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

PDA

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


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

glock20c10mm
01-15-2010, 00:33
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.

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:

Glock-it-to-me
01-15-2010, 00:38
I had .357 magnums and .45 ACPs before I got a .357 SIG. The .357 SIG quickly became my carry piece. Now I've got .38 specials and .40 S&W's.

SDGlock23
01-15-2010, 08:58
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.

c5367
01-15-2010, 09:17
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.

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:

where do you see evidence of "growing popularity"?

not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely curious.

hurley842002
01-15-2010, 09:22
where do you see evidence of "growing popularity"?

not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely curious.

X2 Genuinely Curious. I carry 357sig, so I do like the round and would like to hear of popularity among Law Enforcement.

CigarGuy
01-15-2010, 09:43
Not sure on your original question(s), but I can't find ammo at Wally World for .357 Sig anywhere around here. They get in 9 and .40 in all the time.

LEAD
01-15-2010, 10:07
Performance
Because of its relatively high velocity for a handgun round, the .357 SIG has a very flat trajectory, extending the effective range. However, it does not quite reach the performance of the .357 Magnum (http://glocktalk.com/wiki/.357_Magnum) with bullets heavier than 125 grains (8.1 g). Offsetting this general slight disadvantage in performance is that semi-automatic pistols tend to carry considerably more ammunition than revolvers.
Like the 7.62x25mm Tokarev (http://glocktalk.com/wiki/7.62x25mm_Tokarev), the .357 SIG works well when shooting through barriers. There has been a documented case in Texas where a police officer's .45 round did not penetrate a tractor-trailer's shell, but a .357 SIG round from a backup officer's gun did, killing the suspect inside. The round's ability to penetrate barriers is the main reason for its adoption by law enforcement agencies. However, other documented police shootings have confirmed the round's ability to not overpenetrate the body, even though ballistic gelatin shows 16 inches (410 mm) of penetration through heavy clothing (125 grain Speer Gold Dot). The Virginia State Police have had several documented officer-related shootings involving the .357 SIG, and in every case, not only were the suspects stopped instantly with one shot (except one who was shot several times while attempting to murder an officer), the bullet either did not exit the suspect, or was stopped in the clothing upon exiting, proving that even at such high velocities, the round when used with adequate expanding hollowpoints will not over penetrate soft tissue. The same department has also reported that attacking dogs have been stopped dead in their tracks by a single shot, whereas the former subsonic 147 grain 9 mm duty rounds would require multiple shots to incapacitate the animals.<SUP id=cite_ref-12 class=reference>[13] (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#cite_note-12)</SUP> The energy available in the .357 SIG is sufficient for imparting hydrostatic shock (http://glocktalk.com/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock) with well designed bullets.<SUP id=cite_ref-arxiv.org_1-1 class=reference>[2] (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#cite_note-arxiv.org-1)</SUP><SUP id=cite_ref-Sturtevant_B_1998_2-1 class=reference>[3] (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#cite_note-Sturtevant_B_1998-2)</SUP><SUP id=cite_ref-13 class=reference>[14] (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#cite_note-13)</SUP> Recent publication of human autopsy results has demonstrated brain hemorrhaging from fatal hits to the chest with 9mm bullets.<SUP id=cite_ref-Krasja.2C_J_2009_3-1 class=reference>[4] (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#cite_note-Krasja.2C_J_2009-3)</SUP>
The reputation that the .357 SIG round had for losing its crimp (allowing for bullet setback) was partially true when the cartridge was new and ammunition manufacturers were just beginning to produce the round. These problems have since been corrected by major manufacturers. As a result, the round now exhibits nominal setback characteristics, similar to other cartridges.<SUP style="WHITE-SPACE: nowrap" class="noprint Template-Fact" title="This claim needs references to reliable sources from November 2007">[citation needed (http://glocktalk.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]</SUP>
The bottleneck shape of the .357 SIG cartridge makes feeding problems almost non-existent.<SUP style="WHITE-SPACE: nowrap" class="noprint Template-Fact" title="This claim needs references to reliable sources from February 2009">[citation needed (http://glocktalk.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]</SUP> This is because the bullet is channeled through the larger chamber before being seated entirely as the slide goes into full battery. Flat point bullets are seldom used with other autoloader platforms because of feeding problems; however, such bullets are commonly seen in the .357 SIG chambering and are quite reliable, as are hollow-point bullets.
One disadvantage of the .357 SIG is that it fires a .355" bullet at higher velocities than most bullets of that caliber are designed for. Very few bullets have been designed specifically for the .357 SIG, and .357 Magnum bullets that are designed for the same velocity range cannot be used due to their slightly larger diameter. Because of this, there are fewer ammunition choices in .357 SIG than one might expect for a cartridge using .355" bullets.
Another potential drawback of the .357 SIG is its somewhat harsh treatment of pistols that are not designed to handle its high pressure that coupled to its case head area yields a high bolt (http://glocktalk.com/wiki/Bolt_(firearm)) thrust<SUP id=cite_ref-14 class=reference>[15] (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#cite_note-14)</SUP> for a semi-automatic service handgun cartridge. Firing .357 SIG through modified pistols that were originally designed to fire the .40 S&W can accelerate wear.
The "Accurate Powder" reloading manuals claims that it is "without a doubt the most ballistically consistent handgun cartridge we have ever worked with."<SUP id=cite_ref-accurate_4-1 class=reference>[5] (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#cite_note-accurate-4)</SUP>
[edit (http://glocktalk.com/w/index.php?title=.357_SIG&action=edit&section=7)] Implementation

<TABLE class="metadata plainlinks ambox ambox-content"><TBODY><TR><TD class=mbox-image>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png
</TD><TD class=mbox-text>This section does not cite (http://glocktalk.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources) any references or sources (http://glocktalk.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability).
<SMALL>Please help improve this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.357_SIG&action=edit) by adding citations to reliable sources (http://glocktalk.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources). Unsourced material may be challenged (http://glocktalk.com/wiki/Template:Citation_needed) and removed (http://glocktalk.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence). (April 2008)</SMALL></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
The SIG-Sauer P229 (http://glocktalk.com/wiki/P229) in .357 SIG is currently one of the standard issue firearms carried by special agents and Uniformed Division officers of the United States Secret Service (http://glocktalk.com/wiki/United_States_Secret_Service), the Bastrop County (http://glocktalk.com/wiki/Bastrop_County) Texas Sheriff's Office, the North Carolina State Highway Patrol (http://glocktalk.com/wiki/North_Carolina_State_Highway_Patrol), Delaware State Police (http://glocktalk.com/wiki/Delaware_State_Police), Rhode Island State Police (http://glocktalk.com/wiki/Rhode_Island_State_Police), Alameda County Sheriff's Office (http://glocktalk.com/wiki/Alameda_County_Sheriff%27s_Office), Virginia State Police (http://glocktalk.com/wiki/Virginia_State_Police), Federal Air Marshals (http://glocktalk.com/wiki/Federal_Air_Marshals) and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. The Pennsylvania Game Commission replaced the .357 Mag. with the .357 SIG. In most cases, it has replaced 10 mm, .40 S&W and 9 mm loads. In 1995, the Texas Department of Public Safety (http://glocktalk.com/wiki/Texas_Department_of_Public_Safety) became the first government agency to implement the .357 SIG. The Tennessee Highway Patrol (http://glocktalk.com/wiki/Tennessee_Highway_Patrol) presently issues the Glock 31 (http://glocktalk.com/wiki/Glock_31) pistol chambered in .357 SIG. The Bedford Heights Police Department (OH) currently issues the Glock 31/32 in .357 SIG. The Elloree Police Department in South Carolina Elloree Police (http://www.elloreesc.com/police.htm)also issues the Glock 31, .357 SIG and the Madison Police Department in Madison, WV issues the Glock 32 in .357 SIG. The Lexington Police Department in North Carolina issues the Sig P229 DAK in .357 Sig.

Wikipedia is the source of this information, although I have read most of this before from more reputable sources. Much of the performance section is paraphrased from Masaad Ayoobs book

coal
01-15-2010, 12:32
where do you see evidence of "growing popularity"?

not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely curious.

Popularity is not "growing" disproportionately. OP phrasing was implying that. It remains a novelty round. Nothing has changed that IMO.

The .357sig is a good option. Nothing special about it beyond the criteria those that choose it base their subjective selection on. Others select something different because they use different criteria. Choosing between service calibers is ultimately subjective... and splitting hairs IMO.

The .357sig has feeding issue, too... just like any other Glock can: VIDEO: G32 Malfunctions Resolved? (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1168900&highlight=g32) and Might have solved my G32's feeding problem (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=940784&highlight=feeding) and others... again, just like any Glock.

Bottom-line: Shoot what you use well. But, you have to also feel good about what you use. And, that "feeling" is always going to be subjective.

PghJim
01-15-2010, 14:38
it really is simply a fast 9

Boy, how many times do we hear that. Isn't a 44 mag. just a faster 44 special? Isn't the 357 mag. just a faster 38 special? The velocity issues do matter. According to articles in Guns and American Handgunner it is increasing in popularity among LE, particularly the Higway Patrols. However, agencies and groups that would probably study this sort of thing because they have a good chance to use the gun seem to be growing also. No round is perfect but I think even comparing it to a +p+ 9 would be rediculous.

FlyBoy007
01-15-2010, 16:16
Boy, how many times do we hear that. Isn't a 44 mag. just a faster 44 special? Isn't the 357 mag. just a faster 38 special? The velocity issues do matter. According to articles in Guns and American Handgunner it is increasing in popularity among LE, particularly the Higway Patrols. However, agencies and groups that would probably study this sort of thing because they have a good chance to use the gun seem to be growing also. No round is perfect but I think even comparing it to a +p+ 9 would be rediculous.



But really, a Corvette is simply a fast Chevett, right? :supergrin:

Ryobi
01-15-2010, 16:33
It's a nice round. Not much different than a hot 9mm round. Nothing wrong with it. I prefer .40, but .357sig is perfectly adequate.

fastbolt
01-15-2010, 16:39
"Popularity" probably depends on where you're talking about to some degree.

I only know one agency in the counties around me where it's the issued round. I personally only know one cop who's used one in a shooting (but who doesn't work for the agency which issues it, though). While the cartridge (and gun) performed acceptably for his situation, he carries a couple of different guns/calibers as his normal off-duty weapons nowadays.

The .355 bullets used in the .357SIG load have reportedly been revised and refined since initial offerings, as has the way the bullets are crimped in the very short case neck, apparently

Just talking to different ammunition and firearms companies reps, it seems the .357SIG still occupies a pretty small segment of the LE firearms market (a distant 4th place, so to speak), although it may be picking up a little steam now and again. After all, S&W decided to offer their new M&P pistol chambered in it, and I've heard they've sold some to a small number of agencies who carry .357SIG weapons. (NMSP stayed with .357SIG but switched from Glock to S&W/M&P a little while ago.)

Having listened to some different factory instructors during armorer classes, it seems the .357SIG still offers the potential for a bit more wear & tear on guns than the .40 S&W. Oh well, it's always recommended that dedicated service weapons are periodically inspected and serviced, anyway, right? No big deal.

The 'wear & tear' on the shooter is still a subjective matter, and folks can decide such things for themselves.

The velocities of the loads offered by the major ammunition companies who make the most ammunition for LE/Gov agencies aren't exactly a mystery. It's not uncommon to see 100-150fps more velocity produced in the .357 SIG ( look at the RA9TA 127gr +P+ 1250fps v.the RA357SIGT125gr 1350fps, for example). Speer seems to list their load being a bit faster than a couple of the other big companies.

There's also the small ammo companies who offer hotter loads (but who are probably more popular among the non-LE/private shooter folks).

Handloaders? Who knows? I was an avid handloader as a young man, but I haven't been interested in getting back into it for many years.

Now, I've owned .357 Magnum revolvers since I was young. I carried them as issued weapons when I was a new cop and revolvers were still commonly carried, too. I've always liked the .357 Magnum as a nice, medium-bore, broad-spectrum type of useful handgun caliber. I wasn't necessarily as enamored with the 125gr JHP load as a lot of other folks, finding admirable qualities in the 140gr JHP loads (and later a 145gr load), and even heavier bullet weights, but the caliber allowed for a decent range of choice in the way of bullet weights when it came to choosing a load for a range of tasks. Versatile.

Something the .357SIG doesn't really offer. The .357 is sort of a 1-trick pony, and although it's not at all a bad trick, it's still not what I'd consider a caliber capable of the versatility of the .357 Magnum cartridge in a good revolver. So what, though? I commonly carry a 9mm compact or subcompact, and that has sort of a limited application range, too, right? :)

No big deal. It appears Sig was just looking to capture some of the market capitalizing on the performance of the middle weight revolver Magnum load, anyway (hence the selection of the name), and it can reasonably be said that they seem to have done that to some extent. Good for them.

Doesn't mean I'm going to own a pistol chambered in it ... but I certainly don't begrudge anyone else from enjoying it.

I just haven't seen the cartridge in many guns in many LE holsters out this way.

Matter of fact, I know of a fellow who used to work for the agency I initially alluded to who bought a compact version of his duty gun. The gun he bought was available in .357SIG, which would have matched his one-time duty weapon, but for some reason he chose to buy the model chambered in .40 S&W. Go figure.

I think the .357SIG will do something the 10mm was unable to do.

I think it will remain in LE service, if only as a 4th place choice when it comes to total numbers of guns sold and ammunition produced for LE/Gov usage.

I suspect it might remain more popular among the private owner (non-LE) shooters ... and there's nothing wrong with that.

BTW, personally, I'd be very skeptical of labeling anything produced in a handgun as an "unbelievable manstopper". It's still just a handgun.

Just my thoughts.

unit1069
01-15-2010, 18:16
Popularity is not "growing" disproportionately. OP phrasing was implying that. It remains a novelty round. Nothing has changed that IMO.

I haven't had the time to do a good Internet search on the specific issue, but as anecdotal evidence we need look no further than Glock Talk.

When I joined in 2007 there were few .357sig owners posting comments, if I recall correctly. Since then the number of .357sig owners has greatly increased, with corresponding favorable opinions posted on various threads.

When I have time I will look into it, but I do believe I've recently read of the growing acceptance by LEO organizations of the .357sig and their adoption of this caliber as the issue pistol.

uz2bUSMC
01-15-2010, 18:28
Fastbolt, I enjoy reading your posts. Always very well written. Anywho, I just don't agree with this part...
It's still just a handgun.


I think this phrase is sung quite often without much thought, it seems to be the "easy" way to categorize the performane levels of a platform. I feel this to be unfair when actually investigated. An M4 with an uber cool 11.5" bbl is set up to be a slouch. It is a rifle, yes, but you're probably better off with a handgun with missiles contructed to perform on people.

fastbolt
01-15-2010, 18:32
This thread reminds me that it's probably about time to ask a couple of the other manufacturers about their production/sales for the caliber in LE/Gov circles again.

I think the last time I asked someone from Glock, it was almost 4 years ago. At that time I was told that they were only making 1 gun chambered in .357SIG for every 2,500 other guns chambered in all of the other calibers (combined), and that the caliber wasn't nearly as popular among their LE customers as the .40, 9 & .45 models. I'd be a bit curious to hear if matters have changed since then. I suspect the only reason the person with whom I was discussing it even knew some numbers is because he said he had been curious about it himself and had taken the time to ask some people back at the company headquarters in an attempt to find out about it. He said the info wasn't really easily available, or at least being commonly discussed, making him originally think that the numbers weren't very large compared to all of the other models being sold.

When I asked someone from Sig a couple of years ago they claimed not to know any production numbers (understandable), but said the .40 was the biggest seller of the major calibers.

I thought it was a reflection of at least some slowly developing interest when S&W announced they were going to chamber the M&P pistol series in .357SIG, since it would seem they wouldn't bother if they didn't anticipate at least some sales potential.

I still think the largest potential market for the caliber probably remains the private owner/shooter.

uz2bUSMC
01-15-2010, 18:33
The tricky thing with Law Enforcement is budget. I feel that if an agency chooses the .357sig, it's not because it's cheap... it's because something has them to feel that the cartridge's performance out-weighs budget contraints.

fastbolt
01-15-2010, 19:17
Fastbolt, I enjoy reading your posts. Always very well written. Anywho, I just don't agree with this part...


I think this phrase is sung quite often without much thought, it seems to be the "easy" way to categorize the performance levels of a platform. I feel this to be unfair when actually investigated. An M4 with an uber cool 11.5" bbl is set up to be a slouch. It is a rifle, yes, but you're probably better off with a handgun with missiles constructed to perform on people.

Thanks.

I understand (and agree) what you're saying about the possibility of the "it's just a handgun" being somewhat of an over-generalization, or simplification. I'd offer that it depends on the situational context, though.

Personally, I don't use it without thought.

I often use the generalization when I hear some younger folks splitting hairs and trying to argue nebulous shades-of-gray merits of one major caliber in a short-barreled service pistol over another ... after having just qualified them, or having observed another instructor having qualified them, and assessing their relative skills and abilities. :whistling:

I often suspect that some of these young folks (for the most part, but obviously not exclusively) are sometimes mentally substituting - either intentionally or unintentionally - caliber or bullet design in hopes of making up for their abilities and skills. Something along the lines of it being faster and easier to "buy" a perceived potential advantage than investing the time and effort in a developing a physical/mental one (and maintaining it).

Yes, no and maybe. Depends. ;)

There's arguably a primacy in assigning priorities to all the various mental (knowledge/mindset), physical (strength/endurance), equipment (weapons, holsters, ammunition) and skills/abilities involved in using a successfully and effectively using a handgun as a defensive weapon when both lawful and appropriate. The trick is to figure out the most critical priorities and influential factors which may come into play in any given set of circumstances or situation.

I like having access to the better designed, more modern hollowpoint loads when possible, myself, but I don't place an emphasis on doing so to the extent that I neglect developing and maintaining skills (or maintaining a given handgun properly).

Some folks often give the impression that they seem to think a certain caliber is going to get them safely past the 'make or break' point, and others seem to like to think of make/model handgun or bullet design factors in much the same way. Dunno.

The "Talisman Effect", perhaps?

I use the "it's just a handgun" comment to see if it jars their thinking, or prompts them to reconsider their assessment of potential priorities, as well as reconsider the relative importance of being able to use whatever handgun they have at their disposal in the first place.

I'd rather go into Harm's Way with an experienced, if grizzled and worn, veteran who can decisively, accurately & effectively employ his well-worn S&W Model 10 than some young hot-shot with his cutting edge gear and state-of-the-art ammunition.

Confidence in equipment is fine and laudable, but I'd offer that it shouldn't be unreasonably elevated above the relative importance of the knowledge, skills, abilities, experience and mindset of the equipment user.

Of course, given the choice between facing a given situation armed just with a handgun, instead of a shotgun or patrol rifle? ;)

In the greater scheme of everything that may be encountered or the specific situations which may occur ... it's still just a handgun. It's still just a piece of equipment. Maybe some nuance or subtle quality of the individual piece of equipment (or ammunition) may be just enough to allow the user to prevail, or maybe the 'user qualities' may overcome any inherent superiority of design or performance capability of the equipment.

Just depends how many eggs and how many baskets someone wants to juggle when it comes down to the potential for serious consequences, maybe.

I agree with the M4 configured with the shortest barrel options essentially being 2-handed machine pistols of arguably lesser advantage regarding ballistic capability (as well as the disadvantage of the increased muzzle blast and noise) ... depending on ammunition selection, of course ... but there's always going to be the younger folks who go for the appearance/cool factor.

You know, the 'team leader gets the coolest carbine' sort of thing? Hey, maybe they'll grow out of it, or reconsider the totality of their experience and 'working wisdom' after surviving some experience or other ... and when it comes right down to it, the configurations wouldn't be made if they didn't sell for whatever reason or weren't being requested.

Doesn't mean I'd want one instead of a good pistol, though, either. ;)

uz2bUSMC
01-15-2010, 19:38
Phew! Another long one...



In the greater scheme of everything that may be encountered or the specific situations which may occur ... it's still just a handgun. It's still just a piece of equipment. Maybe some nuance or subtle quality of the individual piece of equipment (or ammunition) may be just enough to allow the user to prevail, or maybe the 'user qualities' may overcome any inherent superiority of design or performance capability of the equipment.


In the greater scheme of things and in the words of Fackler or Mcphearson. "The handgun must prevail". The mantra of "The handgun is to fight your way back to your long gun" is cute at best. 'Cause... no you won't, you're going to begin and end the fight with the handgun. The grey area of difference between short barreled metal or metal/plastic bullet launchers could be that step that puts it into a different, favorable category. A punch vs a knockout punch. One has a varied effect, depending on the recipients abilities, mindset, etc. -the other demands incapacitation regardless of it's recipients wishes or desire to maintain the fight. I think law enforcement agencies may finally be putting 2 and 2 together and getting .357 because of the cartrides ability to be a knockout show stopper more frequently than it's fellow service counterparts.

fastbolt
01-15-2010, 20:52
Phew! Another long one...






In the greater scheme of things and in the words of Fackler or Mcphearson. "The handgun must prevail". The mantra of "The handgun is to fight your way back to your long gun" is cute at best. 'Cause... no you won't, you're going to begin and end the fight with the handgun. The grey area of difference between short barreled metal or metal/plastic bullet launchers could be that step that puts it into a different, favorable category. A punch vs a knockout punch. One has a varied effect, depending on the recipients abilities, mindset, etc. -the other demands incapacitation regardless of it's recipients wishes or desire to maintain the fight. I think law enforcement agencies may finally be putting 2 and 2 together and getting .357 because of the cartrides ability to be a knockout show stopper more frequently than it's fellow service counterparts.

Hey, if you don't care to follow my rambling, I won't be offended. ;) I certainly acknowledge that I'm often prone to wordiness. I tend to enjoy the writing part without worrying about whether or not folks are going to be willing to read what I write. Don't feel obligated to spend time reading my stuff that you could use to better advantage elsewhere. :)

I've been exposed to the thinking of many of the better known folks who have been influential in the use of handguns as service weapons. Job hazard, so to speak.

To make it short, the ability of the same punch to consistently turn into a knockout punch isn't easy to predict. If someone only had to develop their strength and limit their skill development to throwing a single type of knockout punch, there might be a huge number of worldclass level champions constantly climbing over each other to be the ONE who has the chance to throw the first punch and be the winner.

It's not that simple, though.

Having spent my fair share of time getting together with firearms instructors and talking shop over the course of my duties as a firearms instructor (since '90), I have yet to hear more than a few folks seriously espouse the idea that any handgun cartridge ought to be labeled as a 'knockout show stopper'.

Matter of fact, while there's always going to be folks who have their personal preferences (for whatever reasons), it's sort of been my experience that among LE/Gov professionals the disagreements over caliber/cartridge "effectiveness" are much more cordial and less vehement than portrayed among isolated instances which make it into print, or are commonly portrayed among internet forums.

Handguns are still relegated to being pieces of issued (or authorized) equipment which are handier and more convenient to carry around than shotguns and rifles. They're what we have for most everyday use, and while there are some inherent advantages & disadvantages to be considered when comparing them (including caliber suitability for various circumstances, including shooter, accuracy, and even felt recoil tolerance/management), it's not like they've come up with one which renders all the rest of them obsolete.

The last 'big wave' in LE selection was the 9mm, with the .45 experiencing a couple of periods of what we might call a resurgence of interest (this is one of them). Then the .40 S&W came into our midst and started making itself hard to ignore. (I tried to ignore it for about 10 years, myself.)

The largest collection of LE/Gov handgun carriers/users seems to have convinced themselves that the .40 S&W and 9mm cartridges are the best for their needs (whatever those may be and for whatever reasons they've used to arrive at their decisions). I'm talking FBI, ICE, NYPD, CHP, LAPD, LASD, etc. Agencies which issue upwards of 9,500 or more handguns and have accumulated some service weapon usages over the years from which to keep drawing conclusions. Sure, there's some sprinkling of .45's in the mix within specialized units/assignments, but the mainstream calibers remain .40 S&W and 9mm.

The .357SIG just hasn't seemed to have developed the numbers which the 9mm and .40 S&W developed in their earlier careers, so to speak.

FWIW, one of the things I've heard mentioned among a small number of instructors who had considered the .357SIG at one point or another 9and an agency who did adopt it) was the problem with getting sufficient quantities of training & duty ammunition at prices similar to that of other calibers. I've heard more than a couple of folks lament the use of .40 S&W barrels in .357SIG guns reportedly necessitated by the availability & cost of ammunition needed for training.

As a matter of fact, there isn't even a .357SIG load on the CA state contract when it comes to handgun ammunition (which can be used by local agencies who want to benefit from the very low pricing, and who can buy even 1 case quantities last time I looked). Not sure there's a lot of putting "2 & 2 together" out this way and deciding the .357SIG is a superior LE cartridge, but ammunition selections are made for many reasons, and determining 'effectiveness' can vary in such things.

Please don't mistake my comments ... or lack of personal desire to own a .357SIG pistol, or even a .357SIG barrel ... as any indication or implication that I don't think the caliber has any 'worth', because I don't mean it that way. I'm just saying that we're apparently not choosing it or buying it out this way in any great numbers, let alone in an increasing amount.

LE ammunition selection is influenced by many things, and sometimes there's a geographical/regional influence present which has more to do with piggybacking on a larger agency's ability to order, or wanting to follow another agency's lead, than in picking the "knockout show stopper".

Now, private owners/shooters can choose anything they want, for whatever reasons they want, at whatever costs they want to afford ... and don't have to worry about trying to justify it to anyone other than themselves (although some folks do seem to enjoy trying like to try n internet firearms forums :) ).

I think I may know a couple of guys who own personal .357SIG weapons. I've never tried to convince them they had 'lesser' calibers, nor have they tried to convince me they were 'greater' calibers.

One guy bought his because he was curious about the caliber, and I think I remember the other guy said the caliber looked really cool because of the bottle-necked cartridge. I'm going to have to say that of the cops and private citizen shooters I've worked with, I can't think of more than a couple or so of them who owned .357SIG's. I haven't heard of any increase lately, either. It must be different where you live.

That's cool.

uz2bUSMC
01-15-2010, 21:09
To make it short You lied!


K, there's more I would like to comment on but I haven't the time 2nyt. I hit this back up 'morrow. G'Nyt FB.

fastbolt
01-15-2010, 21:14
You lied!


K, there's more I would like to comment on but I haven't the time 2nyt. I hit this back up 'morrow. G'Nyt FB.

Hmmm.

Looking back at it, I'd have to say you're right. :(

How about "somewhat shorter"?

Really, though, don't feel compelled to become involved in an extended discussion or debate. I don't have much interest one way or the other in how the popularity of the .357SIG develops, or fails to develop. I have enough on my plate with the 3 major defensive pistol calibers that I own and use. I can certainly support any .357SIG guns that may come across my bench, anyway. Not a big deal.

Talk to you tomorrow.

GeorgeM223
01-15-2010, 21:41
Fastbolt, nice posts! Well thought out and articulated.

G8Kpr
01-15-2010, 22:46
Fastbolt,
First of all, GREAT POSTS! I do own a G32 - mostly because I got a good deal on it when I was looking for a G19, annddd because it came with a Glock 9mm conversion barrel (a caliber I much prefer overall) so win-win all around.

I do like the 357 SiG caliber though - was first exposed to it shooting a friend's P229 then my brother's G33 - and find it is a great SD round, one I would carry more often if I lived in a more remote / rural area. As it is though, I usually (90%) carry a G38 with the remaining 10% split between the G32 with conv barrel, my Para LTC, or my AirWeight J-frame depending on itinerary and/or concealment garments fitting the season. (Gets pretty hot here in VA in the summer.) I feel I usually just don't need / want the penetration / power of the SiG in the heavily populated area in which I live - JMO, YMMV.

Still, caliber not withstanding, I find my choice is increasingly Glock or Glock; reliability, durability, dependability - and sweat resistance :supergrin:. They just work!

glock20c10mm
01-15-2010, 23:53
Boy, how many times do we hear that. Isn't a 44 mag. just a faster 44 special? Isn't the 357 mag. just a faster 38 special? The velocity issues do matter. According to articles in Guns and American Handgunner it is increasing in popularity among LE, particularly the Higway Patrols. However, agencies and groups that would probably study this sort of thing because they have a good chance to use the gun seem to be growing also. No round is perfect but I think even comparing it to a +p+ 9 would be rediculous.
I only meant in the simplist terms that it is a faster .355 caliber cartridge. It wasn't meant in a negative way, nor to take anything away from the 357SIG as compared to anything else.


Can you be more specific where you say; "The velocity issues do matter." ???

glock20c10mm
01-15-2010, 23:59
FWIW, one of the things I've heard mentioned among a small number of instructors who had considered the .357SIG at one point or another 9and an agency who did adopt it) was the problem with getting sufficient quantities of training & duty ammunition at prices similar to that of other calibers.

To be clear, did anybody mention not being able to get a needed quantity, OR, they had no issue getting any quantity and it was only in relation to cost?

remat
01-16-2010, 00:02
I read a report years ago from Henrico County, VA Sheriffs that basically said that they were evaluating it because of its similiarity to 357 magnum 125gr.

Their evaluation was that while it did not duplicate the loading exactly ballistically, the end results were the same and the guns were lighter, less recoil, and higher capacity.

The biggest highlight of the review was that the 357Sig/125 loading performed the best when confronted with car windshields as an intermediate barrier. For trivia 40/155 did second best. Wish I could remember what ammo they were using...

They adopted it.

PghJim
01-16-2010, 01:58
Can you be more specific where you say; "The velocity issues do matter." ???


Yes, the 9mm Ranger T 127gr +p+ leaves my G19 at 1,210 fps, the 125gr. Cor-Bon 357 Sig JHP leaves my G32 at 1,430. The effect on any media I have shot, including animals, has been much more devastating with the 357sig than the 9mm. If velocity did not matter why would people be shooting 9mm +p instead of just 9mm.

