP: Glock 31& G33
TWRA: Glock 31
Bartlett PD: Sig 226 357Sig
Hamblen Co: Glock 32
Lawrence Co: Glock 31
Millan PD: Glock 31
Pleasant View PD: ? 357 Sig
Springfield PD: ? 357Sig

Iceman cHucK
12-08-2012, 13:11
PA Wildlife agents carried G31. Don't know if they still do?

digilo
12-08-2012, 14:36
I have a friend on the Tx DPS and he likes the .357SIG, but, he'd rather the 9mm or .40 strictly for the fact that 357SIG costs so much to practice with, whereas 9mm/40 is more affordable. As far as terminal performance, they're all happy with it.

SCmasterblaster
12-08-2012, 17:57
I think the .357 Sig outperforms the 9mm in any of it's + formats, regardless of how many of those +s you tack onto the 9mm.

Your definitely correct. The case capacity of the .357 Sig is much larger than the 9x19.

scottyd2506
12-10-2012, 17:15
I seriously doubt a hot 125gr 357 sig @1400fps is going to make any difference over a 155gr 40S&W @1300fps. I'll take a larger, heavier bullet going fast over a smaller/lighter bullet going a little faster. Really if anything its a wash, but the 40 is more versatile in loads and bullet weights. What evidence do you have showing the 357 sig as being any better?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Been reading here for some time and thought Id post.
I used to carry a 45 acp and 44 mag back in the 80's
I never could understand why the one shot stats of the 357 was the best
The 9, 40, 45 and 357 sig are all lethal, would not feel under-gunned with either of them. and would not want to be shot by none of them or anything

If you look at paper ballistics or gel tests, there is not much difference.
But if you look at REAL WORLD results, or ask police who have used them, then there may be some difference.

The King of Kings the 357 magnum 4 inch revolver with either 125 Federal or Remington JHP? at 1450 fps

what did it having going for it?
.
and what makes the "lightning bolt effect"?

Good bullet expansion
Good penetration
and super sonic speeds


Bullet speed while going out of the end of a barrel it totally different that the speed of it going through a human body.

I think the "lightning bolt effect" is a combination of a bullet that has expanded and is still moving OVER the speed of sound while traveling through a attackers body.

a bullet that is still breaking the sound barrier while it is going through vital organs of the body. and the speed of sound is around 1100 fps

the combination of a good expanding bullet with at least a .140 sectional density and moving around 1400 fps from the muzzle seems to be the ticket.

This has PROVEN to work in REAL LIFE.

We know bullets start slowing down dramatically when they hit clothing and flesh.
a bullet has clothing, layers of fat and muscle to go through before reaching vital organs.
it would seem a good expanding bullet at 1350-1450 fps and enough sectional density will still have the sonic crack inside the vital organs.

Too little bullet sectional density and the bullet slows down to under the speed of sound before it hits vital organs, too little velocity and not enough momentum to have bullet keep hyper velocity into vital organs.

the 155 grain 40 caliber bullet has a sectional density around .140.
but the best 40 S&W can launch a 155 is at 1300 fps

Same for 9mm +p+ 124 at 1300 fps.

the bullet may stay hyper into the inch of so of fat and inch of muscle but not into the vital organs.
This all of course can change depending on the size of the person.

the 9mm +p+ 115 at 1400 fps. it has the velocity but the shorter bullet loses too much velocity too quick
Long bullet lose less velocity and penetrate deeper.

the 9mm +p+, 40 S&W and .45 acp can not get 1400 fps with a good expanding bullet that has a Sd of at least .140.
(not out of barrels of 4 to 4.5 inches)

the 357 sig can launch a 125 JHP at 1500 fps from a 4 inch barrel.

the 10mm can launch 155;s at 1500 fps.

44 magnum can get 180's to 1600 fps from a 6 inch bbl. but those bullets are mainly for large game hunting and will do little expansion of human attackers.

Also in defense of the 40 and 9mm I would say a 5 1/2 or 6 inch barrel 9mm firing Underwood 124 +p+ would reach close to 1400 fps or 40 SW 155 would also be around 1400 fps and would be better. (more rounds for the 9 and more caliber for the 40)

the 357 sig with a 5.5 or 6 inch would probably get 1650 fps, but too much velocity can down grade performance on soft bullets. a 9x25 may launch at 125 at 1700 fps from a 6 inch bbl but bullet may frag at impact.

the Legendary 357 mag with 125 jhp for 96% one shot stops may never be beaten, the Texas State police have a 100% success rate with the 357 sig, Virgina has like 99%
but of those, what are one shot stops?
the 125 gold dot by underwood at 1450-1500 fps
would surly be better than the Speer gold dot loads of 1350-1400 fps from 4 and 4.5 inch bbls



Today people are much bigger than 35-25 years ago
better stronger drugs (meth etc) also, it is safe to say the old 357 in today's world would never get 96% one shot stops on drugged out felons attackers. but who knows.

Like I said above the proof is there. not sure how many are one shot stops/ but if Texas has 100% success and another state 99% isn't that 99.5% avg?

many police agencies have records of shooting a attacker with 45 40 and 9mm unloading a whole magazine into them and they don't stop.

I'm sure as data is collected there will be some 357 fails.

As it stands now the success rate of the 357 sig is pretty high, and been around for many years in those agencies too. the real world proof is there if you look for it.

take care

unit1069
12-10-2012, 17:33
Bullet speed while going out of the end of a barrel it totally different that the speed of it going through a human body.

I think the "lightning bolt effect" is a combination of a bullet that has expanded and is still moving OVER the speed of sound while traveling through a attackers body.

a bullet that is still breaking the sound barrier while it is going through vital organs of the body. and the speed of sound is around 1100 fps

the combination of a good expanding bullet with at least a .140 sectional density and moving around 1400 fps from the muzzle seems to be the ticket.

This has PROVEN to work in REAL LIFE.

I tend to agree with you, scotty. There's a convergence of bullet design/velocity in handguns that create an ever-evolving window of effectiveness.

In the early 1900s the .38 Special didn't get the job done for the military so the .45ACP was developed, which still works to this day.

In the 1920s the .38 Super was created and from what I can tell it's still a credible (if expensive) self-defense caliber available in the 1911 platform. It seems to me that the .357sig is a bit more formidable with twice the ammo capacity, with the .38 Super having more bullet weight options available for those who reload.

In the 1930s the .38 Special had issues for LEO so the .357 Magnum was created and to this day is the standard by which all other handgun effectiveness is measured.

I'm no ballistics expert my any measurement but from what I can tell the .357 Magnum is the best single all-round handgun caliber for personal self-defense purposes if one doesn't consider magazine/gun capacity.

Tiro Fijo
12-10-2012, 18:22
...In the early 1900s the .38 Special didn't get the job done for the military so the .45ACP was developed, which still works to this day...


Actually, primary historical sources show that the .45 Colt SAA's, that were hastily "un-mothballed" during the Philipine Insurrection, did no better against the Moros due to the pointy lead bullet used that usually zipped right through an adversary. Elmer Keith wrote of this.

In the 1920s the .38 Super was created and from what I can tell it's still a
credible (if expensive) self-defense caliber available in the 1911 platform...

The .38 Super was designed as a better way to penetrate auto bodies as well as primitive 1st Gen body armour during the Gangster Era.


In the 1930s the .38 Special had issues for LEO so the .357 Magnum was created
and to this day is the standard by which all other handgun effectiveness is measured.


Actually, Doug Wesson designed it a hunting round.



I'm no ballistics expert...


You ain't an historian either. :supergrin:

unit1069
12-10-2012, 21:06
The .38 Super was designed as a better way to penetrate auto bodies as well as primitive 1st Gen body armour during the Gangster Era.

Are you telling us the handgun calibers/loads at that time lacked certain abilities that LEO deemed necessary, leading to the creation of the .38 Super?

dkf
12-10-2012, 21:34
The .38super is based off the .38acp.(same case dimensions) The .38acp predates the era of the notorious gangsters of the prohibition era by decades. The Colt 1900 could not handle the .38acp in original form (which was close to .38super) so they scaled it back. When the more robust 1911 came about they could go to the more powerful .38super.

Coffee Dog
12-11-2012, 13:59
Texas and other depts could switch to the .40 but they don't.



The .357 SIG offers this over the Forty:

Lower recoil.

Improved accuracy

superior tactical penetration.

Superior Stopping Power with most loads than any other common police
calibers.

Or at least us .357 owners think so.

Lets not forget that this is the best feeding caliber making it very,very reliable.:wavey:

scottyd2506
12-11-2012, 19:57
Lets not forget that this is the best feeding caliber making it very,very reliable.:wavey:

That is a good point. most of today's autos are reliable, but the 357 sig could use a huge hollow point and still feel I'll bet.

I've only owned a old 380 ACP (grandfathers I gave to uncle) a 1911 45 ACP that eventually was stolen back in 1987

And the two guns I have now. a 6 inch Lamma Super Comanche .44 mag (a copy of Smith 29) and a 2 shot 3 inch bll Derringer in .44 mag.


I have been wanting to get another auto-loader for some time. I have always been biased to the .45

But have since after much research, lean to the 9mm over .45 slightly less stopping power per shot, but much more rounds. Then the 40 looks good also.

I'm not biased, I get to start with what I want.


If a thief is in my house or garage and I hear them and go to investigate, you never know what they might do, some crooks will give up, others will run, but a lot of them would just as well kill you, as to leave no one to identify them.

If I'm out mushroom hunting and run into some portable meth lab, chances are they may want to get rid of the witness.

I do not want to have to kill someone, that is for sure.
But if I am forced to defend myself I want the attackers to be stopped, not pissed off and coming at me with a knife while I hold a empty smoking 9mm that had 17 rounds.

Nothing is a death ray no is anything 100% but the
125 grains in 35 caliber at 1450 fps has seemed to prove it self through time as the best chance.

Used to be it was the 357 magnum with 6 shots vs the 9mm with 18 shots and it was a close call. now we have the 357 sig with factory 125's at 1500 fps from 4 inch barrels and 16 shots




After the research of REAL world results, I chose the
Glock 32 357 Sig. I think for stopping power it edges out the 9 +p+ 40 S&W and 45 acp, esp with gold dots.

The 10mm might be better with 155's gold dots at 1500 fps for stopping power, but bigger heavier thicker frame guns and much more recoil..

The downside to the 357 sig is no one sells ammo for it where I live, we have gadr mnt and at least 30-40 other guns shop in the area, and no one carries any 357 sig guns or ammo. I called guns shops in Indianapolis (78 miles from me) and no one there that I called has the guns or ammo.
nor do they have any 10mm's.
Everyone seems to be satisfied with average, the 9-40-45 and nothing else exists.
I had to have a shop order my 357.

my friend used to love the 357 revolver Smith 19 and 686 from 20 years past , now he has 9mm and 40's. he's going to crap his pants when I come by with a 357 auto loader.

raven28690
12-12-2012, 02:15
The 10mm might be better with 155's gold dots at 1500 fps for stopping power, but bigger heavier thicker frame guns and much more recoil..


Maybe Im just biased to the 10mm, but I think the 10mm is a pleasure to shoot (have shot everything from a Kimber, Colt Delta Elite, Eaa Elite Match, and a Glock 20 which I now own).
Had a chance to shoot both the .357 sig and a 10mm being fed Underwood 165gr during one range visit and IMHO the recoil wasnt that much different between the two.
The 10 has more of a .45 push whereas the 357 sig had more of a .40 muzzle flip.
Stories about the 10 having the recoil of a battleship is what kept me from it for so long and its just not true.
Your spot on about the ammo avail though.

digilo
12-12-2012, 03:21
T
But if I am forced to defend myself I want the attackers to be stopped, not pissed off and coming at me with a knife while I hold a empty smoking 9mm that had 17 rounds.


Shot placement. It's like the old real estate slogan, "Location, location, location." The .357SIG won't be any more effective or lethal if you don't hit vitals.

Scoob
12-12-2012, 07:35
The 125 grain .35ish cal bullets @ 1350+ seem to be excellent stoppers for sure. However, keep in mind the number of shootings that occur with 357 sig vs. 9mm, .40, or .45. What do you think the ratio of shootings would be comparing 9mm or .40 to 357 sig? I'm not sure there are a huge number of .45s in service but for .40 and 9mm there may be 20 shooting for every 357 sig shooting. Who knows? 20 to 1, 40 to 1, it's hard to say. If it were 20 to 1 you could expect twenty failures to stop for every one you would hear about with 357 sig. Just food for thought.

