Your thoughts on the 10mm

[inlanddiver]

Thinking about picking up a 20, but am torn between the price of ammo and the info that i read about over penetration... Any opinions on the g20? this would not be a cc, more of night stand gun/ outdoors piece... lets hear your thoughts

[Butch]

Although there's a lot of goodness in using a 10mm for home security, unless you reload your own ammo, the cost of ammo for training and practice would be a big factor.

[Butch]

And welcome to GlockTalk!

[craig19]

Although there's a lot of goodness in using a 10mm for home security, unless you reload your own ammo, the cost of ammo for training and practice would be a big factor.


This:goodpost:, it's the only thing holding me back.

[dday27]

The 10MM is a very versital round to load, Can't go wrong with the mighty 10!

[THE PUNISHER]

get one and enjoy. 10mm would make a fine home defence/outdoor pistol. If you reload its even better, and not to forget you can shoot 40sw,357 sig, 9x25 dillon with a barrel change. Then with a barrel-slide change there is the 50 GI and .22lr...the MOST versatile Glock out there!

[cowboywannabe]

off the shelf 10mm ammo from the big three isnt that much more than .45acp and less than .380acp ive found. however, the big three and Hornady dont make full powered 10mm loads, you have to buy ammo from smaller makers like Buffalo Bore and accepting the exagerated claims of Double Tap and Cor-Bon.

the over penetration bologna is just that, unless youre talking about using FMJ for defense against subhumans.

[telecster]

Do it! I have a G20 and a GT10. Doubletap has a new round 135 grn jhp in front of a 90 grn lead ball..awesome self defense combo!

[DWARREN123]

I have one and yes reloading is the way to go. I carry mine concealed and am very happy with some of the loads I have worked up.
Death to Zombie Grizzly Bears!

[Bren]

Do you have another Glock in 9mm you can use on the range?

Yes, it would be ideal to train with the same caliber, ammo, etc, that you will use, but it isn't a real necessity. If you have decent shooting fundamentals, a split-second of extra recovery time is the only difference between shooting a 10mm and a 9mm. The much more important factor, especially for self-defense use/ranges, is knowing how to operate the pistol. I've shot similar matches with .38, 9mm. .40, .45 and some old, full power 10mm Remington hollow points left over from the early 90's. Not a big difference, just a hair slower with the bigger calibers.

The police trained with super-light .38 wadcutters and carried 125 gr. .357 mag. around here for 20-30 years with no real problem. Don't believe every bit of super-critical-absolute-must advice you get from the gun magazines; it changes regularly.

[inlanddiver]

[QUOTE=Bren;16637426]Do you have another Glock in 9mm you can use on the range?

yes, i have a 17 that i love, also have the conversion to the 22lr, which makes for saving hundreds at the range...

thanks for everyones advice, i think im gonna pick one up, ill let you know how it works for me

[Titegroups]

The big difference between the 9 and the 10 is on the receiving end, I have the G20 and it's easy to shoot, buy one and a loading press. Once you break the umbilical cord of factory loaded ammo you will never look back.

[bigdaddyjav]

I love my G20SF! Feels a bit easier to shoot than my G21SF. As far as ammo, buy in bulk. Georgia Arms sells bulk "canned heat" ammo for $390 / 1000rds with free shipping.

[TSAX]

I used to carry a 40mm for many moons over in a place where our tents were built on top of sand :supergrin:.

Carrying the 10mm just doesn't feel the same :supergrin:.

[cowboywannabe]

TSA, your screen name makes me think of the saying...."at the TSA we handle more packages than FedEx".

[Brian Lee]

The over penetration issue can be overcome by simply choosing ammo with bullets of about 165 grain & lighter. Double Tap makes a 10MM round with the 155 grain Barnes XPB solid copper bullet that's actually weaker than most other 10MM loads (except for target stuff) because it's REAL velocity is about 150-200 FPS slower than DT claims, but it's also still quite a bit hotter than .40 caliber load generally are, and that XPB bullet had super-nice expansion characteristics too. Expensive rounds for sure, but great for SD purposes in town where that over penetration thing might make you nervous.

The 135 grain hollow points they have are very hot & have very high energy, but the bullets fragment pretty badly, also eliminating all the over penetration fears while still being a devastating round unless your BG is wearing too many layers of winter coats.

It's really only the 200 & 220 grain projectiles designed for hunting and bear defense that have so much penetration you might not consider them safe to carry around town. Some of these guys may disagree with me on heavy 10MM bullets not being the best for SD use, but I'm a firm believer in the effects of ballistic pressure wave, (not everyone is) which the 10MM can give you plenty of, in lighter bullet weights, because it's way beyond supersonic & then some, with any bullet of 165 grains or lighter. Buffalo Bore is way beyond hot as well, and it's great ammo, but they only have 180 & 200 grain available, so I've always looked at BB as being woods ammo.

[glock2740]

Everyone needs at least one 10mm. :cool:

[stengun]

Howdy,

I have had a G20 10mm since 1993 and I couldn't imagine life without it.

I also just got a new G21SF and I am going to buy a Lone Wolf G20T slide assmy soon.

Paul

[LASTRESORT20]

G20 SF...`Top Dog..get it while you "can"....Plenty of places to buy ammo...Mild and `Hot...

Then start reloading...and make your own recipes...for your needs.

[RYNOCG201]

10mm is a great caliber and is alot of fun to shoot. I hope to reload for it one day when I finish my academic pursuits. For now I will just stick with georgia arms and my Lone Wolf 10-40 conversion barrel. Good luck with your choice!:cool:

[wjv]

Good enough for the Colonial Marines. . .

http://www.imfdb.org/index.php?title=M56_Smart_Gun
http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Talk:%28Aliens%29_-_M41A_Pulse_Rifle

[bigghoss]

10mm really should be more popular. I'd like to get one some day when I get into reloading.

[Maine]

My thoughts are that it's a caliber I've never tried and really have no interest in anything that is chambered in it. However it looks pretty impressive on paper and I have nothing bad to say about it.

[ctfireman]

10mm is an awesome round but i sold mine due to lack of ammo in my area. I realized i hadn't fired it in like 2 years.

[bac1023]

:welcome:

[OrangeDonkey]

Everyone needs at least one 10mm. :cool:

Or two....:dunno:

[Gokyo]

I am a little surprised by these prices. I guess that is what I get for not having bought factory ammo in 3 years.

Georgia Arms canned heat is a pretty good way to go.
9mm is $250/1000 http://georgia-arms.com/cannedheat9mmluger124grfullmetaljacket1000pk.aspx
40 S&W is $260/1000 http://georgia-arms.com/cannedheat40sandw180grfullmetaljacket1000pk.aspx
45 ACP is $330/1000 http://georgia-arms.com/cannedheat45acp230grfullmetaljacket1000pk.aspx
10mm is $390/1000 http://georgia-arms.com/newcannedheat10mm180grfullmetaljacket1000pk.aspx

[turbo54]

10 is awesome. <--- That's a period!!

A 20 is a great piece to have around, and super sweet if you reload. I like them so much, I am going to buy another 20 and 29.

[crsuribe]

This:goodpost:, it's the only thing holding me back.

You know? I'm a Deli employee at Cabela's and make $8.50 an hr. About $1100 a month. I am married and support my wife for the most part (she only makes $600 a month). I pay rent and utilities, plus gas, etc. yet I still get to go out to the range and shoot my pistol enough that I am improving a lot.

One thing you can do, and this is something I just did, is buy a 10 to .40SW conversion barrel. It allows you to shoot a whole lot cheaper and you still get to practice all the basics AND get familiar with the pistol. It's great stuff.

And you can always load it with your 10mm load of preference for defense purposes.

I load mine with 180gr. Gold Dot HP's from Swamp Fox loaded at 1350FPS and the recoil is actually quite manageable and this is coming from a 5'5/135lbs guy...

I really don't see a reason for someone to shy away from such a great caliber. Especially when there needs to be more and more people interested in 10mm so that it becomes more available and cheaper in the long run.

But yeah it's not too bad as it is.

[AgentAdam]

Great idea. Does the .40sw cycle slide enough?

What weight is the 10mm recoil spring? Something lighter from wolf might help.

[gumby223]

I'm glad I got mine, I won't ever get rid of it either...

[crsuribe]

Great idea. Does the .40sw cycle slide enough?

What weight is the 10mm recoil spring? Something lighter from wolf might help.

Mine cycles just fine. I had one FTE out of 50 rounds the other day but it was just because the ammo I was shooting was as crappy as you can get... Herter's .40S&W... Russian steel cased ammo and that particular round felt like a squid load or something.

Other than that it functioned perfectly with the stock spring (17lbs) and mags.

I'm extremely happy with it.

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee56/crsuribe/SDC14717.jpg

Oh yeah my conversion barrel is the 6inch version. I just happened to find it for sale unfired here on GT for $90 shipped. Great deal.

[AgentAdam]

And the 10mm mags work well? Do you try to keep the 40's towards the front or back?

[Streetking]

I've been shooting mine for over 30 years. G20 and a great pistol. Double Tap is very good ammo despite what you read here. But the target stuff is good as well. I reload so I make them as I want them. It is a very large pistol. Keep that in mind

[DWARREN123]

The factory spring is 17lb I believe, same as the G22. I have put a SS rod and 20lb spring in mine and today I shot some 40 S&W thru it (no conversion barrel) and it cycled perfectly and was accurate, surprised me.
The ammo cost make reloading almost mandatory but if you have a Glock in 40 S&W it can be quite cheaper to reload for both since many bullets work well in both.

[osubigdog1]

Roll with it man. Bought mine 3 years ago. Was my first ever Glock, hated Glock before I got it. Bought it for the caliber and ended up becoming a Glock convert.......best worst thing to happen to me as I cant quit buying Glocks now:faint:

[Sheepdog Scout]

Do it man. I bought my first 10mm (G20) earlier this year and it's a fantastic gun and it's a blast to shoot. At this point, I don't reload, but I get most of my range ammo from Georgia Arms and the good stuff as advertised from Mike at http://swampfoxgunworks.com/ . Mike a great guy and his stuff is the best high velocity/max power ammo you can get for 10mm. DoubleTap is decent as well, but not nearly as good as swampfox.
I don't shoot my G20 as much as my G19 or my G22, but like Bren said, if your fundamentals are good, it shouldn't make a huge difference if at all.

[paul45]

A side benefit is when you fire a 10mm pistol, small nuke clouds appear. I have the chart to prove it!!

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k57/paul10mm/10mm.jpg

[Chainlink]

10mm is just a do everything round, hunt, defend, plink, and I heard ninjas are scared of them.

[seaswol]

10mm is an awesome round but i sold mine due to lack of ammo in my area. I realized i hadn't fired it in like 2 years.
If you are going to shoot a few hundred rounds a month _ RELOAD!!! If you reload, then any caliber is plentiful with a purchase of dies. The biggest challenge now is getting bullets at a great price, Montana Gold, Berrys, Zero, Extreme, Speer..
Chris

[Glockman223]

The 10 is the best defense round period but ammo can hurt to buy. Welcome aboard.

[crsuribe]

And the 10mm mags work well? Do you try to keep the 40's towards the front or back?

Yeah the 10mm mags work just fine. Just tap the mag on the back to make sure the rounds are seated all the way back. I've had 0 mag related problems, and like I said before, no feeding problems either. And that Herter's stuff might not be that great but it costs about as much as a box of .22WMR's... $14/50rds. Not bad at all and every round fed and fired.

[turbo54]

I've said this at least five times recently... The key to 10mm is reloading. It unlocks the versatility of the round. You can run a 135 anywhere between 900 fps and 1500+ fps, or run a 220 between 750 and 1150. It is also cheaper to load than 45.

I am amazed at its relatively low popularity.

[Bulletsrrfriend]

If you buy a G20, do not and I repeat do not! ever hold a G29. You'll end up with both. I have the G20SF, I like the slimmer grip in the full size model. Then made the mistake of holding a G29. Now I have one of those also. I went with the G29 instead of the G29SF because on the compact model I like the larger size of the grip in my hand. There is also this sight that sells BVAC ammo 180gr FMJ 500 rounds for $189 surplusammo.com great for plinking.

[leeward419]

10mm really should be more popular. I'd like to get one some day when I get into reloading.
__________________
reloading would allow you to shoot more rounds in all calibers, even if you dont get a 10, but you would save enough to get one

[lowepg]

A side benefit is when you fire a 10mm pistol, small nuke clouds appear. I have the chart to prove it!!

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k57/paul10mm/10mm.jpg

^ awesome.

Try it this way. Pretend there is a $375 addon to the purchase price of the 10mm glock. A small price to pay (in the long run) for this most awesome of calibers.

Buy your glock and one small accesory (Dillon SDB in 10mm) and you will have just made this combo a VERY affordable shooting package.

[ignantmike]

just check out the avatar.....it's a g20:supergrin:

[Batesmotel]

I heard ninjas are scared of them.

I heard they cause global warming.:supergrin: And Chuck Norris eats them for vitamins.

[sgtbones]

If you buy a G20, do not and I repeat do not! ever hold a G29. You'll end up with both. I have the G20SF, I like the slimmer grip in the full size model. Then made the mistake of holding a G29. Now I have one of those also. I went with the G29 instead of the G29SF because on the compact model I like the larger size of the grip in my hand. There is also this sight that sells BVAC ammo 180gr FMJ 500 rounds for $189 surplusammo.com great for plinking.
Same thing happened to me.

[AZ Husker]

The Glock 10's just don't fit my hands (I wish they did), but a 1911 in 10mm is the perfect carry weapon for me.

[cowboy1964]

The 10 is the best defense round period

.44 Magnum.

[carbuncle]

If you think about 10mm your head explodes. But seriously, I was just browsing the Glockmeister site and saw the KKM G21 45/10 conversion barrel: that's a potent combo! .45 for the nightstand, 10mm for backwoods carry...I like it!

[agtman]

.44 Magnum.

Not in an autoloader of reasonable size and weight. :upeyes:

That's where the 10mm AUTO shines down on you ... :whistling:

:cool:

[Trvlngnrs]

Can someone post a picture of a 10mm round next to a 9mm? Or a G17 next to a G20....

I'm wondering how big the grip is compared to a 9mm Glock. I have average sized hands.

The reason I'm asking is there is a G20 OD green for $449 in the newspaper. I've always wanted an OD Glock!

[DEADEYEGUY]

Since the 10mm gets .41 Magnum like characteristics out of some of its loads I think if you are going to hunt with an automatic handgun it is an excellent choice. The Glock 20 is a light weight, high capacity, weapon that would be great for hunting, hiking, and so on. The G29 would work extremely well for hiking and camping. The only thing I would do is get a .40 coversion barrel for it so that you can afford to practice with it. I would probably use the .40 for the home defense aspect also. The ability of the 10mm to fire fairly heavy rounds at good velocities is great for tearing through heavy bone and hide. Not so good in your house.

[MinervaDoe]

When I bought my Glock 20SF, I thought it would be fun to reload for the 10 mm cartridge. It just seemed very versatile.

Then, when I took it out and fired it, I was amazed that people were not talking about how accurate it is.

I went to the range yesterday and shot 50 of those Ranier 155 grain plated bullets I'd been wishing I hadn't bought. Now, I wish I'd bought more of them. It turns out that with 6.6 grains of Unique, they put up a really nice group at 25 yards.
Here is a 25 or 30 shot group.
http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l496/Minervadoe/10mm115grainRanier25Yard.jpg

[unit1069]

The reason I'm asking is there is a G20 OD green for $449 in the newspaper. I've always wanted an OD Glock!

If you want an OD Glock in a true magnum power caliber and the gun is in good condition you'd better jump on that deal while you can.

[Trvlngnrs]

If you want an OD Glock in a true magnum power caliber and the gun is in good condition you'd better jump on that deal while you can.


I jumped! :supergrin:

Got it for $425. Came with the tupperware box and one mag. It's been shot less than 50 rounds. It'll be my camping/ATV gun.


I understand there are conversion barrels for the G20. Can you guys tell me which calibers. Do they run reliably?

Thanks
Trvlngnrs

[Rem5R]

10mm is just a do everything round, hunt, defend, plink, and I heard ninjas are scared of them.

.....But is Chuck Norris scared of the 10mm?

I ordered myself a G20SF the other day. I can't wait to get my hands on it, and now my G22 will not feel so alone.

Rem5R

[glock20c10mm]

Can someone post a picture of a 10mm round next to a 9mm? Or a G17 next to a G20....

I'm wondering how big the grip is compared to a 9mm Glock. I have average sized hands.
For anyone still curious, this is a G29 compared to a G19. The G29 has the wider slide, with a fatter and shorter grip.

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s271/glock20c10mm/G29/G29-9-1-07030.jpg

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s271/glock20c10mm/G29/G29-9-1-07022.jpg

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s271/glock20c10mm/G29/G29-9-1-07023.jpg

I figure it should give everyone the general idea even if they aren't the fullsized 10mm and 9mm platforms.


Good Shooting,
Craig


PS - In a couple months I plan to purchase a NIB G20SF. :woohoo:

[Butch]

Can someone post a picture of a 10mm round next to a 9mm?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0603/ButchG17/Ammo%20pics/9mm-357sig-40sw-10mm-45acp-45gap.jpg
Look in here for lots of ammo pics-> http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=601396

[agtman]

When I bought my Glock 20SF, I thought it would be fun to reload for the 10 mm cartridge. It just seemed very versatile.

Then, when I took it out and fired it, I was amazed that people were not talking about how accurate it is.
I went to the range yesterday and shot 50 of those Ranier 155 grain plated bullets I'd been wishing I hadn't bought. Now, I wish I'd bought more of them. It turns out that with 6.6 grains of Unique, they put up a really nice group at 25 yards.
Here is a 25 or 30 shot group.***

***

That's kind of surprising to hear, since right after the 10mm's power, people usually say how amazed they are by its accuracy (assuming the shooter does his part).

In fact, since at least the mid-80s, various gun and ballistic authorities have repeatedly described the 10mm AUTO as "an inherently accurate" cartridge, something hardly ever said about its little brother knock-off, the .40S&W. :upeyes:

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/agtman/G201.jpg

:cool:

[Trvlngnrs]

Nice pictures, thanks Butch!

[MinervaDoe]

That's kind of surprising to hear, since right after the 10mm's power, people usually say how amazed they are by its accuracy (assuming the shooter does his part).

In fact, since at least the mid-80s, various gun and ballistic authorities have repeatedly described the 10mm AUTO as "an inherently accurate" cartridge, something hardly ever said about its little brother knock-off, the .40S&W.
That brings to mind the other rarely mentioned 10mm attribute. The cartridge is very versatile.
I have accurate loads. I also have loads that behave like 9mm on steroids or high velocity .45 ACP loads. Other people load up bone crunching hunting loads.

For a while, I was toying with getting a .357 Sig barrel and then I realized the 10mm could get me there without needing to buy new dies, bullets, and brass. Close enough for me anyhow.

Plus, I like the fact that the 10mm is chambered in large frame autos. I feel it tames the recoil very nicely. I tried a G30 with some stout .45 ACP loads and while I shot it well, I felt that I would develop a flinch with that gun. Now, on the other hand, my G29 with some middle of the road 155 grain cartridges is very manageable. :supergrin: That is what I refer to as my 9mm on steroids load.

[Magicmanmb]

Thinking about picking up a 20, but am torn between the price of ammo and the info that i read about over penetration... Any opinions on the g20? this would not be a cc, more of night stand gun/ outdoors piece... lets hear your thoughts

Natchezz Shooters has Hornady Critical Defense less than .45acp. Buying in bulk is usually only a few dollars difference. The only reason mine is up for trade is due to Duty Carry consideration.

[agtman]

That brings to mind the other rarely mentioned 10mm attribute. The cartridge is very versatile.
I have accurate loads. I also have loads that behave like 9mm on steroids or high velocity .45 ACP loads. Other people load up bone crunching hunting loads.

Except from me: :supergrin: I've always hyped the 10mm's versatility of use ... PLUS a huge power curve ... PLUS inherent accuracy = :perfect10:

What's not to like? :dunno:

For a while, I was toying with getting a .357 Sig barrel and then I realized the 10mm could get me there without needing to buy new dies, bullets, and brass. Close enough for me anyhow.