The 357 sig is more than a novelty. It was 12 years ago when I first got a gun chambered for it. I doubt it will take over the 40 anytime soon, but unless you own a 9mm, a 357 sig, a 40 and a 45 as I do, I do not know how you can make a comparison. I shoot probably 3,000 handgun rounds a year in all of calibers combined, and I carry the 357 sig. Not that I would feel undergunned with my G19, G23 or XD45, but I have seen the effectiveness of the 357 sig on some animals, water jugs and gelatin.

Vic777
01-16-2010, 02:03
What is the "Sky Marshall", round? For some reason I think it is .357sig, but it might be 9mm. If it is .357sig that would account for an increase in .357sig popularity.

PghJim
01-16-2010, 02:20
What is the "Sky Marshall", round?

357 Sig. I understand they have been getting different brands due to procurement issues lately, but they used to carry the slower 1,350fps 125gr Gold Dot for penetration issues. Not for the plane body, but rather for concern for the passenger body behind the BG.

fastbolt
01-16-2010, 03:40
To be clear, did anybody mention not being able to get a needed quantity, OR, they had no issue getting any quantity and it was only in relation to cost?

I was told they weren't able to get enough .357SIG after adopting the caliber and had to make do with using conversion barrels for .40 S&W for training. (Not an ideal solution, or one necessarily recommended by that gun company for dedicated LE duty weapons.)

It seems the cost of the .357SIG ammunition was a separate (but not inconsequential) issue which was of later concern when it became more easily available.

Of course, availability can be influenced by a number of things, as can procurement (vendor selection/bid).

.45Super-Man
01-16-2010, 07:11
Most 9mm fans will opt for the better +p or +p+ defensive rounds and there's a reason for this. The .357SIG follows the same reasoning that faster is better, just to a higher level unobtainable with the 9mm and yet still in a 9mm platform. As evidenced, the closer we get to original .357 mag. ballistics, the more reliable manstopper you will have. I'd expect the 10mm to be a superior stopper to the .40 as well(same bullet at higher velocity). With a properly designed bullet, more energy will always win, all things being equal such as shot placement,etc. Really makes one wonder what the 9x25 Dillon could acheive with a properly designed bullet! A ".357SIG magnum" should be all the better. The increase in stopping power indicated by higher velocity rounds tends to prove(again)that bullets dont incapicitate simply because they "poke holes". If that were true I'd expect everyone to simply carry a sharp stick and be done with it. The effect of muzzle energy on incapicitation is well documented in terms of it's effects and it's effects are linear, meaning it doesnt just "magically" begin to have an effect at that "mystical" 2,000fps mark. We may lack the science to disect it, but it's nevertheless apparent "where the rubber meets the road", so to speak. Meaning simply that the end result is what matters and we can wait for the science to catch up and explain why, in detail, later.

unit1069
01-16-2010, 08:59
Most 9mm fans will opt for the better +p or +p+ defensive rounds and there's a reason for this. The .357SIG follows the same reasoning that faster is better, just to a higher level unobtainable with the 9mm and yet still in a 9mm platform. As evidenced, the closer we get to original .357 mag. ballistics, the more reliable manstopper you will have. I'd expect the 10mm to be a superior stopper to the .40 as well(same bullet at higher velocity). With a properly designed bullet, more energy will always win, all things being equal such as shot placement,etc. Really makes one wonder what the 9x25 Dillon could acheive with a properly designed bullet! A ".357SIG magnum" should be all the better. The increase in stopping power indicated by higher velocity rounds tends to prove(again)that bullets dont incapicitate simply because they "poke holes". If that were true I'd expect everyone to simply carry a sharp stick and be done with it. The effect of muzzle energy on incapicitation is well documented in terms of it's effects and it's effects are linear, meaning it doesnt just "magically" begin to have an effect at that "mystical" 2,000fps mark. We may lack the science to disect it, but it's nevertheless apparent "where the rubber meets the road", so to speak. Meaning simply that the end result is what matters and we can wait for the science to catch up and explain why, in detail, later.

Well said!

glock20c10mm
01-16-2010, 14:56
Yes, the 9mm Ranger T 127gr +p+ leaves my G19 at 1,210 fps, the 125gr. Cor-Bon 357 Sig JHP leaves my G32 at 1,430. The effect on any media I have shot, including animals, has been much more devastating with the 357sig than the 9mm. If velocity did not matter why would people be shooting 9mm +p instead of just 9mm.

The 357 sig is more than a novelty. It was 12 years ago when I first got a gun chambered for it. I doubt it will take over the 40 anytime soon, but unless you own a 9mm, a 357 sig, a 40 and a 45 as I do, I do not know how you can make a comparison. I shoot probably 3,000 handgun rounds a year in all of calibers combined, and I carry the 357 sig. Not that I would feel undergunned with my G19, G23 or XD45, but I have seen the effectiveness of the 357 sig on some animals, water jugs and gelatin.
:agree: Thanks for clarifying.

Craig

glock20c10mm
01-16-2010, 15:02
Most 9mm fans will opt for the better +p or +p+ defensive rounds and there's a reason for this. The .357SIG follows the same reasoning that faster is better, just to a higher level unobtainable with the 9mm and yet still in a 9mm platform. As evidenced, the closer we get to original .357 mag. ballistics, the more reliable manstopper you will have. I'd expect the 10mm to be a superior stopper to the .40 as well(same bullet at higher velocity). With a properly designed bullet, more energy will always win, all things being equal such as shot placement,etc. Really makes one wonder what the 9x25 Dillon could acheive with a properly designed bullet! A ".357SIG magnum" should be all the better. The increase in stopping power indicated by higher velocity rounds tends to prove(again)that bullets dont incapicitate simply because they "poke holes". If that were true I'd expect everyone to simply carry a sharp stick and be done with it. The effect of muzzle energy on incapicitation is well documented in terms of it's effects and it's effects are linear, meaning it doesnt just "magically" begin to have an effect at that "mystical" 2,000fps mark. We may lack the science to disect it, but it's nevertheless apparent "where the rubber meets the road", so to speak. Meaning simply that the end result is what matters and we can wait for the science to catch up and explain why, in detail, later.
Yeah, what unit1069 said! :thumbsup:

Double Tap 9X25 Gold Dot loads:
115gr, 1800fps/827ft-lbs, 10.0" penetration in clothed gel
125gr, 1725fps/826ft-lbs, 15.0" penetration in clothed gel
147gr, 1550fps/784ft-lbs, 17.5" penetration in clothed gel

Scary in all the right ways!!! :scared:

Good Shooting,
Craig

jwizzl497
01-16-2010, 15:05
I am far from educated on this manner, but I have taken a special interest in ballistics and I have researched and reviewed and analyzed a lot of data on gelatin, penetration, expansion, energy, etc and how the different calibers stack up and every time I do this the rank seems to be 10mm, 45acp/357sig (tie), 40sw, 9mm. Not too mention that it also seems to have a more controllable recoil than the 40sw.

I too agree that the 357 sig is an awesome round!

GVFlyer
01-16-2010, 18:41
Not sure on your original question(s), but I can't find ammo at Wally World for .357 Sig anywhere around here. They get in 9 and .40 in all the time.

My Walmart has 125 grain .357 SIG and Federal FMJ 180 grain .40 S&W (@$13.97/50) on the shelf right now. I bought their last 6 boxes of $15.97 Federal FMJ .45 ACP.

...and I also carry one of two German .357 SIG pistols when not carrying a .45ACP.

uz2bUSMC
01-16-2010, 18:46
The effect of muzzle energy on incapicitation is well documented in terms of it's effects and it's effects are linear, meaning it doesnt just "magically" begin to have an effect at that "mystical" 2,000fps mark.

Bro, do you know how many times i've said this almost... if not... the EXACT same way?!!
Man, it's nice to hear someone else say that! You neeed to start posting more, brotha.

c5367
01-16-2010, 18:59
Yeah, what unit1069 said! :thumbsup:

Double Tap 9X25 Gold Dot loads:
115gr, 1800fps/827ft-lbs, 10.0" penetration in clothed gel
125gr, 1725fps/826ft-lbs, 15.0" penetration in clothed gel
147gr, 1550fps/784ft-lbs, 17.5" penetration in clothed gel

Scary in all the right ways!!! :scared:

Good Shooting,
Craig

If the 125gr 357 Mag at 1450 is a legendary performer, imagine it at 1725! Good penetration, not too much, not too little and MASSIVE energy (for a pistol cartridge)

unit1069
01-16-2010, 19:33
If the 125gr 357 Mag at 1450 is a legendary performer, imagine it at 1725! Good penetration, not too much, not too little and MASSIVE energy (for a pistol cartridge)

Yes the ballistics are impressive to me also, but the question in my mind is what's the advantage in normal civilian self-defense encounters over .357 Magnum (revolvers) or 10mm (and .45ACP, .40S&W/.357sig, 9mm in semi-autos) with that increased power and penetration?

It seems to me that any cartridge exceeding the listed calibers above are in the realm of specialized uses or military applications. I'd love to shoot a 9 X 25 Dillion just to experience it but I don't know of any realistic advantage it would provide. If I had a 10mm Glock I'd for sure have a conversion barrel but for self-defense purposes how could it be better than the 10mm?

Out West
01-16-2010, 20:07
Fastbolt, your contribution to this forum, and others that I know of, measurably raise the level of thoughtfulness and discourse. You are the kind of guy I like go shooting with. Take care,

Out West

uz2bUSMC
01-16-2010, 20:39
Yes the ballistics are impressive to me also, but the question in my mind is what's the advantage in normal civilian self-defense encounters over .357 Magnum (revolvers) or 10mm (and .45ACP, .40S&W/.357sig, 9mm in semi-autos) with that increased power and penetration?

It seems to me that any cartridge exceeding the listed calibers above are in the realm of specialized uses or military applications. I'd love to shoot a 9 X 25 Dillion just to experience it but I don't know of any realistic advantage it would provide. If I had a 10mm Glock I'd for sure have a conversion barrel but for self-defense purposes how could it be better than the 10mm?

Keep in mind that these ballistics are from a 6"bbl for the 9x25. DT 10mm 135 grain has posted 955ft.lbs from a 6". The advantage is having a pistol with carbine performance, roughly that of a 14.5" 5.56.

Glolt20-91
01-16-2010, 23:20
Yeah, what unit1069 said! :thumbsup:

Double Tap 9X25 Gold Dot loads:
115gr, 1800fps/827ft-lbs, 10.0" penetration in clothed gel
125gr, 1725fps/826ft-lbs, 15.0" penetration in clothed gel
147gr, 1550fps/784ft-lbs, 17.5" penetration in clothed gel

Scary in all the right ways!!! :scared:

Good Shooting,
Craig

9x25mm certainly puts up some nice numbers; however, bullet design and construction can overcome those very hign energy numbers.

Here's a direct 4 layer denim comparison with the 9x25mm; from Michael Shovel at Corbon, only 466 ft-lbs from their DPX ammo line!

This was using properly prepared 10% ballistic gelatin with a 4 layer denim barrier.

The 44 Special ended up with

velocity - 1024 fps
recovered diameter - .89"
penetration - 17.5"
recovered wt - 200 gr


Sectional density of the 200gr DPX bullet is less than the 147gr GD, which is well past its velocity design parameters.

Bob :cowboy:

fastbolt
01-17-2010, 02:07
Out West, you caught me by surprise. Thanks. I'd enjoy that if the opportunity ever came about ... as long as you didn't mind me bringing along a cigar or two.

As far as the main thread topic goes ...

I've always respected the .357 Magnum revolver cartridge for its versatility as a medium-bore revolver cartridge, especially for a couple of loads I used to favor when I was a handloader, one of which was a stoutly loaded 140gr JHP (I used the CCI JHP bullet).

I had to settle for 158gr JHP, 125gr JHP and 145gr STHP loads for duty ammo when I later got into LE work. The 140gr JHP factory loads were harder to find.

I remember attending a couple of wound ballistics seminars taught by a former DoD investigator who had the personal opinion (albeit based on his case experience investigating shootings in special circumstances) that if the .357 Magnum revolver had remained in LE service a while longer that the 140gr JHP, especially the 140gr SJHP, would probably have eventually been recognized to basically be a "better 125gr JHP". Maybe so. Dunno. I liked the capabilities of the middle weight Magnum load, though.

It's probably accurate to say that my interest in the .357 Magnum limits any interest I might have had in the .357SIG. I'd rather buy another .357 Magnum revolver than a pistol in .357SIG, but that's also probably because I already have so many excellent CCW-capable pistols chambered in 9, .40 & .45 ...

SawgrassRaven
01-17-2010, 15:10
Thanks.

I understand (and agree) what you're saying about the possibility of the "it's just a handgun" being somewhat of an over-generalization, or simplification. I'd offer that it depends on the situational context, though.

Personally, I don't use it without thought.

I often use the generalization when I hear some younger folks splitting hairs and trying to argue nebulous shades-of-gray merits of one major caliber in a short-barreled service pistol over another ... after having just qualified them, or having observed another instructor having qualified them, and assessing their relative skills and abilities. :whistling:

I often suspect that some of these young folks (for the most part, but obviously not exclusively) are sometimes mentally substituting - either intentionally or unintentionally - caliber or bullet design in hopes of making up for their abilities and skills. Something along the lines of it being faster and easier to "buy" a perceived potential advantage than investing the time and effort in a developing a physical/mental one (and maintaining it).

Yes, no and maybe. Depends. ;)

There's arguably a primacy in assigning priorities to all the various mental (knowledge/mindset), physical (strength/endurance), equipment (weapons, holsters, ammunition) and skills/abilities involved in using a successfully and effectively using a handgun as a defensive weapon when both lawful and appropriate. The trick is to figure out the most critical priorities and influential factors which may come into play in any given set of circumstances or situation.

I like having access to the better designed, more modern hollowpoint loads when possible, myself, but I don't place an emphasis on doing so to the extent that I neglect developing and maintaining skills (or maintaining a given handgun properly).

Some folks often give the impression that they seem to think a certain caliber is going to get them safely past the 'make or break' point, and others seem to like to think of make/model handgun or bullet design factors in much the same way. Dunno.

The "Talisman Effect", perhaps?

I use the "it's just a handgun" comment to see if it jars their thinking, or prompts them to reconsider their assessment of potential priorities, as well as reconsider the relative importance of being able to use whatever handgun they have at their disposal in the first place.

I'd rather go into Harm's Way with an experienced, if grizzled and worn, veteran who can decisively, accurately & effectively employ his well-worn S&W Model 10 than some young hot-shot with his cutting edge gear and state-of-the-art ammunition.

Confidence in equipment is fine and laudable, but I'd offer that it shouldn't be unreasonably elevated above the relative importance of the knowledge, skills, abilities, experience and mindset of the equipment user.

Of course, given the choice between facing a given situation armed just with a handgun, instead of a shotgun or patrol rifle? ;)

In the greater scheme of everything that may be encountered or the specific situations which may occur ... it's still just a handgun. It's still just a piece of equipment. Maybe some nuance or subtle quality of the individual piece of equipment (or ammunition) may be just enough to allow the user to prevail, or maybe the 'user qualities' may overcome any inherent superiority of design or performance capability of the equipment.

Just depends how many eggs and how many baskets someone wants to juggle when it comes down to the potential for serious consequences, maybe.

I agree with the M4 configured with the shortest barrel options essentially being 2-handed machine pistols of arguably lesser advantage regarding ballistic capability (as well as the disadvantage of the increased muzzle blast and noise) ... depending on ammunition selection, of course ... but there's always going to be the younger folks who go for the appearance/cool factor.

You know, the 'team leader gets the coolest carbine' sort of thing? Hey, maybe they'll grow out of it, or reconsider the totality of their experience and 'working wisdom' after surviving some experience or other ... and when it comes right down to it, the configurations wouldn't be made if they didn't sell for whatever reason or weren't being requested.

Doesn't mean I'd want one instead of a good pistol, though, either. ;)


Excellent post!


:wavey:

Bill Lumberg
01-17-2010, 15:31
357SIG proving to be an unbelievable manstopper???

Nope. Other than internet rumor, I heard of many agencies switching to .357sig. Not a bad round, but not exactly gaining ground versus .40 either.

.45Super-Man
01-17-2010, 15:37
Yes the ballistics are impressive to me also, but the question in my mind is what's the advantage in normal civilian self-defense encounters over .357 Magnum (revolvers) or 10mm (and .45ACP, .40S&W/.357sig, 9mm in semi-autos) with that increased power and penetration?

It seems to me that any cartridge exceeding the listed calibers above are in the realm of specialized uses or military applications. I'd love to shoot a 9 X 25 Dillion just to experience it but I don't know of any realistic advantage it would provide. If I had a 10mm Glock I'd for sure have a conversion barrel but for self-defense purposes how could it be better than the 10mm?

Comparing the 9x25 to the 10mm in terms of terminal ballistics, runs parallel to the .357SIG vs. 40S&W debate. In both cases you're trading a bit of mass and frontal area for energy. For more specific/tactical applications, the 9x25 may well have an edge over the 10mm with the very top loads and comparable weight to caliber ratio for both calibers. If I carried a 10mm Glock, I'd be very tempted by the 9x25 for carry IF the bullets were designed to perform at those elevated velocities. Anotherwards, 10mm for home defense where the chances of having to penetrate secondary obstacles were basically a non-issue and you want that extra frontal area/mass working for you with an unobstructed target at VERY close quarters. When you're "out in the world" there are more possible variables that could have an effect on the outcome such as increased distances, windshield/barrier penetration,etc. and THERE is where I'd want the 9x25 on my side "just in case". So a drop in barrel and mag change is all you'd need as you head out the door.

LEAD
01-19-2010, 15:30
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_157_26/ai_84428729/?tag=rbxcra.2.a.11

TwinFourFives
01-19-2010, 16:17
I'm by no means a ballistics expert, and my favorite autopistol caliber is still the 9mm. However, with the 357 sig's speed, i can see it possibly penetrating better with hollow points, as compared to a regular 9mm hp. It may also offer a bit of extre penetration through side shots, arm bones, and other barriers. Then there is probably also, some extra hydrostatick shock caused by 357 sig wounds. It may or may not cause permanent damage, but i'm sure the target is going to feel it either way.

PghJim
01-19-2010, 17:28
I think reading those articles is very interesting. So as far as state troopers are concerned 19%+ are currently using the 357 Sig and amoung that group it is second only to the 40 S&W. That sounds far from a novelty round as some have implied.

Glolt20-91
01-20-2010, 01:44
Since many law enforcement agencies that issue the .357SIG, Speer's bonded 125gr Gold Dot advertised at 1350fps is a popular choice for carry ammo.

The 125gr GD has a shallow cavity (high velocity) design, the 147gr GD is a deep cavity design, as is the 10mm/155gr GD. Now contrast this with the shallow cavity .357mag/158gr GD and the old tech Remington 158gr SJHP.

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/GoldDot-SJHPsectionaldensity005.jpg

Comparing sectional density match ups pits the .357SIG/125gr Gold Dot vs the 10mm/155gr GD. Using steel barriers in front of one gallon water bottles the handloaded 125gr GD (1430fps + in .38Super) out penetrated and expanded wider than the handloaded 10mm/155gr GD. If Speer offered a shallow cavity 155gr for 10mm velocities it would result in better performance.

The best performing steel barrier/water bottle test turned out to be the .357mag/140gr SJHP running in the low 1500s, and that includes the .357mag/158gr GD.

Loading the 9mm with the 125gr Gold Dot (knocking on 1300fps) instead of the 124gr Gold Dot and penetration/expansion is on par with the 10mm/155gr GD.

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/GoldDot355-357caliber002.jpg

124gr lower right.

l-r 9mm/125gr GD, 38Super/125gr GD, 357mag/125gr GD (1600s)

So, what round went heads up with the 125gr GD/1430fps (faster than Speer's factory one-shot-stopper MV)???

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/1911230grGS2-05-2007023.jpg

.45auto/230gr Golden Saber/960fps. The .45auto still remains a very popular carry for high risk law enforcement teams/units, including FBI SWAT/HRT et al.

Notice the terrible recoil of the .357mag/125gr GD/1600s/750fpe;

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/Christmas06M686125grGoldDot.jpg

For those who handload, the 9mm/125gr GD offers much better performance than the 124gr, plus the shallow cavity design is less likely to clog.

Bob

glock20c10mm
01-20-2010, 22:37
For those who handload, the 9mm/125gr GD offers much better performance than the 124gr, plus the shallow cavity design is less likely to clog.

Bob
I guess there's an exception to every rule. From the standpoint you're always preaching about any given bullet's designed velocity window. Do you think a 155gr XTP in the 10mm load would stand up better to hard barrier penetration over the Gold Dot design?

Did you chrono the handloaded 155gr 10mm load you spoke of? If so what was the velocity? 4.6" or 6.0" barrel?

gatorboy
01-21-2010, 15:03
Fastbolt has my respect as well, I truly enjoy reading his posts. :thumbsup:

PghJim
01-21-2010, 18:30
Look the 357 sig is not an unbelievable man stopper. I carry it and it is an effective SD cartridge. I feel no special reason to promote it and others should not rush to marginalize or condem it. This is caliber corner and this stuff is fun and although I particularly like the 357 sig., I think I would still be OK with my G23 or XD45 and my ability to place a shot under tremendous pressure will more dictate the outcome. However, although I have a G19, it is hard to warm up to the 9mm as a carry cartridge. Most agencies (local and state) went from the 9mm to the 40 S&W for a reason. Also, if I have to count on the 15th and 16th round, it will be a pretty bad day.

Glolt20-91
01-23-2010, 00:04
I guess there's an exception to every rule. From the standpoint you're always preaching about any given bullet's designed velocity window. Do you think a 155gr XTP in the 10mm load would stand up better to hard barrier penetration over the Gold Dot design?

Did you chrono the handloaded 155gr 10mm load you spoke of? If so what was the velocity? 4.6" or 6.0" barrel?

Check your Hornady manual for their XTP design velocities.

The 155gr Gold Dot was running in the mid 1300s, here's some load data Mike McNett posted on the 10mm reloading page;

85F 5000ft CCI 350 primers Starline brass AA 7 powder 1.255" OAL:

G29:
135gr 13.5gr - 1310fps
155 XTP 12.6 - 1263fps
165gr Sierra 12.0gr - 1232fps
180gr XTP 10.9 - 1145fps
200gr XTP 10.3 - 1092fps
220gr Precision FP 9.2gr - 975fps

G20:
135gr 13.5gr - 1409fps
155 XTP 12.6 - 1356fps
165gr Sierra 12.0gr - 1291fps
180gr XTP 10.9 - 1189fps
200gr XTP 10.3 - 1141fps
220gr Precision FP 9.2gr - 1027fps

6"KKM:
135gr 13.5gr - 1557fps
155 XTP 12.6 - 1462fps
165gr Sierra 12.0gr - 1370fps
180gr XTP 10.9 - 1266fps
200gr XTP 10.3 - 1205fps
220gr Precision FP 9.2gr - 1062fps
__________________
"TWO HOLES BLEED BETTER THAN ONE!"
www.doubletapammo.com
For the 10mm enthusiast!


AA #7 is a nice powder to work with, but I really like what I see with the Longshot numbers, apparently McNett does too;

Here is some info from my work with Longshot. Always start 1.0gr lower and work up in .2gr increments until you see pressure signs. (Waters' method):
Starline Brass, CCI 350 primers, 1.26" OAL. 10 shot avg. G20 85F and 5000ft elevation.

135gr Nosler 13.2gr LS - 1542fps
165 GSHP 10.4gr LS - 1356fps
180 GSHP 9.6gr LS - 1294fps
200 XTP 8.2gr LS - 1172fps

These are loads that I have worked up to and are under 37,500psi when I had them tested. I hope this helps!
-Mike
__________________
"TWO HOLES BLEED BETTER THAN ONE!"
www.doubletapammo.com
For the 10mm enthusiast!


Bob :cowboy:

glock20c10mm
01-23-2010, 03:48
Check your Hornady manual for their XTP design velocities.

The 155gr Gold Dot was running in the mid 1300s, here's some load data Mike McNett posted on the 10mm reloading page;



AA #7 is a nice powder to work with, but I really like what I see with the Longshot numbers, apparently McNett does too;



Bob :cowboy:
My Hornady manual says up to 1300fps for the 155gr XTPs. Doesn't mean we can't experiment at ~1400fps though. Whatever reasons Hornady has for recommending an upper limit of 1300fps may not mean I wouldn't be just as happy with their overall performance at ~1400fps. Maybe I would,maybe I wouldn't. Only some fair testing would tell.

Also, I agree. With the 10mm, Longshot, with virtually any bullet weight, appears to be argueably as good or better than most or any others powders out there. I have lots of load data for the 10mm.


Thanks Bob,
Craig

Glolt20-91
01-23-2010, 17:45
My Hornady manual says up to 1300fps for the 155gr XTPs. Doesn't mean we can't experiment at ~1400fps though. Whatever reasons Hornady has for recommending an upper limit of 1300fps may not mean I wouldn't be just as happy with their overall performance at ~1400fps. Maybe I would,maybe I wouldn't. Only some fair testing would tell.

Also, I agree. With the 10mm, Longshot, with virtually any bullet weight, appears to be argueably as good or better than most or any others powders out there. I have lots of load data for the 10mm.


Thanks Bob,
Craig

A number of bullet designs can be pushed an additional 20% to 25%. Like you wrote, the 155gr XTP is pretty explosive when tested in the 1400fps range. :supergrin:

Bob :cowboy:

glock20c10mm
01-23-2010, 18:35
A number of bullet designs can be pushed an additional 20% to 25%. Like you wrote, the 155gr XTP is pretty explosive when tested in the 1400fps range. :supergrin:

Bob :cowboy:
I may be misinterpeting what you wrote, but for the record, I don't actually know if it is or not (the 155gr XTP is pretty explosive when tested in the 1400fps range.).

What I do know is that the 180gr and 200gr XTPs in DT ammo work great (they are rated by Horandy for up to 1450fps and 1200fps respectively) at +.75" expansion into various forms of media. That said, I just wonder if they may have under rated the 155gr XTP a bit.

I do find it curious as to why they rated the 180gr for up to 1450fps! Maybe for good hunting performance from 6" accessory barrels with hot loads? Maybe so they still perform well from 10" barreled TCs? Maybe so they still perform well from carbine length barrels? That's all I can figure. Be interesting to know for sure though. Heck, it could be a misprint in the manual for all I know.

Anyway, if you ever do choose to soup up some 10mm 155gr XTPs, maybe even from the 6" barrel, definately let us know the outcome.


Good Shooting,
Craig

PghJim
01-23-2010, 19:56
Hijacked

Glolt20-91
01-23-2010, 22:57
Hijacked

You're always welcome to share your .357SIG field experiences/testing heads-up vs the above 10mm combinations. :supergrin:

Bob

PghJim
01-23-2010, 23:34
Just yanking your chain. I love the 10mm too and have a G29 and 3 1911's calibered in 10mm. However, I rarely carry the G29 in that the 357 sig fits into a smaller platform and God cursed me with small hands.

Glolt20-91
01-24-2010, 00:32
Just yanking your chain. I love the 10mm too and have a G29 and 3 1911's calibered in 10mm. However, I rarely carry the G29 in that the 357 sig fits into a smaller platform and God cursed me with small hands.

I have a G20 and G20 SF, in hindsight, I think the 10mm/1911 combination would be a better carry. I'd be interested in feedback with your 10mm/1911s vs the .357SIG. If you handload, try the 1911/.38Super; it'll also load with .357mag bullets and has the same COAL as 10mm. I'm also testing 155gr XTPs in a 1911/.400 Corbon set-up; seems to be a lot more accurate than either of my Glock 10mms.

When I get enough water bottles, I want to retest the 125gr GD upper 1400s :wow: (N105) vs 155gr GD (if any are left) at 1400s + ??? Longshot.

My money is on the 125gr GD, how about you? :supergrin:

Bob :cowboy:

PghJim
01-24-2010, 07:01
The 10mm loads from Double Tap beat the 357 sig and I generally carry the 165 gr. Golden Sabers which perform really well on water jugs. My standard hand load is a180 gr. Seirra HP with 11. something of AA7. I would have to go and look up the exact amount, but I get 1200 fps out of the 1911 and it is a very accurate load.

I have trouble carrying a full size 1911 and I had the grip reduced on the G29 it is not bad, but I shoot faster with the G32 in 357 sig. I found that CorBon 125 JHP leaves my G32 at 1430fps and has devestating effects and I generally carry that. It is better than my handloads with Power Pistol at 1450 and 125 GD's.

uz2bUSMC
01-24-2010, 09:48
A number of bullet designs can be pushed an additional 20% to 25%. Like you wrote, the 155gr XTP is pretty explosive when tested in the 1400fps range. :supergrin:

Bob :cowboy:

The 155grn GD can be pretty explosive, aswell... from a 6' bbl!

glock20c10mm
01-24-2010, 13:38
I'm also testing 155gr XTPs in a 1911/.400 Corbon set-up; seems to be a lot more accurate than either of my Glock 10mms.

When I get enough water bottles, I want to retest the 125gr GD upper 1400s :wow: (N105) vs 155gr GD (if any are left) at 1400s + ??? Longshot.

My money is on the 125gr GD, how about you? :supergrin:

Bob :cowboy:
Can't wait to find out if the 155gr XTP will hold up to the velocity or not. And overall, it will be a great comparison!


Craig

Glolt20-91
01-24-2010, 22:54
The 155grn GD can be pretty explosive, aswell... from a 6' bbl!

Depending on powder, the 6" KKM barrel typically generates about 90fps over the 4.6" barrel; I'll test both lengths.

Bob :cowboy:

glock20c10mm
01-25-2010, 22:15
Depending on powder, the 6" KKM barrel typically generates about 90fps over the 4.6" barrel; I'll test both lengths.

Bob :cowboy:
Sweet!

If it works out, some in various forums have mentioned Longshot as producing very low levels of flash. Whenever you get around to it, could you also pop off a few rounds at night and give us your thoughts on that?


Craig

mikegun
01-26-2010, 21:39
law enforcement likes 357sig, because it is a good car cutter. simple as that. very little choice in bullets.

kennjen
01-26-2010, 22:55
But really, a Corvette is simply a fast Chevett, right? :supergrin:

Not really....have you seen a chevett trying to turn or brake from 160 mph ?