Remember also that other cartridges come in various bullet weights and power levels, low-recoil loads, ect. Some of which may not be a very good stopper. You can't hold it against the cartridges that have more variety, which may cause there to be some bad loads, while there could be some that work just as well or better than most in 357 sig. The 357 sig loads all have nearly the same external ballistic profile. It is a combination of caliber, mass , and velocity that works very well apparently as long as a proper bullet design is used.

scottyd2506
12-12-2012, 13:31
Shot placement. It's like the old real estate slogan, "Location, location, location." The .357SIG won't be any more effective or lethal if you don't hit vitals.


Shot placement is key, but how often does one get practice with a handgun and a target running at you bobbing up and down either shooting at you, or has a big knife.

This is all good at the range, but real life drama does not always have a man sitting perfectly still who wants you dead.

even the most perfect shot to the heart and the attacker may live for another 10 seconds to a minute even.
enough to pop 6 x 38's into your chest.

You can either take your time and get good shot placement or shoot fast and get a hit period.

We all can not get the perfect brain or spine shot to stop an attacker. non perfect shot require good expanding bullets than can penetrate and has high velocity.

The idea is not to get a heart shot and kill the person, it is to STOP them. the So called Lightning bolt effect of the 357 was the hydrostatic shock of breaking the sound barrier through a persons body or vital organs with a expanding bullet.

If they "calibers" are all the same and it is shot placement, then why did the Texas State Police complain the 9mm was not good enough after replacing the 6 shot 357 revolvers? how come even after they went with the 45 acp that was a slight improvement over the 9mm that they still did not have the effects on bad guys as the 357 magnum?

the load with a 125 at 1450 fps through a 4 inch bbl

it just could be that a expanding bullet traveling 1450 fps (a lot of cops had 6 inch 357's so 1500+ fps) with a 125 was enough to have the bullet go through/into the body of a BG at OVER the speed of sound.. sending a shockwave through body. and drop him quick.

a combination of a good expanding bullet and a sectional density of at least 1.40 and 1400+ fps (125 357 mag)was good enough to penetrate a BG go through the fat layers and muscle layer and still be super sonic into the organs.

the 9mm, 40 S&W and 45 ACP can NOT the cake here



the ultra hot loaded 9mm.+P+ loads of a 115 at 1400 fps and a 124 at 1300 fps would seem like they would be close, the 10 grains less bullet weight slows down much faster through flesh, and thus by the time it reaches the organs it is subsonic, same for the 124 at 1300 no sonic crack or hydrostatic shock as with 100 fps less muz vel the bullets are just shy of super sonic as they enter the vitals.

This all of course depends on the size of the attacker.


The 40 S&W with the 155 has a sectional density of 1.40 but the hottest 40 load is 1300 fps wit the 155.

the .45 acp is worse for the hydrostatic shock, although it has massive caliber and even more massive with good expanding bullets that does the job well.

What we do know is in real life the 357 magnum worked VERY well compared to the other calibers.
The 125 357 load had a bullet Sectional density of 1.40 at 1450 fps and it worked Great.

There is not a 1.40 sectional density bullet load combo on the face of the planet that can get over 1400 fps from a 45 acp, 40 S&W or the hottest 9mm +p+. and 1300 fps is tops with a hot hot load.

(unless we are talking unpractical to carry long long barrels of 5.5 and 6 inch in autoloaders)


Yet the 357 Sig can launch a 125 bullet with a Sectional density bullet of 1.41 at 1500 fps from a 4 inch bbl with a Factory load. The 357 mag can get way more that 1450 fps from a 125, but that is what worked, why change it?

the 10mm can also launch 1.40 SD (155;s) bullets at 1400-1500 fps.with good expanding bullets..


I would not call the 357 sig worlds better than the 9 +p+, 40 SW and 45 acp just has a slight edge in stopping an attacker from getting to you. or if you hit him 1st to stop him from firing on you with his gun. The lightning bolt effect from what real police claim in teas is more than a myth.

digilo
12-12-2012, 13:57
Shot placement is key, but how often does one get practice with a handgun and a target running at you bobbing up and down either shooting at you, or has a big knife.

This is all good at the range, but real life drama does not always have a man sitting perfectly still who wants you dead.

even the most perfect shot to the heart and the attacker may live for another 10 seconds to a minute even.
enough to pop 6 x 38's into your chest.

You can either take your time and get good shot placement or shoot fast and get a hit period.

We all can not get the perfect brain or spine shot to stop an attacker. non perfect shot require good expanding bullets than can penetrate and has high velocity.

The idea is not to get a heart shot and kill the person, it is to STOP them. the So called Lightning bolt effect of the 357 was the hydrostatic shock of breaking the sound barrier through a persons body or vital organs with a expanding bullet.


Lightning bolt, lol. Never heard the .357 called that. No such thing as hydrostatic shock.


If they "calibers" are all the same and it is shot placement, then why did the Texas State Police complain the 9mm was not good enough after replacing the 6 shot 357 revolvers?
The Texas Dept of Public Safety (DPS) went to .357 SIG as their penetration requirements are different than those for civilians, which may require them to shoot through auto glass. Rare is the situation where a civilian will have to shoot through auto glass.


how come even after they went with the 45 acp that was a slight improvement over the 9mm that they still did not have the effects on bad guys as the 357 magnum?

Bullet development was minimal for autos until the law enforcement agencies started adopting them. It took time for bullet development caught up to the needs of LEOs. Now I know of ZERO LEO agencies that prefer .357 Magnum revolvers to 9mm or .45 autos.



it just could be that a expanding bullet traveling 1450 fps (a lot of cops had 6 inch 357's so 1500+ fps) with a 125 was enough to have the bullet go through/into the body of a BG at OVER the speed of sound.. sending a shockwave through body. and drop him quick.


Again, no such thing as hydrostatic shock. There's many stories of felons surviving COM shots with .357 Mag shots. It isn't a magic caliber. Neither is .357SIG.

Lightning bolts and hydrostatic shock and shockwaves , lol.

It's all about where you shoot them. Take the time at the range to learn to hit what you're aiming at. No bullet is going to stop an attacker if you don't hit a vital, I don't care how much velocity you give it, or what SD the bullet has.

Shot. Placement.

Live it. Learn it.

unit1069
12-12-2012, 15:07
There's many stories of felons surviving COM shots with .357 Mag shots. It isn't a magic caliber. Neither is .357SIG.

You're right, but if there is/was a better handgun caliber than the .357 Magnum for stopping deadly encounters I haven't read about it.

scottyd2506
12-12-2012, 18:43
Lightning bolt, lol. Never heard the .357 called that. No such thing as hydrostatic shock.


What do you call it then? Why is it the the Texas and many other state police have like a 99_100% success rate with the 357 sig, the gun has been used since 1994, almost 20 years.. I'm sure it has racked up more than 50-100 shootings. yet agencies one after the other have issues with the 9mm to stop the BG.. WHOLE magazine of 9mm dumped into the bad guy and they keep coming yet almost 20 years of service with the 357 sig and hardly any failures at all.



The Texas Dept of Public Safety (DPS) went to .357 SIG as their penetration requirements are different than those for civilians, which may require them to shoot through auto glass. Rare is the situation where a civilian will have to shoot through auto glass.

That is the same ol excuse Every 9mm fan boy has. There is nothing wrong with the 9mm but face the facts it does not have equal stopping power as the stop handgun rounds.
it is much better than 38 special and holds a lot of rounds

You can try and play it off like the 9mm is just as good as the 357 sig or 357 mag per round at stopping someone and claim LOE only reason to use it is to shoot through auto glass.
READ UP DUDE, the Texas State Police (DPS) did not pick the 357 sig because it shot through glass better, it was picked because the 9mm failed and the 45 the replaced the 9 was not as good as the 357 mag per round.
Yes the extra 200 fps does aid in shooting through auto glass. But those kind of scenarios are once in a blue moon that they need to shoot through a windshield.
The reason they chose it was it put down the BG more often that the weaker 9mm+p+

The 357 sig is not the best choice for shooting through windshields anyways the light 125's need a perfect angle to do the work.




Bullet development was minimal for autos until the law enforcement agencies started adopting them. It took time for bullet development caught up to the needs of LEOs. Now I know of ZERO LEO agencies that prefer .357 Magnum revolvers to 9mm or .45 autos.

No one said they prefer the 357 magnum to 9mm, but they did say that they missed the stopping power of the 357.

The lightning bolt effect is something the police made up referring to how fast people went down with the 357 magnum.
it is a FACT the failure of the 9mm in the Texas DPS and how they now love the 357 sig. Dont take my word for it ask them why they prefer it head and shoulders over the 9mm (except for cost of ammo.)

Ask the Secret Service why they have a gun that hold 2 less rounds than a 9mm (357 sig) over a 9mm IF shot placement meant EVERYTHING and caliber means nothing.They would have the gun with 2 more rounds if your mindset was reality. I guess those Sevret Service people are dumb morons who don't know their a-hole fro ma hole in the ground huh?



It's all about where you shoot them. Take the time at the range to learn to hit what you're aiming at. No bullet is going to stop an attacker if you don't hit a vital, I don't care how much velocity you give it, or what SD the bullet has. .

So you are trying to tell us a 25 acp is just as good as a 357 magnum? I mean if shot placement is everything.
You have spent too much time at the range, because in a real gun fight, targets move around and they shoot back. and most of the time that perfect shot you talk about is not going to happen.


I guess if you base your statistics off old spaghetti westerns where Clint can down 4-5 guys with perfect shots, then your the man.

Can I ask why you would carry a 9mm over a 380 if shot placement was the deciding factor etc?

SCmasterblaster
12-15-2012, 13:14
You're right, but if there is/was a better handgun caliber than the .357 Magnum for stopping deadly encounters I haven't read about it.

So true, the .357 Magnum 125gr SJHP has been the king for 40 years.

scottyd2506
12-15-2012, 19:20
So true, the .357 Magnum 125gr SJHP has been the king for 40 years.

True, Even Marshal lists the 357 magnum and 45 acp as the tops rounds. both have 2 different bullets that have one shot stops of 96%
Yet Marshal list the 9mm best load at 91% and then puts the Federal 125 357 sig as the best 357 sig load at 92%. a mediocore load.

Yet Why doesn't Marshal list any of the loads the police have been having success with, the Speer gold dots?

Does not the Texas DPS police have like a 100% success rate with this load, and Delaware has 99%..

Yet Marshal completely ignores this data. I have heard "well it's a new caliber and data will take awhile to gather, yet the Texas DPS police has been using this bullet load for almost "20 years".. -1994-
is this caliber and load so good that he is biased against the 357 sig, compared to what he carries and spent his $$ on already.

take care

cowboy1964
12-15-2012, 19:55
WHOLE magazine of 9mm dumped into the bad guy and they keep coming

There is nothing wrong with the 9mm

:whistling::faint:

SDGlock23
12-15-2012, 21:04
True, Even Marshal lists the 357 magnum and 45 acp as the tops rounds. both have 2 different bullets that have one shot stops of 96%

To be fair, they did list the 135gr .40 at 96% also, with it's poor sectional density and all. Several other .40's at 94%.

scottyd2506
12-16-2012, 02:56
To be fair, they did list the 135gr .40 at 96% also, with it's poor sectional density and all. Several other .40's at 94%.

that is a great number. I can believe it if one load of 40 can get 94% then another could get 96%.

I just wonder why the Gold dot loads of the Texas DPS (state police) from te past 20 yeears have been totally ignored by the even marshal study . I know they have a 100% success rate there. Those loads are the weaker speer 125 at 1350 fps from 4 inch bbl 1400 fps from the longer service 4.5 inch bbls. It is like he is totally pi$$ed off the 357 sig out does his handgun rounds and is hiding or bypassing the stats.
I can now see why many people have doubts about his/their studies These caliber and loads have been used by the Texas DPS for almost 20 years. so the excuse of not enough info, isn't going to cut the cake either.

later



I know no ammo is going to be 100% in any caliber. esp handgun, but those actual statistics can not be ignored.
It is quite possible they might be 97-98% one shot stoppers.