Plus, I like the fact that the 10mm is chambered in large frame autos. I feel it tames the recoil very nicely. I tried a G30 with some stout .45 ACP loads and while I shot it well, I felt that I would develop a flinch with that gun. Now, on the other hand, my G29 with some middle of the road 155 grain cartridges is very manageable. :supergrin: That is what I refer to as my 9mm on steroids load.

I agree on the dampening effect displayed by the large-framed autos on felt-recoil. I've found that to be true with both the all-steel S&W 3rd Gen 10XX-series guns and the polymer Glocks.

I've got a spare LWD .40 tube in stock length for the G29, as well as a fitted Bar-Sto 10mm barrel for reloads. Hardly use the LWD .40 though ... just because ... :shocked:

:cool:

[Natty]

There is no evidence that the 10mm is a better man stopper than the .40 S&W.

:whistling:

[firemedic1343]

There is no evidence that the 10mm is a better man stopper than the .40 S&W.

:whistling:

I think when everyone is mentioning versatility, their point is that based on ammo choice the 10 can do anything the 40 can do...plus many other things like better brush penetration and animal defense.

[glock20c10mm]

There is no evidence that the 10mm is a better man stopper than the .40 S&W.

:whistling:
Yes there is.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.3053.pdf

And plenty of it with zero evidence against this evidence.

[JRI]

There is no evidence that the 10mm is a better man stopper than the .40 S&W.

:whistling:

That's just like saying,"There is no evidence that the 357 Mag is a better man stopper than the 38 Special.":dunno:

[cuzican]

I like the penetration of my 10mm......I bought the 29SF to carry in the woods because I'm sick of packing a huge/heavy revolver.
I'm defending against bears as much as people......need the penetration for bears, and having 10 rounds means that any person I shoot is not gonna be happy no matter how badly it over penetrates.

[agtman]

That's just like saying,"There is no evidence that the 357 Mag is a better man stopper than the 38 Special.":dunno:

:laughabove: This ...

Error-net wise-crackers like to forget just how close the ballistics and stopping-power analogy is between the .357mag/.38Special Ed on the one hand, and the 10mm AUTO/.40S&W on the other ... :whistling:

:cool:

[agtman]

I like the penetration of my 10mm......I bought the 29SF to carry in the woods because I'm sick of packing a huge/heavy revolver.
I'm defending against bears as much as people......need the penetration for bears, and having 10 rounds means that any person I shoot is not gonna be happy no matter how badly it over penetrates.

That why a lot of Alaskans - and anyone else who spends significant time tramping about the boonies where aggressive, 4-legged predators with sharp teeth are known to roam - have switched over from lugging a heavy, 6-shot magnum boat-anchor to the lighter, higher-capacity G20 or G29, stuffed with a "heavy & fast" penetrating load. :whistling: No surprise, really.

Heck, Denmark dropped the 9-minimeter in favor of arming some of its units with the 10mm G20, due to their occasional encounters with polar bears ... :shocked:

Scroll down a bit here to the SledgePatrol part:
http://www.specialoperations.com/Foreign/Denmark/

Wow - a hot 10mm taking on polar bears ...:wow:

:cool:

[Natty]

http://www.chuckhawks.com/beginners_stopping_power.htm

"For example, the .40 S&W has higher one shot stop percentages in the real world than the 10mm Auto."

[unit1069]

I jumped! :supergrin:

Got it for $425. Came with the tupperware box and one mag. It's been shot less than 50 rounds. It'll be my camping/ATV gun.


I understand there are conversion barrels for the G20. Can you guys tell me which calibers. Do they run reliably?

Thanks
Trvlngnrs

Congratulations!

You have a brand new G-20 in OD green!

If I lived out West where I might run into a large bear or even mountain lion I'd definitely own a G-29. (In OD, of course)

[unit1069]

I like the penetration of my 10mm......I bought the 29SF to carry in the woods because I'm sick of packing a huge/heavy revolver.
I'm defending against bears as much as people......need the penetration for bears, and having 10 rounds means that any person I shoot is not gonna be happy no matter how badly it over penetrates.

Then there's the issue of shooting under extreme stress. Aside from having a lighter gun you've got ten rounds at your disposal instead of six; and out of six rounds shot under extreme duress how many can you actually count on to hit a vital of man or beast?

Then there's the reload issue regarding semi-auto versus revolver ... if someone is lucky enough to survive that far.

[unit1069]

http://www.chuckhawks.com/beginners_stopping_power.htm

"For example, the .40 S&W has higher one shot stop percentages in the real world than the 10mm Auto."

Well then, between the 40S&W and 10mm which would you prefer against a large bear rushing you at 25 mph?

[glock20c10mm]

http://www.chuckhawks.com/beginners_stopping_power.htm

"For example, the .40 S&W has higher one shot stop percentages in the real world than the 10mm Auto."
That would be good insight if there was any "one-shot-stop" data collected ever in a meaningful way. And to date, at least from what's been released to the public, there isn't.

BTW, do you think any 10mm loads from Double Tap or Swamp Fox or Buffalo Bore were included in the already tainted data? AND, how old do you think that Chuck Hawks article is?

[glock20c10mm]

Error-net wise-crackers like to forget just how close the ballistics and stopping-power analogy is between the .357mag/.38Special...
Really? How close were they? Which loads are you comparing? Are you including the 38 Special load nicknamed "Widowmaker" because of all the cops that died in the line of duty because it was such a poor BGstopper?

Or maybe you're including watered down 357mag loads compared to +P 38 Special loads which would have no place in this discussion?

Or maybe you're including some of the 110gr loads that should never have been used in the first place, being such poor penetrators for LE use?

Thoughts?

[Glolt20-91]

http://www.chuckhawks.com/beginners_stopping_power.htm

"For example, the .40 S&W has higher one shot stop percentages in the real world than the 10mm Auto."

Hopefully you don't waste a lot of time reading his pontifications.

Bob :cowboy:

[Glolt20-91]

Then there's the issue of shooting under extreme stress. Aside from having a lighter gun you've got ten rounds at your disposal instead of six; and out of six rounds shot under extreme duress how many can you actually count on to hit a vital of man or beast?

Then there's the reload issue regarding semi-auto versus revolver ... if someone is lucky enough to survive that far.

A person's mental/physical capabilities during times of extreme stress can also be moments of absolute clarity.

If you buy into the mental panic model, what makes you think you'll be able to get any shots off from either a revolver or pistol?

Bob :cowboy:

[agtman]

Really? How close were they? Which loads are you comparing? Are you including the 38 Special load nicknamed "Widowmaker" because of all the cops that died in the line of duty because it was such a poor BGstopper?

Or maybe you're including watered down 357mag loads compared to +P 38 Special loads which would have no place in this discussion?

Or maybe you're including some of the 110gr loads that should never have been used in the first place, being such poor penetrators for LE use?

Thoughts?

Yes. You misconstrued my post as a critique. It wasn't. The better defensive loads in .357mag enjoy a parity with the better defensive loads in 10mm Auto, and I wasn't including "watered-down," poor penetrators for either cartridge ... :whistling:

It was in fact a response to JRI's pithy retort to Natty's post

:cool:

[MinervaDoe]

Then there's the reload issue regarding semi-auto versus revolver ... if someone is lucky enough to survive that far.
In panic situations, it comes down to muscle memory. If you have trained enough, you will be better prepared to respond mechanically. If you are very lucky and have the correct presence of mind, you may be one of the fortunate few who will experience time compression instead of tunnel vision.

A person's mental/physical capabilities during times of extreme stress can also be moments of absolute clarity.

If you buy into the mental panic model, what makes you think you'll be able to get any shots off from either a revolver or pistol?
Agreed.
Again, it comes down to a philosophy of how you are going to try and respond to a crisis. You can train for it, or you can just go out and buy yourself a case of "Depends".

[swinokur]

There is no evidence that the 10mm is a better man stopper than the .40 S&W.

:whistling:

Just say'in

[cowboy1964]

Yes there is.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.3053.pdf

Sorry but I don't see the string "10mm" in there anywhere.

[cowboy1964]

http://68forums.com/forums/showthread.php?7165-10mm-for-Military-and-LE-as-a-replacement-for-the-9mm-Others-please/page3
10 mm Norma 170 gr JHP at around 1400 fps expanded to around 0.60"-0.65" and penetrated in the 16-18" range. 10 mm Hornady 200 gr JHP at around 1200 fps expanded 0.55"-0.60" and penetrated in the 20-22" range. Temporary stretch was a bit larger than the service caliber projectiles above, but not as large as a .44 Mag or rifle round. 10mm in the 180-200 gr range at around 950-1050 fps was a far better load for duty use as they offered optimal penetration and expansion, as well as better controlability, less flash, and better weapon service life; for that matter, .40 S&W in the same range works pretty well... For field or hunting use, a .44 Mag or hot .45 Colt are probably better options.

[MinervaDoe]

Sorry but I don't see the string "10mm" in there anywhere.
Did you understand the Phds analysis that having more foot pounds of energy leads to more neurogenic shock (which leads to higher rate of incapacitation)?

The poster probably assumed that folks could do the math themselves.

I can help you with the math. I'll grab a couple of loads out of my very conservative Hornady manual (both are one step down from maximum).

A .40 S&W 155 grain bullet going 1150 fps produces 455 foot pounds of energy.
A .10mm 155 grain bullet going 1400 fps produces 674 foot pounds of energy.
That's nearly 1/3 more energy = more neurogenic shock.

Whether you, the shooter, can put the round on target is up to you.

btw, a 9mm +P 115 grain bullet travelling 1250 fps produces 399 foot pounds of energy, so the .40 S&W is much closer to the 9mm in performance than it is to the 10mm.

[unit1069]

A person's mental/physical capabilities during times of extreme stress can also be moments of absolute clarity.

I can agree with that since I've experienced the clarity you mention, although not in a life-or-death situation.

If you buy into the mental panic model, what makes you think you'll be able to get any shots off from either a revolver or pistol?

I think that anyone who recognizes an emergency situation will react in some way, hopefully appropriately. Even with the proper training a rookie will have a different mindset than an experienced professional as far as immediate mental/physical reaction, isn't that right?

[AZ Husker]

I watch paper-shooters that can castrate a fly, but could not efficiently draw and fire quickly and consistently to save their lives. You've got to practice real life scenarios.

[Natty]

The FBI dropped it like a hot potato.

[JRI]

The FBI dropped it like a hot potato.

Only because the sissy officers couldn't handle the recoil of a "real" handgun.:upeyes:

[turbo54]

Any way you rationalize it, if you don't shoot 10mm, its because it hurts your girly wrists.

[MinervaDoe]

The FBI dropped it like a hot potato.
The grip was too big for many female officers and males with small hands.
Going with .40 S&W let them use frames designed for 9mms with signficantly smaller grip sizes.

Most of the other criteria used by the FBI to move away from 10mm don't hold up to scrutiny when given a serious analysis.

[Natty]

Any way you rationalize it, if you don't shoot 10mm, its because it hurts your girly wrists.

I could say that anyone who doesn't shoot a Ruger Super Blackhawk .44 mag like mine, is because it hurts their girly wrists.

It has twice the muzzle energy of a 10mm. :tongueout:

[firemedic1343]

I could say that anyone who doesn't shoot a Ruger Super Blackhawk .44 mag like mine, is because it hurts their girly wrists.

It has twice the muzzle energy of a 10mm. :tongueout:

That's wimpy compared to the Smith & Wesson Model 500.

I know you were joking, but apples to apples, I think we may do well to stick to semi-autos and not compare any semi-auto to their beefier revolver brethren. Because no semi-auto has a chance against the bigge revolver cartridges in terms of energy.

[Magicmanmb]

.22 or S&W 500 doesn't matter what your shooting if it's life & death & you can't hit the person. Punching paper and Gelatin is a lot different than knowing that it's flesh that your going to hit hopefully. Like the argument that the PA state troopers used for the 45GAP 3 or 4 troopers depending on which version emptied the G22's at the fellow and he still kept up the attack. That is evidence that the LEO's needed more time at the range or needed to get a shotgun or rifle. If you put 60 rounds of .40 JHP into a person they will go down. The problem is out of 60 rounds only 5 hit and it took a head shot to stop the attack.

[glock20c10mm]

Yes. You misconstrued my post as a critique. It wasn't. The better defensive loads in .357mag enjoy a parity with the better defensive loads in 10mm Auto, and I wasn't including "watered-down," poor penetrators for either cartridge ... :whistling:

It was in fact a response to JRI's pithy retort to Natty's post

:cool:
+1 My bad. :shocked:


Craig:supergrin:

[glock20c10mm]

Sorry but I don't see the string "10mm" in there anywhere.

Why would you need to for the evidence to hold true?

Yeah, Natty brought up the 10mm directly when he said;
There is no evidence that the 10mm is a better man stopper than the .40 S&W.

:whistling:

But, the evidence still indirectly shows the 10mm is better than 40S&W if you understood what you read. Or, you think the data told you different. Is that the case?

[glock20c10mm]

The FBI dropped it like a hot potato.
:upeyes: Do you have a clue to why? And maybe a factual one (or two, or...)at that?

Like MinervaDoe said;
The grip was too big for many female officers and males with small hands.
Going with .40 S&W let them use frames designed for 9mms with signficantly smaller grip sizes.

Most of the other criteria used by the FBI to move away from 10mm don't hold up to scrutiny when given a serious analysis.

The platform used by the FBI at the time was an all steel S&W. And, to handle the 10mm Auto the S&W pretty much ended up being in the same weight class as a boat anchor and did have too big a grip for some hands.

Many people think the recoil was also abusive to some. But it was NOT. The field officers were NEVER introduced to full power 10mm loads. The watered down load was in effect from the git-go. If anything, the recoil was probably on par with a light 9mm load from a G17!

And then a brand new cartridge emerged because of complaints having nothing to do with the effectiveness of the 10mm Auto cartridge itself. IIRC it was S&W and Federal Cartridge Company who got together and created the 40S&W and a new smaller AND lighter platform.

Since it EFFECTIVELY did everything the watered down 10mm load did, and in a smaller overall package, the FBI jumped on it. Yet there are FBI agents on record saying they held onto their 10mm sidearms as long as they possibly could, and not without first arguing keeping them.

And now, much further into the future, what do you see? Even if your blinders are on waaaaaaaay too tight.

1) You see a massive change toward plastic framed platforms that are much lighter in weight, including for the 10mm Auto!

2) You see all kinds of makes of sidearms with interchangeably adjustable grips for hand size. And when you don't, there have even become Glocks in a lineup refered to as "SF". Ever hear of that?

3) You see the 357SIG!

4) Even in 9mm you see a whole lot of +P/+P+ ammo being used.

5) You see the FBI still using the watered down 10mm load in a new form. Though with different bullet weights.

6) You see many state and federal agencies going to lighter weight bullets.

7) You still see a lack of training from many departments. Yeah, gotta take the good with the bad.


So overall what do you see?

1) You see required platform size being much less meaningful than it ever was in the past.

2) And you see a shift toward lighter-weight/higher-speed bullets in various calibers. READ; HIGHER ENERGY!!! (Except in the 45Auto. :whistling:)


You sure were lost! Glad to have helped you see some truth.

What load is it you carry again? :headscratch:


Good Shooting,
Craig:wavey:

[glock20c10mm]

http://68forums.com/forums/showthread.php?7165-10mm-for-Military-and-LE-as-a-replacement-for-the-9mm-Others-please/page3
10 mm Norma 170 gr JHP at around 1400 fps expanded to around 0.60"-0.65" and penetrated in the 16-18" range. 10 mm Hornady 200 gr JHP at around 1200 fps expanded 0.55"-0.60" and penetrated in the 20-22" range. Temporary stretch was a bit larger than the service caliber projectiles above, but not as large as a .44 Mag or rifle round. 10mm in the 180-200 gr range at around 950-1050 fps was a far better load for duty use as they offered optimal penetration and expansion, as well as better controlability, less flash, and better weapon service life; for that matter, .40 S&W in the same range works pretty well... For field or hunting use, a .44 Mag or hot .45 Colt are probably better options.



WOW!!!:faint: So you're showing data from 2007 that refers to bullets not in existence anymore, platforms not in existence anymore, hunting with 44 Magnum and 45 Colt, and a general opinion by Dr. Roberts who is GUESSING at bullet performance figures?!?

Yyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay, ooooooooooook.

For future reference, you may want to keep that kind of information to yourself.:upeyes:

At this point I'm beginning to think I've wasted my time even commenting to data so inferior to any modern day discussion that I'm considering a beer and a smoke are about all at this moment that will clear my head again. Oh yeah, and, while sitting outside getting some fresh air! :rofl::rofl:


Good Shooting,
Craig :shakehead:

[MinervaDoe]

:upeyes: Do you have a clue to why? And maybe a factual one (or two, or...)at that?


1) You see a massive change toward plastic framed platforms that are much lighter in weight, including for the 10mm Auto!

2) You see all kinds of makes of sidearms with interchangeably adjustable grips for hand size. And when you don't, there have even become Glocks in a lineup refered to as "SF". Ever hear of that?

3) You see the 357SIG!

4) Even in 9mm you see a whole lot of +P/+P+ ammo being used.

5) You see the FBI still using the watered down 10mm load in a new form. Though with different bullet weights.

6) You see many state and federal agencies going to lighter weight bullets.

7) You still see a lack of training from many departments. Yeah, gotta take the good with the bad.


So overall what do you see?

1) You see required platform size being much less meaningful than it ever was in the past.

2) And you see a shift toward lighter-weight/higher-speed bullets in various calibers. READ; HIGHER ENERGY!!! (Except in the 45Auto. :whistling:)


You sure were lost! Glad to have helped you see some truth.

What load is it you carry again? :headscratch:


Good Shooting,
Craig:wavey:
When you get into discussing modern trends, I believe that one other factor is very relevant. Modern hollow points are vastly superior to what was available when the FBI did its administrative about face. Back then, we worried whether the jacket from the hollow point was going to separate from the lead in the bullet once it hit the target. Now days, hollow points open more consitently and shed their jackets a lot less frequently. A rounds effectiveness can now more or less be tailored to a specific velocity. In the case of the 10mm, a late opening, high retained mass hollowpoint will give the cartridge considerably improved terminal ballistics over anything tested in the original FBI trials.

[glock20c10mm]

Did you understand the Phds analysis that having more foot pounds of energy leads to more neurogenic shock (which leads to higher rate of incapacitation)?

The poster probably assumed that folks could do the math themselves.

I can help you with the math. I'll grab a couple of loads out of my very conservative Hornady manual (both are one step down from maximum).

A .40 S&W 155 grain bullet going 1150 fps produces 455 foot pounds of energy.
A .10mm 155 grain bullet going 1400 fps produces 674 foot pounds of energy.
That's nearly 1/3 more energy = more neurogenic shock.

Whether you, the shooter, can put the round on target is up to you.

btw, a 9mm +P 115 grain bullet travelling 1250 fps produces 399 foot pounds of energy, so the .40 S&W is much closer to the 9mm in performance than it is to the 10mm.
Well said.:thumbsup:

And to add to the above is where it was pointed out in the paper; "...loads that can produce over 1000 PSI in the chest tend to be more effective." , not to mention explaining the correlation(s) from other scientific studies.

And it was explained how to calculate peak ballistic pressure wave p = (5*E)/(pi*d). Not to mention how fragmentation of a bullet adds to psi of peak ballistic pressure wave, along with that a bullet is suggested to reach a penetration depth of 9.5" or more for any given psi level to have the desireable possible effects of incapacitation in less than 10 seconds.