LOL...no but really I see your point.

PghJim
01-27-2010, 05:24
law enforcement likes 357sig, because it is a good car cutter. simple as that. very little choice in bullets.

That is why the Air Marshalls are using it. It is not as simple as that. It is a very effective cartridge and if you look around there are good choices in bullets and there will be more. As one who has used the cartridge for over 12 years, I cannot understand why people want to marginalize this round.

PghJim
01-27-2010, 05:30
LOL...no but really I see your point.

Since he was responding to me, I do not see his point. But I took it as humor. The response was to the statement that a 357 sig is just a fast 9mm. But truly that is just like saying a 357 magnum is just a fast 38 special. A true statement but the qualifier "just" fails to appreciate the importance in higher velocity.

LEAD
01-27-2010, 07:38
law enforcement likes 357sig, because it is a good car cutter. simple as that. very little choice in bullets.

There are over 130 choices for .357sig ammo. Law enforcement likes .357sig because it has a great track record in real life shootings. Do your homework:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=.357+sig+real+life+shootings

GunFighter45ACP
01-27-2010, 11:28
I'm a fan of 357sig & also own/carry/shoot the other main semi auto duty calibers: (9, 40, 45). To me, it's a simple matter of choosing the right tool for the right job. If barrier penetration is a key requirement, like BGs shooting/hiding behind their vehicles on a traffic stop, then 357sig is a real winner. If you're working or fighting for your life in a CQB environment, it's hard to argue against calibers w/a larger sectional density. If you work for an agency w/LOTs of Officers & high training & supply costs, like NYPD, the benefits of 9mm are a no brainer.

Now, a valid 357sig question I often hear is, "If it's sooo good against barriers, then why would the Fed Air Marshalls choose this caliber? Won't it go straight thru the BG & the airplane as well?" Without getting into all the details as to how I know, the answer is the FAMs we're looking for a round that could produce, dare I say it, instant incapacitation, & 357sig did pretty well in the reporting they reviewed. Like was said before, there's something to that extra velocity that at this time we can't measure or quantify, but it works. Again, you need the right tool for the right job. Know what your job is & pick the right tool. And please keep in mind that your job and mine may be different, too.

uz2bUSMC
01-27-2010, 11:40
To me, it's a simple matter of choosing the right tool for the right job. If barrier penetration is a key requirement, like BGs shooting/hiding behind their vehicles on a traffic stop, then 357sig is a real winner.

Or if you are a private citisen that has to fire throug your own car door or windshield as you sit in your own car and are approached by the BG.

GunFighter45ACP
01-27-2010, 12:35
that, too, but to play devils advocate, that scenario is more about tactics than caliber.

glock20c10mm
01-27-2010, 20:23
Without getting into all the details as to how I know, the answer is the FAMs we're looking for a round that could produce, dare I say it, instant incapacitation, & 357sig did pretty well in the reporting they reviewed. Like was said before, there's something to that extra velocity that at this time we can't measure or quantify, but it works.
Exactly the kind of insight I like to hear about! :thumbsup:

Can you elaborate any further at all? Even a tidbit? Site a nonclassified source? Anything?


Craig

Claemore
02-01-2010, 00:50
I'm a fan of 357sig & also own/carry/shoot the other main semi auto duty calibers: (9, 40, 45). To me, it's a simple matter of choosing the right tool for the right job. If barrier penetration is a key requirement, like BGs shooting/hiding behind their vehicles on a traffic stop, then 357sig is a real winner. If you're working or fighting for your life in a CQB environment, it's hard to argue against calibers w/a larger sectional density. If you work for an agency w/LOTs of Officers & high training & supply costs, like NYPD, the benefits of 9mm are a no brainer.

Now, a valid 357sig question I often hear is, "If it's sooo good against barriers, then why would the Fed Air Marshalls choose this caliber? Won't it go straight thru the BG & the airplane as well?" Without getting into all the details as to how I know, the answer is the FAMs we're looking for a round that could produce, dare I say it, instant incapacitation, & 357sig did pretty well in the reporting they reviewed. Like was said before, there's something to that extra velocity that at this time we can't measure or quantify, but it works. Again, you need the right tool for the right job. Know what your job is & pick the right tool. And please keep in mind that your job and mine may be different, too.

Also, at least from watching Mythbusters, you will not get a catastrophic depressurization from shooting through an airplane's walls, or its windows. Maybe I don't remember it right, but I am pretty sure that was the conclusion.

Alaskapopo
02-01-2010, 03:34
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.

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:
Actually its popularity is on the down swing not the upswing. Its not a bad round but it does nothing that the 9mm can't do.
Pat

PghJim
02-01-2010, 03:46
Actually its popularity is on the down swing not the upswing. Its not a bad round but it does nothing that the 9mm can't do.
Pat


Pat - Please share where you are getting that information. Everything I have read is that it is growing and to make the claim that it does nothing that the 9mm cannot do can only come from a lack of experience with this round. Trust me, I will always carry my G32 before my G19 no matter how many +'s you put on that 9mm. Everyone seems to want to marginalize this round (357 sig), which I cannot understand. Hey if you do not like it carry a 9mm, but do not tell me it will not do anything a 9mm would not do. I own just about every modern caliber and have been shooting 357 sig for about 12 years. If it were just a novelty, I think I would have stuck it is the safe by now and be carrying my G19. I have shot a lot of things with both rounds and the 357 sig has the edge. I personally believe it is the best caliber for the smaller 9mm frame platform.

Alaskapopo
02-01-2010, 03:59
Pat - Please share where you are getting that information. Everything I have read is that it is growing and to make the claim that it does nothing that the 9mm cannot do can only come from a lack of experience with this round. Trust me, I will always carry my G32 before my G19 no matter how many +'s you put on that 9mm. Everyone seems to want to marginalize this round (357 sig), which I cannot understand. Hey if you do not like it carry a 9mm, but do not tell me it will not do anything a 9mm would not do. I own just about every modern caliber and have been shooting 357 sig for about 12 years. If it were just a novelty, I think I would have stuck it is the safe by now and be carrying my G19. I have shot a lot of things with both rounds and the 357 sig has the edge. I personally believe it is the best caliber for the smaller 9mm frame platform.

For starters I have seen less and less of them at leo training. No agency in my state issues them. Granted we are a small state. If you look at the numbers of agencies issuing them today vs 5 years ago it has stayed about the same or declined slightly. I used to be a huge 357 sig fan until I did my own testing and did a lot of reading of Dr. Fackler and Dr. Roberts. Basically you get an extra 100 to 200 fps no more expansion or penetration and you did get more recoil. I dropped it several years back. Waste of time.
I have owned over 8 different 357 sig pistols and shot thousands of rounds down range in that caliber. So I have a right to speak to its merits. I too have owned about every modern caliber of handgun there is. As for the smaller 9mm frame platform. The best caliber for that platform is the 9mm. In the larger 45 acp platform the 45 acp is the best. I say pick your gun first then pick your caliber. If you like Glocks get a 9mm. The rest have issues. If you want a 1911 get it in 45 acp. If you want a 40 get a Smith M&P, Sig 229, HK USP.

Don't take it from me listen to the experts.
.357 SIG -- A Solution in Search of a Problem?

Several readers have contacted us to ask for our opinion of the .357 SIG cartridge, and its effectiveness for personal defense use, particularly when loaded with a 125-grain JHP bullet. Our usual response is that it demonstrates adequate performance, meaning that the bullets are capable of penetrating deeply enough to potentially inflict an effective wound. But it doesn't seem to perform any better than current 9mm, .40 S&W or .45 ACP bullets in terms of penetration and expansion.

We feel .357 SIG appeals to people who are preoccupied with velocity and kinetic energy more than with producing effective wound trauma.

The velocity of the .357 SIG 125-grain JHP bullet doesn't appear to make it superior in penetrating automotive sheet metal, windshield glass or other hard barrier materials than existing 9mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP JHP bullets. In fact, .357 SIG demonstrates virtually identical performance characteristics as the other cartridges when fired through hard barrier materials.

To ensure JHP bullets wouldn't over-expand and fragment when propelled at .357 SIG velocities, most bullet manufacturers couldn't simply take existing 9mm 124-grain JHP bullets, install them in .357 SIG cases and pronounce the result as ".357 SIG 125-grain JHP," because this would be a step backwards.

Existing 9mm 124-grain bullets, designed for nominal 9mm velocities, would over-expand, fragment and under-penetrate. Essentially, they'd be re-inventing the 9mm 115-grain JHP +P+ cartridge. Therefore, the ammo companies had to design sturdier JHP bullets specifically for the .357 SIG; ones that wouldn't over-expand and fragment in bare gelatin.

They succeeded in designing such bullets, but the bullets appear to be so resistant to over-expansion that they under-expand when passing through clothing. As a result, in shootings involving clothed people (the most common scenario), the .357 SIG 125-grain JHP bullet will more than likely over-penetrate and exit the body.

In a strict wound ballistics sense, over-penetration is better than under-penetration because the bullet will at least have the potential to intersect and bore through vital cardiovascular structures. But over-penetration is also a waste of wounding potential.

In comparison, many 9mm 147-grain subsonic JHP bullets demonstrate better penetration and expansion performance than .357 SIG 125-grain JHPs.

Perhaps in the future the ammo companies will be able to develop better 125-grain bullets for the .357 SIG. But until this happens we feel .357 SIG is a solution to a non-problem.

Feel the need for speed? You'd be better armed with a standard velocity (1100-1150 fps) .40 S&W 165-grain JHP.

PghJim
02-01-2010, 04:29
Please reference your article. I sounds familar to something I read long ago. I was not saying that the 357 sig was any better in certain circumstances than a fast 40 or 45, but it is better than any 9mm I have tried. I personally like it better than the 40. The 45 is a larger platform. I am on my way out of the door, but I will locate recent articles. Although I have not spoken to the Air Marchalls or the Secret Service, the Highway Patrol people I have spoke to have found it very effective. Since you also have experience with the cartridge this will be an interesting conversation.

Jim

Alaskapopo
02-01-2010, 04:47
Please reference your article. I sounds familar to something I read long ago. I was not saying that the 357 sig was any better in certain circumstances than a fast 40 or 45, but it is better than any 9mm I have tried. I personally like it better than the 40. The 45 is a larger platform. I am on my way out of the door, but I will locate recent articles. Although I have not spoken to the Air Marchalls or the Secret Service, the Highway Patrol people I have spoke to have found it very effective. Since you also have experience with the cartridge this will be an interesting conversation.

Jim

Dr. Martin Fackler wrong that article. The 357 sig expands the same as the 9mm with simular bullets and it penetrates about the same. Those are the two factors that matter. Muzzle energy means zip at handgun levels. Yes the 357 sig has done ok in some shootings then again everyone that is using the 147 grain 9mm Federal HST is also happy with its results in actual shootings. If you like the 357 sig use it with confidence it will do fine. But at the end of the day its just another choice and not a wonder bullet.
I encourage you to visit this forum and do some reading.
http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=91
Pat

9mmdude
02-01-2010, 06:59
"Dr. Martin Fackler wrong that article. The 357 sig expands the same as the 9mm with simular bullets and it penetrates about the same. Those are the two factors that matter. Muzzle energy means zip at handgun levels."

Hogwash, with that argument a .38 special is the same as a .357 magnum. Shot placement is the key but greater muzzle energy = more energy in the target and more trauma.

LEAD
02-01-2010, 07:26
For starters I have seen less and less of them at leo training. No agency in my state issues them. Granted we are a small state. If you look at the numbers of agencies issuing them today vs 5 years ago it has stayed about the same or declined slightly. I used to be a huge 357 sig fan until I did my own testing and did a lot of reading of Dr. Fackler and Dr. Roberts. Basically you get an extra 100 to 200 fps no more expansion or penetration and you did get more recoil. I dropped it several years back. Waste of time.
I have owned over 8 different 357 sig pistols and shot thousands of rounds down range in that caliber. So I have a right to speak to its merits. I too have owned about every modern caliber of handgun there is. As for the smaller 9mm frame platform. The best caliber for that platform is the 9mm. In the larger 45 acp platform the 45 acp is the best. I say pick your gun first then pick your caliber. If you like Glocks get a 9mm. The rest have issues. If you want a 1911 get it in 45 acp. If you want a 40 get a Smith M&P, Sig 229, HK USP.

Don't take it from me listen to the experts.
.357 SIG -- A Solution in Search of a Problem?

Several readers have contacted us to ask for our opinion of the .357 SIG cartridge, and its effectiveness for personal defense use, particularly when loaded with a 125-grain JHP bullet. Our usual response is that it demonstrates adequate performance, meaning that the bullets are capable of penetrating deeply enough to potentially inflict an effective wound. But it doesn't seem to perform any better than current 9mm, .40 S&W or .45 ACP bullets in terms of penetration and expansion.

We feel .357 SIG appeals to people who are preoccupied with velocity and kinetic energy more than with producing effective wound trauma.

The velocity of the .357 SIG 125-grain JHP bullet doesn't appear to make it superior in penetrating automotive sheet metal, windshield glass or other hard barrier materials than existing 9mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP JHP bullets. In fact, .357 SIG demonstrates virtually identical performance characteristics as the other cartridges when fired through hard barrier materials.

To ensure JHP bullets wouldn't over-expand and fragment when propelled at .357 SIG velocities, most bullet manufacturers couldn't simply take existing 9mm 124-grain JHP bullets, install them in .357 SIG cases and pronounce the result as ".357 SIG 125-grain JHP," because this would be a step backwards.

Existing 9mm 124-grain bullets, designed for nominal 9mm velocities, would over-expand, fragment and under-penetrate. Essentially, they'd be re-inventing the 9mm 115-grain JHP +P+ cartridge. Therefore, the ammo companies had to design sturdier JHP bullets specifically for the .357 SIG; ones that wouldn't over-expand and fragment in bare gelatin.

They succeeded in designing such bullets, but the bullets appear to be so resistant to over-expansion that they under-expand when passing through clothing. As a result, in shootings involving clothed people (the most common scenario), the .357 SIG 125-grain JHP bullet will more than likely over-penetrate and exit the body.

In a strict wound ballistics sense, over-penetration is better than under-penetration because the bullet will at least have the potential to intersect and bore through vital cardiovascular structures. But over-penetration is also a waste of wounding potential.

In comparison, many 9mm 147-grain subsonic JHP bullets demonstrate better penetration and expansion performance than .357 SIG 125-grain JHPs.

Perhaps in the future the ammo companies will be able to develop better 125-grain bullets for the .357 SIG. But until this happens we feel .357 SIG is a solution to a non-problem.

Feel the need for speed? You'd be better armed with a standard velocity (1100-1150 fps) .40 S&W 165-grain JHP.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_147_24/ai_62655349/?tag=rbxcra.2.a.33

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_157_26/ai_84428729/?tag=rbxcra.2.a.22

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_180_30/ai_n16034702/?tag=rbxcra.2.a.33

Claemore
02-01-2010, 07:44
"Dr. Martin Fackler wrong that article. The 357 sig expands the same as the 9mm with simular bullets and it penetrates about the same. Those are the two factors that matter. Muzzle energy means zip at handgun levels."

Hogwash, with that argument a .38 special is the same as a .357 magnum. Shot placement is the key but greater muzzle energy = more energy in the target and more trauma.

Exactly. This comes from "experts" who put Jello gelatin tests above actual shootings that completely refute their findings.

:faint:

9mmdude
02-01-2010, 08:12
If I owned a bunch of .357 sig pistols and one day decided to sell them and go with other calibres I would convince myself the cartridge didn't matter too.

uz2bUSMC
02-01-2010, 08:17
Dr. Martin Fackler wrong that article. The 357 sig expands the same as the 9mm with simular bullets and it penetrates about the same. Those are the two factors that matter. Muzzle energy means zip at handgun levels. Yes the 357 sig has done ok in some shootings then again everyone that is using the 147 grain 9mm Federal HST is also happy with its results in actual shootings. If you like the 357 sig use it with confidence it will do fine. But at the end of the day its just another choice and not a wonder bullet.
I encourage you to visit this forum and do some reading.
http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=91
Pat

Fackler must have wrote that article last week. Oh wait, he hasn't done anything in like 20yrs, or whatever.

uz2bUSMC
02-01-2010, 08:29
Actually its popularity is on the down swing not the upswing. Its not a bad round but it does nothing that the 9mm can't do.
Pat


Riiiight. Just like you said this about the 10mm, which is happily on the rise.

And you fire thousands of rounds at cardboard and now you can speak of the .357 sig's merits. Does the gun talk to you everytime you pull the trigger? Are you a target whisperer? Pat, do you ever have anything with substance to say? You never back anything up, all you can do is say "Fackler, Roberts... Fackler, Roberts"... who have not proven anything in the way of terminal ballistics. What's the most recent thing Fackler has put out?

One day you'll realize that gel doesn't tell you what will happens on the street. The street tells you what will happen on the street. When you see this you may change your name back to "355sigfan".

uz2bUSMC
02-01-2010, 08:31
If I owned a bunch of .357 sig pistols and one day decided to sell them and go with other calibres I would convince myself the cartridge didn't matter too.

:wavey:I like you.

Brucev
02-01-2010, 08:40
Those who worship at the idol of ballistic testing scorn the unrepentant who remain standing when true believers fall down and genuflect. Indomitable those who remain standing resolutely insist that their own personal experience is the final authority from which there is no legitimate appeal. This is true no matter what might be the caliber that is currently being debated. It is a quandary that has continued since David open carried a slingshot into the ancient equivalent of a back alley to deal with a local bad boy named Goliath. Sincerely. Brucev.

jwizzl497
02-01-2010, 09:12
I dunno, I think the 257 sig is pretty awesome. Although I only have paper research to validate my opinion but I am starting to think its right up there with the big boys and a huge improvement over 9mm.

The other encouragining thing I have noticed is that a lot of people indicate that the recoil is nto as snappy as 40 and more of a push like 45. Again, I'm no expert and I am usually wrong 9 times out of 10, but I have seen a trend that indicates th 357sig is up there, just as I have seen a trend that the 45 and 100 and 40 are awesome calibers.

The 9mm is good and I wouldn't hesitat to trust my life to it, but there seems to be a gap between the 9 and the 40/45/10/357s

PghJim
02-01-2010, 09:42
I realize that this is not the HST and only the HS, but subsonic 147 grain loads have not been all that good.

http://www.handloads.com/misc/stoppingpower.asp?Caliber=15&Weight=147

There are not many examples with the 357 sig, but it looks promising.

http://www.handloads.com/misc/stoppingpower.asp?Caliber=6&Weight=125

So I see your Flacker and raise you an Evan Marshall. There are many current articles on the effectiveness.

Here are some recent articles not based on Jello. Again, I am not saying that the 357 sig is the best, but I would in no way compare it to a 9mm. There is much more to consider than penatration and expansion. The 180 gr 40 S&W loads are not as effective as the lighter and faster loads, but they penatrate and expand just fine.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_157_26/ai_84428728/

I only include this article because it is the round I carry.

http://www.gunweek.com/2002/feature0210.html

glock20c10mm
02-01-2010, 11:12
If you like Glocks get a 9mm. The rest have issues.
Neither the G20C I used to have or the G29 I have now have or have had any issues. What issues are they supposed to have??? :headscratch: I think you're over reaching with your statement. Besides that the 357SIG is generally considered to be as clear as any in issues by merit of the bottleneck cartridge design. Did you handload a bunch of 357SIG that ended up being poor performers???

And what about the 40S&W chambered glocks? An extreme amount of LE/Agencies carry them. Someone must have forgot to tell them about the issues. Then there's the Glock 45s. Someone dropped a G21 out of an airplane. When he found it only the bottom of the magwell was still above ground. It fired perfectly. Not to mention all the other torture tests he put it through and some mega amount of rounds through it and it still operated flawlessly.

I might be going out on a limb here, but I don't believe the majority of Glocks have any issues at all, and more than likely less than the guns provided through other manufacturers.
In a strict wound ballistics sense, over-penetration is better than under-penetration because the bullet will at least have the potential to intersect and bore through vital cardiovascular structures. But over-penetration is also a waste of wounding potential.
Can you elaborate?

About over penetration you say;
1) good to intersect all vital structures possible, and/but
2) waste of wounding potential

Isn't that contradictory?
In comparison, many 9mm 147-grain subsonic JHP bullets demonstrate better penetration and expansion performance than .357 SIG 125-grain JHPs.
How much better expansion when leaving out HSTs, as HSTs are basically the one exception to the rule?

dahahn
02-01-2010, 11:30
I'm going to post this here because I posted this in the other 357SIG forum. I will also preface it by saying that someone who has more of a background in statistics than I do said that the article has no merit. I disagree, but as I said, this other person claims to have a little background in stats. I do not.

This paper comes from a site that hosts and peer-reviews papers on physics and mathematics, so as far as I'm concerned, if it's still up it has survived peer review. Arxiv.org frequently has papers go to The Astrophysical Journal and Astronomy and Astrophysics.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0702/0702107.pdf

It won't load on this computer, but if you scan the article it talks about the differences in pressure (inside the thoracic cavity) between 9mm and 357SIG. It's a 3-fold difference. Later on, it takes the testing of each caliber in deer. They shoot 5 deer a piece and measure the distance that the deer ran. Again 357SIG comes out on top, as the deer shot with the 357SIG only ran half the distance (thus a quicker kill).

You can read other papers on pressure wave theory, it seems to be contested. I will say, though, that I'll take results in animals before I'll take results in ballistics gelatin. One is real life, one is, simply, not.

uz2bUSMC
02-01-2010, 11:33
I'm going to post this here because I posted this in the other 357SIG forum. I will also preface it by saying that someone who has more of a background in statistics than I do said that the article has no merit. I disagree, but as I said, this other person claims to have a little background in stats. I do not.

This paper comes from a site that hosts and peer-reviews papers on physics and mathematics, so as far as I'm concerned, if it's still up it has survived peer review. Arxiv.org frequently has papers go to The Astrophysical Journal and Astronomy and Astrophysics.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0702/0702107.pdf

It won't load on this computer, but if you scan the article it talks about the differences in pressure (inside the thoracic cavity) between 9mm and 357SIG. It's a 3-fold difference. Later on, it takes the testing of each caliber in deer. They shoot 5 deer a piece and measure the distance that the deer ran. Again 357SIG comes out on top, as the deer shot with the 357SIG only ran half the distance (thus a quicker kill).

You can read other papers on pressure wave theory, it seems to be contested. I will say, though, that I'll take results in animals before I'll take results in ballistics gelatin. One is real life, one is, simply, not.

I have to use this little guy cause I usually don't get a chance.

:popcorn:

glock20c10mm
02-01-2010, 11:51
I'm going to post this here because I posted this in the other 357SIG forum. I will also preface it by saying that someone who has more of a background in statistics than I do said that the article has no merit. I disagree, but as I said, this other person claims to have a little background in stats. I do not.

This paper comes from a site that hosts and peer-reviews papers on physics and mathematics, so as far as I'm concerned, if it's still up it has survived peer review. Arxiv.org frequently has papers go to The Astrophysical Journal and Astronomy and Astrophysics.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0702/0702107.pdf

It won't load on this computer, but if you scan the article it talks about the differences in pressure (inside the thoracic cavity) between 9mm and 357SIG. It's a 3-fold difference. Later on, it takes the testing of each caliber in deer. They shoot 5 deer a piece and measure the distance that the deer ran. Again 357SIG comes out on top, as the deer shot with the 357SIG only ran half the distance (thus a quicker kill).

You can read other papers on pressure wave theory, it seems to be contested. I will say, though, that I'll take results in animals before I'll take results in ballistics gelatin. One is real life, one is, simply, not.
It is contested by some in the most arbitrary general sense, but with ZERO evidence to support their anti-ballistic pressure wave stance. Dr. Courtney has done other follow up work to support his theory (I'll try to post it in the near future when I can locate it, just don't have time right now), not to mention all of the other scientific studies done by other scientists that support his theory.


Good Shooting,
Craig

dahahn
02-01-2010, 11:53
I have to use this little guy cause I usually don't get a chance.

I don't want to incite anything, I just want to add something else to this discussion.

uz2bUSMC
02-01-2010, 12:01
I don't want to incite anything, I just want to add something else to this discussion.

No No, it's cool, you just don't realize what you posted... it's a big can of worms that can get you busy in CC. It is my favorite subject though...

And I favor your oppinion, which lead you to post that link.

Police Marksman
02-01-2010, 12:13
I think DocGKR had a good response to the 357 Sig round in the 4th page of the thread " Observations from actual shooting". His response as Follows:


patscrazy--I am curious why you would think .357 Sig penetrates common cover better than other calibers; didn't your agency conduct testing or at least review the results from other agencies, such as the FBI BRF, prior to selecting you new caliber?

While .357 Sig is a very reliably performing 9mm bullet, it is does not offer significantly better terminal performance compared with the best current 9mm ammunition. When firing through heavy clothing, automotive steel panels, automobile windshield glass, interior wall segments, exterior wall segments, and plywood, both the 357 Sig Speer 125 gr JHP Gold Dot and 9mm Speer 124 gr +P JHP Gold Dot exhibited nearly identical penetration and expansion results THROUGH ALL THE DIFFERENT BARRIERS, as demonstrated by both our testing and that of the FBI BRF. Most 357 Sig loadings, unless they fail to expand, do not offer excessive penetration; in fact, the exact opposite, under-penetration, can be a problem. Several .40 S&W and .45 ACP loads offered superior terminal performance through barriers compared to the 9mm and 357 Sig loads. In addition to having tested virtually all the handgun ammo available in lab settings, we have also had the opportunity to analyze numerous OIS incident forensic results and have not observed any greater incapacitation in actual shootings with users of 357 Sig loads compared to those users of 9 mm, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP who are using equivalent modern, well engineered ammunition.

The 357 Sig is not a bad cartridge, it just does not seem to offer anything that is not already available, at the price of less ammunition capacity than the similarly performing 9mm, as well as having greater recoil, muzzle flash, and wear on the weapon compared to other service pistol cartridges. On the other hand, since the 357 Sig is a modern cartridge benefiting from the latest engineering concepts, the bullets loaded with it have generally all been designed and tested using the latest FBI, IWBA, etc... testing protocols. This results in more robust terminal performance, less failures to expand, and thus greater tissue damage than will be found with older projectile designs. In addition, since according to data from Fackler and others, approximately 50% of shooting victims are incapacitated by psychological mechanisms, it is possible that the increased blast, flash, and noise of the 357 Sig enhances psychological perceptions of being shot.

In discussing this issue with an experienced ammunition engineer at one of the major ammo companies, he stated that he didn't particularly like the 357 Sig from an engineering perspective and described their difficulties in designing and producing 357 Sig ammunition which consistently performs as well as their ammunition in other service calibers. In particular, he felt his company's 357 Sig loads offered no better performance than their top 9 mm loads and stated their .40 S&W loads were superior in every respect to their 357 Sig ammunition. He firmly believes their .40 S&W offerings are the best performing duty ammunition his company produces.

Contemplate this--Prior to transitioning to .40 S&W, the CHP used a variety of .357 Mag loads, depending upon what was available via the state contract. According to the published CHP test data, the .357 Magnum load used immediately prior to the CHP transition to .40 S&W was the Remington 125 gr JHP with an ave. MV of 1450 f/s from their duty revolvers. Yet despite the decrease in velocity, the CHP has continued to report greater success in OIS incidents (both better terminal performance, as well as intermediate barrier ability) with their .40 S&W 180 gr JHP than with the .357 Magnum 125 gr JHP they previously issued.

Let’s compare apples to apples—below is factory test data from various Winchester LE loads in different calibers, Ranger-T as well as Ranger Bonded. How does the .357 Sig compare to the other service calibers with respect to intermediate barrier penetration?

FBI Test Protocols:
Bare Gelatin at 10ft
Denim, 4 Layers at 10ft
Heavy Clothing at 10ft
Steel, 2 pieces of 20 gauge at 10ft
Wallboard, 2 pieces of 1/2" gypsum board at 10ft
Plywood, 1 piece of 3/4" AA fir plywood at 10ft
Automobile Glass, 1 piece 1/4" laminated safety glass set at a 45 degree angle with an offset of 15 degrees at 10ft

9mm 127gr +P+ RA9TA at 1250fps:
Bare Gel: 12.3”/.64”
Denim: 12.2”/.68”
Heavy Cloth: 12.2”/.68”
Wallboard: 12.1”/.66”
Plywood: 12”/.68”
Steel: 20.5”/.40”
Auto Glass: 9.4”/.48”

9mm 147gr RA9T at 990fps:
Bare Gel: 13.9”/.65”
Through Denim: 14.5”/.66”
Through Heavy Cloth: 14”/.66”
Through Wallboard: 15”/.67”
Through Plywood: 14.8”/.62”
Through Steel: 17”/.45”
Through Auto Glass: 10.8”/.52”

357Sig 125gr RA357SIGT at 1350fps:
Bare Gel: 10.9”/.63”
Denim: 12.1”/.66”
Heavy Cloth: 10.7”/.69”
Wallboard: 15.4”/.48”
Plywood: 12.2”/.66”
Steel: 23.4”/.41”
Auto Glass: 10.3”/.49”

.40S&W 180gr RA40T at 990fps:
Bare Gel: 13.8”/.60”
Denim: 14.3”/.70”
Heavy Cloth: 13.4”/.64”
Wallboard: 13.1”/.66”
Plywood: 15.1”/.64”
Steel: 17”/.52”
Auto Glass: 12”/.61”

.45ACP 230gr +P RA45TP at 990fps:
Bare Gel: 13.2”/.79”
Denim: 15.2”/.78”
Heavy Cloth: 15.7”/.78”
Wallboard: 13.8”/.75”
Plywood: 14.6”/.77”
Steel: 20.6”/.53”
Auto Glass: 13.6”/.60”

How about bonded bullets?