Those underwood 9mm +p+ 124's at over 1300 fps should raise the bar on the 9mm. some people are getting 1350 fps out of glock 17's and it very close to the magical 1400-1450 fps of the legendary 125 357 magnum

scottyd2506
12-16-2012, 03:10
:whistling::faint:
WHOLE magazine of 9mm dumped into the bad guy and they keep coming

There is nothing wrong with the 9mm

the 9mm is a good round, but there are better calibers.
the 9 owners who think once you hit 9mm power it doesn't get any better. 1150-1300 fps with a 124 is good, but not near as proven as 1350-1500 fps with the 125.

4949shooter
12-16-2012, 03:48
True, Even Marshal lists the 357 magnum and 45 acp as the tops rounds. both have 2 different bullets that have one shot stops of 96%
Yet Marshal list the 9mm best load at 91% and then puts the Federal 125 357 sig as the best 357 sig load at 92%. a mediocore load.

Yet Why doesn't Marshal list any of the loads the police have been having success with, the Speer gold dots?

Does not the Texas DPS police have like a 100% success rate with this load, and Delaware has 99%..

Yet Marshal completely ignores this data. I have heard "well it's a new caliber and data will take awhile to gather, yet the Texas DPS police has been using this bullet load for almost "20 years".. -1994-
is this caliber and load so good that he is biased against the 357 sig, compared to what he carries and spent his $$ on already.

take care

Evan isn't biased against the .357. As a matter of fact, he carries the .357 presently. See stoppingpower.net.

He isn't collecting data anymore.

RichardB
12-16-2012, 06:38
Marshall's last book was a while back, so the number of 357 SIG cases available for study were probably more limited when he submitted his book for publication.

Coffee Dog
12-16-2012, 08:32
Shot placement is key, but how often does one get practice with a handgun and a target running at you bobbing up and down either shooting at you, or has a big knife.

This is all good at the range, but real life drama does not always have a man sitting perfectly still who wants you dead.

even the most perfect shot to the heart and the attacker may live for another 10 seconds to a minute even.
enough to pop 6 x 38's into your chest.

You can either take your time and get good shot placement or shoot fast and get a hit period.

We all can not get the perfect brain or spine shot to stop an attacker. non perfect shot require good expanding bullets than can penetrate and has high velocity.

The idea is not to get a heart shot and kill the person, it is to STOP them. the So called Lightning bolt effect of the 357 was the hydrostatic shock of breaking the sound barrier through a persons body or vital organs with a expanding bullet.

If they "calibers" are all the same and it is shot placement, then why did the Texas State Police complain the 9mm was not good enough after replacing the 6 shot 357 revolvers? how come even after they went with the 45 acp that was a slight improvement over the 9mm that they still did not have the effects on bad guys as the 357 magnum?

the load with a 125 at 1450 fps through a 4 inch bbl

it just could be that a expanding bullet traveling 1450 fps (a lot of cops had 6 inch 357's so 1500+ fps) with a 125 was enough to have the bullet go through/into the body of a BG at OVER the speed of sound.. sending a shockwave through body. and drop him quick.

a combination of a good expanding bullet and a sectional density of at least 1.40 and 1400+ fps (125 357 mag)was good enough to penetrate a BG go through the fat layers and muscle layer and still be super sonic into the organs.

the 9mm, 40 S&W and 45 ACP can NOT the cake here



the ultra hot loaded 9mm.+P+ loads of a 115 at 1400 fps and a 124 at 1300 fps would seem like they would be close, the 10 grains less bullet weight slows down much faster through flesh, and thus by the time it reaches the organs it is subsonic, same for the 124 at 1300 no sonic crack or hydrostatic shock as with 100 fps less muz vel the bullets are just shy of super sonic as they enter the vitals.

This all of course depends on the size of the attacker.


The 40 S&W with the 155 has a sectional density of 1.40 but the hottest 40 load is 1300 fps wit the 155.

the .45 acp is worse for the hydrostatic shock, although it has massive caliber and even more massive with good expanding bullets that does the job well.

What we do know is in real life the 357 magnum worked VERY well compared to the other calibers.
The 125 357 load had a bullet Sectional density of 1.40 at 1450 fps and it worked Great.

There is not a 1.40 sectional density bullet load combo on the face of the planet that can get over 1400 fps from a 45 acp, 40 S&W or the hottest 9mm +p+. and 1300 fps is tops with a hot hot load.

(unless we are talking unpractical to carry long long barrels of 5.5 and 6 inch in autoloaders)


Yet the 357 Sig can launch a 125 bullet with a Sectional density bullet of 1.41 at 1500 fps from a 4 inch bbl with a Factory load. The 357 mag can get way more that 1450 fps from a 125, but that is what worked, why change it?

the 10mm can also launch 1.40 SD (155;s) bullets at 1400-1500 fps.with good expanding bullets..


I would not call the 357 sig worlds better than the 9 +p+, 40 SW and 45 acp just has a slight edge in stopping an attacker from getting to you. or if you hit him 1st to stop him from firing on you with his gun. The lightning bolt effect from what real police claim in teas is more than a myth.


My friend the hottest load for 40 caliber is Underwood
135gr.jph ammo. Here are the stats-


Technical Information
• Caliber: 40 S&W
• Bullet Weight: 135 Grains
• Bullet Style: Nosler Jacketed Hollow Point
• Case Type: Brass

Ballistics Information:

• Muzzle Velocity: 1500 fps
•Muzzle Energy: 675 ft. lbs

The owner of Underwood Ammo -Kevin stated to me that
the above specs. were shot from a 4 inch barrel handgun.
Any questions you may have call Underwood at-
304-744-2109.:snoopy:



P.S. Its possible that this ammo traveling at 1500fps would hit the target extremely hard would also having a shock effect.
South Bend, Indianna have used Corbons 135 gr jhp @ 1325fps with
dramatic effects. Now lets pump up that muzzle velocity
by an extra 200fps and you got one haymaker of a punch.

RichardB
12-16-2012, 11:22
...........

P.S. Its possible that this ammo traveling at 1500fps would hit the target extremely hard would also having a shock effect.
South Bend, Indianna have used Corbons 135 gr jhp @ 1325fps with dramatic effects. Now lets pump up that muzzle velocity
by an extra 200fps and you got one haymaker of a punch.

That is, only if the engineers who designed and tested that bullet planned for it to perform properly at 200 FPS extra.

Does the Underwood ammo meet the "FBI" test criteria without raising problems in real world shootability in difficult circumstances or affecting the reliability of the current handguns?

SCmasterblaster
12-16-2012, 11:58
I trust CorBon ammunition completely.

scottyd2506
12-16-2012, 17:58
My friend the hottest load for 40 caliber is Underwood
135gr.jph ammo. Here are the stats-


Technical Information
• Caliber: 40 S&W
• Bullet Weight: 135 Grains
• Bullet Style: Nosler Jacketed Hollow Point
• Case Type: Brass

Ballistics Information:

• Muzzle Velocity: 1500 fps
•Muzzle Energy: 675 ft. lbs

The owner of Underwood Ammo -Kevin stated to me that
the above specs. were shot from a 4 inch barrel handgun.
Any questions you may have call Underwood at-
304-744-2109.:snoopy:



P.S. Its possible that this ammo traveling at 1500fps would hit the target extremely hard would also having a shock effect.
South Bend, Indianna have used Corbons 135 gr jhp @ 1325fps with
dramatic effects. Now lets pump up that muzzle velocity
by an extra 200fps and you got one haymaker of a punch.


maybe so but that 135 in a 40 cal is has a sectional density of like 1.21. it is going to slow down like a parachute, once it hits the fat layers and muscle the bullet will likely be sub sonic through the vital organs. esp a larger built BG.

going super sonic through the vital organs like the 357 does seems to be key in the police saying of "lightning bolt effect" I'm sure it would kill as good or better ,but we want the extra shock to STOP the attacker

The 357 sig can launch a bullet with a sectional density of 1.41 at 1500 fps from a 4 inch bbl. with that kind of sectional density the bullet does not slow down much as it penetrates probably going 1200 fps through vital organs.

The 9mm 45 and 40 can NOT do this. I'm sure a skinny bad guy it might, but some of those 260-350 lb attackers have extra layers to go through and the Sig seems to be able to break the sound barrier inside of the BG vitals.

SDGlock23
12-16-2012, 18:38
maybe so but that 135 in a 40 cal is has a sectional density of like 1.21. it is going to slow down like a parachute, once it hits the fat layers and muscle the bullet will likely be sub sonic through the vital organs. esp a larger built BG.

going super sonic through the vital organs like the 357 does seems to be key in the police saying of "lightning bolt effect" I'm sure it would kill as good or better ,but we want the extra shock to STOP the attacker

The 357 sig can launch a bullet with a sectional density of 1.41 at 1500 fps from a 4 inch bbl. with that kind of sectional density the bullet does not slow down much as it penetrates probably going 1200 fps through vital organs.

The 9mm 45 and 40 can NOT do this. I'm sure a skinny bad guy it might, but some of those 260-350 lb attackers have extra layers to go through and the Sig seems to be able to break the sound barrier inside of the BG vitals.

I wouldn't get too hyped up on thinking that a sectional density of roughly .140 and 1400 fps (now you bump it up to 1500 fps) is necessary shock and stop someone nor a bullet having to remain above the sound barrier while inside the person. By nature, such stats would always benefit the smaller calibers because the bullets can be lighter while retaining a certain sectional density.

A .40 cal 135gr @ 1500 fps vs. a .355 125gr @ 1500...who really cares, both will be more than lethal. The Sig is going to be a little better breaking through hard objects and will penetrate a little deeper, but of those two, the 135gr is likely to open more violently, doing more damage. Sectional density is a factor, but it's not the only factor in performance.

English
12-17-2012, 05:38
maybe so but that 135 in a 40 cal is has a sectional density of like 1.21. it is going to slow down like a parachute, once it hits the fat layers and muscle the bullet will likely be sub sonic through the vital organs. esp a larger built BG.

going super sonic through the vital organs like the 357 does seems to be key in the police saying of "lightning bolt effect" I'm sure it would kill as good or better ,but we want the extra shock to STOP the attacker

The 357 sig can launch a bullet with a sectional density of 1.41 at 1500 fps from a 4 inch bbl. with that kind of sectional density the bullet does not slow down much as it penetrates probably going 1200 fps through vital organs.

The 9mm 45 and 40 can NOT do this. I'm sure a skinny bad guy it might, but some of those 260-350 lb attackers have extra layers to go through and the Sig seems to be able to break the sound barrier inside of the BG vitals.

I don't deny the existence of what you call a lghtning bolt effect, but, whatever causes it, it is not a supersnic phenomenon. The speed of sound varies with the density of the medium and, although the density of the body varies, its speed of sound is generally well above the speed of the fastest conventional rife bullets.

What is most probably causing the effect is a blood pumping phenomenon to which the so called vital organs are not significant, but which depends on the speed with which the bullet releases its kinetic energy. Thus the 135gn .40 cal is an excellent candidate, but, as you say, it might not work on someone with a thick enough layer of fat.

English

scottyd2506
12-17-2012, 14:53
I don't deny the existence of what you call a lghtning bolt effect, but, whatever causes it, it is not a supersnic phenomenon. The speed of sound varies with the density of the medium and, although the density of the body varies, its speed of sound is generally well above the speed of the fastest conventional rife bullets.

What is most probably causing the effect is a blood pumping phenomenon to which the so called vital organs are not significant, but which depends on the speed with which the bullet releases its kinetic energy. Thus the 135gn .40 cal is an excellent candidate, but, as you say, it might not work on someone with a thick enough layer of fat.

English


I tend to agree with you. the 135 40 does seem like a good round at 1500 fps. the 40 is no slouch for sure.

I think the factor is people are getting bigger, a lot of criminals who do not work for a living burn little fat, or they just sit around and deal drugs and burn lass calories.

the 40 SW and 135 at 1500 would be great. it is already 40 caliber going into the BG and same speed at the 357 load. and also expanding.

but that bullet would slow down faster than the 125 grain 357 bullet at the same speed in the body. on a larger guy it might shred most of it's energy in the fat layers.