Examples of psi levels from specific loads:

Speer 38 Special 135gr +P Gold Dot = 361psi

Speer 9mm 147gr Gold Dot = 401psi

Federal 9mm 124gr HST = 501psi

Federal 9mm 124gr +P HST = 605psi

Winchester 9mm 127gr +P+ = 691psi

Double Tap 9mm 115gr +P Gold Dot = 813psi

Double Tap 357SIG 115gr Gold Dot = 955psi

Double Tap 9X25 Dillon 125gr Gold Dot = 1051psi

Winchester 40S&W 180gr Bonded = 402psi

Winchester 40S&W 180gr T-series = 524psi

Federal 40S&W 165gr HST = 637psi

Double Tap 40S&W 155gr Gold Dot = 825psi

Winchester 45Auto 230gr Bonded = 506psi

Federal 45Auto 230gr +P HST = 603psi

Remington 45Auto 185gr Golden Saber = 716psi

Double Tap 45Auto 185gr Gold Dot = 923psi

Double Tap 10mm 200gr XTP = 680psi

Double Tap 10mm 180gr Golden Saber = 844psi

Double Tap 10mm 165gr Golden Saber = 964psi

Double Tap 10mm 155gr Gold Dot = 1326psi

Double Tap 10mm 135gr Nosler JHP = 2131psi (not a misprint and based on 60% fragmetation)

Note that all the above examples do reach at least 12" penetration depth in clothed gel per FBI protocol.

Hope that gives some perspective for those wondering.


Good Shooting,
Craig:phew:

[glock20c10mm]

When you get into discussing modern trends, I believe that one other factor is very relevant. Modern hollow points are vastly superior to what was available when the FBI did its administrative about face. Back then, we worried whether the jacket from the hollow point was going to separate from the lead in the bullet once it hit the target. Now days, hollow points open more consitently and shed their jackets a lot less frequently. A rounds effectiveness can now more or less be tailored to a specific velocity. In the case of the 10mm, a late opening, high retained mass hollowpoint will give the cartridge considerably improved terminal ballistics over anything tested in the original FBI trials.
I agree that modern JHP is overall better than most old school JHP.

BUT, as long as a load penetrates far enough every time, in conjunction with that, I'll take all the framention and jacket loss possible. Jacket loss and fragmentation are only a bad thing when the bullet doesn't penetrate deep enough. Beyond that, if you are the shooter, they are your friend.

[MinervaDoe]

I agree that modern JHP is overall better than most old school JHP.

BUT, as long as a load penetrates far enough every time, in conjunction with that, I'll take all the framention and jacket loss possible. Jacket loss and fragmentation are only a bad thing when the bullet doesn't penetrate deep enough. Beyond that, if you are the shooter, they are your friend.
It's funny that all of the modern police criteria require a high retained mass, even though the 125 grain .357 Magnum (which all other rounds are compared to) did fragment.

It's almost as though they were not paying attention to the relevent facts.

[SDGlock23]

I can help you with the math. I'll grab a couple of loads out of my very conservative Hornady manual (both are one step down from maximum).

A .40 S&W 155 grain bullet going 1150 fps produces 455 foot pounds of energy.
A .10mm 155 grain bullet going 1400 fps produces 674 foot pounds of energy.
That's nearly 1/3 more energy = more neurogenic shock.

Whether you, the shooter, can put the round on target is up to you.

btw, a 9mm +P 115 grain bullet travelling 1250 fps produces 399 foot pounds of energy, so the .40 S&W is much closer to the 9mm in performance than it is to the 10mm.

Let me say I love the 10mm, fantastic cartridge. I also love to shoot .40, and ultimately shoot more .40 than 10mm. But the only reason I'm even quoting the above is that while these may have come out of a load manual, it's not really a true comparison of either one's power (I do understand the author said these were conservative). 1400 fps for a 155gr 10mm is warm yes, but not "hot". But I can take my Glock 23 and get near 1400fps using a 155gr JHP (VV 3n38 for those wondering does fantastic using both the 155gr and 165gr in .40).

I've gotten over 1500 fps with a 155gr out of my G20 before yes, but interestingly, using 800x I've gotten that out of a 6" .40 SW too...and the brass looked better! Not arguing at all, but I do disagree that the .40 is closer to the 9mm than 10mm, clearly the .40 is closer to the 10mm than the 9mm, since with "hot" loads in either, there's only a 150 to 200fps difference using the same wt. bullet.

Now if the 9mm was getting close to warm .40's using the same wt bullet (like the .40 does with the 10mm), then perhaps there would be some truth in the statement made that the .40 is closer to the 9mm, but that's not the case. When you compare "energy", yes a typical .40 is close to some 9's, but we all know it's not just about "energy".

[glock20c10mm]

I do disagree that the .40 is closer to the 9mm than 10mm
Even in factory ammo? Or are you limiting that statement to handloads/reloads?

[glock20c10mm]

It's funny that all of the modern police criteria require a high retained mass, even though the 125 grain .357 Magnum (which all other rounds are compared to) did fragment.

It's almost as though they were not paying attention to the relevent facts.
:agree:

[Glolt20-91]

Well said.:thumbsup:

And to add to the above is where it was pointed out in the paper; "...loads that can produce over 1000 PSI in the chest tend to be more effective." , not to mention explaining the correlation(s) from other scientific studies.

And it was explained how to calculate peak ballistic pressure wave p = (5*E)/(pi*d). Not to mention how fragmentation of a bullet adds to psi of peak ballistic pressure wave, along with that a bullet is suggested to reach a penetration depth of 9.5" or more for any given psi level to have the desireable possible effects of incapacitation in less than 10 seconds.


Examples of psi levels from specific loads:

Speer 38 Special 135gr +P Gold Dot = 361psi

Speer 9mm 147gr Gold Dot = 401psi

Federal 9mm 124gr HST = 501psi

Federal 9mm 124gr +P HST = 605psi

Winchester 9mm 127gr +P+ = 691psi

Double Tap 9mm 115gr +P Gold Dot = 813psi

Double Tap 357SIG 115gr Gold Dot = 955psi

Double Tap 9X25 Dillon 125gr Gold Dot = 1051psi

Winchester 40S&W 180gr Bonded = 402psi

Winchester 40S&W 180gr T-series = 524psi

Federal 40S&W 165gr HST = 637psi

Double Tap 40S&W 155gr Gold Dot = 825psi

Winchester 45Auto 230gr Bonded = 506psi

Federal 45Auto 230gr +P HST = 603psi

Remington 45Auto 185gr Golden Saber = 716psi

Double Tap 45Auto 185gr Gold Dot = 923psi

Double Tap 10mm 200gr XTP = 680psi

Double Tap 10mm 180gr Golden Saber = 844psi

Double Tap 10mm 165gr Golden Saber = 964psi

Double Tap 10mm 155gr Gold Dot = 1326psi

Double Tap 10mm 135gr Nosler JHP = 2131psi (not a misprint and based on 60% fragmetation)

Note that all the above examples do reach at least 12" penetration depth in clothed gel per FBI protocol.

Hope that gives some perspective for those wondering.


Good Shooting,
Craig:phew:

Sorry Craig, but there's no way to predict incapacitation times on a motivated felon using your equation.

Bob :cowboy:

[glock20c10mm]

Sorry Craig, but there's no way to predict incapacitation times on a motivated felon using your equation.

Bob :cowboy:
I don't recall saying there was?

[Glolt20-91]

It's funny that all of the modern police criteria require a high retained mass, even though the 125 grain .357 Magnum (which all other rounds are compared to) did fragment.

It's almost as though they were not paying attention to the relevent facts.

The reputation of the .357mag was gained by its use of 158gr lead, and by the late 60s, jacketed hollow point bullets. Most of the departments in the state I worked in felt that the 125gr JHPs were not as effective as the 158gr JHPs.

Apparently Paco Kelly agreed;

While a law enforcement officer with over 30 years, and 23 years of that, just in the drug control and homicide areas...I had the opportunity to see at extremely close hand the results of way over a dozen shootings involving the 357...and had agency records on hundreds more. There is no argument for me as to the 357s ability as a defense caliber with the right ammunition. One of my ancillary duties at one time, was as the Chief Firearms Officer for DEA for the Southern District of Arizona. But I was privy to all shootings occurring everywhere, in the Department of Justice agencies, for more than a decade. At the time a number of those agencies were required to carry the 357. So there were lots of that caliber involved in shootings. The general pubic has no idea as to the number of shootings in the enforcement arenas that go on each year. In fact the anti gunners love to add in the police shootings to the number of humans killed each year by handguns. Very tacky on their part. As most police agencies learned, the 357 is an exceptionally pragmatic and efficient weapon for enforcement purposes when loaded with the right ammo. Those in my agencies that carried the 357 had to carry as a minimum 158/160grain magnum plus P loads.

Bob :cowboy:

[glock20c10mm]

The reputation of the .357mag was gained by its use of 158gr lead, and by the late 60s, jacketed hollow point bullets. Most of the departments in the state I worked in felt that the 125gr JHPs were not as effective as the 158gr JHPs.

Apparently Paco Kelly agreed;



Bob :cowboy:
Could you please highlight in one way or another where Paco even hinted toward; "Most of the departments in the state I worked in felt that the 125gr JHPs were not as effective as the 158gr JHPs."

Either I'm blind, or...I don't know what.:shocked:

[MinervaDoe]

Let me say I love the 10mm, fantastic cartridge. I also love to shoot .40, and ultimately shoot more .40 than 10mm. But the only reason I'm even quoting the above is that while these may have come out of a load manual, it's not really a true comparison of either one's power (I do understand the author said these were conservative). 1400 fps for a 155gr 10mm is warm yes, but not "hot". But I can take my Glock 23 and get near 1400fps using a 155gr JHP (VV 3n38 for those wondering does fantastic using both the 155gr and 165gr in .40).

I've gotten over 1500 fps with a 155gr out of my G20 before yes, but interestingly, using 800x I've gotten that out of a 6" .40 SW too...and the brass looked better! Not arguing at all, but I do disagree that the .40 is closer to the 9mm than 10mm, clearly the .40 is closer to the 10mm than the 9mm, since with "hot" loads in either, there's only a 150 to 200fps difference using the same wt. bullet.

Now if the 9mm was getting close to warm .40's using the same wt bullet (like the .40 does with the 10mm), then perhaps there would be some truth in the statement made that the .40 is closer to the 9mm, but that's not the case. When you compare "energy", yes a typical .40 is close to some 9's, but we all know it's not just about "energy".
I always use a conservative baseline and I always get a response like this. You have to ask yourself, do I always make the same mistake, or am I baiting you. :supergrin:

If I take 13 seconds to thumb through The Complete Relaoding Manual for the 10mm and .40 S&W, I find these loads
with a 10mm using 800-X and a 155 grain bullet going 1475 fps = roughly 799 ft lbs
the fastest 150 grain .40 S&W that I find in this manual goes 1285 fps = roughly 530 foot pounds
Still roughly 1/3 less energy

meanwhile, I dust off my old Speer #11 manual and I find a 115 grain 9mm load using HS6 which goes 1315 fps = about 450 foot pounds

Yup, the .40 S&W is still closer to the 9mm than it is to the 10mm

[Glolt20-91]

Could you please highlight in one way or another where Paco even hinted toward; "Most of the departments in the state I worked in felt that the 125gr JHPs were not as effective as the 158gr JHPs."

Either I'm blind, or...I don't know what.:shocked:

Read the last sentence of his quote.

Bob :cowboy:

[Glolt20-91]

I always use a conservative baseline and I always get a response like this. You have to ask yourself, do I always make the same mistake, or am I baiting you. :supergrin:

If I take 13 seconds to thumb through The Complete Relaoding Manual for the 10mm and .40 S&W, I find these loads
with a 10mm using 800-X and a 155 grain bullet going 1475 fps = roughly 799 ft lbs
the fastest 150 grain .40 S&W that I find in this manual goes 1285 fps = roughly 530 foot pounds
Still roughly 1/3 less energy

meanwhile, I dust off my old Speer #11 manual and I find a 115 grain 9mm load using HS6 which goes 1315 fps = about 450 foot pounds

Yup, the .40 S&W is still closer to the 9mm than it is to the 10mm

And how well does the 155gr JHP penetrate at 1475fps, or does it simply blow up?

Bob :cowboy:

[bmoore]

Getting back on topic, glad you got the gun. I am a recent new owner of a Glock 20SF. Love the 10 mike mike!

[glock20c10mm]

Read the last sentence of his quote.

Bob :cowboy:
That doesn't tell us why they used 158gr-160gr loads over a 125gr load, nor does it appear Paco had any choice in the decision.

Maybe at the time they needed a bullet with that high of sectional density to penetrate donkeys or something the same way we relate to shooting through car doors and windshields. I don't know.

Also interestingly enough, not only does it not say what commercial load was used, it doesn't say if the bullets were jacketed or not, let alone if they were FMJ or JHP IF they were jacketed.

Not to mention the fact that it doesn't appear in the modern day and age ANYONE recommends a 158gr-160gr bullet in 357 Magnum, let alone at +P levels for SD outside of woods carry.

IMO, you're really stretching for what Paco may or may not have thought. Like REALLY stretching!

[glock20c10mm]

But I can take my Glock 23 and get near 1400fps using a 155gr JHP (VV 3n38 for those wondering does fantastic using both the 155gr and 165gr in .40).
Is that over or at or under 35,000psi?

If "at" or "under", how do you know?

I've seen some pretty crazy loads worked up with 9mm and no blow out or kaboom. Doesn't mean it's a realistic load, or even available without rolling your own.

[MinervaDoe]

And how well does the 155gr JHP penetrate at 1475fps, or does it simply blow up?

Bob :cowboy:

I don't think the retained mass matters much at 1475 fps. With 799 foot pounds of energy, anything it hits is going to look like hamburger. Remember, the 125 grain .357 had something like a 96% first shot stopping capability and it fragmented.

Here is a thread showing the retained mass of a 155 grain XTP going 1360 fps.
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1241500

No actual signs of it blowing up. Do you think another 100 fps is going to matter much (aside from creating a bigger the hydrostatic wound)? :dunno:

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k220/jeffreybehr/Glock%2020SF/XTP155s21360both_1000w.jpg

[Glolt20-91]

That doesn't tell us why they used 158gr-160gr loads over a 125gr load, nor does it appear Paco had any choice in the decision.

Maybe at the time they needed a bullet with that high of sectional density to penetrate donkeys or something the same way we relate to shooting through car doors and windshields. I don't know.

Also interestingly enough, not only does it not say what commercial load was used, it doesn't say if the bullets were jacketed or not, let alone if they were FMJ or JHP IF they were jacketed.

Not to mention the fact that it doesn't appear in the modern day and age ANYONE recommends a 158gr-160gr bullet in 357 Magnum, let alone at +P levels for SD outside of woods carry.

IMO, you're really stretching for what Paco may or may not have thought. Like REALLY stretching!

Lots of conjecture on your part Craig combined with an unsubstantiated, incorrect personal opinion. :wavey:



Bob :cowboy:

[Glolt20-91]

I don't recall saying there was?

Then I'm not sure why you posted those psi numbers. The psi numbers you calculated are insufficient to cause JHP deformation.

Bob :cowboy:

[Glolt20-91]

The 10mm is one of my favorite calibers to carry while working at my place whether on the ground or on the tractor. I load 180gr JHPs (Nosler, Golden Saber, Gold Dot and XTPs in the mid 1200s for best performance. High 1200s and up typically brings about bullet failure.

A bonded Winchester factory .40 S&W 180gr PDX bullet after penetrating a dried out range cow bone, captured in water;

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/40180PDXcowbonefailure009.jpg

A handloaded 10mm, Speer bonded 180gr Gold Dot at 1267fps after penetrating two 1.5mm steel barriers and a large range cow bone;

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/10mm180GD1267fpssteelbone0_582004.jpg

An old tech factory .45auto, 230gr Winchester USA JHP, retained bullet integrity penetrating a large range cow bone;

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/45auto230grWinJHPbone0460.jpg

This 10mm 180gr Gold Dot came apart at 1296fps, recovered bullet weight was 118.7 grains, only 65.9% of its original weight;

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/10mm180GDfrag003.jpg

Bob :cowboy:

[firemedic1343]

Wow, Bob, awesome pics as usual. Have you ever done any testing with the hardcast 220 grain Buffalo or hardcast 230 Grain Double Tap? If you haven't tested them, how do you think they'd perform?

The 10mm is one of my favorite calibers to carry while working at my place whether on the ground or on the tractor. I load 180gr JHPs (Nosler, Golden Saber, Gold Dot and XTPs in the mid 1200s for best performance. High 1200s and up typically brings about bullet failure.

A bonded Winchester factory .40 S&W 180gr PDX bullet after penetrating a dried out range cow bone, captured in water;
Bob :cowboy:

[AZ Husker]

Swampfox has some impressive figures with their 175gr Silver Tip. Supposed to hold together very well. Any opinions there?

[Glolt20-91]

Wow, Bob, awesome pics as usual. Have you ever done any testing with the hardcast 220 grain Buffalo or hardcast 230 Grain Double Tap? If you haven't tested them, how do you think they'd perform?

Thank you, these bullet tests have been informative with some surprises.

I have a box of DT's 200gr WFNs and 230gr WFNs to do load development with. Both the G20 and G20SF have Lone Wolfe barrels, so the 230gr WFNs will stablize okay. I also have a 6" KKM barrel that's just begging to launch these slugs. :supergrin:

Bob :cowboy:

[Glolt20-91]

Swampfox has some impressive figures with their 175gr Silver Tip. Supposed to hold together very well. Any opinions there?

I have tested the 175gr ST through a 6" KKM barrel, 10.1grs of IMR 800X IIRC ballparked ~1389fps, did well on a 1.5mm hard steel barrier.

Here's the 800X flash signature;

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/10mm175grSilvertip10gr800X6.jpg

It exhibits very aggressive expansion and it will frag a bit.

Bob :cowboy:

[firemedic1343]

Thank you, these bullet tests have been informative with some surprises.

I have a box of DT's 200gr WFNs and 230gr WFNs to do load development with. Both the G20 and G20SF have Lone Wolfe barrels, so the 230gr WFNs will stablize okay. I also have a 6" KKM barrel that's just begging to launch these slugs. :supergrin:

Bob :cowboy:

Oh no! :crying: I haven't bought my G20 yet, now I have to factor in the cost of a Lone Wolf barrel! I want the 230 grain from Double Tap for hiking. I just wonder if I could get by with the stock barrel...

...but now that you mentioned it, I checked the Lone Wolf site and that 6.02" barrel looks mighty tempting :supergrin::supergrin::supergrin:

[M&P Shooter]

There is no evidence that the 10mm is a better man stopper than the .40 S&W.

:whistling:
Shoot a bear with 1 of each and see which one gets you eaten real quick!

[glock20c10mm]

Lots of conjecture on your part Craig combined with an unsubstantiated, incorrect personal opinion. :wavey:

Bob :cowboy:
Yes, I was conjecturable as there wasn't sufficient evidence for proof to your claim.

Obviously we know where you stand, and we know where I stand, and neither of us is going to budge, so the rest can decide for themselves.


Good Shooting,
Craig:wavey:

[glock20c10mm]

Then I'm not sure why you posted those psi numbers. The psi numbers you calculated are insufficient to cause JHP deformation.

Bob :cowboy:
Good, just wanted to clear that up.:thumbsup:

As for the psi numbers:
Examples of psi levels from specific loads:

Speer 38 Special 135gr +P Gold Dot = 361psi

Speer 9mm 147gr Gold Dot = 401psi

Federal 9mm 124gr HST = 501psi

Federal 9mm 124gr +P HST = 605psi

Winchester 9mm 127gr +P+ = 691psi

Double Tap 9mm 115gr +P Gold Dot = 813psi

Double Tap 357SIG 115gr Gold Dot = 955psi

Double Tap 9X25 Dillon 125gr Gold Dot = 1051psi

Winchester 40S&W 180gr Bonded = 402psi

Winchester 40S&W 180gr T-series = 524psi

Federal 40S&W 165gr HST = 637psi

Double Tap 40S&W 155gr Gold Dot = 825psi

Winchester 45Auto 230gr Bonded = 506psi

Federal 45Auto 230gr +P HST = 603psi

Remington 45Auto 185gr Golden Saber = 716psi

Double Tap 45Auto 185gr Gold Dot = 923psi

Double Tap 10mm 200gr XTP = 680psi

Double Tap 10mm 180gr Golden Saber = 844psi

Double Tap 10mm 165gr Golden Saber = 964psi

Double Tap 10mm 155gr Gold Dot = 1326psi

Double Tap 10mm 135gr Nosler JHP = 2131psi (not a misprint and based on 60% fragmetation)

Note that all the above examples do reach at least 12" penetration depth in clothed gel per FBI protocol.