9mm 124gr +P at 1180 fps:
Bare Gel: 12.6”/.68”
Denim: 18.7”/.54”
Heavy Cloth: 18.2”/.56”
Wallboard: 11.9”/.64”
Plywood: 15.8”/.57”
Steel: 22”/.42”
Auto Glass: 12.7”/.58”

9mm 147gr at 995fps:
Bare Gel: 14.7”/.62”
Denim: 16.5”/.59”
Heavy Cloth: 15.8”/.58”
Wallboard: 16.7”/.56”
Plywood: 16.5”/.59”
Steel: 19”/.42”
Auto Glass: 12.6”/.55”

357Sig 125gr RA357SB at 1350fps:
Bare Gel: 12.5”/.59”
Denim: 15.9”/.57”
Heavy Cloth: 16.9”/.55”
Wallboard: 14.7”/.62”
Plywood: 16.0”/.60”
Steel: 21.7”/.44”
Auto Glass: 12.8”/.62”

.40S&W 180gr at 1070fps:
Bare Gel: 14.8”/.67”
Denim: 21.8”/.51”
Heavy Cloth: 19”/.59”
Wallboard: 16.7”/.61”
Plywood: 15.5”/.62”
Steel: 14.8”/.55”
Auto Glass: 12.4”/.63”

.45ACP 230gr RA45B at 905fps:
Bare Gel: 14”/.73”
Denim: 15.8”/.67”
Heavy Cloth: 15.8”/.68”
Wallboard: 14.7”/.69”
Plywood: 16.5”/.74”
Steel: 14.8”/.56”
Auto Glass: 12.5”/.66”

As can be seen above, basically all the standard service calibers work when using good quality ammunition. The platform picked tends to dictate the caliber.

Don't over-think this subject; projectiles, particularly handgun bullets, simply poke holes in things, just like arrows, spears, daggers, or shivs. The only difference is that bullets allow you to poke the holes from further away... Since shot placement is the key with handguns, if given the choice, I'd much rather be defended by a guy who practices with 500 rounds per month of 9mm, than one who caries a .357 Sig, but only shoots 500 rounds per year.

As always, the most important things to focus on are:

-- Cultivate a warrior mindset
-- Invest in competent, thorough initial training and then maintain skills with regular ongoing practice
-- Acquire a reliable and durable weapon system
-- Purchase a consistent, robust performing duty/self-defense load in sufficient quantities (at least 1000 rounds) then STOP worrying about the nuances of handgun ammunition terminal performance.

dahahn
02-01-2010, 12:27
And I favor your oppinion, which lead you to post that link.

I recently bought a G32, and I wanted to do a little research before I ordered. I'll admit, it was to clear my conscience...to make sure I'll spend $529 on something good, not something I'll regret.

Courtney and Courtney did a study that evaluated the Marshall and Sanow data set, and set to debunk some of the criticisms it received. They compared it to another, independently derived data set, the Strasbourg goat tests, and found that the data correlated between the two. That paper can be found here: http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701268.pdf

The same authors have another paper that talks about pressure wave, and uses equations to come up with the overall probability of a One Shot Stop (referred to as OSS). They mention that the 357SIG round is very close to a 357 Magnum load at 125 gr and less, therefore I inferred that the OSS ccharacteristics would be very similar. The OSS % for the 357 Magnum is in the mid to high 80% range (86.5% to 89.3%), whereas the 9mm 124gr bullets were from 78.9% to 83.5% (for a +P+ round). Paper here: http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701266.pdf

While I understand that I can't attribute the same characteristics of a 357 Magnum to the 357SIG, even inside a low margin of error (as the 2 are supposed to behave very similarly) the OSS percentage would be grater for a 357SIG than it would be for a 9mm. In a self defense situation, this is what I want when my life is on the line.

uz2bUSMC
02-01-2010, 12:51
dahahn,

No worries bro, I've been through all of that since day one. I'm vary familiar with it...

uz2bUSMC
02-01-2010, 12:54
As can be seen above, basically all the standard service calibers work when using good quality ammunition. The platform picked tends to dictate the caliber.


Policemarksman,

You're still lost. Yes the above all worked in inanimate objects. You need to learn that your jello murderin' friends are in it for money overall. They can't afford to be wrong. Or rather, exposed to be...

glock20c10mm
02-01-2010, 13:12
While .357 Sig is a very reliably performing 9mm bullet, it is does not offer significantly better terminal performance compared with the best current 9mm ammunition.
Quite a few people have posted clearly noticable greater wounding effects with the 357SIG over the best current 9mm ammo right here in caliber corner on various animals. It was also brought up by Dr. Courtney in the link dahahn provided: http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0702/0702107.pdf I'm talking wounds with a wider wound track and quicker incapacitation on average. Some LE claim the same according to some on GT. At least one Montana highway patrol officer has said the same to fredj338 when it comes to cleanly dispatching deer hit by cars as opposed to the other cartridges they used to use.
When firing through heavy clothing, automotive steel panels, automobile windshield glass, interior wall segments, exterior wall segments, and plywood, both the 357 Sig Speer 125 gr JHP Gold Dot and 9mm Speer 124 gr +P JHP Gold Dot exhibited nearly identical penetration and expansion results THROUGH ALL THE DIFFERENT BARRIERS, as demonstrated by both our testing and that of the FBI BRF. Most 357 Sig loadings, unless they fail to expand, do not offer excessive penetration; in fact, the exact opposite, under-penetration, can be a problem. Several .40 S&W and .45 ACP loads offered superior terminal performance through barriers compared to the 9mm and 357 Sig loads. In addition to having tested virtually all the handgun ammo available in lab settings, we have also had the opportunity to analyze numerous OIS incident forensic results and have not observed any greater incapacitation in actual shootings with users of 357 Sig loads compared to those users of 9 mm, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP who are using equivalent modern, well engineered ammunition.
All the barriers you speak of are the direct result of FBI protocol. Aside from those, 357SIG has been shown clearly to outpenetrate even thicker hard barriers betters.

As for the "numerous OIS incident forensic results", I'm not buying it. Not without seeing the data they actually compared. We've seen to much other evidence that contradicts it. How many incidents with each cartridge were looked at? Of the data, what specific data did they base their decision on? It may seem I'm being picky here, but I've seen BS stuff DocGKR has posted in the past with zero supporting evidence, not to mention that even without proof he preaches dead set against Dr. Courtney's work.
The 357 Sig is not a bad cartridge, it just does not seem to offer anything that is not already available, at the price of less ammunition capacity than the similarly performing 9mm, as well as having greater recoil, muzzle flash, and wear on the weapon compared to other service pistol cartridges. On the other hand, since the 357 Sig is a modern cartridge benefiting from the latest engineering concepts, the bullets loaded with it have generally all been designed and tested using the latest FBI, IWBA, etc... testing protocols. This results in more robust terminal performance, less failures to expand, and thus greater tissue damage than will be found with older projectile designs. In addition, since according to data from Fackler and others, approximately 50% of shooting victims are incapacitated by psychological mechanisms, it is possible that the increased blast, flash, and noise of the 357 Sig enhances psychological perceptions of being shot.
50% of shooting victims are incapacitated by psychological mechanisms? Ok, maybe loosely, since it can't actually accurately be measured. But that doesn't mean the 357SIG doesn't produce wounding effects over and above the 9mm, 40S&W, or 45, leading to quicker incapacitation some percentage of the time.

Blast, flash, and noise? :rofl: Jeez, it's not rifle round. Isn't that what we're always told? Just what percent more blast, flash, and noise would you say the 357SIG creates over 9mm, and what specific loads in each are you comparing? It would unquestionably be a stretch to say that's going to happen between the average 357SIG load and 9mm Win 127gr +P+! Heck, if that's the case, my 10mm loads oughta be dropping BGs without even hitting them with the bullet! :upeyes: Yeah, I'ld say the "blast, flash, and noise" is over reaching at best! If that would be the case, I'ld be switching to 44 Mag from a 4" to say the least!
In discussing this issue with an experienced ammunition engineer at one of the major ammo companies, he stated that he didn't particularly like the 357 Sig from an engineering perspective and described their difficulties in designing and producing 357 Sig ammunition which consistently performs as well as their ammunition in other service calibers. In particular, he felt his company's 357 Sig loads offered no better performance than their top 9 mm loads and stated their .40 S&W loads were superior in every respect to their 357 Sig ammunition. He firmly believes their .40 S&W offerings are the best performing duty ammunition his company produces.
Yeah, it didn't offered any better performance than their top 9 mm loads and .40 S&W loads because they design all loads to work equally according to FBI protocol. And ballistic gel isn't going to tell them how the bullet actually performs in a human, only relative penetration depth compared to the other bullets/loads they manufacture. No big surpise there.
Contemplate this--Prior to transitioning to .40 S&W, the CHP used a variety of .357 Mag loads, depending upon what was available via the state contract. According to the published CHP test data, the .357 Magnum load used immediately prior to the CHP transition to .40 S&W was the Remington 125 gr JHP with an ave. MV of 1450 f/s from their duty revolvers. Yet despite the decrease in velocity, the CHP has continued to report greater success in OIS incidents (both better terminal performance, as well as intermediate barrier ability) with their .40 S&W 180 gr JHP than with the .357 Magnum 125 gr JHP they previously issued.
Where is CHP reporting this and to whom?
Let’s compare apples to apples—below is factory test data from various Winchester LE loads in different calibers, Ranger-T as well as Ranger Bonded. How does the .357 Sig compare to the other service calibers with respect to intermediate barrier penetration?

FBI Test Protocols:
Bare Gelatin at 10ft
Denim, 4 Layers at 10ft
Heavy Clothing at 10ft
Steel, 2 pieces of 20 gauge at 10ft
Wallboard, 2 pieces of 1/2" gypsum board at 10ft
Plywood, 1 piece of 3/4" AA fir plywood at 10ft
Automobile Glass, 1 piece 1/4" laminated safety glass set at a 45 degree angle with an offset of 15 degrees at 10ft

9mm 127gr +P+ RA9TA at 1250fps:
Bare Gel: 12.3”/.64”
Denim: 12.2”/.68”
Heavy Cloth: 12.2”/.68”
Wallboard: 12.1”/.66”
Plywood: 12”/.68”
Steel: 20.5”/.40”
Auto Glass: 9.4”/.48”

9mm 147gr RA9T at 990fps:
Bare Gel: 13.9”/.65”
Through Denim: 14.5”/.66”
Through Heavy Cloth: 14”/.66”
Through Wallboard: 15”/.67”
Through Plywood: 14.8”/.62”
Through Steel: 17”/.45”
Through Auto Glass: 10.8”/.52”

357Sig 125gr RA357SIGT at 1350fps:
Bare Gel: 10.9”/.63”
Denim: 12.1”/.66”
Heavy Cloth: 10.7”/.69”
Wallboard: 15.4”/.48”
Plywood: 12.2”/.66”
Steel: 23.4”/.41”
Auto Glass: 10.3”/.49”

.40S&W 180gr RA40T at 990fps:
Bare Gel: 13.8”/.60”
Denim: 14.3”/.70”
Heavy Cloth: 13.4”/.64”
Wallboard: 13.1”/.66”
Plywood: 15.1”/.64”
Steel: 17”/.52”
Auto Glass: 12”/.61”

.45ACP 230gr +P RA45TP at 990fps:
Bare Gel: 13.2”/.79”
Denim: 15.2”/.78”
Heavy Cloth: 15.7”/.78”
Wallboard: 13.8”/.75”
Plywood: 14.6”/.77”
Steel: 20.6”/.53”
Auto Glass: 13.6”/.60”

How about bonded bullets?

9mm 124gr +P at 1180 fps:
Bare Gel: 12.6”/.68”
Denim: 18.7”/.54”
Heavy Cloth: 18.2”/.56”
Wallboard: 11.9”/.64”
Plywood: 15.8”/.57”
Steel: 22”/.42”
Auto Glass: 12.7”/.58”

9mm 147gr at 995fps:
Bare Gel: 14.7”/.62”
Denim: 16.5”/.59”
Heavy Cloth: 15.8”/.58”
Wallboard: 16.7”/.56”
Plywood: 16.5”/.59”
Steel: 19”/.42”
Auto Glass: 12.6”/.55”

357Sig 125gr RA357SB at 1350fps:
Bare Gel: 12.5”/.59”
Denim: 15.9”/.57”
Heavy Cloth: 16.9”/.55”
Wallboard: 14.7”/.62”
Plywood: 16.0”/.60”
Steel: 21.7”/.44”
Auto Glass: 12.8”/.62”

.40S&W 180gr at 1070fps:
Bare Gel: 14.8”/.67”
Denim: 21.8”/.51”
Heavy Cloth: 19”/.59”
Wallboard: 16.7”/.61”
Plywood: 15.5”/.62”
Steel: 14.8”/.55”
Auto Glass: 12.4”/.63”

.45ACP 230gr RA45B at 905fps:
Bare Gel: 14”/.73”
Denim: 15.8”/.67”
Heavy Cloth: 15.8”/.68”
Wallboard: 14.7”/.69”
Plywood: 16.5”/.74”
Steel: 14.8”/.56”
Auto Glass: 12.5”/.66”

As can be seen above, basically all the standard service calibers work when using good quality ammunition. The platform picked tends to dictate the caliber.
Like I said, they were designed to perform the same according to all FBI protocols. Clearly the 357SIG loads still will penetrate more hard barrier material than the others, as many have shown.
Don't over-think this subject; projectiles, particularly handgun bullets, simply poke holes in things, just like arrows, spears, daggers, or shivs. The only difference is that bullets allow you to poke the holes from further away... Since shot placement is the key with handguns, if given the choice, I'd much rather be defended by a guy who practices with 500 rounds per month of 9mm, than one who caries a .357 Sig, but only shoots 500 rounds per year.
Actually, arrows, spears, and daggars, mechanically slice flesh, where bullets generally plow a path. But the paths bullets plow are not created equal, between the spectrum of 9mm - 10mm, as many have posted over time.
As always, the most important things to focus on are:

-- Cultivate a warrior mindset
-- Invest in competent, thorough initial training and then maintain skills with regular ongoing practice
-- Acquire a reliable and durable weapon system
Those are very good skills to start with. After that, some rounds clearly outperform others.
-- Purchase a consistent, robust performing duty/self-defense load in sufficient quantities (at least 1000 rounds) then STOP worrying about the nuances of handgun ammunition terminal performance.
Here I can't agree depending on the individual.

Claemore
02-01-2010, 13:48
Glock20c10mm, better be careful, or DocGKR will come and be mean to you. He is after all, a dentist. They know more about bullets' terminal effects than anyone. Even trauma surgeons...

uz2bUSMC
02-01-2010, 14:11
Glock20c10mm, better be careful, or DocGKR will come and be mean to you. He is after all, a dentist. They know more about bullets' terminal effects than anyone. Even trauma surgeons...

Dentists! they're everywhere! Or was that ninjas?:dunno::rofl:

Alaskapopo
02-01-2010, 15:40
Riiiight. Just like you said this about the 10mm, which is happily on the rise.

And you fire thousands of rounds at cardboard and now you can speak of the .357 sig's merits. Does the gun talk to you everytime you pull the trigger? Are you a target whisperer? Pat, do you ever have anything with substance to say? You never back anything up, all you can do is say "Fackler, Roberts... Fackler, Roberts"... who have not proven anything in the way of terminal ballistics. What's the most recent thing Fackler has put out?

One day you'll realize that gel doesn't tell you what will happens on the street. The street tells you what will happen on the street. When you see this you may change your name back to "355sigfan".
Look at sales figures. The 10mm is not on the rise. Its at the same level as the 41 mag and other obscure rounds. By the way citing experts in the field is BACKING UP WHAT I HAVE TO SAY. I know you have a hard time understanding such things. Time for you to step back post less and listen more. By the way you know absolutely nothing about what happens on the street.
Pat

Alaskapopo
02-01-2010, 15:44
"Dr. Martin Fackler wrong that article. The 357 sig expands the same as the 9mm with simular bullets and it penetrates about the same. Those are the two factors that matter. Muzzle energy means zip at handgun levels."

Hogwash, with that argument a .38 special is the same as a .357 magnum. Shot placement is the key but greater muzzle energy = more energy in the target and more trauma.

If the 38 expands the same and goes as deep then it will do the same damage as the 357 mag. Its all about shot placement, penetration and bullet expansion. Energy means little to nothing at handgun levels. Human tissue is elastic so unless you have enough energy to rip tissue past what the bullet touches it means nothing.
Pat

jaybirdjtt
02-01-2010, 16:26
Why LE is buying it? Excuse me if I sound cynical. They have budgets. If they don't spend taxpayer money the budget gets reduced. Is it because the 357 Sig is such a manstopper? I don't think there is enough empirical evidence to justify one caliber over another. If the LEO had to purchase his own sidearm, train with it, clean it and depend upon it......heck, it would be just like a teenager who has to save for his first car because his daddy won't buy it for him. He'll work on it, clean it and it will run forever. But that's the way government works. One agency tests and tests and says, "We have to replace such and such with 45 GAP or 357 SIG!" "Why?" they're asked! "Because it is such a "manstopper and we're outgunned." Why are so many civilian would-be Glock buyers standing in line for LE guns that are "retired"? Because they know that there are a good 100k rounds left in the original barrel.

LEAD
02-01-2010, 16:48
Why LE is buying it? Excuse me if I sound cynical. They have budgets. If they don't spend taxpayer money the budget gets reduced. Is it because the 357 Sig is such a manstopper? I don't think there is enough empirical evidence to justify one caliber over another. If the LEO had to purchase his own sidearm, train with it, clean it and depend upon it......heck, it would be just like a teenager who has to save for his first car because his daddy won't buy it for him. He'll work on it, clean it and it will run forever. But that's the way government works. One agency tests and tests and says, "We have to replace such and such with 45 GAP or 357 SIG!" "Why?" they're asked! "Because it is such a "manstopper and we're outgunned." Why are so many civilian would-be Glock buyers standing in line for LE guns that are "retired"? Because they know that there are a good 100k rounds left in the original barrel.

Oh thats why, because if they didn't buy new weapons and more expensive ammo, the budget would be reduced. Now I completely understand dealing with a lower capacity and more severe recoil, these are sacrifices officers make in order to retain their current budgets. Why didn't you tell us earlier?

Please take the time to read the other posts before you post stuff like this. Have you read any of the links? There is a plethera of information compiled from people who actually have used this round after actually using other rounds like 9mm I have yet to hear any feedback from people using the .357sig round in a shooting and finding it not to thier tastes. Law enforcement is using the round because its working better, better than 9mm, better than 9mm +p+.

http://nosweatapparel.com/images/reading.jpg
Act like you know.

dahahn
02-01-2010, 16:53
If the 38 expands the same and goes as deep then it will do the same damage as the 357 mag. Its all about shot placement, penetration and bullet expansion. Energy means little to nothing at handgun levels. Human tissue is elastic so unless you have enough energy to rip tissue past what the bullet touches it means nothing.
Pat

I have to disagree. Add sudden pressure into a water based system, and you will get pressure spikes all over the place. In various papers regarding pressure wave theory, pigs (test subjects) showed brain hemorrhaging due to the increase in hydraulic pressure which was picked up via sensor in major arteries.

Tissue damage is what everyone is talking about and what ballistics gelatin tests, but the fact of the matter is that a majority of the human body is water, and will react as such.

Alaskapopo
02-01-2010, 17:13
Oh thats why, because if they didn't buy new weapons and more expensive ammo, the budget would be reduced. Now I completely understand dealing with a lower capacity and more severe recoil, these are sacrifices officers make in order to retain their current budgets. Why didn't you tell us earlier?

Please take the time to read the other posts before you post stuff like this. Have you read any of the links? There is a plethera of information compiled from people who actually have used this round after actually using other rounds like 9mm I have yet to hear any feedback from people using the .357sig round in a shooting and finding it not to thier tastes. Law enforcement is using the round because its working better, better than 9mm, better than 9mm +p+.

http://nosweatapparel.com/images/reading.jpg
Act like you know.
A lot more cops are using the 9mm than the 357 sig so the 9mm must be the better round.
Pat

Mrs_Esterhouse
02-01-2010, 17:38
A lot more cops are using the 9mm than the 357 sig so the 9mm must be the better round.
Pat

Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum to help expand your logical reasoning.

Alaskapopo
02-01-2010, 17:59
Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum to help expand your logical reasoning.

I was making a pun on the person I was quoting. That went right over your head. Also directing someone to Wikipedia for knowledge is laughable at best.
:rofl:

uz2bUSMC
02-01-2010, 18:14
Look at sales figures. The 10mm is not on the rise. Its at the same level as the 41 mag and other obscure rounds. By the way citing experts in the field is BACKING UP WHAT I HAVE TO SAY. I know you have a hard time understanding such things. Time for you to step back post less and listen more. By the way you know absolutely nothing about what happens on the street.
Pat

I doubt you even know any experts but I'd like to know who you talked to, because everything is different in Pat's little wolrd. I know more about what happens on the street than you think. I actually have REAL contacts. Not alaskan moonshiners that live in the backwoods.

uz2bUSMC
02-01-2010, 18:19
If the 38 expands the same and goes as deep then it will do the same damage as the 357 mag. Its all about shot placement, penetration and bullet expansion. Energy means little to nothing at handgun levels. Human tissue is elastic so unless you have enough energy to rip tissue past what the bullet touches it means nothing.
Pat

Still needing a terminal ballistics class aswell. You have no idea how bullet construction relates to temporary cavitation I see. Energy is useless if it is not imparted upon it's target and you can have moderate amounts energy from a pistol round do better than a rifle that can't transfer the energy.

uz2bUSMC
02-01-2010, 18:22
I was making a pun on the person I was quoting. That went right over your head. Also directing someone to Wikipedia for knowledge is laughable at best.
:rofl:

Depends on who that person is...

JBP55
02-01-2010, 18:22
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.

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:

Glock 31 was recently adopted by Mississippi State Police.

Alaskapopo
02-01-2010, 18:23
I doubt you even know any experts but I'd like to know who you talked to, because everything is different in Pat's little wolrd. I know more about what happens on the street than you think. I actually have REAL contacts. Not alaskan moonshiners that live in the backwoods.

You are so juvenile. You always resort to personal attacks and temper tantrums. Grow up and start acting like an adult. As for real experts I have had conversations with Evan Marshal and Dr. Roberts himself. I doubt you have any contacts. You're vulgar. immature, and unlearned and those are qualities that professionals don't like to associate with. So I am not going to put any creditably to your claim you have contacts. Contacts at the local gun shop maybe.
Pat

uz2bUSMC
02-01-2010, 18:39
You are so juvenile. You always resort to personal attacks and temper tantrums. Grow up and start acting like an adult. As for real experts I have had conversations with Evan Marshal and Dr. Roberts himself. I doubt you have any contacts. You're vulgar. immature, and unlearned and those are qualities that professionals don't like to associate with. So I am not going to put any creditably to your claim you have contacts. Contacts at the local gun shop maybe.
Pat

That's funny, you have had conversations with these people but in a conversation we had a while back, you didn't even know who Duncan MacPherson was...ok I believe you.

Mrs_Esterhouse
02-01-2010, 18:44
I was making a pun on the person I was quoting.
Cute cover story.

That went right over your head. Also directing someone to Wikipedia for knowledge is laughable at best.
The Wiki entry pretty much matches my college textbook. BTW, you used an Appeal to Ridicule fallacy there with your Wiki comment. :whistling:

Free Radical
02-01-2010, 18:44
Look at sales figures. The 10mm is not on the rise. Its at the same level as the 41 mag and other obscure rounds.


:shakehead: Please cite your source for this BS.

Alaskapopo
02-01-2010, 18:48
:shakehead: Please cite your source for this BS.

Cite your source saying the 10mm is on the rise. Lets see all those new guns and loads being made for it?
Pat

Alaskapopo
02-01-2010, 18:52
That's funny, you have had conversations with these people but in a conversation we had a while back, you didn't even know who Duncan MacPherson was...ok I believe you.

Knowing who Duncan MacPherson is and knowing Evan Marshall and Dr. Roberts is two different matters. If you don't believe me go to Evans forum and ask him if he has ever spoken to me or sent me free ammo for testing about 6 years back.

As for Dr. Roberts go to http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=91 and ask him if he had a telephone conversation with me about 3 weeks ago where we talked about everything from the 5.7 to the 6.8. I dare you.

All you are is an internet bully. Grow up and act like a civilized adult.
Pat

Alaskapopo
02-01-2010, 18:52
Cute cover story.

The Wiki entry pretty much matches my college textbook. BTW, you used an Appeal to Ridicule fallacy there with your Wiki comment. :whistling:

So you're still in college that would explain some things. When you graduate and get some real life under your belt come back and talk to me.
Pat

uz2bUSMC
02-01-2010, 18:56
Knowing who Duncan MacPherson is and knowing Evan Marshall and Dr. Roberts is two different matters. If you don't believe me go to Evans forum and ask him if he has ever spoken to me or sent me free ammo for testing about 6 years back.

As for Dr. Roberts go to http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=91 and ask him if he had a telephone conversation with me about 3 weeks ago where we talked about everything from the 5.7 to the 6.8. I dare you.

All you are is an internet bully. Grow up and act like a civilized adult.
Pat

The point is you spout off stuff from Fackler, Roberts, and so on like it's gospel and your in the know but you had and have no idea who one the more prominent members of the IWBA happens to be, kinda funny.

And I'll make contact with Roberts and Evan and offer my condolences.

Free Radical
02-01-2010, 18:57
Cite your source saying the 10mm is on the rise. Lets see all those new guns and loads being made for it?
Pat

Kimber. Dan Wesson. Delta Elite. LES Bayer. EAA Witness. The reintroduction of the Bren 10. The continuing success of the G20.

That's 7 and I've probably missed some. Now, as to the 41. MAG...which I like BTW, but WAY, WAY, more obscure than the 10mm. autolaoder.

Your turn Sport.

uz2bUSMC
02-01-2010, 18:57
Oh, and hand over your milk money.

Alaskapopo
02-01-2010, 19:05
Kimber. Dan Wesson. Delta Elite. LES Bayer. EAA Witness. The reintroduction of the Bren 10. The continuing success of the G20.

That's 7 and I've probably missed some. Now, as to the 41. MAG...which I like BTW, but WAY, WAY, more obscure than the 10mm. autolaoder.

Your turn Sport.

Show me the Bren 10. I have been wanting to order one for a while and no dice. You can't count a gun that has not yet been released nor may ever be.

What happened to the Smith and Wesson, 1006, 1076, 610. What happened to the Springfield Omega to name just a few. Where is a Sig, Beretta, or HK 10mm. Basically you have a custom gun maker (les Baer not Les Bayer :rofl:) making special runs from time to time. The Delta was dropped a while back and there has been plans to re-introduce it but I have not yet seen it. They were supposed to be doing a 6 inch bull barrel version and then they went back to the standard model. But since the 2009 shot show none are to be seen on dealer shelves. Also the continuing success of the Glock 20. Yea right the 10mm accounts for Glock's lowest amount of gun sales. :rofl:

Thanks for the laugh sport.

Free Radical
02-01-2010, 19:07
Are you going to back up your claims or not?
I mean it's time to drop the talk and walk the walk.

uz2bUSMC
02-01-2010, 19:12
Show me the Bren 10. I have been wanting to order one for a while and no dice. You can't count a gun that has not yet been released nor may ever be.

What happened to the Smith and Wesson, 1006, 1076, 610. What happened to the Springfield Omega to name just a few. Where is a Sig, Beretta, or HK 10mm. Basically you have a custom gun maker (les Baer not Les Bayer :rofl:) making special runs from time to time. The Delta was dropped a while back and there has been plans to re-introduce it but I have not yet seen it. They were supposed to be doing a 6 inch bull barrel version and then they went back to the standard model. But since the 2009 shot show none are to be seen on dealer shelves. Also the continuing success of the Glock 20. Yea right the 10mm accounts for Glock's lowest amount of gun sales. :rofl:

Thanks for the laugh sport.

Your asking about old guns, like that really matters? That's the best you got? Oh and the fact that more and more people are talkin bout 10mm on here which is the largest forum, that of course means nothin'. I love seeing what you try to pass off as logic. So how many other forums out there refuse to take you seriously? Actually, let's do this... is there any that do?

Mrs_Esterhouse
02-01-2010, 19:13
So you're still in college that would explain some things. When you graduate and get some real life under your belt come back and talk to me.
Pat
My textbook is 15 years old... :upeyes:

texas 48
02-01-2010, 19:13
I was making a pun on the person I was quoting. That went right over your head. Also directing someone to Wikipedia for knowledge is laughable at best.
:rofl:

I have noticed your signature and I am impressed by your credentials. I also would like to thank you for your service.

I have also read many of your contributions here @ CC.

I have the impression that you favor the 9 mm over other calibers. If I am correct in that conclusion I would appreciate you sharing the logic for your regard for the 9mm as a handgun choice. You may have expressed this before. Thanks

Alaskapopo
02-01-2010, 19:13
Are you going to back up your claims or not?
I mean it's time to drop the talk and walk the walk.

Same for you. Back it up. You have made some wild claims about the growth of the 10mm with no proof.
Pat

Alaskapopo
02-01-2010, 19:17
I have noticed your signature and I am impressed by your credentials. I also would like to thank you for your service.

I have also read many of your contributions here @ CC.

I have the impression that you favor the 9 mm over other calibers. If I am correct in that conclusion I would appreciate you sharing the logic for your regard for the 9mm as a handgun choice. You may have expressed this before. Thanks

I don't favor the 9mm over other calibers. Rather I think its a good choice as is the 45 acp, 40sw (in the right platform), The reality is it does not matter that much which caliber you chose. The service calibers are all pretty much equal. Yes there are trade offs. You get a bit more tissue destruction with the 40 and 45 but you also get more recoil and slow shot to shot times.

Here is a great primer on picking a service weapon.