What the 357 sig and magnum 125 at 1400-1500 does could be a mystery. But it has been proven to work. so much so that after all these years they are trying to copy it.

it is a mystery why the 9mm +p+with a 115 at 1400 has failed and police look to find something better, yet those same police was amazed at the performance of the 357 magnum 125 at 1450 fps from 4 inch and 1550 from 6 inch bbl service revolvers.

The shorter 4 in bbl 357 mag with a 125 at 1450 is only 10 grains more than a 9mm +p+ 115 at 1400 fps, yet agencies like the LAPD had failures with the 115 load and adopted the 147 loads in 9mm

the 9mm +p+124 at 1250 fps are not doing much better.

the is no magic in 1400-1500 fps no magic in using a 124-125 grain bullet, I think it is a combo of both.

the 35 cal 125 seem to go in fast, then expand in the vitals where the caliber needs to be big. Dumping most the the expansion in the fat layers with a light for caliber bullet my not stop a larger bad guy.

I think the 40 with a 135 at 1500 would work if they make the bullet expansion more controlled vs the 35 caliber.
with the right bullet may be a improvement over the 45 acp
and better than the 357 sig.
I plan to get a 40 bbl for my glock 32 anyways.

cowboy1964
12-17-2012, 15:05
12" penetration. Not interested in anything less.

SCmasterblaster
12-18-2012, 09:09
12" penetration. Not interested in anything less.

You got that right. I want my 9mm bullet to penetrate all the way to the spinal cord,

icelandicstud
12-21-2012, 09:51
Glock 32 357 sig Ammo Test - Accuracy, Velocity, Recoil - YouTube

pisc1024
12-21-2012, 21:43
What do you call it then? Why is it the the Texas and many other state police have like a 99_100% success rate with the 357 sig, the gun has been used since 1994, almost 20 years.. I'm sure it has racked up more than 50-100 shootings. yet agencies one after the other have issues with the 9mm to stop the BG.. WHOLE magazine of 9mm dumped into the bad guy and they keep coming yet almost 20 years of service with the 357 sig and hardly any failures at all.


Please post any links or data to back up your assertion of a 99-100% success rate. What do you classify success as? If you fail to do so I will consider this nothing more than personal opinion/ BS, as anyone reading this should.


That is the same ol excuse Every 9mm fan boy has. There is nothing wrong with the 9mm but face the facts it does not have equal stopping power as the stop handgun rounds.
it is much better than 38 special and holds a lot of rounds


Once again, show me some links, or proof that this is the case. There are TONS of LE Agencies that carry or are going to the 9mm none with any gripes or complains.

clarkz71
12-23-2012, 07:24
That Underwood is unbelivable, I'd like to see ballistic geletin testing for penetration & wound channel.

raven28690
12-23-2012, 11:47
.357 SIG Underwood 125 gr Gold Dot Ammo Test (SIM-TEST) - YouTube
CLEARBALLISTICS Gel: .357 SIG Gold Dot Test (Underwood Ammo) - YouTube

Underwood is what I use in my 10mm and I have nothing but good things to say about it.

Frank V
12-23-2012, 13:31
The .357 Sig is looking interesting. The videos shown are interesting too! Wish there was a gellatin block out there a fellow could afford that was reusable at the range. It'd be fun to run some tests yourself. For now I'm restricted to water jugs. Maybe not realistic, but it's repeatable & comparable with different ammo.

One of the really nice things about a Glock is you can get say a .40 & through aftermarked bbls, have a .40, .357 Sig., & a 9mm!:snoopy:
Frank

SCmasterblaster
12-23-2012, 18:24
That Underwood is unbelivable, I'd like to see ballistic geletin testing for penetration & wound channel.

Has a hard-hitting velocity. +p+ in 115gr 9mm.

rustytxrx
12-23-2012, 21:44
Read the thread from top to bottom. I am undecided.

Is the number of peopled killed by a caliber the gold standard of a cartridge? It seems the details the shootings would have to be analyzed by experts to tell. For example Nidal Hasan shot 42 people and killed 13 of those. Does that tell you anything of the effectiveness of the cartridge. He shot 214 rounds. That does not seem to add any information we can use. The engament lasted 10 minutes. He was shooting a pistol (5.7 x28) that has 20 round magazines. Now that might tell us a bit to analyze situation.

I am of the opinion that the pistol and the shooter mean more than the caliber.

Rusty

rustytxrx
12-23-2012, 21:51
BTW, I don't know the actual criteria or use of a LEO duty weapon. I am not sure the actual goal is to kill the bad guy. If that were the goal they would be carring a SAW.

Rusty

pisc1024
12-23-2012, 22:22
BTW, I don't know the actual criteria or use of a LEO duty weapon. I am not sure the actual goal is to kill the bad guy. If that were the goal they would be carring a SAW.

Rusty

SAWs are heavy :ack:

Nanuk
12-23-2012, 23:35
Does the Underwood ammo meet the "FBI" test criteria without raising problems in real world shootability in difficult circumstances or affecting the reliability of the current handguns?


Who cares? The "FBI" criteria was basically made up to fit the test. Don't believe me, I know how the gov works. Besides, the 125 grain 357 magnums fails the FBI protocol.

pisc1024
12-23-2012, 23:42
Who cares? The "FBI" criteria was basically made up to fit the test. Don't believe me, I know how the gov works.

Say what you will about the FBI criteria, but it has and is used by many law enforcement agencies to choose their ammo. This testing has shown to be a reliable predictor of how ammo will work in real world scenarios. I think this is one of the few times the .gov has gotten it right. It took a fairly epic fail from the FBI to wake them up sadly. If I'm not mistaken your new duty ammo dose quite well in the FBI tests, not too sure if that is why your agency chose it. Could you shed any light on it?

English
12-24-2012, 03:52
Say what you will about the FBI criteria, but it has and is used by many law enforcement agencies to choose their ammo. This testing has shown to be a reliable predictor of how ammo will work in real world scenarios. I think this is one of the few times the .gov has gotten it right. It took a fairly epic fail from the FBI to wake them up sadly. If I'm not mistaken your new duty ammo dose quite well in the FBI tests, not too sure if that is why your agency chose it. Could you shed any light on it?

This is a classic error. "If lots of people use it, it must be OK." It woud be true if there was a fairly simple objective measure. As it is, it s very hard to get sound comparitive evidence for the effectiveness of different handgun rounds. In that cirumstance people tend to fall back on whatever will convince them, such as superior authority, or irelevant criteria, such as, "The government changed to .45ACP when the .38 did not stop the Moros and it has been working well ever since."

The FBI did have a fairly epic fail that made them want an objective measure. Unfortunately they did not understand what objective science implied in this case and they used authority again instead. They were probably the only agency in the country with the clout to get funding for a proper objective test but they didn't do it. At the least, that would have involved shooting lots of human sized animals under controlled conditions with at least some of them behind windscreens or car bodywork and correlating those findings with the same shots made on ballistic gelatine.

Instead of doing an objective study of what incapacitated animals quickly they jumped to insufficiently founded conclusions and reached a decision on a fallacious basis. The fact that they jumped from a hot part of the fire into a less hot part of the fire was a random product. More important is that the egos involved with the decision have made it hard to re-examine the study itself and do something better.

English

pisc1024
12-24-2012, 09:59
This is a classic error. "If lots of people use it, it must be OK." It woud be true if there was a fairly simple objective measure. As it is, it s very hard to get sound comparitive evidence for the effectiveness of different handgun rounds. In that cirumstance people tend to fall back on whatever will convince them, such as superior authority, or irelevant criteria, such as, "The government changed to .45ACP when the .38 did not stop the Moros and it has been working well ever since."

Wow, well, where to begin? Of course saying "lots of people use it" is a dumb idea, no argument there. However dose "lots of people use it, and it has been PROVEN successful in real world shootings where lives were on the line" work better for you? I say that because that is what is really happening. I think that you personally don't like the FBI testing because it doesn’t take into account BPW, which I think has been proven to be a non player in handguns. So you suffer from the "testing doesn’t jive with my world view so I'm not going to take it into account, and I'm also going to rip on it every chance I get" side of things. See how that works?

The FBI did have a fairly epic fail that made them want an objective measure. Unfortunately they did not understand what objective science implied in this case and they used authority again instead. They were probably the only agency in the country with the clout to get funding for a proper objective test but they didn't do it. At the least, that would have involved shooting lots of human sized animals under controlled conditions with at least some of them behind windscreens or car bodywork and correlating those findings with the same shots made on ballistic gelatine.

I think we have been over this before, but humans and what they do, how they react after being shot are not animals. Animal testing may have its place, but to take a live pig, sit him behind the wheel of a car and shoot at him is just dumb.
Also, larger agencies these days can and do perform their own ballistic testing. They determine what they are most concerned with, and that is what they test for. Most of them are some sort of abbreviated version of the FBI
protocols.

Instead of doing an objective study of what incapacitated animals quickly they jumped to insufficiently founded conclusions and reached a decision on a fallacious basis. The fact that they jumped from a hot part of the fire into a less hot part of the fire was a random product. More important is that the egos involved with the decision have made it hard to re-examine the study itself and do something better.

English

I think that after you have a tragedy like the Miami shootout most people put their ego's in check for a little while. I have seen it happen several times in my life. To say that ego had any reflection on this testing protocol is just despicable personal supposition on your part. You say that they came to a fallacious conclusion? Well then why have they not had some sort of terminal ballistics related disaster ala Miami in the 20+ years since? The FBI and hundreds if not thousands of LEAs seem to be doing just fine with the protocols being proven every day out on the streets of America.

English
12-24-2012, 12:06
Wow, well, where to begin? Of course saying "lots of people use it" is a dumb idea, no argument there. However dose "lots of people use it, and it has been PROVEN successful in real world shootings where lives were on the line" work better for you? I say that because that is what is really happening. I think that you personally don't like the FBI testing because it doesn’t take into account BPW, which I think has been proven to be a non player in handguns. So you suffer from the "testing doesn’t jive with my world view so I'm not going to take it into account, and I'm also going to rip on it every chance I get" side of things. See how that works?

Where indeed! We can start with the idea of "proven". What do you think it means? What it does not mean is that lots of people shot with 9mms have died as a result. Lots of people would die whatever they were shot with. What matters is the time it takes before you can stop shooting them and such evidence as I have seen, none of which is much more than anecdotal with the exception of the BPW work, is that it takes more shots with a 9mm than with a .40S&W or 357SIG to stop someone shooting back. That is practical street results and not some hypothesizing about how quickly and accurately a 9mm can be shot relative to other cartridges.

I disliked the FBI protocol long before BPW effects had been heard of so that little idea doesn't fly. See how that works? I have a strong tendency to attack any kind of nonsense and that is nothing to do with my "world view" beyond the general principle that nonsense should not be left around to replicate itself via lazy minds. Fackler's dogmatic ideas have clearly been nonsense from the begining. It shows a great deal for the dominance of his personality that they have become so firmly entrenched in so many minds and organisations.

If there is one thing that has been firmly established it is that BPW effects are a significant factor within hangun cartridges. They range from zero through a little to quite a lot. What they don't do is provide a guarantee of a one shot stop, but no one in support of the idea EVER suggested that they did so.

I think we have been over this before, but humans and what they do, how they react after being shot are not animals. Animal testing may have its place, but to take a live pig, sit him behind the wheel of a car and shoot at him is just dumb.
Also, larger agencies these days can and do perform their own ballistic testing. They determine what they are most concerned with, and that is what they test for. Most of them are some sort of abbreviated version of the FBI
protocols.

You know as well as I do that we have been over this before. To some kinds of injuries under some circumstances, animals and humans will react differently. To injuries which produce measurable brain dysfunction they are much the same. How determined you are to fight on in insignificant if you are unconcious beause determination and anger are functions of consciousness. That is as true for animals as it is for men under all circumstances. You, as a fighting man, might take comfort from your fighting spirit, but if you are unconscious it is having no effect.

The primary measure of handgun cartridge effectiveness is how quickly that state incapacity to keep functioning at a lethal level, even if not actual unconsciousness, can be achieved. The secondary measure is how much each hit reduces the chance of your opponent firing back at you before you can fire again.