Those numbers have no correlation whatsoever to what does or doesn't get a JHP to expand. The pounds per square inch are in direct relation to the ballistic pressure wave.

Ballistic Pressure Wave (BPW) = the force per unit area created by a ballistic impact that could be measured with a high speed pressure tansducer.

Further, in defining how BPW works/exists = The bullet slows down in tissue due to the retarding force the tissue applies to the bullet. In accordance with Newton's third law, the bullet exerts an equal and opposite force on the tissue. The average pressure on the front of a bullet is the retarding force divided by the frontal area of the bullet. The pressure exerted by the medium on the bullet is equal to the pressure exerted by the bullet on the medium. Because the frontal area of a bullet is small, the pressure at the front of the bullet is large. Once created, this pressure front travels outward in all directions in a viscous or viscoelastic medium such as soft tissue or ballistic gelatin. Propagating outward, the wave's decreasing magnatude results from the increasing total area the pressure wave covers.

The above can all be clearly read in the paper "The Ballistic Pressure Wave Theory of Handgun Bullet Incapacitation" found here http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.3053.pdf , as was linked earlier in post #69.

So if you would have read it, you would have clearly seen how the psi levels of BPW and the ballistic impact within a viscous or viscoelastic mediums, that create BPW, are independant of each other.

Yeah, there's indirect correlation, but the psi for BPW is derived FROM the ballistic impact during and to the point the bullet comes to rest, not the other way around.


Good Shooting,
Craig:wavey:

[Glolt20-91]

Yes, I was conjecturable as there wasn't sufficient evidence for proof to your claim.

Obviously we know where you stand, and we know where I stand, and neither of us is going to budge, so the rest can decide for themselves.


Good Shooting,
Craig:wavey:

What do you think the duties of a Chief Firearms Officer are?

As quoted;

One of my ancillary duties at one time, was as the Chief Firearms Officer for DEA for the Southern District of Arizona.

Bob :cowboy:

[glock20c10mm]

What do you think the duties of a Chief Firearms Officer are?

As quoted;



Bob :cowboy:
How does it matter when he himself says "at one time" with clearly suggests past tense? How far past tense? I don't know, do you?

[cowboy1964]

Shoot a bear with 1 of each and see which one gets you eaten real quick!

A bear != a man

[Trvlngnrs]

Oh no! :crying: I haven't bought my G20 yet, now I have to factor in the cost of a Lone Wolf barrel! I want the 230 grain from Double Tap for hiking. I just wonder if I could get by with the stock barrel...

Here is a thread about the keyholing of some ammo:
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1309228

Trvlngnrs

[Glolt20-91]

Good, just wanted to clear that up.:thumbsup:

As for the psi numbers:


Those numbers have no correlation whatsoever to what does or doesn't get a JHP to expand. The pounds per square inch are in direct relation to the ballistic pressure wave.

Ballistic Pressure Wave (BPW) = the force per unit area created by a ballistic impact that could be measured with a high speed pressure tansducer.

Further, in defining how BPW works/exists = The bullet slows down in tissue due to the retarding force the tissue applies to the bullet. In accordance with Newton's third law, the bullet exerts an equal and opposite force on the tissue. The average pressure on the front of a bullet is the retarding force divided by the frontal area of the bullet. The pressure exerted by the medium on the bullet is equal to the pressure exerted by the bullet on the medium. Because the frontal area of a bullet is small, the pressure at the front of the bullet is large. Once created, this pressure front travels outward in all directions in a viscous or viscoelastic medium such as soft tissue or ballistic gelatin. Propagating outward, the wave's decreasing magnatude results from the increasing total area the pressure wave covers.

The above can all be clearly read in the paper "The Ballistic Pressure Wave Theory of Handgun Bullet Incapacitation" found here http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.3053.pdf , as was linked earlier in post #69.

So if you would have read it, you would have clearly seen how the psi levels of BPW and the ballistic impact within a viscous or viscoelastic mediums, that create BPW, are independant of each other.

Yeah, there's indirect correlation, but the psi for BPW is derived FROM the ballistic impact during and to the point the bullet comes to rest, not the other way around.


Good Shooting,
Craig:wavey:

I have read Courtney's articles and studied his work, I've also asked him very direct questions (w/o direct answers) during the time he participated on GT, during his GT participation time he used his given name and a psuedonym.

Having done research myself, in a different discipline than terminal ballistics, I've gone through the redactive process of being published by a university press. I understand the research process from personal experience and I understand how to interpret an author's bibliography.

Reading Courtney's research, and more importantly, keeping an open mind studying the research of other authors who specialize in terminal ballistics; I've come away with a basic understanding of fluid dynamics.

Courtney's research conflicts with the research of others. The article you linked to includes a bibliography of research that was done 10 to 20 years ago, some research more recent and one published reference dates to 1957.

Some of the key parts of Courtney's article include, but not limited to:

Courtney uses an incorrect application of kinetic energy to achieve his BPW premise.

Paladin Press (M & S) is not known as an academic publisher; the methodology of how M & S data was gathered is flawed at best.

Who are the anonymous authors of the Strasbourg goat tests?

In the linked article you provided, Courtney is very critical of Dr. Fackler's research and subsequent BPW dismissal.

One of Dr. Fackler's research articles;

Blunt Trauma Concussion of Spinal Cord as Mechanism of Instantaneous Collapse Produced by Centerfire Rifle Bullet Wounds to the Torso

Why does a felon (or a large game animal) instantly collapse after being shot in the torso with a centerfire rifle bullet when the speed in which this occurs is obviously too quick to have been caused by substantial blood loss?

The reason is most likely due to the diameter of the temporary cavity produced by an expanding centerfire rifle bullet, combined with the location of the temporary cavity within the body. The temporary cavity produced by an expanding .30 caliber rifle bullet ranges between 7-9 inches in diameter, which is about the diameter of a volleyball. Violent displacement of such a large mass of tissue within the thoracic or abdominal cavity can cause the spinal bones to collide forcefully against the spinal cord, disrupting nerve transmissions and causing instantaneous flaccid paralysis, in which the felon (or animal) drops in his tracks like a rock (1). The effect is indistinguishable from a shot that physically severs the spinal cord. Once the felon (or animal) is down, the effects of blood loss take over and a complete loss of consciousness usually occurs in a matter of seconds.

The location of the temporary cavity is an important component of this mechanism, especially with large game animals. A shot that impacts and penetrates low in the chest of an animal may not have the same effect as a shot that hits the middle or upper chest closer to the spinal column. This explains why some animals instantly collapse, and why others might run until blood loss finally brings them down.

The temporary cavity produced by common combat handgun cartridges, even high-velocity loads like MagSafe, is too small to produce this effect. Handgun bullets simply cannot duplicate the wounding effects of centerfire rifle bullets.

For comparison purposes, an expanding .223 Remington bullet produces a temporary cavity that is approximately 5 inches in diameter, and the high-velocity (1700+ fps) MagSafe .45 ACP Defender handgun bullet produces a baseball-sized temporary cavity slightly less than 4 inches in diameter. Although the temporary cavity of the 223 cartridge can produce blunt trauma concussion of the spinal cord, the effect is less reliable because it is highly dependent on shot placement and the location where the temporary cavity is formed in the body. In 1989, an Alexandria, Virginia police officer was killed when a .223 bullet failed to quickly incapacitate a felon who was high on PCP and cocaine, and holding a 12 gauge shotgun to the head of a civilian hostage. According to the police report, the bullet "...struck [the felon's] back in the center of his torso, grazed a vertebrae, severed the aorta, penetrated his right lung and liver, and exited his body in the right abdominal area." As he fell to the ground, he fired a shot from his pump-action 12 gauge shotgun into the face of a nearby SWAT officer killing him. He was able to pump the shotgun’s action and wound a second officer before he was finally stopped (2).

Endnotes
1.Fackler, Martin L., M.D.: "Incapacitation Time." Wound Ballistics Review 4(1), Spring 1999; 4-8.

2.Walts, Earl, Lt.: "Report on the Special Investigation of the March 22, 1989 Incident at 316 Hopkins Court." City of Alexandria, Virginia; April 3, 1989; 12 pages.



There's more, but this will suffice for now. :supergrin:

Bob :cowboy:

[Glolt20-91]

How does it matter when he himself says "at one time" with clearly suggests past tense? How far past tense? I don't know, do you?

Past tense, after George Washington and before you. :supergrin: Still trying to make the tale way the dog aren't you???

Bob :cowboy:

[CanyonMan]

Here is a thread about the keyholing of some ammo:
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1309228

Trvlngnrs


The stock barrel has served me very well for maybe 14 years of shooting Hard Cast bullets "out of Glocks", Of my own hand loading. Yes, I do have AM barrels and do use the LW stock length barrel only because it helps keep the hog belly out of my brass. It does not really add much to accuracy IMO.

Keyholing can be caused by several things. Bad bullet design, a bullet that does not seal well at all in the barrel, and a bullet that just does not work well with "some" types of rifling, et et.

I have shot tons of HC bullets through the OEM G20/G29, and through the AM barrel as well. I have to admit, I have not messed around much with the 230gr (as in DT) offering. I will be using/testing it soon with BD and AA#9.

I do not think that the stock barrel will stabilize this heavy bullet like the rifling in the AM barrels will, so far as i can see now. (again, I need more time and more powder experimenting and load/grain changes.

But I do not think (speculation here) I will get a stable flight, and especially at longer ranges with the 230gr 10mm HC in the stock barrel. I believe it will stabilize in the AM barrels, but I'll be honest with you, I am not even a big fan of this load as I can do what I need to with the 200gr. HC.

Understand I am a die hard heavy for caliber guy in all my hand guns. Hog legs or semi's. No doubt this is a hammer the 230gr. But 1,000fps to 1050fps 'maybe" I think is all I can milk out of it, and that is plenty actually.

But I think this way; For what the 10mm is, a 200gr HC bullet of 21 bhn and good quality like from BT bullets running 1150/1250//1300fps will do what it needs to: as in, take care of yotes, attacking dogs, cougars, deer hunting, varmint hunting and the like, and a two legged varmint as well. ;)

If it is big bear your concerned with, then let me humbly say from 25 years as a former guide) carry a 44mag or 45 LC or larger, depending on the location and size of bears you fear you may encounter.

Bottom line. I see no real need in this case, of the 10mm for this 230gr bullet at 1025/1050fps. There is no need at all for it on deer or varmints, or even cougars, and as I suggested, it is not a caliber for bruin country. I have seen a good deal, (hunting and guiding and game wise) and I know folks have taken bear and elk with the 10mm. I know of those who have. But this can be accomplished with the 200gr at the vels we mentioned above and a good HC bullet.

NOTE *** I do not advocate hunting anything larger than deer with the 10mm. Just because it may kill a bear or elk, that does NOT qualify this service round for this type hunting. IMO it is best left to deer and antelope size game, and SD on human attackers.

If you have ever been charge by a really big bruin, you would think differently (who ever you are out there) :wow:

The 230gr HC has hit the internet with big bad bears in mind for the most part. Again, think about it. It is not needed on smaller game up to deer size. So it is really advocating the use of the 10mm for very large bears.... No thanks !

For Big boar, and big bruins, and elk and moose, I highly reccomend a 44mag minimum and up from there.


I'll play with the 230gr and try and see what is what and report back when i can. i do not have a great deal of time on my hands at present, but Bob ask me about it as well over on the furniture penetration thread, so I need to mess around with it and see what it can and cannot do. I just think it is a over rated way to cause folks to believe it is a 10mm big bear killer. No thanks.

For now, if you want to shoot them, I would without hesitaion reccomend the AM barrel for sure amigo..

HTH's



CM

[glock20c10mm]

Past tense, after George Washington and before you. :supergrin: Still trying to make the tale way the dog aren't you???

Bob :cowboy:
I stand firm. Like I mentioned earlier, the rest can decide for themselves.

Craig:noevil:

[glock20c10mm]

I have read Courtney's articles and studied his work, I've also asked him very direct questions (w/o direct answers) during the time he participated on GT, during his GT participation time he used his given name and a psuedonym.
Maybe he had a good reason. I don't know and don't see how it matters as the work done speaks for itself and is backed up by lots of other research. There has not been any research done to the contrary.

Having done research myself, in a different discipline than terminal ballistics, I've gone through the redactive process of being published by a university press. I understand the research process from personal experience and I understand how to interpret an author's bibliography.
How does that change the outcome of work done by numerous scientists with studies that correlate directly to Dr. Courtney's studies?

Reading Courtney's research, and more importantly, keeping an open mind studying the research of other authors who specialize in terminal ballistics; I've come away with a basic understanding of fluid dynamics.

Courtney's research conflicts with the research of others.
Yet nobody has proof showing Dr. Courtney's work to be false and a waste of time. Hmmmm.

The article you linked to includes a bibliography of research that was done 10 to 20 years ago, some research more recent and one published reference dates to 1957.
In this instance it doesn't matter how long ago the other correlating research was done, as the force per unit area created by a ballistic impact that could be measured with a high speed pressure transducer is the same now as it was whenever the high speed pressure transducer was invented.

A ballistic impact was a ballistic impact the same then as it is now, in this case produced by bullets. Doesn't matter if the bullet was a LRN in 38 Colt back in 1880, or if it was any HST bullet from any cartridge current day. As long as the high speed pressure transducer was around, it's measured the same now as then.

Some of the key parts of Courtney's article include, but not limited to:

Courtney uses an incorrect application of kinetic energy to achieve his BPW premise.
Evidence?

Paladin Press (M & S) is not known as an academic publisher; the methodology of how M & S data was gathered is flawed at best.

Who are the anonymous authors of the Strasbourg goat tests?
Dr. Courtney's work, along with all corresponding work done before it does not require the use of the Strasbourg goat tests data, if it existed or not, for the findings found, which were found on a factual basis. I don't know who the authors were, nor do I really care.

What I actually find interesting is how Dr. Fackler criticized the Strasbourg goat tests in concordance with SUPPOSEDLY six "experts". Yet not only were they not named:couch:, we know nothing of the background of the "six", let alone what they were experts in. So to Dr. Fackler it was a big deal to shoot down the Strasbourg goat tests, which very much went against Dr. Fackler's own theories, and the story goes he claims to have visited with six other experts who remain completely anonymous, and we're supposed to assume 100% honesty was involved? Hmmm.

And on top of all that, whoever did the Strasbourg goat tests actually came up with results that correlate perfectly with Dr. Courntey's work, along with all the other work done before Dr. Courtney even thought about adding to it. Wow! Now that's where I find more interest than duobt in the Strasbourg goat tests!

For anyone to pull off the Strasbourg goat tests, if they weren't real, and have it correlate perfectly with scientific study before and after they existed, to me, would be about like winning PowerBall.

As for M&S, whatever. Their data was what it was, doesn't disprove Dr. Courtney's work if you throw it all out, and does just happen to correlate perfectly with Dr. Courtney's own findings. If Dr. Courtney wants to use it fine. If you and/or I do or don't click with it, fine. Doesn't matter either way.

In the linked article you provided, Courtney is very critical of Dr. Fackler's research and subsequent BPW dismissal.
And clearly for good reason. Like you claim, you read the paper yourself. Assuming you did, and I do suppose you probably did, what critique did you come across that didn't stand up to your criterion, suggesting some form of deceit or distortion of truth? Looked pretty open and honest to me.:whistling:

One of Dr. Fackler's research articles;

Blunt Trauma Concussion of Spinal Cord as Mechanism of Instantaneous Collapse Produced by Centerfire Rifle Bullet Wounds to the Torso
Why does a felon (or a large game animal) instantly collapse after being shot in the torso with a centerfire rifle bullet when the speed in which this occurs is obviously too quick to have been caused by substantial blood loss?

The reason is most likely due to the diameter of the temporary cavity produced by an expanding centerfire rifle bullet, combined with the location of the temporary cavity within the body. The temporary cavity produced by an expanding .30 caliber rifle bullet ranges between 7-9 inches in diameter, which is about the diameter of a volleyball. Violent displacement of such a large mass of tissue within the thoracic or abdominal cavity can cause the spinal bones to collide forcefully against the spinal cord, disrupting nerve transmissions and causing instantaneous flaccid paralysis, in which the felon (or animal) drops in his tracks like a rock (1). The effect is indistinguishable from a shot that physically severs the spinal cord. Once the felon (or animal) is down, the effects of blood loss take over and a complete loss of consciousness usually occurs in a matter of seconds.

The location of the temporary cavity is an important component of this mechanism, especially with large game animals. A shot that impacts and penetrates low in the chest of an animal may not have the same effect as a shot that hits the middle or upper chest closer to the spinal column. This explains why some animals instantly collapse, and why others might run until blood loss finally brings them down.

The temporary cavity produced by common combat handgun cartridges, even high-velocity loads like MagSafe, is too small to produce this effect. Handgun bullets simply cannot duplicate the wounding effects of centerfire rifle bullets.

For comparison purposes, an expanding .223 Remington bullet produces a temporary cavity that is approximately 5 inches in diameter, and the high-velocity (1700+ fps) MagSafe .45 ACP Defender handgun bullet produces a baseball-sized temporary cavity slightly less than 4 inches in diameter. Although the temporary cavity of the 223 cartridge can produce blunt trauma concussion of the spinal cord, the effect is less reliable because it is highly dependent on shot placement and the location where the temporary cavity is formed in the body. In 1989, an Alexandria, Virginia police officer was killed when a .223 bullet failed to quickly incapacitate a felon who was high on PCP and cocaine, and holding a 12 gauge shotgun to the head of a civilian hostage. According to the police report, the bullet "...struck [the felon's] back in the center of his torso, grazed a vertebrae, severed the aorta, penetrated his right lung and liver, and exited his body in the right abdominal area." As he fell to the ground, he fired a shot from his pump-action 12 gauge shotgun into the face of a nearby SWAT officer killing him. He was able to pump the shotgun’s action and wound a second officer before he was finally stopped (2).

Endnotes
1.Fackler, Martin L., M.D.: "Incapacitation Time." Wound Ballistics Review 4(1), Spring 1999; 4-8.

2.Walts, Earl, Lt.: "Report on the Special Investigation of the March 22, 1989 Incident at 316 Hopkins Court." City of Alexandria, Virginia; April 3, 1989; 12 pages.
So first some 30 caliber rifle load is brought up (no idea what one), then a quick thought on handgun bullets is brought up (no idea what one(s) or from what cartridge(s)), and then a freak incident based on a .223 Remington bullet (no idea which one) that failed to quickly incapacitate a felon who was high on PCP and cocaine is brought up. Oh yeah, and God forbid I forget to mention the MagSafe .45 ACP Defender handgun bullet at +1700fps.

Alrighty then....so while Dr. Fackler is trying to sell his own theory by comparing rifle loads (no idea which specific ones) to handgun loads (overall I guess) amongst mentioning a 45Auto load that even Dr. Courtney would highly recommend AGAINST, even throwing in a doped up BG who didn't instantly submit to a .223 Remington rifle load (no idea which specific one), I'm now supposed to take away exactly what from that?!?

Not to mentiont the fact that Dr. Fackler himself, IN PRINT, said; "Bullets from a .223 will do the job reliably only when the bullet is placed with surgical precision - as it can be from a 24 inch heavy barrel on a bolt action scoped rifle."............."everything must be done exactly right for the little varmint round to give acceptable results on the human target."

Note on the same page of literature Dr. Fackler himself, IN PRINT, in reguard to which would incapacitate quicker between a .223 Federal Tactical round and a 45Auto 230gr Winchester SXT or Remington Golden Saber, said; "I would expect the time to incapacitation to be shortest for the .45 ACP,.....and longest for the nonfragmenting .223."

And just a little further down the page Dr. Fackler himself, IN PRINT, said; "In the .223 cartridge, I have great difficulty identifiying the most effective bullet. Every choice is a compromise."

The above quotes I've posted from Dr. Fackler can be found in the Journal of the International Wound Ballistics Association, Wound Ballistics Review, Vol 4, NO. 1, pages 6 and 7.