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887
Service Pistol Duty and Self-Defense Loads
When comparing well designed duty handgun ammunition, there are minimal differences in penetration depths and temporary cavity effects, as noted below in the gel shots by Doug Carr:



As you increase bullet size and mass from 9 mm/357 Sig, to .40 S&W, to .45 ACP, more tissue is crushed, resulting in a larger permanent cavity. In addition, the larger bullets often offer better performance through intermediate barriers. For some, the incremental advantages of the larger calibers are offset by weapon platform characteristics. As is quite obvious from the photo above, NONE of the common service pistol calibers generate temporary cavities of sufficient magnitude to cause significant tissue damage. Anyone interested in this topic should read and periodically re-read, “Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness” by Urey Patrick of the FBI FTU, as this remains the single best discussion of the wound ballistic requirements of handguns used for self-defense -- it is available at: http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm .



Keeping in mind that handguns generally offer poor incapacitation potential, bullets with effective terminal performance are available in all of the most commonly used duty pistol calibers—pick the one that you shoot most accurately, that is most reliable in the type of pistol you choose, and best suits you likely engagement scenarios.

The following loads all demonstrate outstanding terminal performance and can be considered acceptable for duty/self-defense use:

9 mm:
Barnes XPB 105 & 115 gr JHP (copper bullet)
Federal Tactical 124 gr JHP (LE9T1)
Speer Gold Dot 124 gr +P JHP
Winchester Ranger-T 124 gr +P JHP (RA9124TP)
Winchester Partition Gold 124 gr JHP (RA91P)
Winchester Ranger-T 127 gr +P+ JHP (RA9TA)
Federal Tactical 135 gr +P JHP (LE9T5)
Federal HST 147 gr JHP (P9HST2)
Remington Golden Saber 147 gr JHP (GS9MMC)
Speer Gold Dot 147 gr JHP
Winchester Ranger-T 147 gr JHP (RA9T)
Winchester 147 gr bonded JHP (RA9B/Q4364)

.40 S&W:
Barnes XPB 140 & 155 gr JHP (copper bullet)
Speer Gold Dot 155 gr JHP
Federal Tactical 165 gr JHP (LE40T3)
Winchester Ranger-T 165 gr JHP (RA40TA)
Winchester Partition Gold 165 gr JHP (RA401P)
Federal HST 180 gr JHP (P40HST1)
Federal Tactical 180 gr JHP (LE40T1)
Remington Golden Saber 180 gr JHP (GS40SWB)
Speer Gold Dot 180 gr JHP
Winchester Ranger-T 180 gr JHP (RA40T)
Winchester 180 gr bonded JHP (Q4355)

.45 ACP:
Barnes XPB 160 & 185 gr JHP (copper bullet)
Federal HST 230 gr JHP (P45HST2)
Federal HST 230 gr +P JHP (P45HST1)
Federal Tactical 230 gr JHP (LE45T1)
Speer Gold Dot 230 gr JHP
Speer Gold Dot 230 gr +P JHP
Winchester Ranger-T 230 gr JHP (RA45T)
Winchester Ranger-T 230 gr +P JHP (RA45TP)

Notes:
-- Obviously, clone loads using the same bullet at the same velocity work equally well (ie. Black Hills ammo using Gold Dot bullets, Corbon loads using Barnes XPB bullets, etc…)

-- Bullet designs like the Silver Tip, Hydra-Shok, and Black Talon were state of the art 15 or 20 years ago. These older bullets tend to plug up and act like FMJ projectiles when shot through heavy clothing; they also often have significant degradation in terminal performance after first passing through intermediate barriers. Modern ammunition which has been designed for robust expansion against clothing and intermediate barriers is significantly superior to the older designs. The bullets in the Federal Classic and Hydrashok line are outperformed by other ATK products such as the Federal Tactical and HST, as well as the Speer Gold Dot; likewise Winchester Ranger Talons are far superior to the old Black Talons or civilian SXT's.

----------------------------------------

Basically all the standard service calibers work when using good quality ammunition. The platform picked tends to dictate the caliber. For example, Glocks and Sigs tend to run best in 9 mm; the S&W M&P is the first .40 S&W pistol that seems to offer an ideal ergonomic and shooter friendly package; while a properly customized 5" steel-frame single-stack 1911 in .45 ACP is a superb, unparalleled choice for the dedicated user willing to spend a significant amount of money to get it properly initially set-up and considerable time to maintain it. For folks who want a .45 ACP pistol, but don't want to invest the funds and effort into getting a good 1911, they would be better served with the S&W M&P45 or HK45.

Whatever you choose, make sure you fire at least 500 and preferably 1000 failure free shots through your pistol prior to using it for duty. If your pistol cannot fire at least 1000 consecutive shots without a malfunction, something is wrong and it is not suitable for duty/self-defense use.

------------------------------------------

The keys are:

-- Cultivate a warrior mindset
-- Invest in competent, thorough initial training and then maintain skills with regular ongoing practice
-- Acquire a reliable and durable weapon system
-- Purchase a consistent, robust performing duty/self-defense load in sufficient quantities (at least 1000 rounds) then STOP worrying about the nuances of handgun ammunition terminal performance.
END QUOTE


Its almost laughable how worked up people get over caliber selection. In the end of the day its really not that important. The 9mm is a good choice because it offers good terminal performance in a small package that is easy to shoot and generally more reliable than other semi auto pistol calibers.
Pat

Alaskapopo
02-01-2010, 19:19
Your asking about old guns, like that really matters? That's the best you got? Oh and the fact that more and more people are talkin bout 10mm on here which is the largest forum, that of course means nothin'. I love seeing what you try to pass off as logic. So how many other forums out there refuse to take you seriously? Actually, let's do this... is there any that do?

People talking about the 10mm on Glocktalk. That is proof to you that the 10mm is growing in popularity. :rofl::rofl::rofl:

uz2bUSMC
02-01-2010, 19:22
I have noticed your signature and I am impressed by your credentials. I also would like to thank you for your service.

I have also read many of your contributions here @ CC.

I have the impression that you favor the 9 mm over other calibers. If I am correct in that conclusion I would appreciate you sharing the logic for your regard for the 9mm as a handgun choice. You may have expressed this before. Thanks

There you go TEX, you just got a class from the master on choosing a caliber and platform. Be sure to add it to your sig line. I'm sure people will be impressed.

uz2bUSMC
02-01-2010, 19:24
People talking about the 10mm on Glocktalk. That is proof to you that the 10mm is growing in popularity. :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Yea, you're right... there couldn't possibly be anything to learn on GT being that it's got several hundred thousands of viewers. I guess there must be more to learn from the five prople in Alaska.

Alaskapopo
02-01-2010, 19:30
Yea, you're right... there couldn't possibly be anything to learn on GT being that it's got several hundred thousands of viewers. I guess there must be more to learn from the five prople in Alaska.

What are prople?

You really think that a small internet forum discussion with a few 10mm threads is indicative of industry trends and sales figures. If the 10mm were so great it would not need "defenders"
Pat

Alaskapopo
02-01-2010, 19:32
There you go TEX, you just got a class from the master on choosing a caliber and platform. Be sure to add it to your sig line. I'm sure people will be impressed.

People often mock in others what they don't have. In your case that is knowledge, training and experience.
Pat

uz2bUSMC
02-01-2010, 19:38
People often mock in others what they don't have. In your case that is knowledge, training and experience.
Pat

Got all that, what you know 'bout the Corps? Lemme guess, you had a conversation with a Marine once...

Alaskapopo
02-01-2010, 19:46
Got all that, what you know 'bout the Corps? Lemme guess, you had a conversation with a Marine once...

That seems to be the only thing in your life that you are proud of. That you completed a tour with the Marine Corp. Wow great. I am happy for you. What have you done with your life since then is the real question?
Pat

uz2bUSMC
02-01-2010, 19:49
That seems to be the only thing in your life that you are proud of. That you completed a tour with the Marine Corp. Wow great. I am happy for you. What have you done with your life since then is the real question?
Pat

A good bit more, but I don't need to put it in my sig line to feel good about myself.:rofl: I have friends and stuff like that, don't need to put my certs in my sig to say I had a good day today.

LEAD
02-01-2010, 19:51
Alright guys, if you want to duke it out we can ask eric to create some arena like forum where you can have a battle of wits all day without digressing from the thread topic.



the first step is admitting you have a problem.
http://www.stopcyberbullying.org/





So anyone have more information on .357sig?

Alaskapopo
02-01-2010, 19:55
A good bit more, but I don't need to put it in my sig line to feel good about myself.:rofl: I have friends and stuff like that, don't need to put my certs in my sig to say I had a good day today.

You don't put anything in your sig line because you have nothing to put in it. You already put the fact your are a former marine in your screen name. Which is the same as me putting my credentials in my sig line. I see you have made something like 4 friends since you have been here. Good going I have about 3 times that. But who is counting. Anyway I agree with Lead this pissing match needs to end. So if you can keep yourself under control and not post any personal attacks I will do the same. But I am not holding my breath.
Pat

uz2bUSMC
02-01-2010, 19:56
Alright guys, if you want to duke it out we can ask eric to create some arena like forum where you can have a battle of wits all day without digressing from the thread topic.



the first step is admitting you have a problem.
http://www.stopcyberbullying.org/





So anyone have more information on .357sig?



That's funny!

uz2bUSMC
02-01-2010, 20:01
You don't put anything in your sig line because you have nothing to put in it. You already put the fact your are a former marine in your screen name. Which is the same as me putting my credentials in my sig line. I see you have made something like 4 friends since you have been here. Good going I have about 3 times that. But who is counting. Anyway I agree with Lead this pissing match needs to end. So if you can keep yourself under control and not post any personal attacks I will do the same. But I am not holding my breath.
Pat

Ahh hahaha, no man. Friends isn't just a measure of how many people you know on the internet!:rofl::rofl::rofl: And no it's it's not. Former Marine= Saying what I'm about and those who can relate know they automatically have a brother if needed. Posting seminar certs in sigline= gay.

Alaskapopo
02-01-2010, 20:07
Posting seminar certs in sigline= gay.

Hmm so you are a homophobe as well. Also what are these seminars you speak of. If you think all training in law enforcement is in lecture format you are truly ignorant. But then I already knew you were ignorant.
Pat

uz2bUSMC
02-01-2010, 20:08
.357 sig is on the rise with LEO, nuff said.

uz2bUSMC
02-01-2010, 20:08
Hmm so you are a homophobe as well.
Pat

That's correct... I don't like you.

uz2bUSMC
02-01-2010, 20:12
I apologize to all else in the thread, I just can't help it when it comes to that guy.

glocksterr
02-01-2010, 20:17
nine is fine.


:whistling:

remat
02-01-2010, 20:18
The Delta was dropped a while back and there has been plans to re-introduce it but I have not yet seen it. They were supposed to be doing a 6 inch bull barrel version and then they went back to the standard model. But since the 2009 shot show none are to be seen on dealer shelves. Also the continuing success of the Glock 20. Yea right the 10mm accounts for Glock's lowest amount of gun sales. :rofl:

Thanks for the laugh sport.

Geez. I haven't read this whole thread but here is a good laugh "sport" -- check the Colt website. The Delta Elite is in production.

Don't believe me? Check a gun shop, I just saw a new one yesterday. I would be happy to give you the phone #.

Still don't believe? Here is mine, manufactured 2009:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4056/4313073826_2e8e37a7cc.jpg

uz2bUSMC
02-01-2010, 20:19
nine is fine.


:whistling:

:steamed:

Alaskapopo
02-01-2010, 20:19
That's correct... I don't like you.

So now you are calling me gay. You have to be the most immature person I have met on line in a long time.
Pat

Alaskapopo
02-01-2010, 20:20
Geez. I haven't read this whole thread but here is a good laugh "sport" -- check the Colt website. The Delta Elite is in production.

Don't believe me? Check a gun shop, I just saw a new one yesterday. I would be happy to give you the phone #.

Still don't believe? Here is mine, manufactured 2009:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4056/4313073826_2e8e37a7cc.jpg

Cool glad to see it finally hit the shelves. I have not seen one since their announcement. Although I have no way of knowing the gun you posted is made in 2009 without the serial number. And if the round were that popular they would not have dropped production of the gun in the first place sport.
By the way according to uz2bUSMC you must be gay as you posted your NRA certification in your sig line.
Pat

uz2bUSMC
02-01-2010, 20:23
Geez. I haven't read this whole thread but here is a good laugh "sport" -- check the Colt website. The Delta Elite is in production.

Don't believe me? Check a gun shop, I just saw a new one yesterday. I would be happy to give you the phone #.

Still don't believe? Here is mine, manufactured 2009:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4056/4313073826_2e8e37a7cc.jpg

Damn!:wow:

uz2bUSMC
02-01-2010, 20:29
Cool glad to see it finally hit the shelves. I have not seen one since their announcement. Although I have no way of knowing the gun you posted is made in 2009 without the serial number. And if the round were that popular they would not have dropped production of the gun in the first place sport.
By the way according to uz2bUSMC you must be gay as you posted your NRA certification in your sig line.
Pat

That was then, this is now, Pat. How does determining how a cartridge is on the rise today have anything to do with what guns fell by the wayside years and years ago. Hey chief, get this.... we're not talking ten years ago, we're talking today. Is that simple enough or do I need to break it down Barny style?

j-glock22
02-01-2010, 20:29
Uh oh, is this gonna turn into a .357 vs 9mm thread?

Alaskapopo
02-01-2010, 20:33
That was then, this is now, Pat. How does determining how a cartridge is on the rise today have anything to do with what guns fell by the wayside years and years ago. Hey chief, get this.... we're not talking ten years ago, we're talking today. Is that simple enough or do I need to break it down Barny style?

Show me the stats that its popularity is on the rise?
Pat

uz2bUSMC
02-01-2010, 20:42
Show me the stats that its popularity is on the rise?
Pat

Show me the stats that it's not. Let's talk about your suposed sources. You never back up anything Pat... you just "say" and expect people to believe you. Remat just shoved your fat foot in your own mouth but some how you're still gurgling BS. You're a loss to the great world of the internet. I know everybody has to have their 10%, I just wish it wasn't you... here... trollin' up GT.

glockfanbob
02-01-2010, 20:44
This debate of "show me the proof...." reminds me of the religious debate of "well prove me wrong because I can't prove what I'm saying as fact". It's pretty annoying.

Edit: This was directed at Alaskapopo and anyone else who uses that excuse.

Also, how is this thread not locked yet! haha

unit1069
02-01-2010, 20:47
As an owner of two 9mm and one .357sig pistols let me state my views.

For civilian self-defense under the most common situations 9mm is sufficient to stop the threat.

However, there are certain circumstances where 9mm falls short of what's required and that's why the search for a better service caliber began. Highway Patrol, Air Marshals, Secret Service, State and Federal Conservation Agents, urban/rural police departments, ... they're issued calibers (.40 S&W/.357sig) that have proven capable of overcoming most of these "certain circumstances".

I have no way of proving it, but I believe 10mm would be a popular law enforcement choice in many jurisdictions --- except for the ever-present ACLU-type interest groups who'd sue after every OIS on the grounds of premedited intent to kill. I suspect many of the large metropolitan police departments who have not stepped up from 9mm have a long history of lawsuits and don't want to make things even more difficult for themselves.

For those agencies who have adopted more powerful calibers than 9mm I have read nothing in the way of regret for having done so. Quite the opposite, if anecdotal evidence offered by LEO forum thread participants is believable.

The articles by Mas Ayoob, based upon his interviews with LEO personnel and ballistics researchers, support the "street cred" of .357sig. If I remember correctly, Mas Ayoob's personal choice of sidearms is .45ACP so I see no reason for anyone to question his input.

If I could have only one pistol from the ones I own I'd choose the .357sig.

uz2bUSMC
02-01-2010, 20:47
Well, I'm done contibuting to ruining the thread. I'll be the bigger man (not physically of course, some of us have seen you know who) and keep my mouth shut.

remat
02-01-2010, 20:48
Cool glad to see it finally hit the shelves. I have not seen one since their announcement. Although I have no way of knowing the gun you posted is made in 2009 without the serial number. And if the round were that popular they would not have dropped production of the gun in the first place sport.
By the way according to uz2bUSMC you must be gay as you posted your NRA certification in your sig line.
Pat

LOL...If you were going to call Colt to verify my SN, just ask them how many they made in 2009 instead (if you do find out, please let me know, I am curious). Also, Cabelas has them for anybody looking for one. Local shop can find one and transfer it in.

As for the rest, I am quite frankly perplexed by the discussion.

uz2bUSMC
02-01-2010, 20:50
LOL...If you were going to call Colt to verify my SN, just ask them how many they made in 2009 instead (if you do find out, please let me know, I am curious). Also, Cabelas has them for anybody looking for one. Local shop can find one and transfer it in.

As for the rest, I am quite frankly perplexed by the discussion.

My apologies.

unit1069
02-01-2010, 20:51
Here is mine, manufactured 2009:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4056/4313073826_2e8e37a7cc.jpg

That's a mighty fine looking gun, remat.

Alaskapopo
02-01-2010, 20:53
Well, I'm done contibuting to ruining the thread. I'll be the bigger man (not physically of course, some of us have seen you know who) and keep my mouth shut.

Now come the fat jokes. Seriously you need to grow up.
Pat

Alaskapopo
02-01-2010, 20:54
LOL...If you were going to call Colt to verify my SN, just ask them how many they made in 2009 instead (if you do find out, please let me know, I am curious). Also, Cabelas has them for anybody looking for one. Local shop can find one and transfer it in.

As for the rest, I am quite frankly perplexed by the discussion.

Your word is good enough for me. I am curious as to when they first hit the streets.
Pat

Alaskapopo
02-01-2010, 20:56
This debate of "show me the proof...." reminds me of the religious debate of "well prove me wrong because I can't prove what I'm saying as fact". It's pretty annoying.

Edit: This was directed at Alaskapopo and anyone else who uses that excuse.

Also, how is this thread not locked yet! haha

The problem is the 10mmfanboys made their claim first. They need to show proof first.
Pat

remat
02-01-2010, 21:02
That's a mighty fine looking gun, remat.

Thank you very much! It has been flawless out of the box (I know they say that is impossible in a new 1911) :)


Your word is good enough for me. I am curious as to when they first hit the streets.
Pat

Not sure. I can tell you that it was hard to find. I had called almost every shop in Western WA looking for one. Cabelas could transfer one in but I got lucky and found one at Federal Way Guns, which incidentally, is the place that has another on the shelf (as of yesterday). They are no where as easy to find as an Govt XSE.

To keep the thread on topic, anybody ever convert a 1911 to 357Sig? :supergrin:

Sig was going to offer it in their GSR/Revolution line but for whatever reason never did.

Alaskapopo
02-01-2010, 21:06
Thank you very much! It has been flawless out of the box (I know they say that is impossible in a new 1911) :)




Not sure. I can tell you that it was hard to find. I had called almost every shop in Western WA looking for one. Cabelas could transfer one in but I got lucky and found one at Federal Way Guns, which incidentally, is the place that has another on the shelf (as of yesterday). They are no where as easy to find as an Govt XSE.

To keep the thread on topic, anybody ever convert a 1911 to 357Sig? :supergrin:

Sig was going to offer it in their GSR/Revolution line but for whatever reason never did.

I believe you would have issues with feeding if you tried to convert a 1911 to 357 sig. Due to the long bullet jump from the mag to the chamber. Getting 9mm and 40 sw 1911's to feed is tricky and the 357 sig would be even more so due to its nose diving tendency of the bottle neck rounds. I had a 40sw Browning HP converted to 357 sig by Cylinder and Slide and it never did feed right. They had to tweak the mags a lot. I do believe I saw a custom 1911 once about 8 years ago in 357 sig in a gun rag article. Not sure how they do in real life.
pat

PghJim
02-01-2010, 21:29
Alaskapopo -why are you even in Caliber Corner. I would think hanging around those other "tactical" forums would be better suited, because after having read all through this you basically think all calibers are of the same effectiveness. More companies are making 10mm guns than before. Four years ago I did not have any and now I own 4. No we do not have statistics, but the interest in the caliber has grown.

I have not talked to any "ballistic experts", but I have spoken with several highway patrol persons who are very happy with their 357 sigs and consider it a big step up from the 9mm. That means more to me. Also my own experience with animals shot has shown me a more devastating effect of the 357 sig than a 9mm. Now maybe not all 357 sigs rounds are the same. Since I do not have to shoot through barriers, I use the Corbon 125gr Seirra JHP, which leaves my G32 at about 1,430fps. I have found it just as effective as a 125gr 357 magnum, but I remember that you said that the 40 was a step up from the Remington 125 gr 357 Magnum. I have been shooting for a long time and have never heard anyone make that statement. I own both and I do not believe it is even comparable. I always wonder about people who have to put everything they may have done on their signature line. I may only be a backwood bumpkin and have never taken or instructed SWAT entry tactics class, but I do know the effect of bullets on living animals, and trust people who trust their lives on their side arm.

Claemore
02-01-2010, 21:52
Knowing who Duncan MacPherson is and knowing Evan Marshall and Dr. Roberts is two different matters. If you don't believe me go to Evans forum and ask him if he has ever spoken to me or sent me free ammo for testing about 6 years back.

As for Dr. Roberts go to http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=91 and ask him if he had a telephone conversation with me about 3 weeks ago where we talked about everything from the 5.7 to the 6.8. I dare you.

All you are is an internet bully. Grow up and act like a civilized adult.
Pat

I don't think I'd be bragging about talking to Dr. Roberts. Not unless you are talking about how pretty your teeth are.

Alaskapopo
02-01-2010, 22:04
I don't think I'd be bragging about talking to Dr. Roberts. Not unless you are talking about how pretty your teeth are.

Yea that just shows how ignorant on the subject you are. Yes his current day job is a dentist. But he has done a lot of study and research and testing on wound ballistics more than any other person save Dr. Fackler himself. So save your ignorant comments.
pat

Alaskapopo
02-01-2010, 22:08
Alaskapopo -why are you even in Caliber Corner. I would think hanging around those other "tactical" forums would be better suited, because after having read all through this you basically think all calibers are of the same effectiveness. More companies are making 10mm guns than before. Four years ago I did not have any and now I own 4. No we do not have statistics, but the interest in the caliber has grown.

I have not talked to any "ballistic experts", but I have spoken with several highway patrol persons who are very happy with their 357 sigs and consider it a big step up from the 9mm. That means more to me. Also my own experience with animals shot has shown me a more devastating effect of the 357 sig than a 9mm. Now maybe not all 357 sigs rounds are the same. Since I do not have to shoot through barriers, I use the Corbon 125gr Seirra JHP, which leaves my G32 at about 1,430fps. I have found it just as effective as a 125gr 357 magnum, but I remember that you said that the 40 was a step up from the Remington 125 gr 357 Magnum. I have been shooting for a long time and have never heard anyone make that statement. I own both and I do not believe it is even comparable. I always wonder about people who have to put everything they may have done on their signature line. I may only be a backwood bumpkin and have never taken or instructed SWAT entry tactics class, but I do know the effect of bullets on living animals, and trust people who trust their lives on their side arm.

Frankly what some road toad thinks does not matter much. Most of the guys you have talked to have probably never been in a gun fight and if they have I doubt they were in a gun fight where they could compare the 9mm and the 357 sig under simular conditions. You need to look at the big picture for that and not on the war stories of a few cops.

What matters are the stats collected from shooting results and autopsy's performed.

Frankly I could give a crap less what you think about me or my signature line. If you like the 357 sig by all means carry it. But don't try to justify your choice with a bunch of conjecture and BS. I have had to kill live animals as well good for you. I also have to trust my sidearm day in and day out to perform if I ever need it.

Pat

texas 48
02-01-2010, 23:38
its always fun to watch a good caliber war:popcorn:. My 2 cents is I can understand why many shooters prefer the 9mm. In my experience the 9 is quicker on followups and more capacity. Some of us have Dirty Harry syndrome, including me. I am heavily invested in the 10mm 2 identical completly loaded up G29's with about 450 of aftermarket parts in each one and a new G20 that I got NIB for 465.00 and could not resist and hundreds in reloading supplies for the 10.
I just had a long discussion with a very experienced LEO and he made a very rational logical argument of the benefits of less powerful weapons, that very frankly have altered my thinking. I will however stick with my 10's becasue of my investment (I still love them)meaning more practice to become the best 10mm shooter I can be.

There are 2 sides to every disagreement. It gets back to what I have always said. Shoot the gun you have the most confidence in. Thats a personal choice becasue only you have to shoot it.

Please read my signature . Don't be

glock20c10mm
02-01-2010, 23:43
If you like Glocks get a 9mm. The rest have issues.
Neither the G20C I used to have or the G29 I have now have or have had any issues. What issues are they supposed to have??? :headscratch: I think you're over reaching with your statement. Besides that the 357SIG is generally considered to be as clear as any in issues by merit of the bottleneck cartridge design. Did you handload a bunch of 357SIG that ended up being poor performers???

And what about the 40S&W chambered glocks? An extreme amount of LE/Agencies carry them. Someone must have forgot to tell them about the issues. Then there's the Glock 45s. Someone dropped a G21 out of an airplane. When he found it only the bottom of the magwell was still above ground. It fired perfectly. Not to mention all the other torture tests he put it through and some mega amount of rounds through it and it still operated flawlessly.

I might be going out on a limb here, but I don't believe the majority of Glocks have any issues at all, and more than likely less than the guns provided through other manufacturers.
In a strict wound ballistics sense, over-penetration is better than under-penetration because the bullet will at least have the potential to intersect and bore through vital cardiovascular structures. But over-penetration is also a waste of wounding potential.
Can you elaborate?

About over penetration you say;
1) good to intersect all vital structures possible, and/but
2) waste of wounding potential

Isn't that contradictory?
In comparison, many 9mm 147-grain subsonic JHP bullets demonstrate better penetration and expansion performance than .357 SIG 125-grain JHPs.
How much better expansion when leaving out HSTs, as HSTs are basically the one exception to the rule?

glock20c10mm
02-02-2010, 00:36
As you increase bullet size and mass from 9 mm/357 Sig, to .40 S&W, to .45 ACP, more tissue is crushed, resulting in a larger permanent cavity.
So 9mm is a poor choice?
In addition, the larger bullets often offer better performance through intermediate barriers.
How does that matter if all bullets compared meet all FBI barrier penetration protocols, but then the relatively small bullet of the 357SIG continues to go above and beyond? Where does that leave the larger bullets?
Anyone interested in this topic should read and periodically re-read, “Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness” by Urey Patrick of the FBI FTU, as this remains the single best discussion of the wound ballistic requirements of handguns used for self-defense.
SSA Urey Patrick of the Firearms Training Unit, FBI Academy, Quantico, VA, when asked; "Are you saying the 9mm is no good?" , replied;

"No, we are saying it is as good as the 38 Special, which has served us for a long time. It has severe limitations, which we are not willing to accept. It is woefully inadequate for shooting at people in cars, for example, and over half of our shootings involve vehicles. It is a marginally adequate wounding agent. We have had a number of 9mm shootings over the past couple of years, and if you define a good shooting as one in which the subject stops whatever he was doing when he gets shot, we have yet to have a good one, and we are hitting our adversaries multiple times. We have shot half a dozen dogs in the past year and have not killed one yet, although we have run up a significant veteranary bill. The 9mm with proper ammunition is not a bad round. It is just no where near as effective as the 10mm and 45 offerings and the disparity between it and the larger calibers has remained a constant throughout all the testing we have done over the past two years."

That quoted, are you sure he's on your side? :shocked:
Keeping in mind that handguns generally offer poor incapacitation potential, bullets with effective terminal performance are available in all of the most commonly used duty pistol calibers. Basically all the standard service calibers work when using good quality ammunition.
So lets get this straight......Incapacitation potential is POOR, terminal performance is EFFECTIVE, and all service calibers WORK using quality ammo. So they're poor but effective and work.

Maybe someone could enlighten the rest of us with definitions to the terms: poor, effective, and work. Sounds like a bunch of rubbish to me.
Its almost laughable how worked up people get over caliber selection.
So you're almost laughing at yourself?
In the end of the day its really not that important.
No, not at all, just life and death, no big deal. :faint:
9mm is agood choice because it offers good terminal performance in a small package that is easy to shoot and generally more reliable than other semi auto pistol calibers.
Pat
You mean for those that want to blow off what Urey Patrick of the FBI FTU said in reguard to the 9mm being woefully inadequate among things that make it less than desireable? Notice that the FBI still doesn't use 9mm.

It's like a friend of mine always says; The 9mm against BGs is akin to using a BB gun to stop a freight train.


Good Shooting,
Craig

Alaskapopo
02-02-2010, 00:42
So 9mm is a poor choice?

How does that matter if all bullets compared meet all FBI barrier penetration protocols, but then the relatively small bullet of the 357SIG continues to go above and beyond? Where does that leave the larger bullets?

SSA Urey Patrick of the Firearms Training Unit, FBI Academy, Quantico, VA, when asked; "Are you saying the 9mm is no good?" , replied;

"No, we are saying it is as good as the 38 Special, which has served us for a long time. It has severe limitations, which we are not willing to accept. It is woefully inadequate for shooting at people in cars, for example, and over half of our shootings involve vehicles. It is a marginally adequate wounding agent. We have had a number of 9mm shootings over the past couple of years, and if you define a good shooting as one in which the subject stops whatever he was doing when he gets shot, we have yet to have a good one, and we are hitting our adversaries multiple times. We have shot half a dozen dogs in the past year and have not killed one yet, although we have run up a significant veteranary bill. The 9mm with proper ammunition is not a bad round. It is just no where near as effective as the 10mm and 45 offerings and the disparity between it and the larger calibers has remained a constant throughout all the testing we have done over the past two years."

That quoted, are you sure he's on your side? :shocked:

So lets get this straight......Incapacitation potential is POOR, terminal performance is EFFECTIVE, and all service calibers WORK using quality ammo. So they're poor but effective and work.

Maybe someone could enlighten the rest of us with definitions to the terms: poor, effective, and work. Sounds like a bunch of rubbish to me.

So you're almost laughing at yourself?

No, not at all, just life and death, no big deal. :faint:

You mean for those that want to blow off what Urey Patrick of the FBI FTU said in reguard to the 9mm being woefully inadequate among things that make it less than desireable? Notice that the FBI still doesn't use 9mm.

It's like a friend of mine always says; The 9mm against BGs is akin to using a BB gun to stop a freight train.