Testing loads on gelatine is useful only if you can correlate the damage done to the gelatine with the probability of those two measures. That work has never been done. The Courtney's BPW work did not attempt to do it and no one else has attempted to do it. Testing on animals can never be a perfect model for results on people but it is the best that we can do. What you are claiming is that because it isn't perfect we should settle for some half baked idea of what works and what doesn't.

Shooting a pig or a goat is not dumb if the animal is wired up so that the experimenter can see what hapens to its brain waves and signals passing up and down the CNS to and from the muscles. If you want to know how that changes if an identical bullet has first passed through a windscreen or car bodywork you do that as well because other wise you are just guessing. You know what a guess is don't you? It is jumping to a conclusion without sound logic or evidence!


I think that after you have a tragedy like the Miami shootout most people put their ego's in check for a little while. I have seen it happen several times in my life. To say that ego had any reflection on this testing protocol is just despicable personal supposition on your part. You say that they came to a fallacious conclusion? Well then why have they not had some sort of terminal ballistics related disaster ala Miami in the 20+ years since? The FBI and hundreds if not thousands of LEAs seem to be doing just fine with the protocols being proven every day out on the streets of America.

You are confusing a number of things in the apparent belief that they are one. There were several obvious conclusions from the Miami shootout which had little to do with ego. The first was that agents and LEOs should anticipate being in a crash when chasing determined and competent criminals. The follow ons from that are that it is very dangerous to have your only sidearm on the seat under your thigh and that if you depend on glasses to defend yourself and to continue the mission they must be atttacked to you or you must have a spare pair immediately available after a crash. The second is that snub nosed .38Sps are rubbish if you are in a running gun fight with car bodies in the way. They don't have enough power or penetration.

The tactical and equipment lessons learned from this were obvious and if the FBI had just applied those lessons and changed to high capacity 9mms without doing anything else, that alone would have prevented a similar future catastrophe. Undoubtedly there were some who had been claiming that a .38 snubbie was all a proper agent needed, and their egos would have been hurt, but I suspect there were no where near as many of those as now claim the 9mm is all anyone needs. The thing was that there was no major figure whose reputation and carreer was tied to that idea and so minds could change.

The FBI then went further, and that was a good thing because once they had found the .38 to be wanting they should want to know how much better something else would be, if at all. Perhaps all handgun rounds did suck equally after all.

The problem then was that a proper study had to be set up with people of importance and reputation working on it. Now you had real ego problems, but this was virtually inevitable no matter who was involved. This study had to come up with definitive answers in a field which was difficult and full of clap trap. Those answers, right or wrong, would hang round the necks of the principle people for the rest of their careers. They would also hang round the necks of those people who accepted the results of the study and so a lot of important and powerful figures would be invested in maintaining that they were right regardless of future evidence.

One of the first errors of the study set up was its dismissal of anecdotal evidence and its acceptance of the principle that an assailant could only be forced to stop fighting from a direct hit to the CNS or by sufficient loss of blood pressure and flow to the CNS and skeletal muscles. They denied anecdotal evidence but failed to replace it with scientific evidence of effect rather than principle.

Unfortunately these early decisions were incompatible because there was lots of sound anecdotal evidence that many criminals shot collapsed imediately even though they had not been hit in the CNS. Rather than investigate this evidence the study members and associates rubbished it in a scurrilous manner. The LEOs concerned were jumping on a band wagon to gain attention, their time sense was distorted, they were lying, people were falling over when shot because they knew from movies that was what they were supposed to do, and so on. This was the egos of powerful people at work and it was quite shameful. People tasked with making agents safer were more concerned with safe guarding heir reputations than correcting their own mistakes.

You, Pisces, think that, "The FBI and hundreds if not thousands of LEAs seem to be doing just fine with the protocols being proven every day out on the streets of America." but you don't understand the meaning of proof. We don't know how "fine" the are doing because we are stil not doing the work to find out and because many are still sticking to the idea you share with them and denying such evidence as there is. In the mean time it is very possible that many of those FBI agents and LEOs that have died in gunfights would not have been dead if they had been better armed.

English

Coffee Dog
12-24-2012, 13:10
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSgoT5OrIbw5acoXZHhNP_rYIedoMUwIcJsVHdVEMgncfDtUpfU6w&t=1

clarkz71
12-24-2012, 13:56
You, Pisces, think that, "The FBI and hundreds if not thousands of LEAs seem to be doing just fine with the protocols being proven every day out on the streets of America." but you don't understand the meaning of proof. We don't know how "fine" the are doing because we are stil not doing the work to find out and because many are still sticking to the idea you share with them and denying such evidence as there is. In the mean time it is very possible that many of those FBI agents and LEOs that have died in gunfights would not have been dead if they had been better armed.

English

Excellent post English.

pisc1024
12-24-2012, 14:31
Where indeed! We can start with the idea of "proven". What do you think it means? What it does not mean is that lots of people shot with 9mms have died as a result. Lots of people would die whatever they were shot with. What matters is the time it takes before you can stop shooting them and such evidence as I have seen, none of which is much more than anecdotal with the exception of the BPW work, is that it takes more shots with a 9mm than with a .40S&W or 357SIG to stop someone shooting back. That is practical street results and not some hypothesizing about how quickly and accurately a 9mm can be shot relative to other cartridges.

You and I agree on the idea of proven, I guess we just look at it two different ways. I'm not getting into a caliber war with you, and will not say anything about whether 9 is better or worse. I am merely going to say that your argument comparing the FBI testing criteria to anecdotal evidence is complete BS. That is what the FBI testing dose so well; it takes the anecdote out of the evidence. It is an established set of criteria that can be repeated in a lab and to get a base line of how a particular load will work in specific situations on the street. This has been proven by studies from people like Eugene Wolburg (sorry if I misspelled his name) and others. The fact is that the way a bullet performs in the FBI testing protocols in the lab, correlates almost 100% of the time to how it will perform in a street scenario. It is obvious to me that you don't like that fact because it clashes with your world view specifically when it pertains to pistol wounding.

I disliked the FBI protocol long before BPW effects had been heard of so that little idea doesn't fly. See how that works? I have a strong tendency to attack any kind of nonsense and that is nothing to do with my "world view" beyond the general principle that nonsense should not be left around to replicate itself via lazy minds. Fackler's dogmatic ideas have clearly been nonsense from the begining. It shows a great deal for the dominance of his personality that they have become so firmly entrenched in so many minds and organisations.

So your distain for the FBI and other government agencies has been around for a long time. So what? It is obvious to me that you went shopping for an idea that fit into your beliefs political or otherwise. In doing so you have hitched your wagon to the BPW craze which has been around in some shape or form for a very long time. Need I remind you that the FBI was once a fan boy of light and fast, and they paid a heavy price for that? I personally don't care the politics involved with things like bullets; I just know what works, and what doesn’t. Whether you want to admit it or not, LE has almost completely gone to the Fackler/ FBI standard. There are a few hold outs that do so because of political pressure (EFMJ's come to mind).


If there is one thing that has been firmly established it is that BPW effects are a significant factor within hangun cartridges. They range from zero through a little to quite a lot. What they don't do is provide a guarantee of a one shot stop, but no one in support of the idea EVER suggested that they did so.

I beg to differ with you on this little gem. BPW has pretty much been completely debunked in ref to handgun stopping power. Once again I'll ask the question that I know you cannot answer: If BPW is so widely accepted and so firmly established then who in the LE/ .mil world believes it?
You or anyone else on this forum has yet to 1. Answer that question. 2. Show any proof that BPW exists in handguns. Keep trying though.:supergrin:


You know as well as I do that we have been over this before. To some kinds of injuries under some circumstances, animals and humans will react differently. To injuries which produce measurable brain dysfunction they are much the same. How determined you are to fight on in insignificant if you are unconcious beause determination and anger are functions of consciousness. That is as true for animals as it is for men under all circumstances. You, as a fighting man, might take comfort from your fighting spirit, but if you are unconscious it is having no effect.


I agree with you 100% on this. If your brain is damaged significantly, you’re out of the fight. No argument there. Once again, you can't or won't produce evidence that this occurs with handguns in anything but a direct hit to the brain. Put differently: it is simply impossible at handgun velocities to have distant wounding effects.



Testing loads on gelatine is useful only if you can correlate the damage done to the gelatine with the probability of those two measures. That work has never been done. The Courtney's BPW work did not attempt to do it and no one else has attempted to do it. Testing on animals can never be a perfect model for results on people but it is the best that we can do. What you are claiming is that because it isn't perfect we should settle for some half baked idea of what works and what doesn't.

You are simply wrong in respects to gel. The fact is that gel is not designed to show you the temporary wound cavity as so many people think. Gel is simply there to provide an effective stand in for a human torso. Bullets fired into gel react almost exactly as they do when fired into a human torso with respects to penetration depth and recovered diameter. That's it.
As for animals, I never said that animal testing didn't have a place. But it is not a good substitute for the FBI testing, which once again, is not half baked, and has been proven effective hundreds of not thousands of times on the street.







The tactical and equipment lessons learned from this were obvious and if the FBI had just applied those lessons and changed to high capacity 9mms without doing anything else, that alone would have prevented a similar future catastrophe. Undoubtedly there were some who had been claiming that a .38 snubbie was all a proper agent needed, and their egos would have been hurt, but I suspect there were no where near as many of those as now claim the 9mm is all anyone needs. The thing was that there was no major figure whose reputation and carreer was tied to that idea and so minds could change.


The underlined portion is simply preposterous. If I'm not mistaken there was 3 FBI agents on scene with high cap 9mms Grogan, Dove, and Risner. They were armed with the S&W 459 a 15 shot 9. The fact is the bullets fired from these guns fared no better than the bullets fired from the .38 spc. The only difference if you issued all the FBI high cap 9's would be more ineffective rounds flying around in a shootout. You can go to http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm
If you care to read more about it….



You, Pisces, think that, "The FBI and hundreds if not thousands of LEAs seem to be doing just fine with the protocols being proven every day out on the streets of America." but you don't understand the meaning of proof. We don't know how "fine" the are doing because we are stil not doing the work to find out and because many are still sticking to the idea you share with them and denying such evidence as there is. In the mean time it is very possible that many of those FBI agents and LEOs that have died in gunfights would not have been dead if they had been better armed.

English

I have yet to see a situation of a LEO who was killed or wounded where anything but a rifle would have fared better than what he or she had on their hip. Face it there is no magic bullet when it comes to handguns. Sure there are people who are shot in the arm and drop like a ton of bricks. But there are also people who are shot in the heart who run or continue to fight for seemingly inhuman periods of time. I know I have seen it happen, and trust me it scares the **** out of you when you do! The fact is all these are anecdotal; the one x factor that cannot be recreated in the lab is the human, the person who was shot. What was their mind set? What drugs were the on? How did that affect THEM? You see it all the time at your neighborhood pub I'm sure. There is always one dude who gets drunk and wants to fight everything that moves. Then there are those people who get drunk and just laugh their asses of at anything. You just can't repeat that or predict that in a lab. For that reason it can't be tested. I think it falls under the hope for the best, but plan for the worst type thing.

Frank V
12-24-2012, 14:52
BTW, I don't know the actual criteria or use of a LEO duty weapon. I am not sure the actual goal is to kill the bad guy. If that were the goal they would be carring a SAW.

Rusty

Having been in a Sheriff's Dept. for a lot of years I can answer this! The goal is NOT to kill the bad guy! The goal is to stop the threat/fight ASAP, if the bad guy succumbs to wounds inflicted while he was commiting the crime is only incidental. Stoping the fight or threat is the goal!

uz2bUSMC
12-24-2012, 15:12
I beg to differ with you on this little gem. BPW has pretty much been completely debunked in ref to handgun stopping power. Once again I'll ask the question that I know you cannot answer: If BPW is so widely accepted and so firmly established then who in the LE/ .mil world believes it?
You or anyone else on this forum has yet to 1. Answer that question. 2. Show any proof that BPW exists in handguns. Keep trying though.:supergrin:.

Can you give a reference to where it has been debunked?

A question that no one on any forum (Facklerites) has answered is what causes a person to drop on the spot without a CNS hit? This has happened with handguns, what is the mechanism that makes this occur?

rustytxrx
12-24-2012, 15:14
Pisc1024, this officer would surely have done better with rifle.