There's more, but this will suffice for now.:supergrin:

There's more, but this will suffice for now. :supergrin:
I can't wait.:upeyes:


Bob :cowboy:
Good Shooting,
Craig

[MinervaDoe]

Dr. Fackler is trying to sell his own theory
Isn't Fackler the one who discredited Marshall and Sanow offhand. Since he could not replicate their data and they kept their sources confidential, he declared their data must be falsified.
The more I read about Fackler, the more skeptical I become of him.

[Glolt20-91]

Isn't Fackler the one who discredited Marshall and Sanow offhand. Since he could not replicate their data and they kept their sources confidential, he declared their data must be falsified.
The more I read about Fackler, the more skeptical I become of him.

I'd be skeptical of anyone who had the brains to formulate ballistic gel that simulates soft tissue penetration. I'm sure there's a conspiracy theory regarding Courtney, Marshall and Sanow in there someplace. :upeyes:

Bob :cowboy:

[481]

I'd be skeptical of anyone who had the brains to formulate ballistic gel that simulates soft tissue penetration. I'm sure there's a conspiracy theory regarding Courtney, Marshall and Sanow in there someplace. :upeyes:

Bob :cowboy:

heh heh heh... that's funny right there. :)

[MinervaDoe]

I don't believe that he should have discredited their work just becasue he did not have the contacts to informally gather data as they have.

As for his formulas and ballistics gel, please wait right here. We are currently polishing a pedestal for him.


Don't move.


We'll be right back.

Would you like a footnote or a pedestal of your own for quoting his work ad nauseam?

[DocKWL]

I don't believe that he should have discredited their work just becasue he did not have the contacts to informally gather data as they have.

As for his formulas and ballistics gel, please wait right here. We are currently polishing a pedestal for him.


Don't move.


We'll be right back.

Would you like a footnote or a pedestal of your own for quoting his work ad nauseam?

It was, in part, to Dr. Fackler's tireless devotion to his craft which enabled you to load your weapon with the effective ammunition you have. It is presumptuous of you to assume he did not have the contacts to verify their study. Comments such as yours are glaring evidence that you know nothing of Dr. Fackler or his work to even mention his name in passing. You should be a little more thankful instead of just another run of the mill GT bully.

[MinervaDoe]

It was, in part, to Dr. Fackler's tireless devotion to his craft which enabled you to load your weapon with the effective ammunition you have. It is presumptuous of you to assume he did not have the contacts to verify their study. Comments such as yours are glaring evidence that you know nothing of Dr. Fackler or his work to even mention his name in passing. You should be a little more thankful instead of just another run of the mill GT bully.


Dr. Martin L. Fackler, MD, Too Good To Be True
"]





When Marshall's "One-Shot Stop" statistics appeared in Petersen's Handguns in November 1988, I noted that his data appeared to be "too good to be true." In response to inquiries, I analyzed these data and concluded that they must have been fabricated. My analysis included:

Marshall claimed to have obtained his data from eyewitness descriptions and police reports. I have queried many knowledgeable law enforcement investigators: they all agreed that my estimate of 70% accuracy for these sources was extremely generous.
But, he did not replicate their data by talking to the same sources that Marshall did.


http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs24.htm






I think that, regardless of the flaws in their statistical analysis, Marshall and Sanow 's basic approach is far more realistic: examine what actually happened when real bullets hit real people. Police shooting statistics provide a data base that is far more valuable than all the ballistic gelatin ever mixed. It represents real world results as opposed to theory.

The other study that impressed me was the Strasbourg goat shoot. Unlike the Marshall and Sanow study it did not involve actual human beings. However, living, bleeding animals the same size and with the same lung capacity as humans were shot under carefully controlled (and instrumented!) conditions. The results of that grizzly series of tests tended to verify the results of Marshall and Sanow, not the theoretical work of Martin Fackler and the FBI.


An example: the FBI's analysis of their famous shoot out in Miami was so flawed that they blamed the 9x19 and .38 Special cartridges and ultimately concluded that they needed a 10mm pistol. On what basis? There were no 10mm pistols involved, and the agent who ended the gunfight by killing the final perp did so with a .38 Special revolver.
His crucial contribution was that he aimed his .38, concentrating on the front sight while he squeezed off the round that ended the fight. His testimony afterward makes that very clear. The other agents were in "pray and spray" mode. They could have been praying and spraying with 10mm pistols and it would have made no difference: you can't miss fast enough to win a gunfight. The obvious conclusion should have been that the .38 Special revolver will win gunfights if it is aimed properly and high capacity autoloaders will not win gunfights if they are not aimed properly.
The best way to have solved the problem for future gun fights would be to have drastically raised the standards of FBI marksmanship training. But the FBI brass did not want to acknowledge the flaws in their training program, and many agents would have been unable to qualify if the standards were raised to gunfight winning levels, so they took it out on the equipment the agents used to miss the perps.
Tests in ballistic gelatin were very useful in helping the FBI reach their desired conclusion. A perfect example of impeccable scientific methodology totally divorced from reality.



The bottom line from my perspective would be that if you want to know the penetration depth and permanent crush cavity created by a given bullet in 10% ballistic gelatin, read Fackler. (If I ever feel threatened by a block of gelatin, I will become a serious student of Dr. Fackler's research results.) If you want to know what bullets have actually done to real, living people (and animals of similar size under controlled conditions), read Marshall & Sanow and the results from Strasbourg. In any case, though, I don't think that Guns and Shooting Online has the resources to make a meaningful scientific contribution to this debate
http://www.chuckhawks.com/fackler_marshall_stopping_power.htm


[/FONT]

[MinervaDoe]

As has been said before on this thread; we are on different sides of this argument. We'll never agree.

What started out as a thread discussing 10mm characteristics quickly degenerated into another caliber war.

It gets pretty boring and emotional very quickly.

[Glolt20-91]

But, he did not replicate their data by talking to the same sources that Marshall did.


http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs24.htm










http://www.chuckhawks.com/fackler_marshall_stopping_power.htm




Chuck Hawks as a reference??? :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Now I can see why you take the 'assume the position' stance.

Bob :cowboy:

[Glolt20-91]

It was, in part, to Dr. Fackler's tireless devotion to his craft which enabled you to load your weapon with the effective ammunition you have. It is presumptuous of you to assume he did not have the contacts to verify their study. Comments such as yours are glaring evidence that you know nothing of Dr. Fackler or his work to even mention his name in passing. You should be a little more thankful instead of just another run of the mill GT bully.

+1

A little misinformation can go a looooooooooooooooooooong way,
glock20c10mm

Those numbers have no correlation whatsoever to what does or doesn't get a JHP to expand. The pounds per square inch are in direct relation to the ballistic pressure wave.

Ballistic Pressure Wave (BPW) = the force per unit area created by a ballistic impact that could be measured with a high speed pressure tansducer.

Further, in defining how BPW works/exists = The bullet slows down in tissue due to the retarding force the tissue applies to the bullet. In accordance with Newton's third law, the bullet exerts an equal and opposite force on the tissue. The average pressure on the front of a bullet is the retarding force divided by the frontal area of the bullet. The pressure exerted by the medium on the bullet is equal to the pressure exerted by the bullet on the medium. Because the frontal area of a bullet is small, the pressure at the front of the bullet is large. Once created, this pressure front travels outward in all directions in a viscous or viscoelastic medium such as soft tissue or ballistic gelatin. Propagating outward, the wave's decreasing magnatude results from the increasing total area the pressure wave covers.

The above can all be clearly read in the paper "The Ballistic Pressure Wave Theory of Handgun Bullet Incapacitation" found here http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.3053.pdf , as was linked earlier in post #69.

So if you would have read it, you would have clearly seen how the psi levels of BPW and the ballistic impact within a viscous or viscoelastic mediums, that create BPW, are independant of each other.

Yeah, there's indirect correlation, but the psi for BPW is derived FROM the ballistic impact during and to the point the bullet comes to rest, not the other way around.


Good Shooting,
Craig



As calculated by Craig, ammunition that rates high on the BPW chart;

Double Tap 10mm 135gr Nosler JHP = 2131psi (not a misprint and based on 60% fragmetation)


The actual physics; (10-3 should read 10 with an exponent of -3)

Anyone who has knowledge of physics knows also that the pressure produced upon impact between a bullet and the target media produces pressure at impact, pressure that can be quantified by the expression:

P = ρ V² where ρ = gelatin density which is ~1.03 grams/cm3 and V equals the bullet's impact velocity

Converting "ρ" to English units yields a density of 6.430079939 x 10-3 pounds for an equivalent volume of soft tissue or ordnance gelatin

so that pressure can then be expressed as being = 6.430079939 x 10-3 (V²) (in tissue or calibrated ordnance gelatin)

Stagnation pressure is a function of velocity. That pressure is the pressure exerted on the bullet that not only drives expansion (once it exceeds the ultimate yield strength of the bullet material) but is also the pressure that is exerted against the media (soft tissue, water, ordnance gelatin, etc.) as the bullet traverses the media and is the pressure present as BPW that Courtney cannot even properly calculate.

For a velocity of 100 fps, 6.430079939 x 10-3 x 100² = 64.3008 psi
For a velocity of 900 fps, 6.430079939 x 10-3 x 900² = 5,208.3647 psi
For a velocity of 1,100 fps, 6.430079939 x 10-3 x 1100² = 7,780.3967 psi
For a velocity of 1,400 fps, 6.430079939 x 10-3 x 1400² = 12,602.9566 psi
For a velocity of 2,700 fps, 6.430079939 x 10-3 x 2700² = 46,875.2828 psi

It is that simple!

BPW is simply stagnation pressure.

As a "frame of reference", dead soft refined lead has a UTS (ultimate tensile yield strength) of about 1,740-1,890 psi, harder antimonial (4%) lead has a UTS of about 4,350 psi.

Exceed these values and these alloys will deform at the respective velocities of 542.154 fps (soft refined lead) and 822.501 fps. (4% antimonial lead)



It would appear that Courtney's BPW numbers are inadequate to deform not only lead bullets, but jacketed bullets also.

Thank you for your post, Fackler's research is supported empirically, vis `a vis MacPherson.

Bob :cowboy:

[firemedic1343]

Awesome post CanyonMan. I really do appreciate your reply.

I saw someone on YouTube pontificating recently. He was saying that you could "HUNT", anything up to Black Bear with the 10mm. :wow: I'm comfortable with a 10mm in most of the lower 48, but to actually hunt a bear with a 10mm... :rofl:

I do think though that there are non bear scenarios, they may be rare, but a 230 may be useful(i.e. shooting through brush to hit a dangerous animal that's charging you).




If it is big bear your concerned with, then let me humbly say from 25 years as a former guide) carry a 44mag or 45 LC or larger, depending on the location and size of bears you fear you may encounter.

The 230gr HC has hit the internet with big bad bears in mind for the most part. Again, think about it. It is not needed on smaller game up to deer size. So it is really advocating the use of the 10mm for very large bears.... No thanks !
CM

[firemedic1343]

Bottom line. I see no real need in this case, of the 10mm for this 230gr bullet at 1025/1050fps. There is no need at all for it on deer or varmints, or even cougars, and as I suggested, it is not a caliber for bruin country. I have seen a good deal, (hunting and guiding and game wise) and I know folks have taken bear and elk with the 10mm. I know of those who have. But this can be accomplished with the 200gr at the vels we mentioned above and a good HC bullet.

CM

Based on your recommendation, if I go 230 grain Double Tap, I will get an aftermarket barrel.

But what about Buffalo Bore? I can't find anything lighter than 220 grain hardcast!

I'd rather carry the 10 grain lighter Buffalo Bore than Double Tap and I really believe that it will be stable based on their rep and this from the Buffalo Bore website:

Please note below, my personal velocities taken from real pistols.
1. 1140 fps - Glock model 20 4.6 inch barrel
2. 1175 fps - Colt Delta Elite 5 inch barrel
3. 1201 fps - Para Ordinance 1911 with Nowlin 5 inch barrel
Item 21C is designed for all 10mm pistols that are in ordinary working condition.

[AZ Husker]

Swampfox has a great 175gr Silvertip load.
http://www.swampfoxgunworks.com/swampfox/product.php?productid=17678&cat=344&page=1

[Glolt20-91]

Swampfox has a great 175gr Silvertip load.
http://www.swampfoxgunworks.com/swampfox/product.php?productid=17678&cat=344&page=1

Thanks for the heads-up.

I don't know how Swampfox is getting these .357mag numbers from a 5" barrel, misprint on the primers??? :dunno:

SwampFox Premium - Max Velocity Ammo
1 each 50 round box
357 Magnum
125gr Speer Gold Dot Bullets
New Starline Brass or Top Brass
Winchester or Remington large Pistol Primers
Hodgdon and/or Winchester Powder, Hand Weighed
1900fps 1000 ft/lbs energy@ Muzzle. From a S&W 5 inch barrel.



Bob :cowboy:

[cole]

Thinking about picking up a 20, but am torn between the price of ammo and the info that i read about over penetration... Any opinions on the g20? this would not be a cc, more of night stand gun/ outdoors piece... lets hear your thoughts

For a semi-auto service caliber:
Performance = Best
Recoil = Worst
Ammo cost = Worst

I'll stick with .45acp when I want something more than 9mm. IMO the 10mm serves no practical purpose. Clearly, the 10mm will faithful disagree.

[firemedic1343]

I like your post cole. It seems like you are trying to be fair. I do personally disagree on a couple of things though.

"Performance = Best".

Agreed for obvious reasons.

"Recoil = Worst".

Only if you use the most potent round. However, the versatility of the 10mm allows you to put in weaker 10mm ammo down in the 40's range if that's what you really desire. You always have room to grow with the 10mm. Recoil is certainly not a reason to be afraid of the 10mm.

"Ammo cost = Worst."

I agree if you can only buy local. But if you reload there's virtually no price differences. If you don't reload you can buy online. Georgia Arms Canned Heat even the playing field to about equal. And for high end carry ammo, Buffalo Bore price variance is not significant.

If you know your options and have time to look around a little, you can own the 10mm - the best and most versatile semi-auto cartridge.


I'll stick with .45acp when I want something more than 9mm. IMO the 10mm serves no practical purpose. Clearly, the 10mm will faithful disagree.

I do disagree. While hiking, as your backup weapon or if you really don't want to carry a shotgun or rifle. Which Glock would be the most appropriate for most smaller than a Grizzly self defense scenarios? Or even as a service pistol, what if you are in an area where brush or objects need to be penetrated? An area where there may be larger animals that wander into the city or if your jurisdiction includes woods?

Indeed, you say there is no practical purpose in buying a 10mm. I honestly have been seeking a practical purpose to using any other caliber. If ammo becomes scarce someday, you can just buy a conversion barrel and have a nicer than factory .40

[glock20c10mm]

+1 A little misinformation can go a looooooooooooooooooooong way,
You are proving it right now. I'll explain.
As calculated by Craig, ammunition that rates high on the BPW chart; Double Tap 10mm 135gr Nosler JHP = 2131psi (not a misprint and based on 60% fragmetation)
Correct assuming 60% fragmentation. Thank you.
The actual physics; (10-3 should read 10 with an exponent of -3)
No, that is incorrect for Dr. Courtney's work on BPW. I'll explain.
It would appear that Courtney's BPW numbers are inadequate to deform not only lead bullets, but jacketed bullets also.

Anyone who has knowledge of physics knows also that the pressure produced upon impact between a bullet and the target media produces pressure at impact, pressure that can be quantified by the expression:

P = ρ V² where ρ = gelatin density which is ~1.03 grams/cm3 and V equals the bullet's impact velocity

Converting "ρ" to English units yields a density of 6.430079939 x 10-3 pounds for an equivalent volume of soft tissue or ordnance gelatin

so that pressure can then be expressed as being = 6.430079939 x 10-3 (V²) (in tissue or calibrated ordnance gelatin)

Stagnation pressure is a function of velocity. That pressure is the pressure exerted on the bullet that not only drives expansion (once it exceeds the ultimate yield strength of the bullet material) but is also the pressure that is exerted against the media (soft tissue, water, ordnance gelatin, etc.) as the bullet traverses the media and is the pressure present as BPW that Courtney cannot even properly calculate.

For a velocity of 100 fps, 6.430079939 x 10-3 x 100² = 64.3008 psi
For a velocity of 900 fps, 6.430079939 x 10-3 x 900² = 5,208.3647 psi
For a velocity of 1,100 fps, 6.430079939 x 10-3 x 1100² = 7,780.3967 psi
For a velocity of 1,400 fps, 6.430079939 x 10-3 x 1400² = 12,602.9566 psi
For a velocity of 2,700 fps, 6.430079939 x 10-3 x 2700² = 46,875.2828 psi

It is that simple!

BPW is simply stagnation pressure.
As a "frame of reference", dead soft refined lead has a UTS (ultimate tensile yield strength) of about 1,740-1,890 psi, harder antimonial (4%) lead has a UTS of about 4,350 psi.

Exceed these values and these alloys will deform at the respective velocities of 542.154 fps (soft refined lead) and 822.501 fps. (4% antimonial lead)
Simple common sense tells us that the above is so far from the truth in reguard to BPW as presented by Dr. Courtney that it may as well be considered foolish at best.

Why? Well lets see...Can anyone in class tell us what stagnation pressure is? Let me help you out...Stagnation pressure is the static pressure (in fluid dynamics it's the pressure at a nominated point in a fluid) at a stagnation point (in fluid dynamics it's a point in a flow field where the local velocity of the fluid is zero) in a fluid flow.

Ok class, now that you've learned that, can anyone in class tell me how one would measure stagnation pressure with a high speed pressure transducer? If you said it's not possible, you'ld be correct!!!

Note that to measure stagnation pressure would require a pitot tube which consists of a tube pointing directly into the fluid flow. As this tube contains fluid, a pressure can be measured; the moving fluid is brought to rest (stagnates) as there is no outlet to allow flow to continue.

Stagnation pressure and ballistic pressure wave (as DEFINED by Dr. Courtney) are two very different things with no direct correlation to each other.

Bob, I don't believe Mr. MacPherson would approve of you counterfactually using his work that way. Do you?:shame: Also, I find it ammusing you chose not to give credit to the author on what you quoted in reguard to stagnation pressure. I know who it was. Would you like to share that information with the rest of the class? Or are you afraid people would switch to a different flavor of :drink: ,you'ld prefer not to serve, if you did?

Let me guess...."there's more", and "I can't wait".

Well, bring it on I guess. It's pretty easy to see why you can't grasp Dr. Courtney's work.:upeyes: Maybe try loosening your blinders a little.
Thank you for your post, Fackler's research is supported empirically, vis `a vis MacPherson.
:faint: Nice try Bob.
Bob :cowboy:
Good Shooting,
Craig:wavey:

[Glolt20-91]

You are proving it right now. I'll explain.

Correct assuming 60% fragmentation. Thank you.

No, that is incorrect for Dr. Courtney's work on BPW. I'll explain.

Simple common sense tells us that the above is so far from the truth in reguard to BPW as presented by Dr. Courtney that it may as well be considered foolish at best.

Why? Well lets see...Can anyone in class tell us what stagnation pressure is? Let me help you out...Stagnation pressure is the static pressure (in fluid dynamics it's the pressure at a nominated point in a fluid) at a stagnation point (in fluid dynamics it's a point in a flow field where the local velocity of the fluid is zero) in a fluid flow.

Ok class, now that you've learned that, can anyone in class tell me how one would measure stagnation pressure with a high speed pressure transducer? If you said it's not possible, you'ld be correct!!!

Note that to measure stagnation pressure would require a pitot tube which consists of a tube pointing directly into the fluid flow. As this tube contains fluid, a pressure can be measured; the moving fluid is brought to rest (stagnates) as there is no outlet to allow flow to continue.

Stagnation pressure and ballistic pressure wave (as DEFINED by Dr. Courtney) are two very different things with no direct correlation to each other.

Bob, I don't believe Mr. MacPherson would approve of you counterfactually using his work that way. Do you?:shame: Also, I find it ammusing you chose not to give credit to the author on what you quoted in reguard to stagnation pressure. I know who it was. Would you like to share that information with the rest of the class? Or are you afraid people would switch to a different flavor of, you'ld prefer not to serve, if you did?

Let me guess...."there's more", and "I can't wait".