Good Shooting,
Craig

Actually Craig a great many FBI agents still carry 9mm's by choice. Not all carry Glock 22's and 23's. I would much rather carry a Sig 9mm that is reliable than a Glock 40 that historically are not.

As to my original comments that you took out of context. You do get more tissue damage as bore size goes up however you also get more recoil. Since we are not shooting single shot pistols you can not simple take tissue destruction by itself. Say your shooting a 10mm with full house loads and you have 1 seconds to fire you may get 2 to 3 accurate rounds off at close range. With the 9mm at the same range you will get more like 4 to 6 rounds. More bullets in the same amount of time means more tissue damage which means better stopping power. Frankly I don't really much care what the FBI says on the subject of stopping power. I don't take advice on selecting handguns and calibers from attorneys and accountants with badges. If I want advice on such matters I will turn to people who study shootings and wound ballistics like Dr. Roberts and Dr. Fackler. By the way you need to look up the issues the Indian State Police had with their Glock 40's. In fact do a search on the net regarding Glock 22's and weapon mounted lights. I am surprised this is new information to you. Top firearms instructors like Larry Vickers say if you want a Glock stick to 9mm.
Pat

glock20c10mm
02-02-2010, 00:45
Also, how is this thread not locked yet! haha
:quiet:

mikeflys1
02-02-2010, 00:50
<--- .357sig fan

http://www.knitemare.org/cats/lovethisthread.jpg

glock20c10mm
02-02-2010, 00:54
What matters are the stats collected from shooting results and autopsy's performed.

Pat
Autopsies only tell part of a much bigger story. They are useless in terms of telling anyone if a BG was incapacitated in 30 seconds or 5 seconds. Even the cops on the scene can't always tell you that, as they commonly have no idea how many rounds they fired among other things they DON'T REMEMBER or DON'T REMEMBER ACCURATELY.

Also, don't know what autopsies you're refering to, but interestingly enough, many of us who have examined animals we've shot with 9mm and 357SIG, clearly have seen more damage done by the 357SIG, not to mention quicker incapacitation times.


Craig

Alaskapopo
02-02-2010, 01:03
Autopsies only tell part of a much bigger story. They are useless in terms of telling anyone if a BG was incapacitated in 30 seconds or 5 seconds. Even the cops on the scene can't always tell you that, as they commonly have no idea how many rounds they fired among other things they DON'T REMEMBER or DON'T REMEMBER ACCURATELY.

Also, don't know what autopsies you're refering to, but interestingly enough, many of us who have examined animals we've shot with 9mm and 357SIG, clearly have seen more damage done by the 357SIG, not to mention quicker incapacitation times.


Craig

Frankly the hunting situations you speak of using the 9mm and 357 sig are suspect from the start. For starters all of you supposedly doing this are big bore fans so there is researcher bias. Then there is the issue of the animals shot themselves. Was each one shot in the exact same manner in the same place, was each animal the same size. Were they spooked prior to being shot. Etc. Frankly such sophomoric tests are useless and un-repeatable. I have shot 2 bear with 12 gauge slugs. The bears did not go down as fast as I would have wanted them to. Does that mean the 12 gauge slug is a poor stopper? There are way too many variables in a hunting situation to make it valid research.

Pat

glock20c10mm
02-02-2010, 01:21
Actually Craig a great many FBI agents still carry 9mm's by choice. Not all carry Glock 22's and 23's.
And that proves what exactly, assuming you even have a clue what you're talking about??? Besides that, of whatever one's do, you certainly don't know their reasoning which in this case would be key.
I would much rather carry a Sig 9mm that is reliable than a Glock 40 that historically are not.
Glock 40s are extremely reliable. It is foolish to think otherwise.
As to my original comments that you took out of context.
I didn't take anything you said out of context that mattered if it was taken out of context or not. Besides that your posts are and will be posted for all time, and anyone who wishes to see if I left anything pertinent out can see for themselves.
You do get more tissue damage as bore size goes up however you also get more recoil.
That is not always true. About anyone who participates in CC and tell you that with examples. You're being dishonest as a hole in the context you speak.
Since we are not shooting single shot pistols you can not simple take tissue destruction by itself. Say your shooting a 10mm with full house loads and you have 1 seconds to fire you may get 2 to 3 accurate rounds off at close range. With the 9mm at the same range you will get more like 4 to 6 rounds.
BS. The difference is less they you make it out to be. With my G29 and DT 155gr Gold Dots @ 1400fps, 3 accurate shots is the norm in a second for me. With the 9mm and the lowest recoiling loads available, most people won't do better than 4 in a second, accurately. Now throw some 9mm +P and +P+ into the equation. You get the picture.
More bullets in the same amount of time means more tissue damage which means better stopping power.
So you're claiming 9mm = same wound damage per shot as 10mm??? That's seriously laughable!!! :rofl: Sorry, but you're going to have to attempt to pull the wool over someone elses eyes as I've seen the differences. As plenty of others on GT have also noted.
Frankly I don't really much care what the FBI says on the subject of stopping power. I don't take advice on selecting handguns and calibers from attorneys and accountants with badges. If I want advice on such matters I will turn to people who study shootings and wound ballistics like Dr. Roberts and Dr. Fackler.

Pat
You mean you posted the link by Urey Patrick because you don't care? Nothing like shooting yourself in the foot! At what point are you finally going to wake up to reality?

glock20c10mm
02-02-2010, 01:27
Frankly the hunting situations you speak of using the 9mm and 357 sig are suspect from the start. For starters all of you supposedly doing this are big bore fans so there is researcher bias. Then there is the issue of the animals shot themselves. Was each one shot in the exact same manner in the same place, was each animal the same size. Were they spooked prior to being shot. Etc. Frankly such sophomoric tests are useless and un-repeatable. I have shot 2 bear with 12 gauge slugs. The bears did not go down as fast as I would have wanted them to. Does that mean the 12 gauge slug is a poor stopper? There are way too many variables in a hunting situation to make it valid research.

Pat
How is a big bore fan interested in carrying 357SIG? Question; Do you ever think about what you type before you post it to the thread? You'ld have a hard time arguing so! I can't figure why you think you still have something to say when it's clear you need to go back to the drawing board. Tell me; Is ignorance bliss?

Alaskapopo
02-02-2010, 01:29
And that proves what exactly, assuming you even have a clue what you're talking about??? Besides that, of whatever one's do, you certainly don't know their reasoning which in this case would be key.

Glock 40s are extremely reliable. It is foolish to think otherwise.

I didn't take anything you said out of context that mattered if it was taken out of context or not. Besides that your posts are and will be posted for all time, and anyone who wishes to see if I left anything pertinent out can see for themselves.

That is not always true. About anyone who participates in CC and tell you that with examples. You're being dishonest as a hole in the context you speak.

BS. The difference is less they you make it out to be. With my G29 and DT 155gr Gold Dots @ 1400fps, 3 accurate shots is the norm in a second for me. With the 9mm and the lowest recoiling loads available, most people won't do better than 4 in a second, accurately. Now throw some 9mm +P and +P+ into the equation. You get the picture.

So you're claiming 9mm = same wound damage per shot as 10mm??? That's seriously laughable!!! :rofl: Sorry, but you're going to have to attempt to pull the wool over someone elses eyes as I've seen the differences. As plenty of others on GT have also noted.

You mean you posted the link by Urey Patrick because you don't care? Nothing like shooting yourself in the foot! At what point are you finally going to wake up to reality?

Craig pull your head out of your rear. I never said the 9mm does the same damage per shot as the 10mm. Go back to school and get some reading comprehension. Second the Glock 40 is a dog of a handgun that has had nurmerous problems. The fact that you don't know this means your ignorant. I never shot myself in the foot. Your the one who used an FBI agents word from an article as he was a wound ballistics expert and he is not.

Frankly I am done arguing with someone as dense as you are. Welcome to ignore.
Pat

glock20c10mm
02-02-2010, 01:36
Craig pull your head out of your rear. I never said the 9mm does the same damage per shot as the 10mm. Go back to school and get some reading comprehension. Second the Glock 40 is a dog of a handgun that has had nurmerous problems. The fact that you don't know this means your ignorant. I never shot myself in the foot. Your the one who used an FBI agents word from an article as he was a wound ballistics expert and he is not.

Frankly I am done arguing with someone as dense as you are. Welcome to ignore.
Pat
Now now Pat, remember, not only did I quote what you posted, any of us can also go back and read your original post where you did suggest 9mm does the same damage per shot (give or take a shot) as the 10mm. :miff:

No, 40 Glocks don't have issues. You may want to go back and read that last sentence a few more times.

You're the one who didn't think Urey Patrick could have known the truth. Does the truth hurt? Be honest.


Good Shooting,
Craig

glock20c10mm
02-02-2010, 01:38
Frankly I am done arguing with someone as dense as you are. Welcome to ignore.

Pat
No skin off my back. Some can't handle the truth. You have a nice night. I'm going to bed.


Later, or not,
Craig

gatorboy
02-02-2010, 09:23
Craig pull your head out of your rear. I never said the 9mm does the same damage per shot as the 10mm. Go back to school and get some reading comprehension. Second the Glock 40 is a dog of a handgun that has had nurmerous problems. The fact that you don't know this means your ignorant. I never shot myself in the foot. Your the one who used an FBI agents word from an article as he was a wound ballistics expert and he is not.

Frankly I am done arguing with someone as dense as you are. Welcome to ignore.
Pat

That right there is hill(freakin)arious! Your superiors must close the door and giggle like schoolgirl's when they read your reports.

"the Glock 40 is a dog of a weapon" - Alaskapoopoo

Thank you for your knowledgeable insight concerning this matter. I will go and sell all my Glock 40's of which I have 10's of thousands of round through with not a single failure in recent history that I can remember.

Free Radical
02-02-2010, 09:36
The fact that you don't know this means your ignorant.



I think the word that you're looking for here is <u>you're</u>, genius. :rofl:

dahahn
02-02-2010, 10:51
Wow. I was here yesterday, and I return today to see that a whole lotta something hit the fan. Wow.

Fact of the matter is, as it appears to me, is that a lot of facts have been tossed around, with some citations, on the 357SIG side, and very little on the non side. This is what kills me about these discussions.

I posted some papers from a physics peer-review website that got no comment from Alaskapopo. I would like to see him pick apart these papers. Using scientific method they found that the 357SIG has potential over the 9mm. The article on evaluating wound characteristics in deer comes with pictures of the wound from a .40SW, along with numbers for 9mm and 357SIG.

As to something else: this is the first time that I've seen that .40 Glocks are "dogs." I've never come across someone who told me to steer clear. That is, until today.

If this thread is to go further, we should make citations mandatory.

Oh, for the record (because I'm tired of people dogging Wikipedia): in a study a few years ago (5 now that I found the article):

Based on 42 articles reviewed by experts, the average scientific entry in Wikipedia contained four errors or omissions, while Britannica had three.Source: http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69844 (http://www.unblockz.com/init.php?u=Oi8vZ2xvY2t0YWxrLmNvbS9mb3J1bXMvJnF1b3Q7aHR0cDovL3d3dy53aXJlZC5jb20vY3VsdHVyZS9saWZlc3R5b GUvbmV3cy8yMDA1LzEyLzY5ODQ0JnF1b3Q7&b=5)

DocKWL
02-02-2010, 10:57
Wow. I was here yesterday, and I return today to see that a whole lotta something hit the fan. Wow.

Fact of the matter is, as it appears to me, is that a lot of facts have been tossed around, with some citations, on the 357SIG side, and very little on the non side. This is what kills me about these discussions.

I posted some papers from a physics peer-review website that got no comment from Alaskapopo. I would like to see him pick apart these papers. Using scientific method they found that the 357SIG has potential over the 9mm. The article on evaluating wound characteristics in deer comes with pictures of the wound from a .40SW, along with numbers for 9mm and 357SIG.

As to something else: this is the first time that I've seen that .40 Glocks are "dogs." I've never come across someone who told me to steer clear. That is, until today.

If this thread is to go further, we should make citations mandatory.

Oh, for the record (because I'm tired of people dogging Wikipedia): in a study a few years ago (5 now that I found the article):

Source: http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69844 (http://www.unblockz.com/init.php?u=Oi8vZ2xvY2t0YWxrLmNvbS9mb3J1bXMvJnF1b3Q7aHR0cDovL3d3dy53aXJlZC5jb20vY3VsdHVyZS9saWZlc3R5b GUvbmV3cy8yMDA1LzEyLzY5ODQ0JnF1b3Q7&b=5)

I posted some papers from a physics peer-review website that got no comment from Alaskapopo. I would like to see him pick apart these papers.

I would like to see these papers.

dahahn
02-02-2010, 11:04
Page 4 contained those papers, but I will link them here as well:

Here is the paper that tests the 2 calibers in live deer:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0702/0702107.pdf

Here are 2 papers that look at both pressure wave theory and compare the Marshall and Sanow data set with the Strasbourg goat tests:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701268.pdf (http://glocktalk.com/forums/init.php?u=Oi8vYXJ4aXYub3JnL2Z0cC9waHlzaWNzL3BhcGVycy8wNzAxLzA3MDEyNjgucGRm&b=5)
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701266.pdf (http://glocktalk.com/forums/init.php?u=Oi8vYXJ4aXYub3JnL2Z0cC9waHlzaWNzL3BhcGVycy8wNzAxLzA3MDEyNjYucGRm&b=5)

The latter contains updated percentages on a One Shot Stop (OSS) according to a method they devised in the paper.

DocKWL
02-02-2010, 11:19
Page 4 contained those papers, but I will link them here as well:

Here is the paper that tests the 2 calibers in live deer:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0702/0702107.pdf

Here are 2 papers that look at both pressure wave theory and compare the Marshall and Sanow data set with the Strasbourg goat tests:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701268.pdf (http://glocktalk.com/forums/init.php?u=Oi8vYXJ4aXYub3JnL2Z0cC9waHlzaWNzL3BhcGVycy8wNzAxLzA3MDEyNjgucGRm&b=5)
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701266.pdf (http://glocktalk.com/forums/init.php?u=Oi8vYXJ4aXYub3JnL2Z0cC9waHlzaWNzL3BhcGVycy8wNzAxLzA3MDEyNjYucGRm&b=5)

The latter contains updated percentages on a One Shot Stop (OSS) according to a method they devised in the paper.

Thank you. I have all of those. Those papers have been thoroughly picked apart and are considered junk science at best by some of the most brilliant minds in the industry. You are living in a house of cards if that is your foundation of understanding.

The Strasbourg goat tests can not be proven to have ever taken place and the M&S OSS data is severely flawed.

dahahn
02-02-2010, 12:11
Thank you. I have all of those. Those papers have been thoroughly picked apart and are considered junk science at best by some of the most brilliant minds in the industry. You are living in a house of cards if that is your foundation of understanding.

The Strasbourg goat tests can not be proven to have ever taken place and the M&S OSS data is severely flawed.

Would you care to share with me papers that show empirical evidence of this please?

Police Marksman
02-02-2010, 12:22
Another Excellent post from DocGKR Read and Learn

Basic Wound Ballistic Terminal Performance Facts
The last 25 years of modern wound ballistic research has demonstrated yet again what historical reports have always indicated--that there are only two valid methods of incapacitation: one based on psychological factors and the other physiological damage. People are often rapidly psychologically incapacitated by minor wounds that are not immediately physiologically incapacitating. Psychological factors are also the reason people can receive severe, even non-survivable wounds and continue functioning for short periods of time. Up to fifty percent of those individuals rapidly incapacitated by bullet wounds are probably incapacitated for psychological rather than physiological reasons. Psychological incapacitation is an extremely erratic, highly variable, and completely unpredictable human response, independent of any inherent characteristics of a particular projectile.

The degree and rapidity of any physiological incapacitation is determined by the anatomic structures the projectile disrupts and the severity of the tissue damage caused by the bullet. Physiologically, immediate incapacitation or death can only occur when the brain or upper spinal cord is damaged or destroyed. The tactical reality is that in combat, opportunities for military personnel to take precisely aimed shots at the CNS of enemy combatants is rare due to high stress unexpected contact marked by rapid fleeting movements, along with frequent poor visibility on the battlefield including use of cover and concealment. Thus the reduced likelihood of frequent planned CNS targeting in combat conditions. Absent CNS damage, circulatory system collapse from severe disruption of the vital organs and blood vessels in the torso is the only other reliable method of physiological incapacitation from small arms. If the CNS is uninjured, physiological incapacitation is delayed until blood loss is sufficient to deprive the brain of oxygen. Multiple hits may be needed before an individual is physiologically incapacitated. An individual wounded in any area of the body other than the CNS may physiologically be able to continue their actions for a short period of time, even with non-survivable injuries. In a 1992 IWBA Journal paper, Dr. Ken Newgard wrote the following about how blood loss effects incapacitation:

“A 70 kg male has a cardiac output of around 5.5 liters per minute. His blood volume is about 4200 cc. Assuming that his cardiac output can double under stress, his aortic blood flow can reach 11 Liters per minute. If this male had his thoracic aorta totally severed, it would take him 4.6 seconds to lose 20% of his total blood volume. This is the minimum amount of time in which a person could lose 20% of his blood volume from one point of injury. A marginally trained person can fire at a rate of two shots per second. In 4.6 seconds there could easily be 9 shots of return fire before the assailant’s activity is neutralized. Note this analysis does not account for oxygen contained in the blood already perusing the brain that will keep the brain functioning for an even longer period of time.”

Military and LE (law enforcement) personnel are generally trained to shoot at the center of mass, usually the torso, of an aggressive opponent who must be stopped through the use of lethal force. Physiological incapacitation with wounds to the torso is usually the result of circulatory system collapse. More rapid incapacitation may occur with greater tissue disruption. Tissue is damaged through two wounding mechanisms: the tissue in the projectile’s path is permanently crushed and the tissue surrounding the projectile’s path is temporarily stretched. A penetrating projectile physically crushes and destroys tissue as it cuts its path through the body. The space occupied by this pulped and disintegrated tissue is referred to as the permanent cavity. The permanent cavity, or wound track, is quite simply the hole bored by the projectile's passage. Obviously, bullets of greater diameter crush more tissue, forming a larger permanent cavity. The formation of this permanent cavity is consistent and reliable.

The tissue surrounding the permanent cavity is briefly pushed laterally aside as it is centrifugally driven radially outward by the projectile's passage. The empty space normally occupied by the momentarily displaced tissue surrounding the wound track, is called the temporary cavity. The temporary cavity quickly subsides as the elastic recoil of the stretched tissue returns it towards the wound track. The tissue that was stretched by the temporary cavity may be injured and is analogous to an area of blunt trauma surrounding the permanent crush cavity. The degree of injury produced by temporary cavitation is quite variable, erratic, and highly dependent on anatomic and physiologic considerations. Many flexible, elastic soft tissues such as muscle, bowel wall, skin, blood vessels, and empty hollow organs are good energy absorbers and are highly resistant to the blunt trauma and contusion caused by the stretch of temporary cavitation. Inelastic tissues such as the liver, kidney, spleen, pancreas, brain, and completely full fluid or gas filled hollow organs, such as the bladder, are highly susceptible to severe permanent splitting, tearing, and rupture due to temporary cavitation insults. Projectiles are traveling at their maximum velocity when they initially strike and then slow as they travel through tissue. In spite of this, the maximum temporary cavity is not always found at the surface where the projectile is at its highest velocity, but often deeper in the tissue after it has slowed considerably. The maximum temporary cavitation is usually coincidental with that of maximum bullet yaw, deformation, or fragmentation, but not necessarily maximum projectile velocity.

All projectiles that penetrate the body can only disrupt tissue by these two wounding mechanisms: the localized crushing of tissue in the bullet's path and the transient stretching of tissue adjacent to the wound track. Projectile wounds differ in the amount and location of crushed and stretched tissue. The relative contribution by each of these mechanisms to any wound depends on the physical characteristics of the projectile, its size, weight, shape, construction, and velocity, penetration depth and the type of tissue with which the projectile interacts. Unlike rifle bullets, handgun bullets, regardless of whether they are fired from pistols or SMG’s, generally only disrupt tissue by the crush mechanism. In addition, temporary cavitation from most handgun bullets does not reliably damage tissue and is not usually a significant mechanism of wounding.

Bullets that may be required to incapacitate aggressors must reliably penetrate a minimum of approximately 10 to 12 inches of tissue in order to ensure disruption of the major organs and blood vessels in the torso from any angle and through excessive adipose tissue, hypertrophied muscle, or intervening anatomic structures, such as a raised arm.

Tissue is a denser medium than air; as the bullets strikes tissue, the increased drag on the projectile overcomes its rotational stabilization and the bullet can yaw. If the bullet yaws, more surface area is in contact with tissue, so it crushes more tissue, creating a larger permanent cavity. When a bullet yaws, it also displaces more of the surrounding tissue, increasing the temporary cavity size. Both the largest permanent and temporary cavities are produced when the bullet is traveling sideways at 90 degrees of yaw, allowing the maximum lateral cross sectional area of the bullet to strike tissue and displace the greatest amount of tissue. Longer and wider bullets have a greater lateral cross sectional area and thus create a larger permanent cavity when they yaw.

Aerodynamic projectiles, such as bullets, cause minimal tissue disturbance when passing point forward through tissue. Deformation destroys the aerodynamic shape of the bullet, shortening its length and increasing its diameter by expanding and flattening the bullet tip in the classic "mushroom" pattern exhibited by deforming jacketed hollow point and jacketed soft point bullets. The larger frontal area of deformed bullets can crush more tissue to increase permanent cavity size and also displace more tissue to increase temporary cavity size. (Note: The Hague Declaration of 1899 prohibits the use of bullets that expand or flatten easily in the human body against combatants in international armed conflict; the Hague Declaration does not prohibit the military use of bullets that fragment or because of their design, yaw upon entry into tissue.)

Projectile fragmentation in tissue can also greatly increase the permanent cavity size. When a rifle bullet fragments in tissue, each of the multiple fragments spreads out radially from the main wound track, cutting its own path through tissue. This fragmentation acts synergistically with the stretch of temporary cavitation. The multiply perforated tissue loses its elasticity and is unable to absorb stretching that would ordinarily be tolerated by intact tissue. The temporary cavitation displacement of tissue, which occurs following the passage of the projectile, stretches this weakened tissue and can grossly disrupt its integrity, tearing and detaching pieces of tissue. Note that handgun bullets, regardless of whether they are fired from pistols or SMG’s, do not generally exhibit the fragmentation effects produced by rifle bullets. If handgun bullets do fragment, the bullet fragments are usually found within 1 cm of the permanent cavity; wound severity is usually decreased by the fragmentation since the bullet mass is reduced, causing a smaller permanent crush cavity.

DocKWL
02-02-2010, 13:44
Would you care to share with me papers that show empirical evidence of this please?

By definition, empirical means direct observation or experience. Since I was not at the goat tests (nor was anyone else), with Courtney (nor was anyone else), or with M&S, I can not provide the evidence you seek.

I can however, provide (with equal validity as yours) evidence to the contrary. The burden is on you to do the research and formulate your own conclusions using the resources available to you.

M&S data HERE (http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs31.htm), HERE (http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs24.htm), HERE (http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs12.htm), HERE (http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs8.htm), HERE (http://www.firearmstactical.com/afte.htm), and everything HERE (http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm).

Ironically, all of the goat test garbage is disappearing from Internet servers. I have no way of providing you hard copies, but at least one conclusion states:

Dr. Martin Fackler, IWBA president, reviews the authorless "Strasbourg Tests," a purported study of the reaction of several hundred live unanesthetized "human-sized" goats that were allegedly shot to test the "one-shot stopping power" of various handgun cartridges. Fackler explains the many incongruities, inconsistencies and absurdities which lead him (and most other wound ballistics experts) to conclude that the "Strasbourg Tests" are a hoax.

Fackler concludes: "The only people who believe the 'Strasbourg Tests' are real are the usual crowd of crackpot 'magic' bullet believers and the pathetically incompetent editors of consumer gun magazines like Guns & Ammo."

'Strasbourg Tests:' Another Gunwriter/Bullet Salesman Fraud?" Wound Ballistics Review, 1(4): 10-11; 1994.

As for Courtney, a search on GT, M4C, or THR under Dr. Courtney or Pasteur will provide ample reading.

dahahn
02-02-2010, 14:07
M&S data HERE (http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs31.htm), HERE (http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs24.htm), HERE (http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs12.htm), HERE (http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs8.htm), HERE (http://www.firearmstactical.com/afte.htm), and everything HERE (http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm).

Ah. I've alraedy read most of what the Firearms Tactical Institute has to say about M&S. It reads as an op-ed column. I've already formed my own conclusions, and it seems like a very biased site. They do, however, advocate sending the M&S book to an unbiased source, and I applaud them for this. Thank you for providing the links. I wish more people could.

I will concede on the goat tests: I won't say they didn't happen, but I am also skeptical because I cannot find the information myself, nor the data sets. The paper referenced in the Courtney et al. papers shows no author, which piques my alarm.

I would post another paper that I found on arxiv.org, but it strikes me that Courtney et al. seem to have no validity to you. Am I mistaken on this?

All in all, I don't care to press it any further. I contributed what I could, and I'll leave it at that rather than conjecture on things that are now outside my area of knowledge.

It is frustrating, because there really is a lack of evidence regarding one caliber over the other. I don't totally buy into gelatin tests as a panache for handgun testing. It's a start, of course, but it doesn't take hydrodynamics into account at all. Speaking of, what is your opinion on pressure wave theory?

Also, in regards to the method of testing handguns in deer...what do you think of this? And is there a rebuttal against this paper?

LEAD
02-02-2010, 14:27
Now, thats how you debate;
No name calling, giving credit to the opposition, staying on topic. Theres still hope for this thread.

Bones13
02-02-2010, 15:10
Dahahn,

Interesting that this thread seems to be back on a civil track. Your skepticism of the validity of ballistic gelatin is understandable. However, there does not appear to be a validated alternative. It's not perfect, and I think authors like Fackler and Wolberg understood that; but it's all we have to work with. You can't shoot animals for ballistic testing purposes without raising a stink and you certainly can't shoot people. The Wolberg paper did nothing but show that the AVERAGE penetration was about the same in tissue and gelatin, and he freely acknowledged that there was a lot more variability in tissue.

The thing that's important about the work of Fackler and the rest is their focus on what is testable and repeatable based on physiologic facts.

Courtney may be able to demonstrate that Ballistic pressure waves can cause brain injury but there is a wealth of data that shows that it is not a reliable or repeatable phenomenon. I'd be willing to accept that injury can occur in this manner and that it is more likely to occur with a more energetic round, etc., but I don't think anyone could ever create a pistol or rifle round that is guaranteed to stop as a result.

In short, BPW may exist but you can't count on it because it's effects are unpredictable.

Currahee
02-02-2010, 15:16
Nothing gets people fired up quite like a 357 SIG debate :)

hikerpaddler
02-02-2010, 15:32
It's an unbelieveably average and mildly overpriced round! Amazing! Al Queda is switching to it! ! (random exclamation mark unassociated with a statement). Next up - CHOLESTEROL proving to be an unbelieveable manstopper?????

Not a thing wrong with .357sig except that it's generally overpriced. Middle of the pack in performance. 9mm, .357sig, .40S&W, .45ACP, all fine rounds. I dig all the manstopper, force transfer, exit wound overanalysis. Shoot them with bullets, (not that that's very likely to happen in a ccw situation, but it's remotely possible), and anything from 9mm up is quite likely to work.

dahahn
02-02-2010, 15:55
In short, BPW may exist but you can't count on it because it's effects are unpredictable.

You're absolutely right. In thinking about it, BPW (as you put it, and much easier to type) depends on mass, and that isn't going to be consistent among people that wish to attack you.

I would like to see a study to show a difference in BPW between different masses, for example a shot on a five hundred pound pig vs a shot on a 200 pound deer.

However, there does not appear to be a validated alternative.

Unfortunately, again you're right. With our technology, shouldn't we be able to replicate something close to the human body, substance-wise?

My annoyance is when people take ballistics gelatin tests for the grail, when it is not. As you've said, though, there is currently no viable alternative (except animals, which would take plenty of flack, but I have no problem with it, so long as the animal is used afterward). I will say that personally I believe there's something to pressure wave theory, and I personally like 357SIG because if that's the case (BPW), it can give me a tiny advantage in a situation where my life may be at stake.

Bones13
02-02-2010, 16:53
Dahahn,

People (and animals) bodies are amazingly tough and resilient...and variable. Even if it was possible to shoot people for the purpose of testing ammo, you would need an extremely large sample size in each caliber in order to have statistically valid results. Even if you put beef ribs in front of gelatin to simulate bone hits, the variations in thickness and density of the bone would require very large sample sizes.

The basic ballistic gel tests give us a limited but consistent amount of information. Take it with a grain of salt; but I don't see anything better on the horizon.

I understand your desire to get any edge possible, but it makes sense to also focus on things we know, since you can't take BPW to the bank.

dahahn
02-02-2010, 17:01
Dahahn,

People (and animals) bodies are amazingly tough and resilient...and variable. Even if it was possible to shoot people for the purpose of testing ammo, you would need an extremely large sample size in each caliber in order to have statistically valid results. Even if you put beef ribs in front of gelatin to simulate bone hits, the variations in thickness and density of the bone would require very large sample sizes.

The basic ballistic gel tests give us a limited but consistent amount of information. Take it with a grain of salt; but I don't see anything better on the horizon.

I understand your desire to get any edge possible, but it makes sense to also focus on things we know, since you can't take BPW to the bank.

Oh, I agree. I was just trying to say that using the 357SIG gives me confidence should I run into a self-defense situation, whether it's valid or not. I also couldn't agree more with your statement on the sample size.

All in all what I have taken away is this: there's no figures for a better caliber. There's a lot of speculation on whether the 357SIG is just a hot 9mm (a 9mm 147 gr +P+++ yields the same results!!!1! /sarcasm), just as there's a lot of speculation regarding the 357SIG as a superior round. All in all it seems that it's neither in the end, it's proficiency with the weapon and confidence in using it.