Base civilian police Sergeant Kimberly Munley, who had rushed to the scene in her patrol car, encountered Hasan in the area outside the Soldier Readiness Processing Center.[32] Hasan fired at Munley, who exchanged shots with him using her 9mm M9 pistol. Munley's hand was hit by shrapnel when one of Hasan's bullets struck a nearby rain gutter, and then two bullets struck Munley: the first bullet hit her thigh, and the second hit her knee.[19][29] As she began to fall from the first bullet, the second bullet struck her femur, shattering it and knocking her to the ground.[19][29] Hasan then walked up to Munley and kicked her pistol out of reach.[33]

pisc1024
12-24-2012, 15:19
Can you give a reference to where it has been debunked?

A question that no one on any forum (Facklerites) has answered is what causes a person to drop on the spot without a CNS hit? This has happened with handguns, what is the mechanism that makes this occur?

Can you prove what causes this? Is it BPW? I have yet to see anything from the Cournteys that has shown this to be scientific fact. At best it's only a theory. Show me some proof and I'll be more than happy to look at it.

pisc1024
12-24-2012, 15:21
Pisc1024, this officer would surely have done better with rifle.

Base civilian police Sergeant Kimberly Munley, who had rushed to the scene in her patrol car, encountered Hasan in the area outside the Soldier Readiness Processing Center.[32] Hasan fired at Munley, who exchanged shots with him using her 9mm M9 pistol. Munley's hand was hit by shrapnel when one of Hasan's bullets struck a nearby rain gutter, and then two bullets struck Munley: the first bullet hit her thigh, and the second hit her knee.[19][29] As she began to fall from the first bullet, the second bullet struck her femur, shattering it and knocking her to the ground.[19][29] Hasan then walked up to Munley and kicked her pistol out of reach.[33]

I agree 100%.

uz2bUSMC
12-24-2012, 16:12
Can you prove what causes this? Is it BPW? I have yet to see anything from the Cournteys that has shown this to be scientific fact. At best it's only a theory. Show me some proof and I'll be more than happy to look at it.

So you admit that the phenomenon exists then, yes?

rustytxrx
12-24-2012, 16:31
Five shots from 9mm, one to spine....


As the shooting continued outside, nurses and medics entered the building, secured the doors with a belt and rushed to help the wounded.[34] According to the responding nurses, there was so much blood covering the floor inside the building, that they were unable to maintain balance, and had difficulty reaching the wounded to help them.[35] In the area outside the building, Hasan continued to shoot at fleeing soldiers, and civilian police Sergeant Mark Todd arrived and shouted commands at Hasan to surrender.[29] Todd said: "Then he turned and fired a couple of rounds at me. I didn't hear him say a word, he just turned and fired."[36] The two exchanged shots, and Hasan was felled by five shots from Todd,[3][37] who then kicked his pistol out of his hand and placed him in handcuffs as he fell unconscious.[38]

rustytxrx
12-24-2012, 18:03
FrrankV, thanks. I am not of LEO or military backgound. I shoot practical pistol matchs for all the wrong reasons (it is fun and like video game but I really get to shoot bullets....9mm rabbitpoot loads - gamer)

I don't really have a dog in the fight save the fact that I am a retail pharmacist. been robbed three times. when I call local police I want them to come with evrything they need, know how to use it, and have the best quality of it possible. I am so sorry they are under paid. It makes no sense to me.

I shoot with LEOs, SWATS, Military and private security types. Maybe that old saw about "policeman can't shoot" is true but these guys can pin your ears back unless you are on your A game. Infact the Championship was won by a LEO, Vogle.

LEOs go into the worst part of town that most of us would not even walk down the street. when they get in trouble and have to use the service gun, then there is hell to pay. The public seems to immediately disturst the action of the LEO. will I say give them a pistol and let them walk those streets. Lets see how well they do.

So in reality the LEOs can't carry a gun that would assure their safety (example FN P90 full auto). Public would likely have a fit. I think in Texas especially near the border that is going to change. The bad guys got serious fire power.....we should know we gave it to them.

edit - good example was the bank robbery a few years back in California. Had to shoot the assilant in the foot to bring him down. lack of fire power?? yes I think

rusty

pisc1024
12-24-2012, 21:17
So you admit that the phenomenon exists then, yes?

Yea, I know for a fact that some people who are shot in non life threatening places drop like a rock. Then there are some people who are shot in the heart and still continue to fight. So yes something happens, is this BPW I don't think so. Your side has yet to prove it if it is.

uz2bUSMC
12-24-2012, 22:18
Yea, I know for a fact that some people who are shot in non life threatening places drop like a rock. Then there are some people who are shot in the heart and still continue to fight. So yes something happens, is this BPW I don't think so. Your side has yet to prove it if it is.

And your side side has yet to debunk mine. Not to insult you but you possess a simplistic view. You earlier stated that BPW would not be seen at handgun velocities (keeping perspective, service calibers), correct? Keeping this question in mind...it should be noted that is is not as simple as velocity or shot placement but rather a combination of of correct factors coming into play. A .22lr to the heart or a 5.56 fragmenting short of the vitals may both prove to have non dynamic stops. In both of these instances, less than desirable trauma is occurring by either lack of trauma (.22lr) or poor bullet performance (5.56). The pieces of the puzzle have to be complete to form the picture. I.e. the 5.56 fragmenting within the vitals, transferring it's energy rapidly would yield much different results. Shot placement, bullet construction and energy is a more complete picture, velocity alone is not enough. You claim that it is not BPW...BPW is merely name to a theory. The best we have at the moment which describes the phenomenon you admit to exist. Would you feel better if the theory was named something else and given by Dr. Fackler? You say it is not BPW but to know that, you would have to know exactly what BPW is. How can you claim what it is not when you ask others to prove what it is?

Remember, your side still has to prove itself, as well. Not that a stoppage will eventually occur from loss of blood pressure (which we can all agree) but that it is the only mechanism, which you admit is not the case.

To be clear, when I say drop on the spot, I'm referring to a stoppage that is too fast for psychological relevance.

Tiro Fijo
12-24-2012, 22:28
No one will be convinced that the other side is right. Data & counter data will be submitted. Claims of doctored tests, cherrypicked results, etc., etc. All one can do is make their own decisions based on their own experiences or the experiences of others who they feel qualified to make said decisions. In the long run there will be other decisions/factors that are far more important than what bullet one has selected. That's not to say that bullet selection is not relevant, as it most certainly is, but more often than not it's the magician & not the wand that rules the day.

uz2bUSMC
12-24-2012, 22:35
No one will be convinced that the other side is right. Data & counter data will be submitted. Claims of doctored tests, cherrypicked results, etc., etc. All one can do is make their own decisions based on their own experiences or the experiences of others who they feel qualified to make said decisions. In the long run there will be other decisions/factors that are far more important than what bullet one has selected. That's not to say that bullet selection is not relevant, as it most certainly is, but more often than not it's the magician & not the wand that rules the day.

Meh...that's a pretty good post but some of us are here for the long run to see how it pans out...

pisc1024
12-24-2012, 22:52
And your side side has yet to debunk mine. Not to insult you but you possess a simplistic view. You earlier stated that BPW would not be seen at handgun velocities (keeping perspective, service calibers), correct? Keeping this question in mind...it should be noted that is is not as simple as velocity or shot placement but rather a combination of of correct factors coming into play. A .22lr to the heart or a 5.56 fragmenting short of the vitals may both prove to have non dynamic stops. In both of these instances, less than desirable trauma is occurring by either lack of trauma (.22lr) or poor bullet performance (5.56). The pieces of the puzzle have to be complete to form the picture. I.e. the 5.56 fragmenting within the vitals, transferring it's energy rapidly would yield much different results. Shot placement, bullet construction and energy is a more complete picture, velocity alone is not enough. You claim that it is not BPW...BPW is merely name to a theory. The best we have at the moment which describes the phenomenon you admit to exist. Would you feel better if the theory was named something else and given by Dr. Fackler? You say it is not BPW but to know that, you would have to know exactly what BPW is. How can you claim what it is not when you ask others to prove what it is?

Remember, your side still has to prove itself, as well. Not that a stoppage will eventually occur from loss of blood pressure (which we can all agree) but that it is the only mechanism, which you admit is not the case.

To be clear, when I say drop on the spot, I'm referring to a stoppage that is too fast for psychological relevance.

Your statement is a pretty weak argument. On the one hand you are telling me that I have to prove my side to you. I don't have to prove anything to you, as I have said before there are thousands of LEOs who go to work using ammo that is chosen based wholly or partly on the FBI protocols. Once again I'll point to the fact that there are none who chose ammo based on anything that remotely sounds like BPW. I will also add, that yes I believe that the only way a handgun bullet wounds is by permanent crush. There is no remote wounding save for minor tearing. There are also psychological stops as well. These are where people hear a gunshot and just drop often times before they even realize they are shot. Is this something they are conditioned to do by TV etc? I don't know. I'm not trying to count on that, nor am I attempting to answer why and when this happens.
On the other hand, you are pushing your THEORY as if it is fact. I have read all of Courtney's information that is available on the internet, and none of it is the least bit persuasive to me. Unless you have something that I have not seen which I would love to see, I'll stick with my statement.
Bottom line, thousands of cops put on their guns filled with bullets that are designed around the FBI protocols. These bullets work, and work well. Once again, I say I don't have to prove anything, it's all there for you.

pisc1024
12-24-2012, 22:54
No one will be convinced that the other side is right. Data & counter data will be submitted. Claims of doctored tests, cherrypicked results, etc., etc. All one can do is make their own decisions based on their own experiences or the experiences of others who they feel qualified to make said decisions. In the long run there will be other decisions/factors that are far more important than what bullet one has selected. That's not to say that bullet selection is not relevant, as it most certainly is, but more often than not it's the magician & not the wand that rules the day.

Honestly, that is the smartest post I have seen on this thread.

4949shooter
12-25-2012, 04:58
Your statement is a pretty weak argument. On the one hand you are telling me that I have to prove my side to you. I don't have to prove anything to you, as I have said before there are thousands of LEOs who go to work using ammo that is chosen based wholly or partly on the FBI protocols. Once again I'll point to the fact that there are none who chose ammo based on anything that remotely sounds like BPW. I will also add, that yes I believe that the only way a handgun bullet wounds is by permanent crush. There is no remote wounding save for minor tearing. There are also psychological stops as well. These are where people hear a gunshot and just drop often times before they even realize they are shot. Is this something they are conditioned to do by TV etc? I don't know. I'm not trying to count on that, nor am I attempting to answer why and when this happens.
On the other hand, you are pushing your THEORY as if it is fact. I have read all of Courtney's information that is available on the internet, and none of it is the least bit persuasive to me. Unless you have something that I have not seen which I would love to see, I'll stick with my statement.
Bottom line, thousands of cops put on their guns filled with bullets that are designed around the FBI protocols. These bullets work, and work well. Once again, I say I don't have to prove anything, it's all there for you.

This may help:

.22 Stinger on the left and Underwood 155 on the right. It was a sight to see!

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/255431_436899639681407_13554585_n.jpg

uz2bUSMC
12-25-2012, 06:24
Your statement is a pretty weak argument. On the one hand you are telling me that I have to prove my side to you. I don't have to prove anything to you, as I have said before there are thousands of LEOs who go to work using ammo that is chosen based wholly or partly on the FBI protocols. Once again I'll point to the fact that there are none who chose ammo based on anything that remotely sounds like BPW. I will also add, that yes I believe that the only way a handgun bullet wounds is by permanent crush. There is no remote wounding save for minor tearing. There are also psychological stops as well. These are where people hear a gunshot and just drop often times before they even realize they are shot. Is this something they are conditioned to do by TV etc? I don't know. I'm not trying to count on that, nor am I attempting to answer why and when this happens.
On the other hand, you are pushing your THEORY as if it is fact. I have read all of Courtney's information that is available on the internet, and none of it is the least bit persuasive to me. Unless you have something that I have not seen which I would love to see, I'll stick with my statement.
Bottom line, thousands of cops put on their guns filled with bullets that are designed around the FBI protocols. These bullets work, and work well. Once again, I say I don't have to prove anything, it's all there for you.

You seem to be really angry about BPW, like someone pissed in your Fackler-o's or something.:dunno:

Anyway, I'll be honest I don't really have any more simple way of discussing this with you and I don't think you will grasp the concept either way.