Well, bring it on I guess. It's pretty easy to see why you can't grasp Dr. Courtney's work. Maybe try loosening your blinders a little.

Nice try Bob.

Good Shooting,
Craig

It's obvious you are unable to grasp some very simple concepts, we're talking about fluid dynamics! I'll continue to use MacPherson's WTI research and its interpretations as previously posted! Unlike Courtney, MacPherson's testing and research methodology is based upon models in which he fired over 400 rounds of ammunition and used over a ton of ballistic gel, empirically validating Fackler's ballistic gel research. Anyone with basic skills can model and replicate his research. I believe an aerospace engineer who was able to establish new guidance trajectory techniques and equations, that guided astronauts into orbit, might just know a tad about fluid dynamics. :thumbsup:

Craig, you are 'offering up' Courtney's "work", dubious "physics" and all, as "proof" that he is arguing from a scientific perspective even though we know that he is not. Courtney has predicated his mathematical model upon an energy relationship, a relationship that is very difficult to objectively prove at best, and impossible to prove at worst. The stumbling point for Courtney's theory (besides claiming pressure values that cannot sustain the forces necessary to make even pure dead soft lead yield and deform), is that it is based upon an "energy" quantification, not one based upon the dynamic forces generated by a projectile's passage through tissue/ordnance gelatin etc.

In fact, MacPherson sums up the problem with Courtney's faulty model (perhaps without knowing it?) on page 15 of his WTI book (2006 edition, second printing) when he states, "The reason that kinetic energy and damage are not always correlated is that dynamic damage is not due to energy absorption but to stress (force per area). In many cases, absorption of larger kinetic energy causes larger forces and more damage, but this connection is by no means assured because many other factors come into play."


What this amounts to is an indictment of Courtney's expertise by pointing out the obvious fact that his model employs not only an incorrectly predicated mathematical argument, but that it is also far too simplistic in its approach to a very complex issue. This insufficiency is not recognized by the 'lay' reader because they lack the technical education and experience to make that distinction, therefore you have people standing up for what "sounds" like valid physical principles when in fact, Courtney's predicate and model is a far cry from that.

There is a reason (and the above material is that reason) that Courtney has yet to be published in a peer reviewed periodical or journal. The scientific community (not brain-addled armchair 'experts' like yourself) recognizes theoretical "trash" when it sees it. He was "laughed out" of several forums (M4carbine, another forum in the late 1990s that banned him because of his bambi shooting methodology et al, come to mind) for just this reason.

Depending upon bullet construction and velocity, the 10mm remains a top tier personal defense choice for home/trail use that can be empirically quantified by a dynamic momentum model.

Until you educate yourself regarding dynamic wound trauma incapacitation models, I see no reason to respond to your caustic posts; find someone else to disparage. :wavey:


Bob :cowboy:

[481]

It's obvious you are unable to grasp some very simple concepts, we're talking about fluid dynamics! I'll continue to use MacPherson's WTI research and its interpretations as previously posted! Unlike Courtney, MacPherson's testing and research methodology is based upon models in which he fired over 400 rounds of ammunition and used over a ton of ballistic gel, empirically validating Fackler's ballistic gel research. Anyone with basic skills can model and replicate his research. I believe an aerospace engineer who was able to establish new guidance trajectory techniques and equations, that guided astronauts into orbit, might just know a tad about fluid dynamics. :thumbsup:

Craig, you are 'offering up' Courtney's "work", dubious "physics" and all, as "proof" that he is arguing from a scientific perspective even though we know that he is not. Courtney has predicated his mathematical model upon an energy relationship, a relationship that is very difficult to objectively prove at best, and impossible to prove at worst. The stumbling point for Courtney's theory (besides claiming pressure values that cannot sustain the forces necessary to make even pure dead soft lead yield and deform), is that it is based upon an "energy" quantification, not one based upon the dynamic forces generated by a projectile's passage through tissue/ordnance gelatin etc.

In fact, MacPherson sums up the problem with Courtney's faulty model (perhaps without knowing it?) on page 15 of his WTI book (2006 edition, second printing) when he states, "The reason that kinetic energy and damage are not always correlated is that dynamic damage is not due to energy absorption but to stress (force per area). In many cases, absorption of larger kinetic energy causes larger forces and more damage, but this connection is by no means assured because many other factors come into play."


What this amounts to is an indictment of Courtney's expertise by pointing out the obvious fact that his model employs not only an incorrectly predicated mathematical argument, but that it is also far too simplistic in its approach to a very complex issue. This insufficiency is not recognized by the 'lay' reader because they lack the technical education and experience to make that distinction, therefore you have people standing up for what "sounds" like valid physical principles when in fact, Courtney's predicate and model is a far cry from that.

There is a reason (and the above material is that reason) that Courtney has yet to be published in a peer reviewed periodical or journal. The scientific community (not brain-addled armchair 'experts' like yourself) recognizes theoretical "trash" when it sees it. He was "laughed out" of several forums (M4carbine, another forum in the late 1990s that banned him because of his bambi shooting methodology et al, come to mind) for just this reason.

Depending upon bullet construction and velocity, the 10mm remains a top tier personal defense choice for home/trail use that can be empirically quantified by a dynamic momentum model.

Until you educate yourself regarding dynamic wound trauma incapacitation models, I see no reason to respond to your caustic posts; find someone else to disparage. :wavey:


Bob :cowboy:


Well put.

A concise, logically "air-tight" argument if ever there was one.

:)

[DocKWL]

From Dr. Roberts:

"...I was a member of the Joint Service Wound Ballistic Integrated Product Team, the U.S. government study that gathered numerous experts from a variety of disciplines, including military and law enforcement end-users, trauma surgeons, aero ballisticians, weapon and munitions engineers, and other scientific specialists to conduct a 4 year, 6 million dollar study to determine what terminal performance assessment best reflected the actual findings noted in OCONUS combat the past few years. Courtney's "hydrostatic shock" was NOT found to be a valid or relevant factor. Likewise, I work at a large Level I trauma center and get to treat people who are shot in the face and jaws--guess what, NO remote CNS or other "hydrostatic shock" effects of the type Courtney espouses have occurred in ANY of these patients.

Currently I am qualified on .45 ACP 1911 and 9 mm Glock; if I ever go back to LE Patrol duties, I'll likely carry a .40 S&W M&P. I don't really care that much about which one I am issued, as ALL the handgun service calibers work similarly.

During the early to mid 1980’s, like many people, I was duped by articles singing the praises of the .357 Mag 125 gr JHP. I carried a 4” 686 and a customized 3” M13 loaded with Fed 125 gr JHP. However, after going on active military duty and being in a position to test ammunition at the Letterman Army Institute of Research with Dr. Fackler, it became obvious that the .357 Magnum 125 gr JHP’s tended to have relatively shallow penetration, frequently fragmented with resultant decrease in permanent crush cavity, and had temporary cavities of insufficient size to contribute significantly to wounding. In addition, these loads had a large muzzle flash and blast, as well as a relatively harsh recoil which inhibited accuracy and re-engagement speed. As the FBI established a science based ammunition testing program, their research data also showed less than stellar performance from the lightweight .357 Mag loadings, including the 125 gr JHP’s. For those individuals who doubt evidence based research and prefer “street results”, the CHP, the largest agency to issue .357 Mag 125 gr JHP’s on the West Coast, clearly reports significantly better results in their officer involved shootings since switching to .40 S&W 180 gr JHP loadings, based on officer perception, objective crime scene measurements, as well as the physiological damage described in the relevant autopsy studies. 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 from 1989-90, 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. I first saw the data when it was presented during a wound ballistic conference I attended at the CHP Academy in the early 1990's; I heard it discussed again at a CHP Officer Involved Shootings Investigation Team meeting in November of 1997 at Vallejo, CA. The information reviewed the differences in ammunition terminal performance such as penetration depth, recovered bullet characteristics, tissue damage and other physiological measurements and physical evidence detailed during forensic analysis..."

"...JSWB-IPT was initiated in 2002 and concluded in 2006. I should note that the joint USMC-FBI ammunition study of 2006 also found the same results. Oh...and the CTTSO/TSWG MURG program of 2007-2008 also made the same conclusions. Please think through this--the JSWB-IPT, FBI BRF, AFTE, and other organizations get to assess an extensive amount of post-shooting forensic data; the whole raison d'être of these independent, non-profit organizations is to interpret and disseminate information that will help LE and military personnel more safely and effectively perform their duties and missions. Why would they discount or ignore a potentially important incapacitation mechanism if there was any validity to it? I challenge you to read through all of the papers cited in Courtney's work and then make you own conclusions--everyone I know who has done just that has walked away utterly unconvinced of their merit."

Dr. Roberts is currently on staff at Stanford University Medical Center; this is a large teaching hospital and Level I Trauma center were he performs hospital dentistry and surgery. After completing his residency at Navy Hospital Oakland in 1989 while on active military duty, he studied at the Army Wound Ballistic Research Laboratory at the Letterman Army Institute of Research and became one of the first members of the International Wound Ballistic Association. Since then, he has been tasked with performing military, law enforcement, and privately funded independent wound ballistic testing and analysis. He remains a Navy Reserve officer and has recently served on the Joint Service Wound Ballistic IPT, as well as being a consultant to the Joint FBI-USMC munitions testing program and the TSWG MURG program. He is frequently asked to provide wound ballistic technical assistance to numerous U.S. and allied SOF units and organizations. In addition, he is a technical advisor to the Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners, as well as to a variety of Federal, State, and municipal law enforcement agencies. He has been a sworn Reserve Police Officer in the San Francisco Bay Area, where he now he serves in an LE training role.

Dr. Roberts is far more than a dentist. If you dipute this, please cite your qualifications in the field of ballistics preceeding your response.

[dpadams6]

From Dr. Roberts:

"...I was a member of the Joint Service Wound Ballistic Integrated Product Team, the U.S. government study that gathered numerous experts from a variety of disciplines, including military and law enforcement end-users, trauma surgeons, aero ballisticians, weapon and munitions engineers, and other scientific specialists to conduct a 4 year, 6 million dollar study to determine what terminal performance assessment best reflected the actual findings noted in OCONUS combat the past few years. Courtney's "hydrostatic shock" was NOT found to be a valid or relevant factor. Likewise, I work at a large Level I trauma center and get to treat people who are shot in the face and jaws--guess what, NO remote CNS or other "hydrostatic shock" effects of the type Courtney espouses have occurred in ANY of these patients.

Currently I am qualified on .45 ACP 1911 and 9 mm Glock; if I ever go back to LE Patrol duties, I'll likely carry a .40 S&W M&P. I don't really care that much about which one I am issued, as ALL the handgun service calibers work similarly.

During the early to mid 1980’s, like many people, I was duped by articles singing the praises of the .357 Mag 125 gr JHP. I carried a 4” 686 and a customized 3” M13 loaded with Fed 125 gr JHP. However, after going on active military duty and being in a position to test ammunition at the Letterman Army Institute of Research with Dr. Fackler, it became obvious that the .357 Magnum 125 gr JHP’s tended to have relatively shallow penetration, frequently fragmented with resultant decrease in permanent crush cavity, and had temporary cavities of insufficient size to contribute significantly to wounding. In addition, these loads had a large muzzle flash and blast, as well as a relatively harsh recoil which inhibited accuracy and re-engagement speed. As the FBI established a science based ammunition testing program, their research data also showed less than stellar performance from the lightweight .357 Mag loadings, including the 125 gr JHP’s. For those individuals who doubt evidence based research and prefer “street results”, the CHP, the largest agency to issue .357 Mag 125 gr JHP’s on the West Coast, clearly reports significantly better results in their officer involved shootings since switching to .40 S&W 180 gr JHP loadings, based on officer perception, objective crime scene measurements, as well as the physiological damage described in the relevant autopsy studies. 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 from 1989-90, 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. I first saw the data when it was presented during a wound ballistic conference I attended at the CHP Academy in the early 1990's; I heard it discussed again at a CHP Officer Involved Shootings Investigation Team meeting in November of 1997 at Vallejo, CA. The information reviewed the differences in ammunition terminal performance such as penetration depth, recovered bullet characteristics, tissue damage and other physiological measurements and physical evidence detailed during forensic analysis..."

"...JSWB-IPT was initiated in 2002 and concluded in 2006. I should note that the joint USMC-FBI ammunition study of 2006 also found the same results. Oh...and the CTTSO/TSWG MURG program of 2007-2008 also made the same conclusions. Please think through this--the JSWB-IPT, FBI BRF, AFTE, and other organizations get to assess an extensive amount of post-shooting forensic data; the whole raison d'être of these independent, non-profit organizations is to interpret and disseminate information that will help LE and military personnel more safely and effectively perform their duties and missions. Why would they discount or ignore a potentially important incapacitation mechanism if there was any validity to it? I challenge you to read through all of the papers cited in Courtney's work and then make you own conclusions--everyone I know who has done just that has walked away utterly unconvinced of their merit."

Dr. Roberts is currently on staff at Stanford University Medical Center; this is a large teaching hospital and Level I Trauma center were he performs hospital dentistry and surgery. After completing his residency at Navy Hospital Oakland in 1989 while on active military duty, he studied at the Army Wound Ballistic Research Laboratory at the Letterman Army Institute of Research and became one of the first members of the International Wound Ballistic Association. Since then, he has been tasked with performing military, law enforcement, and privately funded independent wound ballistic testing and analysis. He remains a Navy Reserve officer and has recently served on the Joint Service Wound Ballistic IPT, as well as being a consultant to the Joint FBI-USMC munitions testing program and the TSWG MURG program. He is frequently asked to provide wound ballistic technical assistance to numerous U.S. and allied SOF units and organizations. In addition, he is a technical advisor to the Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners, as well as to a variety of Federal, State, and municipal law enforcement agencies. He has been a sworn Reserve Police Officer in the San Francisco Bay Area, where he now he serves in an LE training role.

Dr. Roberts is far more than a dentist. If you dipute this, please cite your qualifications in the field of ballistics preceeding your response.

So what is your opinion on the best calibers/ammo combination for self defense purposes?

[MinervaDoe]

So what is your opinion on the best calibers/ammo combination for self defense purposes?

Currently I am qualified on .45 ACP 1911 and 9 mm Glock; if I ever go back to LE Patrol duties, I'll likely carry a .40 S&W M&P. I don't really care that much about which one I am issued, as ALL the handgun service calibers work similarly.
:whistling:

[Glolt20-91]

From Dr. Roberts:

"...I was a member of the Joint Service Wound Ballistic Integrated Product Team, the U.S. government study that gathered numerous experts from a variety of disciplines, including military and law enforcement end-users, trauma surgeons, aero ballisticians, weapon and munitions engineers, and other scientific specialists to conduct a 4 year, 6 million dollar study to determine what terminal performance assessment best reflected the actual findings noted in OCONUS combat the past few years. Courtney's "hydrostatic shock" was NOT found to be a valid or relevant factor. Likewise, I work at a large Level I trauma center and get to treat people who are shot in the face and jaws--guess what, NO remote CNS or other "hydrostatic shock" effects of the type Courtney espouses have occurred in ANY of these patients.

Currently I am qualified on .45 ACP 1911 and 9 mm Glock; if I ever go back to LE Patrol duties, I'll likely carry a .40 S&W M&P. I don't really care that much about which one I am issued, as ALL the handgun service calibers work similarly.

During the early to mid 1980’s, like many people, I was duped by articles singing the praises of the .357 Mag 125 gr JHP. I carried a 4” 686 and a customized 3” M13 loaded with Fed 125 gr JHP. However, after going on active military duty and being in a position to test ammunition at the Letterman Army Institute of Research with Dr. Fackler, it became obvious that the .357 Magnum 125 gr JHP’s tended to have relatively shallow penetration, frequently fragmented with resultant decrease in permanent crush cavity, and had temporary cavities of insufficient size to contribute significantly to wounding. In addition, these loads had a large muzzle flash and blast, as well as a relatively harsh recoil which inhibited accuracy and re-engagement speed. As the FBI established a science based ammunition testing program, their research data also showed less than stellar performance from the lightweight .357 Mag loadings, including the 125 gr JHP’s. For those individuals who doubt evidence based research and prefer “street results”, the CHP, the largest agency to issue .357 Mag 125 gr JHP’s on the West Coast, clearly reports significantly better results in their officer involved shootings since switching to .40 S&W 180 gr JHP loadings, based on officer perception, objective crime scene measurements, as well as the physiological damage described in the relevant autopsy studies. 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 from 1989-90, 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. I first saw the data when it was presented during a wound ballistic conference I attended at the CHP Academy in the early 1990's; I heard it discussed again at a CHP Officer Involved Shootings Investigation Team meeting in November of 1997 at Vallejo, CA. The information reviewed the differences in ammunition terminal performance such as penetration depth, recovered bullet characteristics, tissue damage and other physiological measurements and physical evidence detailed during forensic analysis..."

"...JSWB-IPT was initiated in 2002 and concluded in 2006. I should note that the joint USMC-FBI ammunition study of 2006 also found the same results. Oh...and the CTTSO/TSWG MURG program of 2007-2008 also made the same conclusions. Please think through this--the JSWB-IPT, FBI BRF, AFTE, and other organizations get to assess an extensive amount of post-shooting forensic data; the whole raison d'être of these independent, non-profit organizations is to interpret and disseminate information that will help LE and military personnel more safely and effectively perform their duties and missions. Why would they discount or ignore a potentially important incapacitation mechanism if there was any validity to it? I challenge you to read through all of the papers cited in Courtney's work and then make you own conclusions--everyone I know who has done just that has walked away utterly unconvinced of their merit."

Dr. Roberts is currently on staff at Stanford University Medical Center; this is a large teaching hospital and Level I Trauma center were he performs hospital dentistry and surgery. After completing his residency at Navy Hospital Oakland in 1989 while on active military duty, he studied at the Army Wound Ballistic Research Laboratory at the Letterman Army Institute of Research and became one of the first members of the International Wound Ballistic Association. Since then, he has been tasked with performing military, law enforcement, and privately funded independent wound ballistic testing and analysis. He remains a Navy Reserve officer and has recently served on the Joint Service Wound Ballistic IPT, as well as being a consultant to the Joint FBI-USMC munitions testing program and the TSWG MURG program. He is frequently asked to provide wound ballistic technical assistance to numerous U.S. and allied SOF units and organizations. In addition, he is a technical advisor to the Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners, as well as to a variety of Federal, State, and municipal law enforcement agencies. He has been a sworn Reserve Police Officer in the San Francisco Bay Area, where he now he serves in an LE training role.

Dr. Roberts is far more than a dentist. If you dipute this, please cite your qualifications in the field of ballistics preceeding your response.

Great post, thank you for taking the time to share this information with the rest of us. :highfive:

I anticipate an upcoming post stating there's a government conspiracy against Courtney's BPW research . . . . :toilet:

Bob :cowboy:

[DocKWL]

So what is your opinion on the best calibers/ammo combination for self defense purposes?

I will simply refer you to THIS (http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887) and THIS (http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=34714).

[DocKWL]

Great post, thank you for taking the time to share this information with the rest of us. :highfive:

I anticipate an upcoming post stating there's a government conspiracy against Courtney's BPW research . . . . :toilet:

Bob :cowboy:

What Dr. Courtney's cronies fail to understand is that there was a time when Dr. Courtney's theory was given serious consideration. The theory was studied and dismissed. Because those who studied the theory do not loiter on GT, then (according to the cronies) it must not have happened and everyone else is wrong. This is simply not the case.

[dpadams6]

I will simply refer you to THIS (http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887) and THIS (http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=34714).

looking at that thread, it sure looks like 357 sig beats all the others

[DocKWL]

looking at that thread, it sure looks like 357 sig beats all the others

Which thread and how did you come to that conclusion?

[dpadams6]

Which thread and how did you come to that conclusion?

the first one, with the gel shots. the 357 sig cavity looks the widest and the deepest into the gel.

BTW: I noticed in your recommended ammo for each caliber, there was no mention of the 9mm hst 124+p. Have you by chance tested that one and your thoughts?

[DocKWL]

the first one, with the gel shots. the 357 sig cavity looks the widest and the deepest into the gel.