I think we can all agree that, in a self defense situation, having a gun in whatever caliber is better than no gun at all.

uz2bUSMC
02-02-2010, 17:08
You're absolutely right. In thinking about it, BPW (as you put it, and much easier to type) depends on mass, and that isn't going to be consistent among people that wish to attack you.

I would like to see a study to show a difference in BPW between different masses, for example a shot on a five hundred pound pig vs a shot on a 200 pound deer.

Keep in mind a couple of things. The shot placement on the deer in those studies is farther away from the head than relative human subject would be. A plus for BPW against humans. Also, because of the deers natural resiliance to blunt trauma to the head (mating battles for example), humans should be more succeptable. Another plus for BPW towards humans.

Another consideration as a positve for BPW... no matter the drive or narcotic influence of the aggressor, TBI from BPW gets the last word, similar to a CNS shot.



Unfortunately, again you're right. With our technology, shouldn't we be able to replicate something close to the human body, substance-wise?

My annoyance is when people take ballistics gelatin tests for the grail, when it is not. As you've said, though, there is currently no viable alternative (except animals, which would take plenty of flack, but I have no problem with it, so long as the animal is used afterward). I will say that personally I believe there's something to pressure wave theory, and I personally like 357SIG because if that's the case (BPW), it can give me a tiny advantage in a situation where my life may be at stake.

.....

Bones13
02-02-2010, 17:14
.....

Are you saying BPW is a reliable and predictable means of incapacitation?

uz2bUSMC
02-02-2010, 17:19
Are you saying BPW is a reliable and predictable means of incapacitation?

No... cause I would have said that. What I have said a million and one times is choose a cartridge and loading that fits your needs based on your personal risk assessment. At this point, you could choose a round (if several meet your criteria) out of a group that yields the highest Peak Ballistic Pressure Wave as an added advantage

uz2bUSMC
02-02-2010, 17:54
Thank you. I have all of those. Those papers have been thoroughly picked apart and are considered junk science at best by some of the most brilliant minds in the industry. You are living in a house of cards if that is your foundation of understanding.

The Strasbourg goat tests can not be proven to have ever taken place and the M&S OSS data is severely flawed.

I still say that some of these "best minds" are driven by agenda. They use their "brilliance" to discredit. If they are able to show that as junk science they would have done that here aswell. But instead, they tend to do this where they feel safe, and have rallied the koolaid drinkin' Facklerites. There arguments usually are short lived over here because people will ACTUALLY QUESTION them.

PghJim
02-02-2010, 17:54
POSTED BY ALASKAPOPO _ Frankly what some road toad thinks does not matter much. Most of the guys you have talked to have probably never been in a gun fight and if they have I doubt they were in a gun fight where they could compare the 9mm and the 357 sig under simular conditions. You need to look at the big picture for that and not on the war stories of a few cops.


That is the most condesending thing I have heard you say. The people I have spoken to were referring to the experience of the entire State Patrol, not just one man's opinion. Also they have had several shootings of BG's and animals. I guess that experience does not have any merit Rambo.

Bones13
02-02-2010, 18:27
No... cause I would have said that. What I have said a million and one times is choose a cartridge and loading that fits your needs based on your personal risk assessment. At this point, you could choose a round (if several meet your criteria) out of a group that yields the highest Peak Ballistic Pressure Wave as an added advantage

That makes sense.

Another consideration as a positve for BPW... no matter the drive or narcotic influence of the aggressor, TBI from BPW gets the last word, similar to a CNS shot.

Comparing TBI from BPW to a CNS shot does not.

uz2bUSMC
02-02-2010, 18:35
That makes sense.

Another consideration as a positve for BPW... no matter the drive or narcotic influence of the aggressor, TBI from BPW gets the last word, similar to a CNS shot.

Comparing TBI from BPW to a CNS shot does not.

It does... as an effect. CNS will kill however, TBI will incapacitate. Both able to drop someone like a sack o' laundry. Similar to a concussive knockout.

Bones13
02-02-2010, 19:00
It does... as an effect. CNS will kill however, TBI will incapacitate. Both able to drop someone like a sack o' laundry. Similar to a concussive knockout.

A concussive knockout occurs because the brain is being bounced around the skull like a ping pong ball. Pressure waves traveling through soft tissue are a very different thing. The same right hook that knocks someone out in one fight might simply piss off your opponent in another. Still, it doesn't mean it isn't worth a try.

unit1069
02-02-2010, 19:04
Frankly I don't really much care what the FBI says on the subject of stopping power. I don't take advice on selecting handguns and calibers from attorneys and accountants with badges. If I want advice on such matters I will turn to people who study shootings and wound ballistics like Dr. Roberts and Dr. Fackler.

Are you claiming that Drs. Roberts and Fackler "study shootings and wound ballistics" while the FBI forensic and ballistics scientists don't?

Taken at face value I find this a rather uninformed statement, so if you wish to clarify it please do.

As for the FBI's FTU chief's quoted comments, I think he would rely on more than just personal disregard for the caliber when making such statements. I assume he has information from said FBI scientists as well as field agent observations to buttress his words. (Like the investigation into the infamous Miami shootout!) Again, if you believe he's a loose cannon please say so.

And while I do agree with you that each of us should put the time, study, and effort into selecting the optimum caliber (which nobody disputes) I don't believe the expertise of FBI agents is limited to bean counting and legal arguments.

uz2bUSMC
02-02-2010, 19:06
A concussive knockout occurs because the brain is being bounced around the skull like a ping pong ball. Pressure waves traveling through soft tissue are a very different thing. The same right hook that knocks someone out in one fight might simply piss off your opponent in another. Still, it doesn't mean it isn't worth a try.

Keep it in perspective. The result is the same, the means can make little difference as far as incapacitation. A CNS will incapacitate and kill, TBI will incapacitate and other activities will do the killing. Both are forms of traumatic brain injury. What do you think is happening when the brain is bouncing around like a ping pong ball? And your second to last sentence is true, nothing is 100% and I never said BPW was...

uz2bUSMC
02-02-2010, 19:11
Are you claiming that Drs. Roberts and Fackler "study shootings and wound ballistics" while the FBI forensic and ballistics scientists don't?

Taken at face value I find this a rather uninformed statement, so if you wish to clarify it please do.

As for the FBI's FTU chief's quoted comments, I think he would rely on more than just personal disregard for the caliber when making such statements. I assume he has information from said FBI scientists as well as field agent observations to buttress his words. (Like the investigation into the infamous Miami shootout!) Again, if you believe he's a loose cannon please say so.

And while I do agree with you that each of us should put the time, study, and effort into selecting the optimum caliber (which nobody disputes) I don't believe the expertise of FBI agents is limited to bean counting and legal arguments.

An accountant may not take an interest in studying terminal ballistics but a dentist would.:upeyes:

dahahn
02-02-2010, 20:59
No... cause I would have said that. What I have said a million and one times is choose a cartridge and loading that fits your needs based on your personal risk assessment. At this point, you could choose a round (if several meet your criteria) out of a group that yields the highest Peak Ballistic Pressure Wave as an added advantage

The added advantage is the wording I was looking for, but couldn't find. I enjoy that there's a possibility that, on top of shot placement and action on my part, the bullet may do above what I expect it to do. Am I going to rely on it? No, but it's nice to know that should the conditions be favorable, it may occur.

dahahn
02-02-2010, 21:01
Still, it doesn't mean it isn't worth a try.

Couldn't have said it better.

glock20c10mm
02-03-2010, 00:03
Courtney may be able to demonstrate that Ballistic pressure waves can cause brain injury but there is a wealth of data that shows that it is not a reliable or repeatable phenomenon.
You're absolutely correct. Even Dr. Michael Coutney himself openly points that out.

I'd be willing to accept that injury can occur in this manner and that it is more likely to occur with a more energetic round, etc., but I don't think anyone could ever create a pistol or rifle round that is guaranteed to stop as a result.
You're absolutely correct. Even Dr. Michael Coutney himself openly points that out.


In short, BPW may exist but you can't count on it because it's effects are unpredictable.
Also of course 100% correct.

If rounds that produce a higher peak ballistic pressure wave incapacitate animals quicker ON AVERAGE, which a number of GT members can tell you from experience (not to mention Dr. Courtney's studies), then I don't see how it wouldn't work the same (for all practical purposes) on humans, as long as one can still use a cartridge/platform combo that still works well tactically.

For me, a 10mm Glock fills that niche, while still IMO not going overboard (Desert Eagle...).


Good Shooting,
Craig

glock20c10mm
02-03-2010, 00:23
No... cause I would have said that. What I have said a million and one times is choose a cartridge and loading that fits your needs based on your personal risk assessment. At this point, you could choose a round (if several meet your criteria) out of a group that yields the highest Peak Ballistic Pressure Wave as an added advantage
And the above quoted text by uz2bUSMC is the reason I've computed the numbers to see where various common SD cartridge loads stand comparatively.

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


Good Shooting,
Craig

uz2bUSMC
02-03-2010, 03:14
The added advantage is the wording I was looking for, but couldn't find. I enjoy that there's a possibility that, on top of shot placement and action on my part, the bullet may do above what I expect it to do. Am I going to rely on it? No, but it's nice to know that should the conditions be favorable, it may occur.

Perfect. You seem to have the perfect understanding of the points that are trying to be made regarding BPW, sir. I DON'T KNOW THAT YOUR LAST THREE SENTENCES COULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN ANY BETTER BY ANYONE!

Bones13
02-03-2010, 08:13
And the above quoted text by uz2bUSMC is the reason I've computed the numbers to see where various common SD cartridge loads stand comparatively.

How did you compute these numbers? What is the source data? Has the computation been validated by empirical testing?

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.

Again, where do you get the formula and how do you know it's accurate? Why do you say fragmentation would increase peak pressure? That's very counter intuitive. Drop a big stone in water, get a big splash. Drop a handful of sand of equal weight, not so much.

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


Those ATK workshops are pretty good, but they also represent very small sample sizes. The source is inherently biased simply because they were conducted by ATK and not an independent body. It might be perfectly clean data but it has to be replicated by someone else in order to eliminate that source of bias. How did you derive wound volume? Penetration X average expansion? Is there a published study correlating this to actual observed wound volume? Is there any published research that would correlate your method of calculating PBPW to actual observed pressures?

It seems like an awful lot of work for some thing as ephemeral as BPW. You calculated a bunch of numbers, but does it really mean anything?

Mrs_Esterhouse
02-03-2010, 11:58
and in the last column in pounds per square inch(psi) is the peak ballistic pressure wave.

How is the PSI calculated? Is there a formula?

English
02-03-2010, 14:14
......

Courtney may be able to demonstrate that Ballistic pressure waves can cause brain injury but there is a wealth of data that shows that it is not a reliable or repeatable phenomenon. I'd be willing to accept that injury can occur in this manner and that it is more likely to occur with a more energetic round, etc., but I don't think anyone could ever create a pistol or rifle round that is guaranteed to stop as a result.

In short, BPW may exist but you can't count on it because it's effects are unpredictable.

This is an extraordinary idea that is repeated by many as though it settles the argument.

Courtney's data shows quite precisely that BPW effects are repeatable on a probabalistic basis. He even gives good approximations of the probability of incapacitation for particular peak pressures given that they are accompanied by sufficient penetration. This is all related to incapacitation within 5 seconds.

What more can you possibly expect? Almost everyone here will accept that being shot with a pistol bullet does not guarantee a stop and in principle the probability of a stop and the times associated with different bullets and vital organs hit could be established. The fact that the practical problem of doing so means that we will be unlikely ever to have this information makes no difference to the fact that the result of being shot with a pistol bullet has a probabalistic outcome that cannot be relied upon. In spite of this you are prepared to rely on "tried and true" strategies which, according to the authorities you support, take to long to stop the fight or present too difficult a target under most circumstances to stop a fight with practical reliability of shot placement. That is, bleed out and a CNS hit.

Along with this you set an impossible target for the reliability of BPW effects of a "guarantee" of a stop which is ridiculously above the probability of a stop that can be achieved by your tried and true methods.

English

Bones13
02-03-2010, 16:14
This is an extraordinary idea that is repeated by many as though it settles the argument.

Courtney's data shows quite precisely that BPW effects are repeatable on a probabalistic basis. He even gives good approximations of the probability of incapacitation for particular peak pressures given that they are accompanied by sufficient penetration. This is all related to incapacitation within 5 seconds.

What more can you possibly expect? Almost everyone here will accept that being shot with a pistol bullet does not guarantee a stop and in principle the probability of a stop and the times associated with different bullets and vital organs hit could be established. The fact that the practical problem of doing so means that we will be unlikely ever to have this information makes no difference to the fact that the result of being shot with a pistol bullet has a probabalistic outcome that cannot be relied upon. In spite of this you are prepared to rely on "tried and true" strategies which, according to the authorities you support, take to long to stop the fight or present too difficult a target under most circumstances to stop a fight with practical reliability of shot placement. That is, bleed out and a CNS hit.

Along with this you set an impossible target for the reliability of BPW effects of a "guarantee" of a stop which is ridiculously above the probability of a stop that can be achieved by your tried and true methods.

English

I'm not saying at all that the debate is over, but the answer is still the same regardless: handguns suck at stopping people and even rifles and shotguns offer no guarantees. There's too many variables. The problem is turning what we know into something we can do. We can even quantify what is necessary for a projectile to make a stop according to "tried and true methods"- adequate penetration for a hole deep enough to reach vital structures, large or expanded projectile to make a bigger diameter hole. But you still don't know what's going to happen until it happens.

Your claim that BPW raises the probability for a stop "ridiculously above" that of recognized physiologic methods is extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is it?

chewybaca67
02-03-2010, 17:26
It's an unbelieveably average and mildly overpriced round! Amazing! Al Queda is switching to it! ! (random exclamation mark unassociated with a statement). Next up - CHOLESTEROL proving to be an unbelieveable manstopper?????

Not a thing wrong with .357sig except that it's generally overpriced. Middle of the pack in performance. 9mm, .357sig, .40S&W, .45ACP, all fine rounds. I dig all the manstopper, force transfer, exit wound overanalysis. Shoot them with bullets, (not that that's very likely to happen in a ccw situation, but it's remotely possible), and anything from 9mm up is quite likely to work.

Which is exactly why I reload it, as with just about every other cart. I shoot. 357 Sig uses 9mm bulets (the basic Rem 124 grain H.P.'s seat fine), I get an average of 1530 fps, which is more that most 357 mag published data with a 125 grain h.p.
But still, most pistol cart. are fine.

DustyJacket
02-03-2010, 17:38
I would like to get a .357SIG some day.

However, I don't consider any pistol round, or rifle round to be an unbelievable manstopper. For that, it would take one COM shot and the body explodes.

(Although the 40mm shot round for the M203 may be close. I know 3 rounds of that fired prone put a hurt on my shoulder. I believe they have 27 pieces of 00 buskshot and I think it is supersonic.)

uz2bUSMC
02-03-2010, 17:57
Bones13,

Have you read Dr.C's papers? Can't remember if you said you did or not and I'm being lazy, not wanting rummage through these threads...

remat
02-03-2010, 19:09
Would you care to share with me papers that show empirical evidence of this please?

Kind of ironic asking for empirical evidence when talking about Strasbourg....

Bones13
02-03-2010, 20:14
Bones13,

Have you read Dr.C's papers? Can't remember if you said you did or not and I'm being lazy, not wanting rummage through these threads...

Yes, what they're saying makes a certain amount of sense, but even they make serious qualifications to their assertions.

Quote from "The Ballistic Pressure Wave Theory of Handgun Bullet Incapacitation", section titled "Conclusion and Limits of Interpretation".

One should not be overly impressed by the propensity for shallow penetrating loads to produce larger pressure waves. Selection criteria should first determine the required penetration depth for the given risk assessment and application, and only use pressure wave magnitude as a selection criterion for loads meeting minimum penetration requirements. Reliable expansion, penetration, feeding, and functioning are all important aspects of load testing and selection.

We do not advocate abandoning long-held aspects of the load testing and selection process, but it seems prudent to consider the pressure wave
magnitude along with other factors.

This statement clearly places BPW as, at best, a secondary mechanism of injury.

There are a lot of papers linked on their website, but a few issues come to mind. Maybe it's just me, but I could not find where some of their research was published. The quoted article for instance, does not seem to be published in any peer reviewed journal. Peer review is essential, as is independent replication and subsequent academic criticism. A given study is only as good as it's ability to stand up to subsequent research. Self publication is entirely useless.

They also seem to rely fairly heavily on the Marshall and Sanow data as well as the Strasbourg goat tests. Both data sets have been heavily criticized and has not been duplicated. They cite Suneson, et.al., but that research has been subject to serious criticism as well. In one paper they discuss incapacitation by rifle rounds and blithely extrapolate to handguns, which doesn't strike me as a valid conclusion.

Nowhere do they convincingly state that it is possible to calculate the likelihood of TBI based on muzzle energy, yet this is exactly how their research is being interpreted. The one clear graph purporting to relate TBI to PSI is based on the Strasbourg data and comes with the following caveat:

"The clinical implications of these analyses are that about half of patients who have sustained a gunshot wound to the chest that produced a local pressure wave of 1000 psi or greater are likely to have experienced the rapid (neurological) incapacitation effect and may have experienced mild to moderate TBI."

Yet they "recommend" ammunition that produces at least 500psi. Why? That is not convincingly explained. Some of their claims are based on an assumption that human brains are more susceptible to TBI than goats because goat's heads are designed for butting, yet the physical mechanism of injury from BPW is far different than head butting. Head butting is an inertial injury from the brain striking the skull while TBI from BPW is supposed to be a rapid transient change in intra-cranial pressure. Yet somehow they derive a mathematical method for expressing this difference and apply it in a pretty graph to bolster their argument. Flimsy stuff at best.

Another confounding factor is the existence of BTG research as an independent for-profit organization. They seem to be in the business of providing professional consulting services to government. They really should be conducting and publishing all of their research under the auspices of an academic institution. A maxim in research design is that money ruins everything. These folks are selling something, and that does not make for unbiased research. Other researchers must also duplicate their results experimentally. Without independent confirmation they have nothing.

Their research would seem more appropriate in terms of alerting emergency physicians of the possibility of brain injury rather than as a criteria for selecting ammunition.

There isn't anything truly compelling in this body of research. Is there reason to conduct further research? Certainly, but even the Courtneys admit that it's an unreliable secondary effect of bullet wounds. Personally, I'm more worried about being able to hit the target.

uz2bUSMC
02-03-2010, 20:52
This statement clearly places BPW as, at best, a secondary mechanism of injury.


That statement has been repeated many times here.

The quoted article for instance, does not seem to be published in any peer reviewed journal.

Their papers have been peer reviewed, don't have the link discussing this at hand however.

They also seem to rely fairly heavily on the Marshall and Sanow data as well as the Strasbourg goat tests. Both data sets have been heavily criticized and has not been duplicated.

No, they don't. I asked if you read their information, not perused ...
They ascertained that the strausburg tests were real based on their results compared to the goat tests and this would in turn coorelate to M&S data, but they only "rely" on their research. -quick summary-

In one paper they discuss incapacitation by rifle rounds and blithely extrapolate to handguns, which doesn't strike me as a valid conclusion.
+

What are you talking about here? There could be several answers to what you are asking, so I need to know specifically what that is?

Yet they "recommend" ammunition that produces at least 500psi.

Because this is where the numbers begin to show usable results.

That is not convincingly explained. Some of their claims are based on an assumption that human brains are more susceptible to TBI than goats because goat's heads are designed for butting, yet the physical mechanism of injury from BPW is far different than head butting. Head butting is an inertial injury from the brain striking the skull while TBI from BPW is supposed to be a rapid transient change in intra-cranial pressure. Yet somehow they derive a mathematical method for expressing this difference and apply it in a pretty graph to bolster their argument. Flimsy stuff at best.


The misconception here is that because the cause is different so must be the effect. This is not the case. The effect is the same, that would be the point. The goats resiliance to butting would coorelate to their resiliance to TBI. A human would be more suseptable to both effects from both activities. Makes perfect sense. (IMHO)

Another confounding factor is the existence of BTG research as an independent for-profit organization. They seem to be in the business of providing professional consulting services to government. They really should be conducting and publishing all of their research under the auspices of an academic institution. A maxim in research design is that money ruins everything. These folks are selling something, and that does not make for unbiased research. Other researchers must also duplicate their results experimentally. Without independent confirmation they have nothing.


Then you better not ever read anything by Dr. Martin Fackler, he was all about the cash cow titled "IWBA".
Also, people do have to gain funding for their research, it's not free.

I'm more worried about being able to hit the target.
And this belongs in tactics and training. In CC, we dicuss the issues concerning what that bullet does when it hits your target. This is also a rediculous statement made over and over again which leads me to say "No $h1t" and then why would someone say this but still debate terminal ballistics? Because someone finds validity in BPW does not mean they do not care about hitting their target, and that has never been implied.

English
02-04-2010, 10:33
......

Your claim that BPW raises the probability for a stop "ridiculously above" that of recognized physiologic methods is extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is it?

If you read my final paragraph again:
Along with this you set an impossible target for the reliability of BPW effects of a "guarantee" of a stop which is ridiculously above the probability of a stop that can be achieved by your tried and true methods.

English
you will see that I am not claiming that "BPW raises the probability for a stop "ridiculously above" that of recognized physiologic methods" but that the test of worth you are applying is ridiculously above the test that you, and most BPW deniers, apply to "recognized physiologic methods". That is, you are asking for a guaranteed 1 shot stop from BPW effects before you will consider it to be of use but you accept that pistol bullets will need multiple sound hits to produce a stop with "recognized physiologic methods".

English

Bones13
02-04-2010, 12:20
If it was all published in peer reviewed journals it would be in their interest to include the citation - they're both in academia and would thus fully understand this requirement. Yet some of their articles do not have citations included on their website or available via search on PubMed.

In order to buy into their theories, you have to fully accept both the Marshall and Sanow data AND the goat test data. I DID peruse their papers and even followed up some of the citations; peruse means "to read in detail". Their key claims do in fact rely heavily on suspect data in every paper they "published". And their key claims are often supported by citation of their own work. Additionally, brain injury by impact vs intra-cranial pressure change is apples and oranges. The mechanisms that protect animals such as goats has to do with structures such as a thickened skull, dura mater, etc., specifically designed to prevent the brain from moving in the cranium to prevent impact injury from the brain contacting the skull. The assertion that a fluid pressure spike causes injury via the same mechanism is simply specious and makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Much of Fackler's work was published while he was at the L"etterman Army Institute of Research, Division of Military Trauma Research, Wound Ballistics lab" at the Presidio, and even if you don't accept his work as the be all and end all, you have to consider the context: In the post FBI Miami firefight world, he was deliberately trying to build a scientific basis to counter the "light and fast" theories that were the standard of the day and which got some agents killed. Your characterization of the IWBA as a "cash cow" is simply amazing and reveals your extreme prejudice against his research.

There's are extremely weak links in the chain they've built. Until a larger body of peer reviewed research is published by independent investigators, there just isn't much there - and this goes back to the most basic data collected and relied upon for this theory. This is more important than you seem to realize. The data MUST be repeatable and independently verified. Secret goats do not make for good science. Frankly, I came away far more skeptical of the research after having dug into it - and my undergrad degree was about research design and statistics. If you want to hang you hat on it go ahead, but it's an awfully small hook.

English
02-04-2010, 12:34
...

Quote from "The Ballistic Pressure Wave Theory of Handgun Bullet Incapacitation", section titled "Conclusion and Limits of Interpretation".

[COLOR=Red]One should not be overly impressed by the propensity for shallow penetrating loads to produce larger pressure waves. Selection criteria should first determine the required penetration depth for the given risk assessment and application, and only use pressure wave magnitude as a selection criterion for loads meeting minimum penetration requirements. Reliable expansion, penetration, feeding, and functioning are all important aspects of load testing and selection.

We do not advocate abandoning long-held aspects of the load testing and selection process, but it seems prudent to consider the pressure wave
magnitude along with other factors.[COLOR]

This statement clearly places BPW as, at best, a secondary mechanism of injury.


Any experimental design has to make certain simplifying assumptions. In Courtney's case he decided that he should limit his investigation to rounds which would meet the generally accepted penetration requirements. What you must do is distinguish between injury components that cause eventual death and injury components that cause rapid incapacitation. Any bullet with enough depth of penetration which hits a "vital" organ will cause eventual death. Only a hit from such a bullet to the CNS will cause rapid incapacitation. The others will cause eventual death by bleed out or insufficient blood pressure.

While such "other" effects are taking place the BG can continue to fight for some 15 or 30 seconds up to half an hour or more. If your desire is to survive the fight rather than to join the BG in a mutual suicide, the most important aspect of bullet performance and shot placement is rapid incapacitation (or at least immediate temporary incapacitation but, that is another issue). As such, it might well be claimed that BPW effects are not secondary effects but primary effects. In order not to frighten people away from consideration of the idea and, I assume, from natural modesty and scientific caution, Dr. Courtney has phrased the issue as he has.

.... I could not find where some of their research was published. The quoted article for instance, does not seem to be published in any peer reviewed journal. Peer review is essential, as is independent replication and subsequent academic criticism. A given study is only as good as it's ability to stand up to subsequent research. Self publication is entirely useless.

We have seen the problem of peer review with climate science. If a strongly dogmatic faction gains control of the peer review process it is entirely capable of blocking proper scientific progress. In the case of wounding effects we seem to have had just such a dogmatic block for over 30 years. Peer review is a convenient means by which the editors of journals cover themselves relative to what they publish or refuse. It has nothing to do with the quality of the science involved and everything to do with the opinion of favoured scientists. We are, for instance, fortunate that the Helico bacter pylori paper was eventually published at all but it then took some 15 years before its findings were accepted by 50% of medical doctors in the Western world because of their dogmatic certainty that it could not be so.

True science advances by proposing a hypothesis of a falsifiable form with supporting evidence. It then stands as a possible truth until someone finds a means of showing it to be false. This is possible only if it is made public knowledge and publication is the bottleneck in that process. That bottleneck is inevitably controlled by the established scientific order and so the human tendency is that any science which is too far from what is generally accepted in its field is blocked from publication. I am not in a position where I need publish scientific findings and so I can make such a statement. Scientists as a whole would take a huge risk if they said anything of the kind because they are challenging the powers that control their publications.

In Courtney's case, he has published his findings and made a very reasonable and well supported case for his hypothesis. This has produced enormous volumes of attacks on the man and his work by the wound ballistics establishment and their followers but not a single piece of counter evidence. If they are right is should be simple enough to repeat Courtney's experiment or perform other experiments which falsify his hypothesis. It is significant that this has not happened and you should bear that in mind.



They also seem to rely fairly heavily on the Marshall and Sanow data as well as the Strasbourg goat tests. Both data sets have been heavily criticized and has not been duplicated. ....

They do not rely on Marshall and Sanow or the Strasourg tests at all. In an aside, Courtney has said that it is interesting that the Strasbourg test results fit his theoretical model even though they were testing a different theoretical model. As the Strasbourg data set did not at all match the widely accepted beliefs of the time about stopping power, this is strong support for the likely real existence of those tests. There are perfectly good reasons why any agency which commissioned them would not have wanted to publish them of put its name to them. I believe that the M&S data was based on a fundamentally flawed method and contained occasional arithmetical errors, of a kind that you and I would never make of course, but that they were essentially well meaning and not deserving of the opprobrium poured upon them. There is no way in which Courtney could rely on their figures.

Nowhere do they convincingly state that it is possible to calculate the likelihood of TBI based on muzzle energy, yet this is exactly how their research is being interpreted.

On the contrary. Courtney gives a formula to calculate a particular bullet's approximate peak pressure and gives probabilities of rapid incapacitation for some selected pressures. Below about 385 psi there is no evidence of a significant probability of rapid incapacitation due to BPW effects. Interestingly enough, this include the great majority of 9mm, 40S&W and .45ACP rounds.

....

... they "recommend" ammunition that produces at least 500psi. Why?

See immediately above.

.....

There isn't anything truly compelling in this body of research. Is there reason to conduct further research? Certainly, but even the Courtneys admit that it's an unreliable secondary effect of bullet wounds. Personally, I'm more worried about being able to hit the target.

As explained, this is not a secondary effect if you wish to survive a fight. It is an additional effect which you would be wise to make the effort to understand and apply.

If you are worried about your ability to hit the target the BPW effect gives you a bigger target to hit provided you shoot something which produces a big enough peak pressure at enough depth within the body.

uz2bUSMChas been kind enough to do the maths. To simplify things still further I have narrowed your choices down to:

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
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

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 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
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

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
Speer 45auto G Dot, 230gr,, 890fps, KE=405, P=13.50, E=.70, 4.6ci, 573psi
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

I have limited the list to 600 psi and a little below because there is a big gain in probability of rapid incapacitation between 500 and 600 psi. You should note that the first one on the list gets a high psi value at the cost of only 8.5 inches of penetration. Quite apart from the deficiency with regard to other wounding effects it is very likely that the peak pressure is at insufficient depth to produce a fully effective BPW effect even though it has a high peak pressure.

In the other direction, note the difference between:
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
Both have the same bullet weight and velocity and therefore the same KE. The Bonded gains 3.8 inches more penetration but looses 190 psi. That is very nearly a 24% loss or a 31% gain! As Heinlein says, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

You might also note from the two examples above that although many are interpreting BPW effects as being proportional to KE, this is not at all the case and Courtney has never suggested that it is. What is true is that without enough KE you can't get enough peak pressure and penetration in combination.

English

uz2bUSMC
02-04-2010, 14:21
Thanks English, well written and thurough as usual.:wavey:

I cannot take credit for the math however, that belongs to G20C10mm, who took the time to work all those out.

English
02-04-2010, 15:16
I cannot take credit for the math however, that belongs to G20C10mm, who took the time to work all those out.

Sorry! I know that of course! Mental glitch!

English

uz2bUSMC
02-04-2010, 15:35
Your characterization of the IWBA as a "cash cow" is simply amazing and reveals your extreme prejudice against his research.


I have prejudice against the way the guy does business. Yea, cash cow is right, he needed something leading into his retirement. What better way than to use Platt's failure and to attack and discredit other expert's in the field to make himself the lone ballistic consultant for all.