Here, try this...can you understand that this argument is not "You can only have BPW or FBI protocol." < Can ya get that right there, homie? If so, let me know and we can move forward.

clarkz71
12-25-2012, 06:26
Bottom line, thousands of cops put on their guns filled with bullets that are designed around the FBI protocols. These bullets work, and work well.
Once again, I say I don't have to prove anything



Filled with Bullets?, How about filled with ammunition and
that ammunition contains a bullet design that works well?. .http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/images/smilies/stirthepot.gif


Merry Christmas everyone. .http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif

English
12-25-2012, 06:39
Your statement is a pretty weak argument. On the one hand you are telling me that I have to prove my side to you. I don't have to prove anything to you, as I have said before there are thousands of LEOs who go to work using ammo that is chosen based wholly or partly on the FBI protocols. Once again I'll point to the fact that there are none who chose ammo based on anything that remotely sounds like BPW. I will also add, that yes I believe that the only way a handgun bullet wounds is by permanent crush. There is no remote wounding save for minor tearing. There are also psychological stops as well. These are where people hear a gunshot and just drop often times before they even realize they are shot. Is this something they are conditioned to do by TV etc? I don't know. I'm not trying to count on that, nor am I attempting to answer why and when this happens.
On the other hand, you are pushing your THEORY as if it is fact. I have read all of Courtney's information that is available on the internet, and none of it is the least bit persuasive to me. Unless you have something that I have not seen which I would love to see, I'll stick with my statement.
Bottom line, thousands of cops put on their guns filled with bullets that are designed around the FBI protocols. These bullets work, and work well. Once again, I say I don't have to prove anything, it's all there for you.

There really is no point arguing with you. You can't see that tens or hundreds of thousand of LEOs all doing the same thing does not imply that it is the optimum thing to do. It is just what they are doing because they are told to do so and because the people telling them don't know any better. That is, there is no EVIDENCE that what they are doing is correct and so you do need to show evidence (the thing you call proof) that what they are doing is correct.

You still can't grasp the difference betweena fact and a theory. A theory is an explanation of how or why some observed phenomena exist. For example:

Cumulus clouds are the result of the Sun heating the ground which then heats a layer of air close to it. That heating produces expansion which reduces the density of that air. Because of its reduced density that layer tends to rise but cannot do so until it is replaced by colder air. Once that proces starts by one part of the less dense air rising a little. surrounding less dense air flows in to take its place and incleases the upwards force of what is now a short column and so more air flows in and increases the upwards flow to create a rising column of air. As the air rises its pressure falls and hence so does its temperature. If it rises far enough it falls below the dew point of the air that was at ground level and the excess moisture condenses out in the form of microscopic droplets which appear as clouds. This is why newly forming cumulus clouds have flat bottoms - that is because the air was all at much the same humidity and so reached its dew point at very much the same altitude. It is also why the altitude of the base of such clouds over a very large area of fairly flat land is remarkably consistent on any particular day and time.

That is a theory and it is constructed from several other theories. Some of it is fact, and an example of that is the microscopic droplets of water which form the cloud itself since they are demonstrable, but as a whole it is a theory and not a fact. In contrast we can say that cumulus clouds can often be seen forming and decaying in fine weather. This needs no explanation since it is a matter of simple observation and so it is a fact.

So anyone talking about how bullets incapacitate or whether 9mms are as effective as .40S&Ws and so on is talking theories. When you claim that you don't need to "prove" anything about your claims because it is standard practice you too are talking theories but in this case you are saying that your theory stands without need for argument or evidential support. In other words, you are talking nonsense as usual.

Facts vary in their certainty since some facts are the conclusion from direct observation, some facts are no more than probabilities derived from observation, and some are conclusions from the application of theory to secondary observation. The existence of clouds is a direct observation. A statement such as, "After shooting 1,000 adult men of heights between x and y, weght between p and q, and age between s and t in the thorax with 180gn .40 caliber bullets travelling at 1000fps 17.7% were still standing 90 seconds later, 26.3% collapsed between 60 and 90 seconds later, 32% collapsed between 45 and 60 seconds later, 6% collapsed between 30 and 45 seconds later, 8% collapsed between 15 and 30 seconds later, 8% between 8 and 15 seconds later and 2% between 0 an 8 seconds later." Is fact but it is fact based on a particular experiment which will not guarantee that a future experiment conducted as close to identically as possibly will replicate. A statistician, using theory, could probably give us ranges for each entry being met by some particular percentage of repetitions. And then we have statements about things such as the composition and structure of stars where we can never go and observe or do comparative experiments. Here the chain of logic and testable knowledge is so strong and so simple, if you are clever and knowledgeable enough, that the statements are virtual facts.

If the experiment had actually been done, the invented data set above would be fact. If you needed to shoot someone with a .40S&W it would not help you very much because there is no way of knowing which category your opponent is going to come in. If, on the other hand, you had similar data sets for the 9mm, the 357SIG, the .45ACP and the 10mm for each of a range of available loadings, it could be very useful to you because you could make a rational choice, based on the proportion that collapse within 8, 15 and 30 seconds say, and weigh that against your ability to shoot those rounds quickly and accurately enough and the ease of carrying the pistol concerned.

Suppose that, relative to the 9mm, twice as many collapse within 15 seconds of being shot with a .40S&W and three times as many collapse from a 357SIG and so you choose the 357SIG. You accept the fact that you can fire the 357SIG with 0.2 split times relative to the 0.17 split times with a 9mm as a worthwhile trade off. Where are you now when you need to shoot somone. You still can't guarantee that your opponent will drop within 15 seconds because the data say that only happens, say, 20% of the time, but it is still a big advance on happeneing 6% of the time and you will have a better probability of survival.

If the data existed, that would all be fact modified by some factor of variation which gets smaller as the number in the experiment goes upwards. The Courtney's work did no more than that, and in some ways did less because they could not shoot thousands of deer and the only events they counted as rapid collapse were those less than 5 seconds. The result was that their data set was affected more strongly by the fact that they necessarily used relatively small numbers and so their potential variability was higher but statistically significant. I don't know if you count statistical calculations as theory but if you allow that as mathematical fact then their data set was fact. That data set showed that their working hypothesis was correct. It showed that rapid collapse was a function of the peak pressure of the ballistic pressure wave. For Facklerites it showed a lot more than that because it showed that rapid collapse, that is, without direct impact on the CNS and well within time for blood pressure fall to cause collapse, actually existed. That is, it was not a fault of observation caused by distorted time sense and it was not any of the other unbelieveable "reasons" put forward by the Facklerites.

You need to understand that it is your side of this argument that is putting forward unbelievable theories without foundation and it is therefore you who needs to justify them or renounce any belief in them. That is the other thing you fail to understand about theories. One fact that does not fit the theory destroys the theory.

Courtney demonstrated scientifically that one shot rapid collapse exists without direct CNS impact. Your side denies the possibility of such phenomena and so your side's theory has been destroyed unless you can show that Courtney's work is wrong. In principle, this would be quite easy to do since, in standard scientific method, he has explained how he conducted his experiment. Your side can just repeat it. You don't even have to do all of it. You can just do the bit with the 357SIG and if you get no rapid collapses you would have very good grounds for saying that his work is invalid. As it is, no one has done this, but many of you have rubbished Courtney's work quite disgracefully. You repeat this by your statement that his work has been discredited. There is only one way to discredit a scientific work and that is to show by experiment that it is false. The fact that it does not convince you has as much significance as saying that it does not convince a five year old. Only evidence works.

It is worth noting that you don't even say what part of it fails to convince you, but since you demonstrate your inability to understand the concepts of evidence, fact, theory, proof, and scientific method in every post you make, I suppose that would not be enlightening either.

English

digilo
12-25-2012, 07:24
Courtney demonstrated scientifically that one shot rapid collapse exists without direct CNS impact.

English

It exists, but it's not reliably repeatable, and therefore not a reliable wounding mechanism. It happens, but it can't be counted upon like tissue crush.

I will also add, that yes I believe that the only way a handgun bullet wounds is by permanent crush.

Temporary cavity is another proven wound mechanism, stretching tissues past their elastic limit.

uz2bUSMC
12-25-2012, 07:35
It exists, but it's not reliably repeatable, and therefore not a reliable wounding mechanism. It happens, but it can't be counted upon like tissue crush.

This is where these discussions usually derail so quickly. When we (proponents of BPW) mention BPW somehow most think that we are saying it should be a primary consideration and we are not. BTW, I'm not saying you are one of those people.

After reviewing your personal risk assessment and all the criteria you require (caliber, platform, accuracy at speed, etc) for your needs you may find that several calibers with several loadings may fit the bill. At this point would it not be safe to say that choosing the particular load which has the highest amount of potential PBPW would just be adding to your list of advantages?

4949shooter
12-25-2012, 07:50
Ahhhh....nothing like arguing ammo performance on Christmas morning. :supergrin:

uz2bUSMC
12-25-2012, 07:53
Ahhhh....nothing like arguing ammo performance on Christmas morning. :supergrin:

:supergrin::wavey:

unit1069
12-25-2012, 09:01
Once again I'll point to the fact that there are none who chose ammo based on anything that remotely sounds like BPW.

I know of no BPW advocate who has ever stated his/her ammo selection was based upon assumed BPW performance. In fact, Courtney himself listed as primary factors for self-defense rounds reliability, penetration, expansion, and accuracy before any consideration be given to BPW.

The stated or implied suggestion that anyone has --- or should --- select self-defense rounds on expected BPW performance is something that we ought to put to rest once and for all when the issue arises. To my knowledge nobody has ever advocated that criterion as the primary consideration when choosing duty/SD ammunition.

uz2bUSMC
12-25-2012, 10:19
I know of no BPW advocate who has ever stated his/her ammo selection was based upon assumed BPW performance. In fact, Courtney himself listed as primary factors for self-defense rounds reliability, penetration, expansion, and accuracy before any consideration be given to BPW.

The stated or implied suggestion that anyone has --- or should --- select self-defense rounds on expected BPW performance is something that we ought to put to rest once and for all when the issue arises. To my knowledge nobody has ever advocated that criterion as the primary consideration when choosing duty/SD ammunition.

I swear, you are one of the few that knows this even though it has been said hundreds of times over the years.

rustytxrx
12-25-2012, 10:26
Very interesting discussion of the arcane. I am pretty sure it has nothing to do with the winning a gun fight. The shooter and the gun win gun fights.

If the first officers in my post had a FN F2000 in her trunk I don't think she would have sustained any wounds at all.

The people tring to figure this out are way over thinking the situation. Really smart idiots.

Rusty

digilo
12-25-2012, 12:30
At this point would it not be safe to say that choosing the particular load which has the highest amount of potential PBPW would just be adding to your list of advantages?

The potential for PBPW has to be weighed against the increase in recoil from the higher velocity needed to make it possible. And with life-and-death situations involving guns, I'm not using a bullet that may or may not result in a PBPW. I'm using a heavy bullet that will crush vital tissues to stop the threat, or barring a vital hit, reach to CNS (180 gr .40s and 230 gr .45s). That's momentum at work, which I trust more than PBPW.

To each his own, and Happy Holidays to all !!

English
12-25-2012, 13:08
It exists, but it's not reliably repeatable, and therefore not a reliable wounding mechanism. It happens, but it can't be counted upon like tissue crush.


.......

No handgun bullet has a reliably repeatable effect. Why should you expect or require that the BPW effect should do so? Where do you think that any advocate of useful BPW effects has ever said that it can be relied upon?

To be quite clear a bullet that produces a strong BPW effect must necessarily produce a substantial crush cavity but a crush cavity in itself can't be counted upon to have a consistent effect on the behaviour of the person shot. Any person shot with a round that produces a strong BPW effect will sometimes collapse rapidly but will always be severely wounded. What more could you reasonably ask for?

English

English
12-25-2012, 13:13
The potential for PBPW has to be weighed against the increase in recoil from the higher velocity needed to make it possible. And with life-and-death situations involving guns, I'm not using a bullet that may or may not result in a PBPW. I'm using a heavy bullet that will crush vital tissues to stop the threat, or barring a vital hit, reach to CNS (180 gr .40s and 230 gr .45s). That's momentum at work, which I trust more than PBPW.