BTW: I noticed in your recommended ammo for each caliber, there was no mention of the 9mm hst 124+p. Have you by chance tested that one and your thoughts?

What may seem new to you is actually antiquated. I will again refer you to Dr. Roberts, a man who has forgotten more about this stuff than we will ever pretend to know:

"No respected wound ballistic researchers dye gel. The photo you depict was a series of tests done by Doug Carr while he was at Federal Cartridge--ammo companies frequently dye their gel, as it makes the wounds tracks look larger, since the dye leaks into the cracks caused by the temp cavity stretch. In the photo above, all of the TSC's, except the slightly smaller 9mm's, are approximately the same size--in this case, ALL are less than the diameter of a baseball and would likely cause minimal wounding effects in most elastic soft tissue."

Ballistic gelatin is not (and was never designed to be) an accurate medium for estimating the temporary cavity.

The 9mm HST 124gr. +P failed FBI protocol testing.

[dpadams6]

What may seem new to you is actually antiquated. I will again refer you to Dr. Roberts, a man who has forgotten more about this stuff than we will ever pretend to know:

"No respected wound ballistic researchers dye gel. The photo you depict was a series of tests done by Doug Carr while he was at Federal Cartridge--ammo companies frequently dye their gel, as it makes the wounds tracks look larger, since the dye leaks into the cracks caused by the temp cavity stretch. In the photo above, all of the TSC's, except the slightly smaller 9mm's, are approximately the same size--in this case, ALL are less than the diameter of a baseball and would likely cause minimal wounding effects in most elastic soft tissue."

Ballistic gelatin is not (and was never designed to be) an accurate medium for estimating the temporary cavity.

The 9mm HST 124gr. +P failed FBI protocol testing.

Do you know what it was about this particular round that failed? It seems like it would be a fantastic round. Everything i have read about the hst, has been positive. It seems that the hst and ranger t, get the most positive reviews out of all.

[CanyonMan]

Awesome post CanyonMan. I really do appreciate your reply.

I saw someone on YouTube pontificating recently. He was saying that you could "HUNT", anything up to Black Bear with the 10mm. :wow: I'm comfortable with a 10mm in most of the lower 48, but to actually hunt a bear with a 10mm... :rofl:

I do think though that there are non bear scenarios, they may be rare, but a 230 may be useful(i.e. shooting through brush to hit a dangerous animal that's charging you).



Thanks Firemedic. Appreciate that. Sorry for being so long getting back, been a real ruff last few days...


Well, as said in my post above, # 136, The 10mm loaded heavy and used correctly will take black bear, BUT, as I also said, I do NOT at all advocate the use of the 10mm for game larger than deer/antelope.

This may upset some folks... Sorry. It is just not the wisest choice. It has been done as I said before, and I got amigo's who have done it. BUT, they did not make a habit out of it ! ;) Just because I may have killed and elk once with a 357 mag HC, that does not at all qualify it to be a good choice, and it has not been used sense. ;)


Again, as I said in that earlier post. There is absolutely NO reason for a 230gr bullet in a 10mm for varmints, deer, antelope, or men, so the advocating of the 230gr is stricktly placed before the public as a "big bruin killer." Again, No thanks.

I would like to refer folks interested back to my original post on this thread So everything will be in context.


Yep amigo, bear , elk, moose, and especially really big bruins are best left to 44mag and up, and heavy cal rifles are best. Again , I refer those interested in what all I said back to post # 136.


You stay safe amigo, and thanks for the kind words.. ;)




CM

[DocKWL]

Do you know what it was about this particular round that failed? It seems like it would be a fantastic round. Everything i have read about the hst, has been positive. It seems that the hst and ranger t, get the most positive reviews out of all.

The 124gr. +P HST is a fine round. The lighter weight 9mm bullets do not do well against windshields. If this is not a concern for you, carry them wtih confidence.

I will once again direct you to one of Dr. Robert's correspondence:

"The general rule of thumb is, light and fast tend to penetrate hard and elastic substances like sheet metal and car tires better, and slow and heavy tend to penetrate soft and cushioning substances such as heavy clothing, wood, tissue, and windshields better. If you want to improve on your ability to penetrate hard and elastic substances, increase your velocity and choose a smaller bullet diameter.....i.e. 9mm, .357sig, 7.62x25, 5.7mm. If you want to improve your ability to penetrate soft and cushioning materials, increase your caliber size and your bullet mass....i.e. .40S&W, 10mm, .45acp, .45gap. You might also notice from the above tests [separate article not included in this document] in regard to penetration in bare gel, mass and sectional density effect penetration more than velocity.....the same applies to actual tissue.

When you take into account realistic scenarios in a gun fight, whether you be a civilian, law enforcement, or military.....the majority of the time heavier and larger calibers will be more useful given the likely barriers you might encounter. Heavier bullets with good sectional density also do better at breaking internal bone structure as light and fast loads use up a lot of their momentum in the initial stages of penetration. The 1994 Canadian study proved this. There is also a measurable advantage to using larger calibers on soft targets as the wounding ability is greater."

[swede1945]

There is a reason (and the above material is that reason) that Courtney has yet to be published in a peer reviewed periodical or journal. The scientific community (not brain-addled armchair 'experts' like yourself) recognizes theoretical "trash" when it sees it. He was "laughed out" of several forums (M4carbine, another forum in the late 1990s that banned him because of his bambi shooting methodology et al, come to mind) for just this reason.


You might double check your facts. Since 2006, the work of Courtney and Courtney in terminal ballistics related to ballistic pressure waves has been published in the following peer reviewed journals: Brain Injury, Injury, NeuroImage, and Neurosurgery. Here's a recent excerpt:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21150479

This paper reviews the history and evidence related to remote wounding effects of ballistic pressure waves imparted to tissue by the impact of a bullet. Such remote effects are often referred to as hydraulic or hydrostatic shock. In spite of considerable published evidence and a long history, some medical professionals continue to regard the ability of a bullet to injure tissue that is not directly crushed or stretched as mythical. Early references to these effects date to the 19 century; however, compelling experimental support and medical findings in human case studies did not become available until the late 20 and early 21 century.
In contrast, how many peer-reviewed publications do the opponents have in the last five years?

[481]

In contrast, how many peer-reviewed publications do the opponents have in the last five years?

Recency is hardly a standard against which to judge research validity or the competence of a researcher.

Perhaps a better question might be, "How many of the opposing researchers (V.J.M. Dimaio, M. Fackler, G. Roberts, CE Peters, Tikka, Liu & Yun, Hwang, M. Albreht, R.L. Eason, Janson & Seeman, R. Berlin, Krauss & Miller, L.M. Sturdivan, J. Jameson, Watkins, E. Wolberg) have been published several times within the discipline and share both a significant and appreciable correlation of the research done by other authorities within the field?" Can Courtney rise to that standard? :dunno:

Or, "How many of the opposing researchers (V.J.M. Dimaio, M.L. Fackler, G. Roberts, C.E. Peters, D. MacPherson, Liu & Yun, Hwang, M. Albreht, R.L. Eason, Janson & Seeman, R. Berlin, Krauss & Miller, L.M. Sturdivan, J. Jameson, Watkins, E. Wolberg) are espousing as "valid" an (improperly founded) energy relationship based theory rebranded as BPW?"...I mean besides Courtney? :dunno:

[Glolt20-91]

You might double check your facts. Since 2006, the work of Courtney and Courtney in terminal ballistics related to ballistic pressure waves has been published in the following peer reviewed journals: Brain Injury, Injury, NeuroImage, and Neurosurgery. Here's a recent excerpt:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21150479

In contrast, how many peer-reviewed publications do the opponents have in the last five years?

:yawn:

Had one law enforcement agency, in the entire world, adopted duty ammunition based upon Courtney's (dubious) research; it certainly would have been mentioned in his "History review" and posted on GT.

From the link you posted, that is a historical review of BPW by the way, is a related topic, also from 2009 . . . no mention of BPW in the following abstract;

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19644779

Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2009;5(3):204-9. Epub 2009 Jul 31.

Ballistics reviews: mechanisms of bullet wound trauma.
Maiden N.

Discipline of Pathology, Level 3 Medical School North Building, The University of Adelaide, Frome Road, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia. Nicholas.Maiden@adelaide.edu.au

Abstract
The location of an entrance wound (bullet placement) and the projectile path are the most important factors in causing significant injury or death following a shooting. The head followed by the torso are the most vulnerable areas, with incapacitation resulting from central nervous system (brain or cord) disruption, or massive organ destruction with hemorrhage. Tissue and organ trauma result from the permanent wound cavity caused by direct destruction by the bullet, and also from radial stretching of surrounding tissues causing a temporary wound cavity. The extent of tissue damage is influenced by the type of bullet, its velocity and mass, as well as the physical characteristics of the tissues. The latter includes resistance to strain, physical dimensions of an organ, and the presence or absence of surrounding anatomical constraints. Bullet shape and construction will also affect tissue damage and bullets which display greater yaw will be associated with increased temporary cavitation. Military bullet designs do not include bullets that will expand or flatten as these cause greater wound trauma and are regulated by convention.

PMID: 19644779 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


Bob :cowboy:

[swede1945]

:yawn:

From the link you posted, that is a historical review of BPW by the way, is a related topic, also from 2009 . . . no mention of BPW in the following abstract;

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19644779

Bob :cowboy:

Your argument from absence citing one abstract from an author in an attempt to claim their opposition is hollow. Along with several other of the authors listed above (including Berlin, Linden, Tikka, Janzon, Seeman, and Liu) Nick Maiden has actually published support for remote injury via ballistic pressure waves:

Historical Overview of Wound Ballistics Research, Nick Maiden, Forensic Sci Med Pathol (2009) 5:85–89


Fackler [10, 13] however, disputed the shock wave theory, claiming there is no physical evidence to support it, although some support for this theory had already been provided by Harvey [20, 21], Kolsky [31], Suneson et. al. [42, 43], and Crucq [5]. Since that time, other authors also suggest there is increasing evidence to support the theory that shock waves from high velocity bullets can cause tissue related damage and damage to the nervous system. This has been shown in various experiments using simulant models [24, 48]. One of the most interesting is a study by Courtney and Courtney [4] who showed a link between traumatic brain injury and pressure waves originating in the thoracic cavity and extremities.Bullet companies also seem to be big believers in these effects, as expressed in the terms "hydraulic shock" and "hydrostatic shock." In their "Hornady Tactical Application Police Ammunition Test Report and Application Guide" they write:


Possibly even more significant is that a study conducted in North Carolina involving shooting large goats in the lungs with high velocity high energy frangible projectiles indicates that the large temporary cavity created by such a projectile can cause a severe blood pressure spike to the animal's brain causing instant incapacitation. In effect it is an artificially induced massive stroke. The test animals had special blood pressure monitoring probes surgically inserted into one of the animal's major neck arteries to the brain well prior to the shooting. When the projectile had a large and violent enough temporary cavity to cause a severe blood pressure spike, the animal was instantly incapacitated. The Hornady TAP rounds have energies and temporary cavity sizes well beyond those shown to cause instant incapacitation in the tests.

[Glolt20-91]

Your argument from absence citing one abstract from an author in an attempt to claim their opposition is hollow. Along with several other of the authors listed above (including Berlin, Linden, Tikka, Janzon, Seeman, and Liu) Nick Maiden has actually published support for remote injury via ballistic pressure waves:

Historical Overview of Wound Ballistics Research, Nick Maiden, Forensic Sci Med Pathol (2009) 5:85–89

Bullet companies also seem to be big believers in these effects, as expressed in the terms "hydraulic shock" and "hydrostatic shock." In their "Hornady Tactical Application Police Ammunition Test Report and Application Guide" they write:

I'm fully aware of the tungsten ammo research, in what caliber and velocity???

This all relates to the 10mm . . . how??? :yawn:

Nice to know you and Courtney are hooking up and posting again.

Bob :cowboy:

[DocKWL]

Your argument from absence citing one abstract from an author in an attempt to claim their opposition is hollow. Along with several other of the authors listed above (including Berlin, Linden, Tikka, Janzon, Seeman, and Liu) Nick Maiden has actually published support for remote injury via ballistic pressure waves:

Historical Overview of Wound Ballistics Research, Nick Maiden, Forensic Sci Med Pathol (2009) 5:85–89

Bullet companies also seem to be big believers in these effects, as expressed in the terms "hydraulic shock" and "hydrostatic shock." In their "Hornady Tactical Application Police Ammunition Test Report and Application Guide" they write:

In reference to your TAP quote, that test involved fragmenting rifle bullets (110gr. .308 caliber to be exact) with a muzzle velocity of over 3000 fps. The effects of these rifle bullets are not in dispute. Dr. Courtney is trying to convince us that the same effects are acheived with handgun velocities - with little effect. The theory is (and always has been) dead in the water. Quoting these rifle tests with your argument is very disingenuous and leaves you suspect in future debate.

[481]

In reference to your TAP quote, that test involved fragmenting rifle bullets (110gr. .308 caliber to be exact) with a muzzle velocity of over 3000 fps. The effects of these rifle bullets are not in dispute. Dr. Courtney is trying to convince us that the same effects are acheived with handgun velocities - with little effect. The theory is (and always has been) dead in the water. Quoting these rifle tests with your argument is very disingenuous and leaves you suspect in future debate.

Doc,

It always amazes me the lengths (especially the intellectual dishonesty that you've point out above) to which some people will go to support a questionable belief. If one must twist a fact in order to make an argument, an examination of that argument's validity is definitely in order.

One cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear. :upeyes:

[cole]

Doc,

It always amazes me the lengths (especially the intellectual dishonesty that you've point out above) to which some people will go to support a questionable belief. If one must twist a fact in order to make an argument, an examination of that argument's validity is definitely in order.

One cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear. :upeyes:

Very true. Basis of all debate is one of two methods:
1) Objective = assume nothing and let fact/data guide the way.
2) Subjective = start with an assumption/bias and make fact/data fit it.

It will always be this way. And, when someone starts at #2, and the facts/data don't fit, they must will often resort to your observations above.

[481]

Very true. Basis of all debate is one of two methods:
1) Objective = assume nothing and let fact/data guide the way.
2) Subjective = start with an assumption/bias and make fact/data fit it.

It will always be this way. And, when someone starts at #2, and the facts/data don't fit, they must will often resort to your observations above.

Thanks.

Yeah, it's basic human nature. Of course, I expected no less an insight from you. :)

[cole]

Thanks.

Yeah, it's basic human nature. Of course, I expected no less an insight from you. :)

I've been guilty of #2 (i.e. assumption) in my time... of which you may recall. :supergrin:

[Glolt20-91]

http://www.btgresearch.org/mwccv_btg.pdf

Bob :cowboy:

[swede1945]

My apologies, I understood the above discussion to suggest the complete disagreement by Roberts, Fackler, MacPherson, and a few others with remote wounding effects ascribed to ballistic pressure waves. I had not realized that no one really doubts the reality of these effects regarding rifle bullets and the only remaining debate is whether remote pressure wave effects can be caused by pistol bullets. If you concur that you really mean to assert that there is universal agreement among wound ballistics experts to the reality of remote ballistic pressure wave effects of rifle bullets, then there is no need to pursue that line of reasoning, and it does make sense to confine the discussion to pistol bullets. Is this your position?


It is also worth noting that in the Courtneys' peer-reviewed paper in Brain Injury, most of the discussion is based on pistol bullets causing remote brain injury, and this is the paper lauded by the historical review in Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology (http://www.springerlink.com/content/1547-769x/). The paper in the peer-reviewed journal, Injury, also discusses several cases of remote wounding due to pistol bullets. Likewise, the analysis of penetrating bullets in the peer-reviewed paper in NeuroImage focuses on distant cerebral effects caused by pistol bullets. Finally, the peer-reviewed paper in Neurosurgery connects the dots by tying predictions of remote brain injury due to pistol bullets from the 2007 Brain Injury paper to documentation of such injuries in human autopsy results.


Documentation of remote pressure wave injuries due to pistol bullets and projectiles with pistol levels of energy transfer has been published by a number of other parties as well. I don't think anyone would claim that pistol bullets can create distant effects of the same severity and frequency of occurrence as service caliber rifle bullets; however, the body of evidence for mild traumatic brain injury and other remote wounding effects of pistol bullets continues to grow.

[481]

I've been guilty of #2 (i.e. assumption) in my time... of which you may recall. :supergrin:

Nooooo. Not you! :shocked:

Yeah, I do actually remember that, now that you mention it, although it had faded from my memory. Your open-mindedness and willingness to re-examine your position makes up for that many times over.

:)

[swede1945]

The assertion was made above that several fine Swedish researchers (B. Janzon, R. Berlin, and T. Seeman) can be classified as opponents to the importance of energy transfer and remote effects of ballistic pressure waves in missile wounding. The fact is that these scientists have all published support:

Berlin R H, Gelin L E, Janzon B, Lewis D H, Rybeck B, Sandegård J, Seeman T (1976): Local Effects of Assault Rifle Bullets in Live Tissues. Acta Chir Scand, Suppl. 459, 1976

Rybeck B, Janzon B (1976): Absorption of missile energy in soft tissue. Acta Chir Scand, 142(1976)201

Berlin R H, Janzon B, Rybeck B, Sandegård J, Seeman T (1977): Local Effects of Assault Rifle Bullets in Live Tissues. II. Further Studies in Live Tissues and Relations to Some Simulant Media. Acta Chir Scand, Suppl. 477, 1977

Berlin, R., B. Janzon, et al. (1977). Local Effects of Assault Rifle Bullets in Live Tissues and Relations to Simulant Media. 3rd International Symposium on Ballistics, Karlsruhe, Federal Republic of Germany.

Berlin R, Janzon B, Rybeck B, Seeman T (1978): Effects of energy absorption in missile wounding. Revue Int des Services de Santé des Armées de Terre, de Mer et de I'Air. 51(1978)No. 12, p. 1025

Berlin, R., B. Janzon, et al. (1980). Effects of Assault Rifle Bullets against Live Targets and Energy Transfer Measurements in Tissue Simulant. 5th International Symposium on Ballistics, Toulouse, France.

Berlin R H, Janzon B, Rybeck B, Schantz B, Seeman T (1982): A proposed standard methodology for estimating the wounding capacity of small calibre projectiles or other missiles. Acta Chir Scand., Suppl. 508:11-28, (FOA report B 20037-D4(M3)) 1982

Janzon B, Seeman T (1985): Muscle devitalization in High-Energy Missile Wounds and its Dependence on Energy Transfer. J Trauma 25(1985) pp 138-144

Janzon B, Schantz B, Seeman T (1988): Scale Effects in Ballistic Wounding. J Trauma 28(1988)1, Supplement pp 29-32

Suneson A, Hansson HA, Seeman T: Pressure Wave Injuries to the Nervous System Caused by High Energy Missile Extremity Impact: Part I. Local and Distant Effects on the Peripheral Nervous System. A Light and Electron Microscopic Study on Pigs. The Journal of Trauma. 30(3):281–294; 1990.

Suneson A, Hansson HA, Seeman T: Pressure Wave Injuries to the Nervous System Caused by High Energy Missile extremity Impact: Part II. Distant Effects on the Central Nervous System. A Light and Electron Microscopic Study on Pigs. The Journal of Trauma. 30(3):295–306; 1990.

Suneson A, Hansson HA, Seeman T: Peripheral High-Energy Missile Hits Cause Pressure Changes and Damage to the Nervous System: Experimental Studies on Pigs. The Journal of Trauma. 27(7):782–789; 1987. Suneson A, Hansson HA, Seeman T: Central and Peripheral Nervous Damage Following High-Energy Missile Wounds in the Thigh. The Journal of Trauma. 28(1 Supplement):S197-S203; January 1988.

I'm sure we could debate the validity and relevance of these published works. However, at a minimum, these citations demonstrate that the scientists who were claimed to be opponents of the importance of energy transfer and distant wounding have actually published considerable support.

[Clay1]

Thinking about picking up a 20, but am torn between the price of ammo and the info that i read about over penetration... Any opinions on the g20? this would not be a cc, more of night stand gun/ outdoors piece... lets hear your thoughts

To the original OP. I see this auto as more of a deer hunting cartridge than a SD gun. Follow up shots / transitions from one target to another just are not as fast.