Hell, he even called his own bud, Gary Roberts, his jello toting assistant. Great, trustworthy guy that Fackler.

KenB22
02-04-2010, 15:44
I'll never buy this BPW stuff. With all of the people getting shot in wars for the last 100 years, anyone from the army ever pay any attention to possible BPW effect? Are there any government agencies that pay attention to this BPW? You'd think the agencies might like their employees to come home safely at night and to have as much edge as possible. Think how much profit the gun makers or ammo makers could make if they could just market their product as taking advantage of this BPW. Yet...the army never discusses it, the FBI and all police departments ignore it and no gun maker or ammo maker is paying any attention to this. Mr. Courtney needs a better agent. He should be inviting the FBI and sky marshals and remington and speer to his home on a daily basis and redoing his tests for them so they can "learn" and take advantage of his superior analysis. Yet they don't. Wonder why??

uz2bUSMC
02-04-2010, 15:55
I'll never buy this BPW stuff. With all of the people getting shot in wars for the last 100 years, anyone from the army ever pay any attention to possible BPW effect? Are there any government agencies that pay attention to this BPW? You'd think the agencies might like their employees to come home safely at night and to have as much edge as possible. Think how much profit the gun makers or ammo makers could make if they could just market their product as taking advantage of this BPW. Yet...the army never discusses it, the FBI and all police departments ignore it and no gun maker or ammo maker is paying any attention to this. Mr. Courtney needs a better agent. He should be inviting the FBI and sky marshals and remington and speer to his home on a daily basis and redoing his tests for them so they can "learn" and take advantage of his superior analysis. Yet they don't. Wonder why??

You're kidding right?

One: You are obviously not educated, even a little bit, about BPW.

Two: You obviously have never been in the military, cause if you think the "egents", "soldiers", or "troops" are in the Government's best interest at the end of the day I just have to say you're ignorant.

Three: The Courtney's have been working with governmental agencies finding the coorelation to TBI from blast pressure...


And BTW, there wasn't exactly the greatest technology 100 years ago either, just thought I'd throw that out there since you put so much thought into your post.

Bones13
02-04-2010, 16:37
In order not to frighten people away from consideration of the idea and, I assume, from natural modesty and scientific caution, Dr. Courtney has phrased the issue as he has.

You certainly seem to know Courtney's mind intimately. Skepticism is a more appropriate approach than enthusiastic support.

We have seen the problem of peer review with climate science ETC..

Now we see it in ballistic science where people doggedly cling to BPW theory. Peer review is still essential regardless. Independent replication of results is essential. There is no middle ground. Yes, it may take decades but good evidence, sound methods and convincing reasoning eventually win out, at you so ably point out occurred with regards to H. Pylori.

They do not rely on Marshall and Sanow or the Strasourg tests at all.

Nonsense, they cite them in every article on BPW they've published and use that data to support their key assertions. They do it by citing their own papers which cite those data sets.

Courtney gives a formula

Found it. My bad, but he cites one of his own goat papers as a source.

I believe that the M&S data was based on a fundamentally flawed method

That statement gets to the root of the problem: garbage in garbage out.

Courtney's ideas are interesting but they suffer from the lack of a reliable source for data. Going back to the idea of getting a scientific consensus is going to require much higher quality data: good enough to counter an argument based on the fact that many, many people have been shot with high kinetic energy projectiles and have not been instantly incapacitated.

In the end, the best this line of research ultimately can do is estimate the percentage chance for people to be thus incapacitated. I personally expect that this effect would only start to be really significant in the largest, most powerful bores. The key question is whether or not it would be worthwhile to trade comfort handling recoil, accuracy, etc., for an added percentage chance to incapacitate via BPW. Would it be worth allowing marksmanship to suffer? By how much?

What is really needed is a standardized rigorous method of data collection. The main difficulty is determining the exact cause of incapacitation and the exact time to incapacitation along with a really large sample size. People's recollections of events are notoriously poor. Unless the events are clearly recorded (for instance on camera) then correlated to forensic analysis, you can't really trust the data.

In this day and age the best you could probably do without getting thrown in jail for animal cruelty would be to use anesthetized animals which would preclude incapacitation studies.

uz2bUSMC
02-04-2010, 16:54
Courtney's ideas are interesting but they suffer from the lack of a reliable source for data. Going back to the idea of getting a scientific consensus is going to require much higher quality data: good enough to counter an argument based on the fact that many, many people have been shot with high kinetic energy projectiles and have not been instantly incapacitated.

Of course people have been shot with high energy projectiles and not been incapacitated. This contradicts your paragraph below. Anyhow, it has been said that is not 100%. Has it not? And English JUST finished explaining that it is not based on energy alone. Did he not? It is easy to state that people have not been instantly incapacitated but answer this: What is at play when someone IS instantly incapacitated without a CNS hit? People don't feint or process fast enough to instantly "quit".

What is really needed is a standardized rigorous method of data collection. The main difficulty is determining the exact cause of incapacitation and the exact time to incapacitation along with a really large sample size. People's recollections of events are notoriously poor. Unless the events are clearly recorded (for instance on camera) then correlated to forensic analysis, you can't really trust the data.


This is the contradictory paragraph. In your above paragraph you mention individuals struck with high energy projectiles that did not instantly incapacitate, but I ask you... What was the path of the bullets in each of these cases? What was the immediate effect based on actual footage in each of these cases? And WHAT PARTICULAR LOAD was used in each case? Since bullet construction plays a huge part. You are correct, however, these three things would triangulate nicely, but I suspect it would lead to Courtney's hypothesis.

I've posed this question to DoGKR, all I got was crickets...

KenB22
02-04-2010, 17:02
Nice cogent argument. It took you 1 sentence to start the name calling. Lets see, your argument that the government ignores this theory is because I'm ignorant that the government is not interested in saving the lives of its soldiers or incapacitating the enemy quickly. You still didn't answer my question of why the FBI, government agencies and police departments ignore this as a viable part of the analysis of handgun rounds. Let me see, I'm ignorant because I don't know they don't care about their people either. You didn't answer my question about why ammo makers and gun makers don't pay any attention to this. Let me answer, they are ignorant too. You obviously believe this and others do too. Let me remind you all it took was 1 farmer in Arizona to say he saw a UFO and there are people around today still believing it. Lets assume Mr. Courtney believes this stuff. Why doesn't he start up his own ammo company or own gun company and make a fortune marketing the guns and ammo he believes makes a difference? When Mr. Courtney puts his money where his research is and when others on here do the same, I'll start to pay attention. Until then, I'll pay attention to the people whose job it is to track down and maybe even shoot BG's and pay attention to what they use.

You're kidding right?

One: You are obviously not educated, even a little bit, about BPW.

Two: You obviously have never been in the military, cause if you think the "egents", "soldiers", or "troops" are in the Government's best interest at the end of the day I just have to say you're ignorant.

Three: The Courtney's have been working with governmental agencies finding the coorelation to TBI from blast pressure...


And BTW, there wasn't exactly the greatest technology 100 years ago either, just thought I'd throw that out there since you put so much thought into your post.

uz2bUSMC
02-04-2010, 17:18
Nice cogent argument. It took you 1 sentence to start the name calling. Lets see, your argument that the government ignores this theory is because I'm ignorant that the government is not interested in saving the lives of its soldiers or incapacitating the enemy quickly. You still didn't answer my question of why the FBI, government agencies and police departments ignore this as a viable part of the analysis of handgun rounds. Let me see, I'm ignorant because I don't know they don't care about their people either. You didn't answer my question about why ammo makers and gun makers don't pay any attention to this. Let me answer, they are ignorant too. You obviously believe this and others do too. Let me remind you all it took was 1 farmer in Arizona to say he saw a UFO and there are people around today still believing it. Lets assume Mr. Courtney believes this stuff. Why doesn't he start up his own ammo company or own gun company and make a fortune marketing the guns and ammo he believes makes a difference? When Mr. Courtney puts his money where his research is and when others on here do the same, I'll start to pay attention. Until then, I'll pay attention to the people whose job it is to track down and maybe even shoot BG's and pay attention to what they use.

Until then, I'll pay attention to the people whose job it is to track down and maybe even shoot BG's and pay attention to what they use.[/

Ignorant isn't a name is a state. You need to be educated. In this one sentence alone(above that you wrote), it's clear you have no idea. Iv'e been one of those people. And in another capacity, I've been one of those people again. They(the Government) don't care about me, pure and simple. They care about money, the lowest bidder... that kind of thing. They'd give me a slingshot to carry and a bag full of pebbles if they could win wars that cheaply, bro. Trust me.

Why would Dr. Courtney waste time making ammo when the ammo manufactures already make what he would?

Police Marksman
02-04-2010, 20:34
I am not going to argue whether there is a BPW or not, I will leave that up to the terminal ballistic experts. I do believe that penetration of the round is a lot more important, than what any effect the BPW will have.

By the information that English posted, the rounds with the greatest BPW have the less penetration. I shot some DT 115 Gold Dot 357 Sig rounds in some jugs of water, and the bullet came apart shredding in the second jug. Be Careful!!

glock20c10mm
02-05-2010, 01:15
You know what, something I'ld like to get out of the way right off the bat........if you take offense to anything I'm about to post to you, you've taken it the wrong way. Ok, here goes....

My God, where to start!?

Bro, you need to slow down. You're acting as if someone suggested there was proof proving Dr. Courtney's THEORY of BPW and it's possible incapacitating effects on humans and animals in under 5 seconds. It's ALMOST like you want to disprove what hasn't been proven yet. See what I'm getting at?

SOME of the questions you ask can't be answered by anyone because there aren't answers yet. At this point, yes, there are many unanswered questions. At the same time, plenty of us can directly relate to what Dr. Courtney's THEORY suggests from shooting various animals with different SD cartridges.

BOTTOM LINE, THERE IS A REASON HUMANS AND ANIMALS HAVE BEEN INCAPACITATED IN LESS THAN 5 SECONDS WHEN NO PART OF THE CNS (BRAIN OR SPINE) WAS CONTACTED BY THE PROJECTILE. AND IT ISN'T BECAUSE OF OXYGEN LOSS TO THE BRAIN THROUGH BLOOD LOSS (WHICH TAKES AT LEAST 15 SECONDS IN THE MOST "PERFECT" BEST CASE SCENARIOS, TO MUCH MORE COMMONLY 30 SECONDS OR MORE). {the all caps has nothing to do with "raising one's voice", but simply a way of highlighting as to not be missed with your eyes, also showing imporance to understand}

What do you think about stopping trying to find everything that either hasn't been answered or hasn't been studied to be answered, and simply objectively look at what we do know?

Forget about the "Goat tests". Forget about the Marshall/Sanow data set. Blah blah blah. Who cares. Reguardless, Dr. Courtney's results correlated to what the other's results shoed. End of story. Doesn't matter if the Goat tests existed or not. Doesn't matter if the Marshall/Sanow data set was cherry picked. It's all beside the point. And the only point is that the data correlated.

What we do know is Dr. Courtney did a study where he shot some deer with two different rounds. One of the rounds effectively incapacitated deer quicker on average, and by a pretty fair margin to boot. Plenty of people on GT claim to have noticed the same thing in general, one round compared to another. Did some people lie? Maybe, who's to say? But did they all lie, if any? VERY PROBABLY NOT. Is Dr. Courtney's study repeatable? YES. Would the outcome be the same? Guess we won't know till someone does their best to repeat it. What we do know at this point is NOBODY has come up with ANYTHING that disproves Dr. Courtney's theory. And aside from the Goat tests and Marshall/Sanow data set and whatever other supporting work Dr. Courtney cites, his theory still stands.

Do you realize a good handful of member's of GT see NO benefit to using ANY JHP over FMJ? Maybe you're one of them, I don't know. Tell me, and I'm VERY LOOSELY stating this, if more speed or energy on target with the right bullet design for the job has absolutely ZERO chance of aiding in quicker incapacitation of BGs, then why would any LE/Gov't Agency choose a +P or +P+ round or 357SIG over 9mm? A Winchester rep has stated 9mm +P+ 127gr has a cult following among LE. Why? Again I ask; Why? Shall I ask a third time?

If the: higher recoiling, higher muzzle blast, more expensive.....ammo is of no benefit to incapactating a BG quicker, and what they buy is based partly on a budget of taxpayer dollars, then WHY???, of the ones that have choosen to go that route? And especially with all the scare of lawsuits and all...Why? There's all kinds, heck, LOADS, of data out there showing the 9mm in various loads to be lacking in the department of incapactating BGs. Yet with the 357SIG, NEVER have I seen a negative comment brought up. None, not any, zero, zilch, nada... Oh sure, you see people claiming the LE depts they know using 357SIG claim there is no difference in it from any other round they've used in the past, but you know what the commonality there is? The ones bringing it up are virtually always diehard 9mm fans, OR, dead set against Dr. Courtney's work, among others. Besides that it's still not a hit against 357SIG.

Why is 357 Magnum recommended for harvesting deer, but 38 Special is NEVER recommended? They can both be loaded with bullets that will poke a hole right through a deer, yet what I said is common knowledge.

What about gravity? Will you stop believing in it when I tell you it isn't proven from all angles? Do you know that the current equations we use for figuring gravity disprove more than they prove? Yet they work out for many purposes too. They're still trying to figure out what gravity is. Some believe it is made up of particles smaller than atoms. Reguardless, you still know what goes up must come down. You don't run around questions all the theories on it, right? I mean, that's all they are, theories. There are all kinds of theories we all take for granted every day.

Now don't get me wrong. I was simply making a general point. I'm not saying all of us have seen evidence of Dr. Courtney's theory at work. That certainly makes it more difficult to take in. Then you have dentists like DocGKR among others preaching agianst it (put a "Dr" in front of anyones name, and they have to be a genious, right? Guess that doesn't work out to well when two Doctors disagree. :shocked: Who would have thunk it?). Blah blah blah. But at the end of the day, there is zero evidence against what Dr. Courtney showed in a scientifically done study, among other supporting work.

All that said, many seem to be getting a wrong impression from those of us that go along with what Dr. Courtney's work showed. And that is that we're supposedly trying to make you believe in it enough to use it in how you choose a round for SD. That is not the case and should be clearly evident from a number of posts within this very thread alone previous to this one. Again, choose to apply it or not. That's entirely up to the individual. In the end we all make our own choices based on our own individuality. You can throw all the evidence you want out to anyone that conclusively does literally prove something, and there's always someone who won't listen to reason.

What gets most of us is when some member's choose to post against it, while clearly from the context of their post having on clue as to what they're talking about. Those that say they understand Dr. Courtney's theory, yet have never read his study, or that skimmed it and never got anything out of it anyway. Then there are those who have simply been fed the same lie so long that they believe it, no matter what evidence against what they think you can show them. As for BPW, no, nothings been proven. The mechanism it works off is still unclear. But Dr. Courtney's work, among other supporting work, among what some of us have seen with our own eyes, suggests there's something to it. That's all. Again, please stop questioning from the standpoint anything was proven. I myself have plenty of questions I may never see answers for. Yet I still know there's SOMETHING to the theory of BPW.

Those ATK workshops are pretty good, but they also represent very small sample sizes. The source is inherently biased simply because they were conducted by ATK and not an independent body. It might be perfectly clean data but it has to be replicated by someone else in order to eliminate that source of bias.
What's biased??? They use ballistic gel. The ballistic gel is calibrated. The police did all the actual shooting with their own guns. The police themselves chose which barriers they wanted to test against. ATK designed all the barriers around FBI protocol. What conspiracy could you possibly be refering to? Small sample size??? They shot premium ammo into calibrated blocks of ballistic gel, and the numbers I used were they averages of each load for penetration depth and expansion. Seriously bro, I'm not saying it's PERFECT, but GD. Why don't we simply say F everything we've ever known or been told, and all shoot whatever the lowest recoiling load is that will still penetrate to the vitals of a human from any angle including compensating for arms being in the way............c'mon, seriously! :faint: Holy nitpicking already. Geez.

Ok, relax, I've regrouped (downed a couple shots and smoked a pack of cigs :supergrin: ).

How did you derive wound volume? Penetration X average expansion? Is there a published study correlating this to actual observed wound volume?
I simply figured the volume of a hole make by the expanded bullet diameter in conjuncion with the penetration depth up to 12". Granted, it isn't realistic for a host of reasons. Sorry it looks that way. I made this chart up years ago. And it certainly doesn't have anything to do with BPW (not that you said it did, just saying). And no, no studies I'm aware of.

Is there any published research that would correlate your method of calculating PBPW to actual observed pressures?
Yes. They used a high speed pressure transducer in live animals at varying distances from the actual projectile path and measured the pressure wave(s) in psi. I don't remember the specific studies to refer you to off the top of my head. If you choose not to believe it, so be it, as that's all I have to say on the matter. Anyone else who may know should feel more than welcome to help me out here. I'm currently on a dial up internet connection, and research can be a serious b1t<h!

It seems like an awful lot of work for some thing as ephemeral as BPW. You calculated a bunch of numbers, but does it really mean anything?
Yes. You also asked earlier what the equation was for BPW. The following should help explain alot;

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.

You might wonder why PBPW goes up with bullet fragmentation. This involves a bunch more math which I can post if you like, but I don't see that it's necessary. What I do understand is the basic principal which I believe will be simple for you also once you simply basically understand the basic equations above for equating PBPW.

If it is necessary for you, maybe this will help, and it's about as far into as I'ld prefer to get. 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.


Good Shooting,
Craig

glock20c10mm
02-05-2010, 01:20
I am not going to argue whether there is a BPW or not, I will leave that up to the terminal ballistic experts. I do believe that penetration of the round is a lot more important, than what any effect the BPW will have.

By the information that English posted, the rounds with the greatest BPW have the less penetration. I shot some DT 115 Gold Dot 357 Sig rounds in some jugs of water, and the bullet came apart shredding in the second jug. Be Careful!!
All true to an extent. By the same token, nobody needs to shoot the DT 115gr GD 357SIG load to get a fair amount of BPW. Yet they can still choose any of various loads to get a fair amount of BPW added to their arsenal while still penetrating plenty.


Craig

DocKWL
02-05-2010, 05:33
You know what, something I'ld like to get out of the way right off the bat........if you take offense to anything I'm about to post to you, you've taken it the wrong way. Ok, here goes....

My God, where to start!?

Bro, you need to slow down. You're acting as if someone suggested there was proof proving Dr. Courtney's THEORY of BPW and it's possible incapacitating effects on humans and animals in under 5 seconds. It's ALMOST like you want to disprove what hasn't been proven yet. See what I'm getting at?

SOME of the questions you ask can't be answered by anyone because there aren't answers yet. At this point, yes, there are many unanswered questions. At the same time, plenty of us can directly relate to what Dr. Courtney's THEORY suggests from shooting various animals with different SD cartridges.

BOTTOM LINE, THERE IS A REASON HUMANS AND ANIMALS HAVE BEEN INCAPACITATED IN LESS THAN 5 SECONDS WHEN NO PART OF THE CNS (BRAIN OR SPINE) WAS CONTACTED BY THE PROJECTILE. AND IT ISN'T BECAUSE OF OXYGEN LOSS TO THE BRAIN THROUGH BLOOD LOSS (WHICH TAKES AT LEAST 15 SECONDS IN THE MOST "PERFECT" BEST CASE SCENARIOS, TO MUCH MORE COMMONLY 30 SECONDS OR MORE). {the all caps has nothing to do with "raising one's voice", but simply a way of highlighting as to not be missed with your eyes, also showing imporance to understand}

What do you think about stopping trying to find everything that either hasn't been answered or hasn't been studied to be answered, and simply objectively look at what we do know?

Forget about the "Goat tests". Forget about the Marshall/Sanow data set. Blah blah blah. Who cares. Reguardless, Dr. Courtney's results correlated to what the other's results shoed. End of story. Doesn't matter if the Goat tests existed or not. Doesn't matter if the Marshall/Sanow data set was cherry picked. It's all beside the point. And the only point is that the data correlated.

What we do know is Dr. Courtney did a study where he shot some deer with two different rounds. One of the rounds effectively incapacitated deer quicker on average, and by a pretty fair margin to boot. Plenty of people on GT claim to have noticed the same thing in general, one round compared to another. Did some people lie? Maybe, who's to say? But did they all lie, if any? VERY PROBABLY NOT. Is Dr. Courtney's study repeatable? YES. Would the outcome be the same? Guess we won't know till someone does their best to repeat it. What we do know at this point is NOBODY has come up with ANYTHING that disproves Dr. Courtney's theory. And aside from the Goat tests and Marshall/Sanow data set and whatever other supporting work Dr. Courtney cites, his theory still stands.

Do you realize a good handful of member's of GT see NO benefit to using ANY JHP over FMJ? Maybe you're one of them, I don't know. Tell me, and I'm VERY LOOSELY stating this, if more speed or energy on target with the right bullet design for the job has absolutely ZERO chance of aiding in quicker incapacitation of BGs, then why would any LE/Gov't Agency choose a +P or +P+ round or 357SIG over 9mm? A Winchester rep has stated 9mm +P+ 127gr has a cult following among LE. Why? Again I ask; Why? Shall I ask a third time?

If the: higher recoiling, higher muzzle blast, more expensive.....ammo is of no benefit to incapactating a BG quicker, and what they buy is based partly on a budget of taxpayer dollars, then WHY???, of the ones that have choosen to go that route? And especially with all the scare of lawsuits and all...Why? There's all kinds, heck, LOADS, of data out there showing the 9mm in various loads to be lacking in the department of incapactating BGs. Yet with the 357SIG, NEVER have I seen a negative comment brought up. None, not any, zero, zilch, nada... Oh sure, you see people claiming the LE depts they know using 357SIG claim there is no difference in it from any other round they've used in the past, but you know what the commonality there is? The ones bringing it up are virtually always diehard 9mm fans, OR, dead set against Dr. Courtney's work, among others. Besides that it's still not a hit against 357SIG.

Why is 357 Magnum recommended for harvesting deer, but 38 Special is NEVER recommended? They can both be loaded with bullets that will poke a hole right through a deer, yet what I said is common knowledge.

What about gravity? Will you stop believing in it when I tell you it isn't proven from all angles? Do you know that the current equations we use for figuring gravity disprove more than they prove? Yet they work out for many purposes too. They're still trying to figure out what gravity is. Some believe it is made up of particles smaller than atoms. Reguardless, you still know what goes up must come down. You don't run around questions all the theories on it, right? I mean, that's all they are, theories. There are all kinds of theories we all take for granted every day.

Now don't get me wrong. I was simply making a general point. I'm not saying all of us have seen evidence of Dr. Courtney's theory at work. That certainly makes it more difficult to take in. Then you have dentists like DocGKR among others preaching agianst it (put a "Dr" in front of anyones name, and they have to be a genious, right? Guess that doesn't work out to well when two Doctors disagree. :shocked: Who would have thunk it?). Blah blah blah. But at the end of the day, there is zero evidence against what Dr. Courtney showed in a scientifically done study, among other supporting work.

All that said, many seem to be getting a wrong impression from those of us that go along with what Dr. Courtney's work showed. And that is that we're supposedly trying to make you believe in it enough to use it in how you choose a round for SD. That is not the case and should be clearly evident from a number of posts within this very thread alone previous to this one. Again, choose to apply it or not. That's entirely up to the individual. In the end we all make our own choices based on our own individuality. You can throw all the evidence you want out to anyone that conclusively does literally prove something, and there's always someone who won't listen to reason.

What gets most of us is when some member's choose to post against it, while clearly from the context of their post having on clue as to what they're talking about. Those that say they understand Dr. Courtney's theory, yet have never read his study, or that skimmed it and never got anything out of it anyway. Then there are those who have simply been fed the same lie so long that they believe it, no matter what evidence against what they think you can show them. As for BPW, no, nothings been proven. The mechanism it works off is still unclear. But Dr. Courtney's work, among other supporting work, among what some of us have seen with our own eyes, suggests there's something to it. That's all. Again, please stop questioning from the standpoint anything was proven. I myself have plenty of questions I may never see answers for. Yet I still know there's SOMETHING to the theory of BPW.


What's biased??? They use ballistic gel. The ballistic gel is calibrated. The police did all the actual shooting with their own guns. The police themselves chose which barriers they wanted to test against. ATK designed all the barriers around FBI protocol. What conspiracy could you possibly be refering to? Small sample size??? They shot premium ammo into calibrated blocks of ballistic gel, and the numbers I used were they averages of each load for penetration depth and expansion. Seriously bro, I'm not saying it's PERFECT, but GD. Why don't we simply say F everything we've ever known or been told, and all shoot whatever the lowest recoiling load is that will still penetrate to the vitals of a human from any angle including compensating for arms being in the way............c'mon, seriously! :faint: Holy nitpicking already. Geez.

Ok, relax, I've regrouped (downed a couple shots and smoked a pack of cigs :supergrin: ).


I simply figured the volume of a hole make by the expanded bullet diameter in conjuncion with the penetration depth up to 12". Granted, it isn't realistic for a host of reasons. Sorry it looks that way. I made this chart up years ago. And it certainly doesn't have anything to do with BPW (not that you said it did, just saying). And no, no studies I'm aware of.



Yes. They used a high speed pressure transducer in live animals at varying distances from the actual projectile path and measured the pressure wave(s) in psi. I don't remember the specific studies to refer you to off the top of my head. If you choose not to believe it, so be it, as that's all I have to say on the matter. Anyone else who may know should feel more than welcome to help me out here. I'm currently on a dial up internet connection, and research can be a serious b1t<H!< p>

Yes. You also asked earlier what the equation was for BPW. The following should help explain alot;

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.

You might wonder why PBPW goes up with bullet fragmentation. This involves a bunch more math which I can post if you like, but I don't see that it's necessary. What I do understand is the basic principal which I believe will be simple for you also once you simply basically understand the basic equations above for equating PBPW.

If it is necessary for you, maybe this will help, and it's about as far into as I'ld prefer to get. 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.


Good Shooting,
Craig

"When you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with..."

BOTTOM LINE, THERE IS A REASON HUMANS AND ANIMALS HAVE BEEN INCAPACITATED IN LESS THAN 5 SECONDS WHEN NO PART OF THE CNS (BRAIN OR SPINE) WAS CONTACTED BY THE PROJECTILE.

What reason is that?


Forget about the "Goat tests". Forget about the Marshall/Sanow data set. Blah blah blah. Who cares. Reguardless, Dr. Courtney's results correlated to what the other's results shoed. End of story. Doesn't matter if the Goat tests existed or not. Doesn't matter if the Marshall/Sanow data set was cherry picked. It's all beside the point. And the only point is that the data correlated.

The data correlates to something that did not happen or to a data set which has proven to be skewed?

What we do know is Dr. Courtney did a study where he shot some deer with two different rounds. One of the rounds effectively incapacitated deer quicker on average, and by a pretty fair margin to boot.

Courtney seems to be able to repeat these test with stunning regularity. Why can't the same be seen on the streets?

Yet with the 357SIG, NEVER have I seen a negative comment brought up. None, not any, zero, zilch, nada...

It's been posted; here and on other forums. You choose to ignore them.

Then you have dentists like DocGKR among others preaching agianst it (put a "Dr" in front of anyones name, and they have to be a genious, right?

Courtney's degree is related to ballistics how?

A Winchester rep has stated 9mm +P+ 127gr has a cult following among LE. Why?

Can you back that up with fact? What LE agencies currently use this round?

Then there are those who have simply been fed the same lie so long that they believe it, no matter what evidence against what they think you can show them.

You just described yourself.

Why is 357 Magnum recommended for harvesting deer, but 38 Special is NEVER recommended? They can both be loaded with bullets that will poke a hole right through a deer, yet what I said is common knowledge.

How many people hunt deer at contact distances? Is a .357 Magnum a wise choice to shoot deer at 500 yards?

They used a high speed pressure transducer in live animals at varying distances from the actual projectile path and measured the pressure wave(s) in psi.

How does this external instrument calculate what is happening inside a living organism? What is the make and model of this transducer so I can refer to it's technical specifications?

p = (5*E)/(pi*d)

"5" was derived how?

How do you know what the energy on target is?

How is Pi relevant in the equation?

How do you know in advance what penetration depth will be?

Blitzer
02-05-2010, 05:40
I am not going to argue whether there is a BPW or not, I will leave that up to the terminal ballistic experts. I do believe that penetration of the round is a lot more important, than what any effect the BPW will have.

By the information that English posted, the rounds with the greatest BPW have the less penetration. I shot some DT 115 Gold Dot 357 Sig rounds in some jugs of water, and the bullet came apart shredding in the second jug. Be Careful!!

Water jugs aren't flesh and blood, not much of a comparison are they? :dunno: :whistling:

uz2bUSMC
02-05-2010, 06:46
"5" was derived how?

How do you know what the energy on target is?

How is Pi relevant in the equation?

How do you know in advance what penetration depth will be?

If I'm not mistaken, the formula was created to coorelate with the transducer numbers. Kinda like shootin a back azimuth... already have the number, just gotta figure out how to get back to it with math.

The transducer was placed in into the pigs brain, and they were shot in the thigh in the Suneson study.


Why would you need to know the penetration in advance? This doesn't make sense to me, what would you really be asking here?

How does one know the energy on target? What's the relevance of this question? If it's a test, pretty sure a chrono would come in handy. Here again, seems like a rediculous question that you should elaborate on. If your talking about an SD shooting, wouldn't G20 need a bit more info? This sounds like a roleplaying scenario/what if game to me.

uz2bUSMC
02-05-2010, 06:49
Courtney seems to be able to repeat these test with stunning regularity. Why can't the same be seen on the streets?


There are dynamic stops and dismal failures on the street. So the study is out there. It is being seen on the street. Not everyone is shooting the same loads, guns, or just one shot at their badguys.

uz2bUSMC
02-05-2010, 06:54
What reason is that?


This is the "reason" or "cause" that all your buddies in the koolaid camp will dodge, flip, or hide to avoid being questioned about. Just like you will offer no explanation for instant incapacitation. Or, and I forgat, if pressed too much, they'll just ban you from their site without "reason" when all else fails.