To each his own, and Happy Holidays to all !!

Ah! I understand. You prefer to fire something with more recoil.

Less than 2% of shots to the thorax hit the spine so that idea is a waste of recoil. If you can shoot well enough to hit the brain you gain nothing from going above a 9mm Parabellum or maybe the 9mm Makarov, so the recoiol is wasted there.

English

digilo
12-25-2012, 13:36
Ah! I understand. You prefer to fire something with more recoil.

Less than 2% of shots to the thorax hit the spine so that idea is a waste of recoil. If you can shoot well enough to hit the brain you gain nothing from going above a 9mm Parabellum or maybe the 9mm Makarov, so the recoiol is wasted there.

English

Make all the erroneous conclusions you want, if it helps you.

scottyd2506
12-25-2012, 13:40
there are thousands of LEOs who go to work using ammo that is chosen based wholly or partly on the FBI protocols.

Bottom line, thousands of cops put on their guns filled with bullets that are designed around the FBI protocols. These bullets work, and work well. Once again, I say I don't have to prove anything, it's all there for you.

Those bullets work well in ballistic gel tests, but not real life. If we base our handgun performance on the FBI, then we are doomed, the Miami shootout proved beyond a doubt the pencel neck white color FBI high brass who choose what ammo the agents use are dumber than a box of rocks. They failed once and will again

I don't listen to failures to base performance from.

if shot placement was EVERYTHING, then why a 9mm over a 380 or a 380 would shoot faster with much less recoil.
Ballistic gel test and doctors would records tell little of what REAL LIFE is...
the Texas DPS etc have used the 357 mag, then wanted hi cap mags and used 9mm,, the 9mm FAILED and they went to 45, and then to 357 Sig and the real world results are 100% success after almost 20 years.

Same agency had many many many many failures stopping bad guys with the best 9x19 9mm +p+ police loads.

It appears that 1400 fps with a 35 caliber 125 JHP just plain works. like it or not.

a 357 sig Underwood 125 gold dot load at 1500 fps (out of a 4 inch glock 32) equals the old 357 mag 125 at 1450 fps.
That's 15+1 rounds or (13+1 rounds in a compact) of 357 magnum performance. I know the 357 mag can be loaded to much better fps, but around 1400 fps is what works
with a 125 in that caliber.

It is a fact thousands and thousands of LE agencies have replaced the 9mm +p+ police ammo and guns for something different. where it be a 357 sig, 40 SW or 45, this shows beyond a doubt the 9x19 has failed.
We know NYPD and LAPD use the 9mm because of the ultra high population and the fear of high power round over penetration, and among others the liberal politicians who run those areas.

I don't think 1 357 is more effective than 2x 9x19's bullets, but I think 15x rounds of is much more effective that 17x 9x19's,

The 357 vs 40 and 45. they are pretty close in my mind, yet in the real world, the Texas DPS LEO wanted something better than the 45 acp (that replaced the 9mm they used after the 357 magnum revolvers), the 357 sig they use now they are HAPPY with and are not looking for a replacement.

in the real world if the 9mm +p+ stops someone 90-91% of the time and the 357 sig, 40 and 45 stop someone 95-99% of the time, it is most likely lack of penetration on the 9mm vs heavyweight bad guys (270-350 lbs on meth or crack).. And in today's world most people are much bigger than 20-40 years ago. a lot of those of the dangerous drug dealers seem to be big 270-350 lb guys.

the 9x19 +p+ might work well for the normal and anorexic guys. but the added performance of the 357's penetration, 200 fps of ballistic shock seems to bring the Bg down quicker in REAL LIFE.

digilo
12-25-2012, 14:01
No handgun bullet has a reliably repeatable effect. Why should you expect or require that the BPW effect should do so? Where do you think that any advocate of useful BPW effects has ever said that it can be relied upon?

To be quite clear a bullet that produces a strong BPW effect must necessarily produce a substantial crush cavity but a crush cavity in itself can't be counted upon to have a consistent effect on the behaviour of the person shot. Any person shot with a round that produces a strong BPW effect will sometimes collapse rapidly but will always be severely wounded. What more could you reasonably ask for?

English

If it can't be relied on then it isn't useful as a wounding mechanism.

Yes, several bullet designs have repeatable effects. Hunters pay top dollar for the predictability designed into a good flatnosed solid, or the fragmentation of a good frangible round. Gold Dots are known and designed and have the record of reliable repeatable expansion, among others. Numbers bear this out. Are there exceptions? Sure, but those don't disprove the rule.

What isn't reproducible is this mythical BPW, this idea of some magic ballistic pressure wave. The people who purport to believe in it can never seem to define it, can never seem to reproduce it, and always seem to skirt around the discussion with oblique tangential responses.

One time it's dependent on crush cavity ("a bullet that produces a strong BPW effect must necessarily produce a substantial crush cavity") which depends on bullet mass and momentum, the next it's velocity-dependent.

Like I said, I prefer to rely on momentum to hit vitals or CNS, with a heavy bullet, rather than some mythical BPW, lightning bolt bullets, chi balls, or other cartoon fare.

Oh, and FYI, the light/fast bullets you love so much result in more muzzle energy, and hence more recoil, than the heavy bullets I prefer. I don't want a big shallow wound, I want to reach vitals or hit the CNS, which is the most reliable wounding mechanism, and that takes momentum, which relies on bullet mass.

digilo
12-25-2012, 14:03
200 fps of ballistic shock

Can you please define "ballistic shock", as you used it?

Thank you.

uz2bUSMC
12-25-2012, 15:38
What isn't reproducible is this mythical BPW, this idea of some magic ballistic pressure wave. The people who purport to believe in it can never seem to define it, can never seem to reproduce it, and always seem to skirt around the discussion with oblique tangential responses.

One time it's dependent on crush cavity ("a bullet that produces a strong BPW effect must necessarily produce a substantial crush cavity") which depends on bullet mass and momentum, the next it's velocity-dependent.


The pressure wave exists, no two ways about that. What it's contributions are is what is up for debate. What definition are you asking for?

digilo
12-25-2012, 16:20
........

Tiro Fijo
12-25-2012, 16:22
..the Texas DPS etc have used the 357 mag, then wanted hi cap mags and used 9mm,, the 9mm FAILED and they went to 45, and then to 357 Sig and the real world results are 100% success after almost 20 years...

Wrong.

...Same agency had many many many many failures stopping bad guys with the best 9x19 9mm +p+ police loads...

TOTALLY wrong.


...It appears that 1400 fps with a 35 caliber 125 JHP just plain works. like it or not....

Partially wrong/right.

...It is a fact thousands and thousands of LE agencies have replaced the 9mm +p+ police ammo and guns for something different. where it be a 357 sig, 40 SW or 45, this shows beyond a doubt the 9x19 has failed.
We know NYPD and LAPD use the 9mm because of the ultra high population and the fear of high power round over penetration, and among others the liberal politicians who run those areas...

Wrong ne plus ultra. :upeyes:



...the 9x19 +p+ might work well for the normal and anorexic guys...


This is a perfect example of someone totally regurgitating BS they have read on the Internet and/or gunrags. Incredible. Just a major fail. :upeyes:

digilo
12-25-2012, 16:22
The pressure wave exists, no two ways about that. What it's contributions are is what is up for debate. What definition are you asking for?


Define "ballistic pressure wave".

uz2bUSMC
12-25-2012, 16:27
Calm down. If I was asking about that I would have quoted where you asked him directly about his definition of "hydrostatic shock" but I did not. I quoted your reply to English where you say it is never defined.

digilo
12-25-2012, 16:31
This is a perfect example of someone totally regurgitating BS they have read on the Internet and/or gunrags. Incredible. Just a major fail. :upeyes:

Tiro. It appears that a .35 cal 125 gr JHP bullet at 1400 FPS just plain works, but those same caliber bullets at 1300 result in "many, many, many failures to stop bad guys".

uz2bUSMC
12-25-2012, 16:32
Define "ballistic pressure wave".

"The observation that a penetrating projectile can produce remote wounding and incapacitating effects in living targets through a hydraulic effect in their liquid-filled tissues, in addition to local effects in tissue caused by direct impact"

This obviously is the textbook answer and I'm guessing you actually want more than this...so if you want to discuss...

digilo
12-25-2012, 16:34
Calm down. If I was asking about that I would have quoted where you asked him directly about his definition of "hydrostatic shock" but I did not. I quoted your reply to English where you say it is never defined.



FWIW, he said, "ballistic shock", which is gibberish, but I wanted him to try to define the term, since he used it. :D

uz2bUSMC
12-25-2012, 16:43
FWIW, he said, "ballistic shock", which is gibberish, but I wanted him to try to define the term, since he used it. :D

I know, that's why I didn't bother with that. I believe you had taken a jab at him in a previous thread aswell.

digilo
12-25-2012, 16:51
"The observation that a penetrating projectile can produce remote wounding and incapacitating effects in living targets through a hydraulic effect in their liquid-filled tissues, in addition to local effects in tissue caused by direct impact"

This obviously is the textbook answer and I'm guessing you actually want more than this...so if you want to discuss...

Nah, I'll pass. We can repeat the same things that have been said on both sides of the argument by all the people before us, and it won't change a thing, in your mind or mine. I don't believe in ballistic pressure wave as a wounding mechanism, I think it's a guess, a made-up answer to a problem we haven't solved, which is the remote wounding that occasionally happens and cannot be explained by other means. I don't think hydraulics explains it well, but I think it could have something to do with the nervous system, which can be so different from person to person, because if it was hydraulics, it would be more consistently repeatable, whereas a nervous system explanation would allow more room for the lack of reproducibility seen with BPW theory.
That is just my opinion, and you have yours, and you're obviously at least as well informed as I am about it, if not more, and I respect it.

uz2bUSMC
12-25-2012, 16:59
Nah, I'll pass. We can repeat the same things that have been said on both sides of the argument by all the people before us, and it won't change a thing, in your mind or mine. I don't believe in ballistic pressure wave as a wounding mechanism, I think it's a guess, a made-up answer to a problem we haven't solved, which is the remote wounding that occasionally happens and cannot be explained by other means. I don't think hydraulics explains it well, but I think it could have something to do with the nervous system, which can be so different from person to person, because if it was hydraulics, it would be more consistently repeatable, whereas a nervous system explanation would allow more room for the lack of reproducibility seen with BPW theory.
That is just my opinion, and you have yours, and you're obviously at least as well informed as I am about it, if not more, and I respect it.

Very well. Take care.:wavey:

Tiro Fijo
12-25-2012, 17:28
Tiro. It appears that a .35 cal 125 gr JHP bullet at 1400 FPS just plain works, but those same caliber bullets at 1300 result in "many, many, many failures to stop bad guys".


And just how do you know this? Facts please. No "I read in Guns & Ammo..."

rustytxrx
12-25-2012, 17:50
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/printable/node/7866

Enjoyed Reading thread. You got it wrong generally. If carring reasonable designed defensive bullet, the guy that can put two good shots in fatals or three hits in extremities wins. Period.

I don't think caliber matters all that much. I think the guy that can shoot while moving, can draw and fire two shots to center mass in less 2.5 seconds is a long way to coming out safe. What am I saying.....training is as important as caliber?

FBI states average gun fight is close range and last 7 seconds. If true guy with best muscle memory wins.

Rusty

uz2bUSMC
12-25-2012, 18:00
And just how do you know this? Facts please. No "I read in Guns & Ammo..."

Are you actually kidding? Because I can see the rhetoric in his post but I'm having trouble seeing it in yours.

uz2bUSMC
12-25-2012, 18:04
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/printable/node/7866

Enjoyed Reading thread. You got it wrong generally. If carring reasonable designed defensive bullet, the guy that can put two good shots in fatals or three hits in extremities wins. Period.

I don't think caliber matters all that much. I think the guy that can shoot while moving, can draw and fire two shots to center mass in less 2.5 seconds is a long way to coming out safe. What am I saying.....training is as important as caliber?

FBI states average gun fight is close range and last 7 seconds. If true guy with best muscle memory wins.

Rusty

Man, what the hell are you talking about?:dunno:

digilo
12-25-2012, 18:08
And just how do you know this? Facts please. No "I read in Guns & Ammo..."


LOL I was being sarcastic.