[Glolt20-91]

The assertion was made above that several fine Swedish researchers (B. Janzon, R. Berlin, and T. Seeman) can be classified as opponents to the importance of energy transfer and remote effects of ballistic pressure waves in missile wounding. The fact is that these scientists have all published support:

Berlin R H, Gelin L E, Janzon B, Lewis D H, Rybeck B, Sandegård J, Seeman T (1976): Local Effects of Assault Rifle Bullets in Live Tissues. Acta Chir Scand, Suppl. 459, 1976

Rybeck B, Janzon B (1976): Absorption of missile energy in soft tissue. Acta Chir Scand, 142(1976)201

Berlin R H, Janzon B, Rybeck B, Sandegård J, Seeman T (1977): Local Effects of Assault Rifle Bullets in Live Tissues. II. Further Studies in Live Tissues and Relations to Some Simulant Media. Acta Chir Scand, Suppl. 477, 1977

Berlin, R., B. Janzon, et al. (1977). Local Effects of Assault Rifle Bullets in Live Tissues and Relations to Simulant Media. 3rd International Symposium on Ballistics, Karlsruhe, Federal Republic of Germany.

Berlin R, Janzon B, Rybeck B, Seeman T (1978): Effects of energy absorption in missile wounding. Revue Int des Services de Santé des Armées de Terre, de Mer et de I'Air. 51(1978)No. 12, p. 1025

Berlin, R., B. Janzon, et al. (1980). Effects of Assault Rifle Bullets against Live Targets and Energy Transfer Measurements in Tissue Simulant. 5th International Symposium on Ballistics, Toulouse, France.

Berlin R H, Janzon B, Rybeck B, Schantz B, Seeman T (1982): A proposed standard methodology for estimating the wounding capacity of small calibre projectiles or other missiles. Acta Chir Scand., Suppl. 508:11-28, (FOA report B 20037-D4(M3)) 1982

Janzon B, Seeman T (1985): Muscle devitalization in High-Energy Missile Wounds and its Dependence on Energy Transfer. J Trauma 25(1985) pp 138-144

Janzon B, Schantz B, Seeman T (1988): Scale Effects in Ballistic Wounding. J Trauma 28(1988)1, Supplement pp 29-32

Suneson A, Hansson HA, Seeman T: Pressure Wave Injuries to the Nervous System Caused by High Energy Missile Extremity Impact: Part I. Local and Distant Effects on the Peripheral Nervous System. A Light and Electron Microscopic Study on Pigs. The Journal of Trauma. 30(3):281–294; 1990.

Suneson A, Hansson HA, Seeman T: Pressure Wave Injuries to the Nervous System Caused by High Energy Missile extremity Impact: Part II. Distant Effects on the Central Nervous System. A Light and Electron Microscopic Study on Pigs. The Journal of Trauma. 30(3):295–306; 1990.

Suneson A, Hansson HA, Seeman T: Peripheral High-Energy Missile Hits Cause Pressure Changes and Damage to the Nervous System: Experimental Studies on Pigs. The Journal of Trauma. 27(7):782–789; 1987. Suneson A, Hansson HA, Seeman T: Central and Peripheral Nervous Damage Following High-Energy Missile Wounds in the Thigh. The Journal of Trauma. 28(1 Supplement):S197-S203; January 1988.

I'm sure we could debate the validity and relevance of these published works. However, at a minimum, these citations demonstrate that the scientists who were claimed to be opponents of the importance of energy transfer and distant wounding have actually published considerable support.

:yawn:

Of note Dr. Courtney, the articles you cited were published between the years of 1976 to 1990 . . . . 21 to 35 years ago!

Given the BPW formulas previously posted on this thread, the Double Tap 10mm/135gr Nosler ammo ("frag nasty") is cited as having a remarkable BPW incapacitation capability.

If that's the case, then a 50 grain jacketed SPT fired from a .220 Swift (over 4000fps and ~1800 ft/lbs of energy) should be a premier SD combination based upon BPW. However, we know this is simply not true.

From MacPherson 2006, published 16 years after your last published source;

"The .220 Swift was the first 4,000+ ft/sec factory cartridge, developed over fifty years ago. This round exhibited the extreme expansion that has been recognized in such high velocity loads ever since that time. These bullets seem to have an almost explosive effect; in actuality, the effect is merely production of a very large diameter temporary cavity. The temporary cavity produced by this bullet is larger than small (varmint sized) animals, and so is well beyond any elastic limit of their tissue; this produces the well known effect of the small animal literally being torn apart. These same bullets were originally (and unwisely) used on larger game with unsatisfactory (but now entirely predictable) results; the resulting wounds on body shots were very wide and shallow; but did not penetrate to vital organs. The temporary cavity in these wounds stretched the surface tissues well beyond their elastic limit and destroyed them, leading to a slow death from massive trauma to non-vital tissue. Sensible and humane hunters soon learned to use other loads on larger game animals. Other rifle cartridges with velocities in the 2500-3000 ft/sec range also have a large diameter temporary cavity, but with proper bullet design expansion can be limited to achieve adequate penetration and to locate the cavity well inside the body. These temporary cavities have diameters large enough to cause strain beyond the elastic limit of most tissue in animals of moderate size (including man), and so have a significant contribution to WTI."

If the .220 Swift is unable to incapacitate by BPW, with an "energy dump" of ~1800 ft/lbs; then how on earth can a handgun 10mm 135gr JHP be considered a "great" BPW incapacitation platform???

Please post the BPW numbers for the .220 Swift.

Bob :cowboy:

[MinervaDoe]

Another comment intended for the original poster of this thread. Another feature of the 10mm is that it can be counted on to be the topic of vigorous conversation.

[481]

Of note Dr. Courtney, the articles you cited were published between the years of 1976 to 1990 . . . . 21 to 35 years ago!


Whether it is as Dr. Courtney himself or as any reincarnated iteration of his alter-ego (Pasteur, swede1945 and any other pseudonym that he may go under), his interminable insistence upon the validity of such dubious physics and pathological determination is always entertaining and always worth a laugh. Just ask the folks over at m4carbine.net who had the good sense to send Poseur...err..uh..um...I mean Pasteur packing a few years ago. Now the pathetic soul spends his time haunting various forums trying to convince the uneducated of his theory's validity. Sad.

Perhaps the Divine Creator had another chat with Courtney and told him that it would work this time. :dunno:


:animlol:

[swede1945]

:yawn:

If the .220 Swift is unable to incapacitate by BPW, with an "energy dump" of ~1800 ft/lbs; then how on earth can a handgun 10mm 135gr JHP be considered a "great" BPW incapacitation platform???

Please post the BPW numbers for the .220 Swift.

Bob :cowboy:

This line of thought demonstrates several misconceptions that should be cleared up.

Firstly, BPW is a force-based theory, since pressure and stress waves are force per unit area. Pressure/stress waves originate in the force between bullet and tissue and radiate outward. As in the study discussed in the "Hornady Tactical Application Police Ammunition Test Report and Application Guide", direct measurements of the pressure wave would be the most accurate way of quantifying the peak pressure magnitude. Another approach would be to use high-speed video to estimate forces between a bullet and tissue simulant from measuring the acceleration and inferring the instantaneous forces from Newton's second law. The forces can also be estimated from the work-energy theorem, but the typical accuracy of this approach is probably only 10% or so. The published method for estimating BPW from energy and penetration data only purports to be accurate for JHP handgun bullets. Using the energy-based estimate is probably most appropriate only for JHP handgun bullets which are no longer commercially available (but have published energy, penetration, and fragmentation data) or for large data sets where the number of different bullets makes individual testing prohibitively expensive.

Secondly, there is nothing in the BPW literature to suggest instant incapacitation 100% of the time at any BPW possible with small arms even with good shot placement in the center of the chest. It is inherently a probabilistic theory asserting that other factors (shot placement, penetration, and expanded diameter, for example) being equal, the average incapacitation time should decrease as peak pressure magnitude is increased.

Thirdly, BPW is not expected to overcome inadequate penetration. Some of the papers I've read are explicit that BPW should only be considered to enhance performance for loads that meet minimum penetration requirements. If I recall correctly, the reasoning is along the lines of the peak pressure wave needs to be created sufficiently close to major blood vessels to be effectively transmitted to the brain with sufficient magnitude to create concussive effects.

Fourthly, I doubt that the 10mm 135 grain JHP can be considered a “great” BPW incapacitation platform. Does it meet minimum penetration requirements? Has any publication claimed that creating a large BPW near the surface is a substitute for adequate penetration?

Fifthly, just as a cartridge cannot be assigned a specific permanent cavity volume or temporary cavity volume because each different bullet design will perform differently, neither can a cartridge be assigned a specific BPW value. One needs to specify a certain load, and in the case of rifles, one needs to know the range to infer an impact velocity. (Handguns reasonably use the muzzle velocity because most uses are short range). Since there is no published formula purporting to accurately estimate the BPW of rifle bullets from energy and penetration data, one would need to test that specific bullet impacting at the given velocity and use either a high-speed pressure transducer or high-speed video camera to acquire the needed data.

[481]

This line of thought demonstrates several misconceptions that should be cleared up.

Firstly, BPW is a force-based theory, since pressure and stress waves are force per unit area. Pressure/stress waves originate in the force between bullet and tissue and radiate outward. As in the study discussed in the "Hornady Tactical Application Police Ammunition Test Report and Application Guide", direct measurements of the pressure wave would be the most accurate way of quantifying the peak pressure magnitude. Another approach would be to use high-speed video to estimate forces between a bullet and tissue simulant from measuring the acceleration and inferring the instantaneous forces from Newton's second law. The forces can also be estimated from the work-energy theorem, but the typical accuracy of this approach is probably only 10% or so. The published method for estimating BPW from energy and penetration data only purports to be accurate for JHP handgun bullets. Using the energy-based estimate is probably most appropriate only for JHP handgun bullets which are no longer commercially available (but have published energy, penetration, and fragmentation data) or for large data sets where the number of different bullets makes individual testing prohibitively expensive.

Secondly, there is nothing in the BPW literature to suggest instant incapacitation 100% of the time at any BPW possible with small arms even with good shot placement in the center of the chest. It is inherently a probabilistic theory asserting that other factors (shot placement, penetration, and expanded diameter, for example) being equal, the average incapacitation time should decrease as peak pressure magnitude is increased.

Thirdly, BPW is not expected to overcome inadequate penetration. Some of the papers I've read are explicit that BPW should only be considered to enhance performance for loads that meet minimum penetration requirements. If I recall correctly, the reasoning is along the lines of the peak pressure wave needs to be created sufficiently close to major blood vessels to be effectively transmitted to the brain with sufficient magnitude to create concussive effects.

Fourthly, I doubt that the 10mm 135 grain JHP can be considered a “great” BPW incapacitation platform. Does it meet minimum penetration requirements? Has any publication claimed that creating a large BPW near the surface is a substitute for adequate penetration?

Fifthly, just as a cartridge cannot be assigned a specific permanent cavity volume or temporary cavity volume because each different bullet design will perform differently, neither can a cartridge be assigned a specific BPW value. One needs to specify a certain load, and in the case of rifles, one needs to know the range to infer an impact velocity. (Handguns reasonably use the muzzle velocity because most uses are short range). Since there is no published formula purporting to accurately estimate the BPW of rifle bullets from energy and penetration data, one would need to test that specific bullet impacting at the given velocity and use either a high-speed pressure transducer or high-speed video camera to acquire the needed data.

Dr. Courtney (or swede1945 or Pasteur),

Under how many other pseudonyms do you intend on posting in order to shill your suspect conjecture?

You do realize that your repeated and continual flogging of your dubious speculative assumptions under all of these pseudonyms makes you appear all the more desperate?

Did you learn nothing from the experience that you had over at m4carbine.net where the membership quickly and correctly concluded that you were posting under the pseudonym of Pasteur in order to act as a shill for your disingenuous claims and subsequently laughed you off of the forum for your mendacious behavior?

If your conjectural material has even the slightest plausibility, why then is it necessary to post under all these false identities and persist in this devious behavior?

If you think the membership of this forum is so stupid as to be convinced of the validity of your material by this behavior why bother convincing them in this way?

Are you so beleagured with obtaining credibility that you must undertake this pitiable course of action in order to gain it?

[MinervaDoe]

Oh, the suspense.
Oh, the drama.

Holy null hypothesis Batman; will the forces of good prevail over the forces of evil?

[Clay1]

This would be a seriously cool 10mm gun to have: http://www.onesourcetactical.com/tsd-1010mmlongslide.aspx

[Glolt20-91]

This would be a seriously cool 10mm gun to have: http://www.onesourcetactical.com/tsd-1010mmlongslide.aspx

Thanks for the heads-up. :cheers:

That's a nice set-up, but expensive. I've seriously considered the Lonewolf longslide combined with a 6" KKM barrel that I bought about 5-6 years ago. While the 10mm may approach velocity/energy levels of the .41mag, .40 S&W design bullets don't hold up to the faster velocities.

For trail carry, the TSD set-up with its 8moa red dot, would make a great combination for short distance protection with a 200gr WFN hardcast.

Just my $.02, YMMV. :supergrin:

Bob :cowboy:

[Glolt20-91]

This line of thought demonstrates several misconceptions that should be cleared up.

Firstly, BPW is a force-based theory, since pressure and stress waves are force per unit area. Pressure/stress waves originate in the force between bullet and tissue and radiate outward. As in the study discussed in the "Hornady Tactical Application Police Ammunition Test Report and Application Guide", direct measurements of the pressure wave would be the most accurate way of quantifying the peak pressure magnitude. Another approach would be to use high-speed video to estimate forces between a bullet and tissue simulant from measuring the acceleration and inferring the instantaneous forces from Newton's second law. The forces can also be estimated from the work-energy theorem, but the typical accuracy of this approach is probably only 10% or so. The published method for estimating BPW from energy and penetration data only purports to be accurate for JHP handgun bullets. Using the energy-based estimate is probably most appropriate only for JHP handgun bullets which are no longer commercially available (but have published energy, penetration, and fragmentation data) or for large data sets where the number of different bullets makes individual testing prohibitively expensive.

Secondly, there is nothing in the BPW literature to suggest instant incapacitation 100% of the time at any BPW possible with small arms even with good shot placement in the center of the chest. It is inherently a probabilistic theory asserting that other factors (shot placement, penetration, and expanded diameter, for example) being equal, the average incapacitation time should decrease as peak pressure magnitude is increased.

Thirdly, BPW is not expected to overcome inadequate penetration. Some of the papers I've read are explicit that BPW should only be considered to enhance performance for loads that meet minimum penetration requirements. If I recall correctly, the reasoning is along the lines of the peak pressure wave needs to be created sufficiently close to major blood vessels to be effectively transmitted to the brain with sufficient magnitude to create concussive effects.

Fourthly, I doubt that the 10mm 135 grain JHP can be considered a “great” BPW incapacitation platform. Does it meet minimum penetration requirements? Has any publication claimed that creating a large BPW near the surface is a substitute for adequate penetration?

Fifthly, just as a cartridge cannot be assigned a specific permanent cavity volume or temporary cavity volume because each different bullet design will perform differently, neither can a cartridge be assigned a specific BPW value. One needs to specify a certain load, and in the case of rifles, one needs to know the range to infer an impact velocity. (Handguns reasonably use the muzzle velocity because most uses are short range). Since there is no published formula purporting to accurately estimate the BPW of rifle bullets from energy and penetration data, one would need to test that specific bullet impacting at the given velocity and use either a high-speed pressure transducer or high-speed video camera to acquire the needed data.

Sixthly: Rely upon FBI protocol as a guide for ammunition selection!

What is the BPW for the .220 Swift/50gr SPT at 4000fps???

Bob :cowboy:

[Clay1]

Thanks for the heads-up. :cheers:

That's a nice set-up, but expensive. I've seriously considered the Lonewolf longslide combined with a 6" KKM barrel that I bought about 5-6 years ago. While the 10mm may approach velocity/energy levels of the .41mag, .40 S&W design bullets don't hold up to the faster velocities.

For trail carry, the TSD set-up with its 8moa red dot, would make a great combination for short distance protection with a 200gr WFN hardcast.

Just my $.02, YMMV. :supergrin:

Bob :cowboy:

Bob, even if you didn't buy that particular slide, scope combination all put together for you; you could put it together over time yourself or something similar. Having taken deer with the 357 and 44 mag with revolvers, I would love to take a deer with the 10mm.

[Glolt20-91]

Bob, even if you didn't buy that particular slide, scope combination all put together for you; you could put it together over time yourself or something similar. Having taken deer with the 357 and 44 mag with revolvers, I would love to take a deer with the 10mm.

Good points, the slide internals aren't that expensive. While the G20 has the stock recoil set-up, the G20 SF has a captured ISMI 22lb recoil spring installed; it does make a difference with handloads.

I've thought about this STS optic from C-MORE, it'll fit the G20 dovetail;

http://www.cmore.com/sts.html

The C-MORE is a tough design and I like the HUD feature and it only adds about an ounce of weight.

Bob :cowboy:

[Clay1]

Good points, the slide internals aren't that expensive. While the G20 has the stock recoil set-up, the G20 SF has a captured ISMI 22lb recoil spring installed; it does make a difference with handloads.

I've thought about this STS optic from C-MORE, it'll fit the G20 dovetail;

http://www.cmore.com/sts.html

The C-MORE is a tough design and I like the HUD feature and it only adds about an ounce of weight.

Bob :cowboy:

Many USPSA OPEN division shooters use C-More products. These are on game guns and not the abuse relative tactical guns. Not familiar with the STS, the Trijicon is just phenomenal. It's all good.

Rick

[Glolt20-91]

Many USPSA OPEN division shooters use C-More products. These are on game guns and not the abuse relative tactical guns. Not familiar with the STS, the Trijicon is just phenomenal. It's all good.

Rick

Here's a night vision capable C-MORE Railway mounted on a SLPS for tactical/defense use;

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/12guagereclinerFederalOOBuck1325fps018.jpg

One of the more spectacular 10mm tests that I've done was with a 6" KKM barrel and a 180gr Golden Saber running in the upper 1300s. Steel plate was penetrated at this very shallow angle;

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/10mmpeelbacksoftsteelplus4waterjugs.jpg

Steel peeled back with a large hole left by the penetrating GS, there was enough momentum left to explode all 4 water bottles;

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/Bottles2-410mm180grGSgapingsteelhol.jpg

Not bad for old tech, 0.720" expansion;

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/-720expansion10mm.jpg

Bullet jacket and lead core were found next to each other in #4 bottle.

At a later time, I used this same steel plate to test factory Remington .40 S&W 180gr JHP at ~15-20 yards, a vertical/horizontal complex angle of about 30-45 degrees. None of the .40 rounds penetrated, all were deflected by the steel plate.

The 6" barrel typically chronographs about 70-90fps faster than the 4.6" barrel. If bullets hold together, the handloaded 10mm/6" definitely exhibits a dramatic increase of power over the .40. If the 10mm bullets blow-up, the advantage reverts back to the .40 IMO.

Bob :cowboy:

[USAFE7]

NOW my question......When this is ALL OVER.....who is going to translate this into English for me and a few others here?:headscratch:

[swede1945]

Sixthly: Rely upon FBI protocol as a guide for ammunition selection!

What is the BPW for the .220 Swift/50gr SPT at 4000fps???

Bob :cowboy:

I can't find any published numbers on the penetration of the 50 grain SPT, but if you mean the Sierra 50 grain SPT that is designed as a varmint bullet, it probably does not come anywhere close to meeting minimum penetration requirements. The Hornady guide shows that 5.56mm bullets meeting minimum penetration requirements are the exception, even at 5.56x45 NATO velocities; at .220 Swift speeds, bullets that meet minimum penetration requirements are likely even more exceptional. Maybe the solid copper designs.

To estimate the peak pressure wave of a given load, one must first determine the peak force of the impact with a suitable tissue simulant. Data are not available for every bullet and possible impact velocity, but data has been published by Swedish researchers for the SS109 bullet from the Swedish assault rifle. (J Trauma. 1988 Jan;28(1 Suppl):S75-83. Wound ballistics of Swedish 5.56-mm assault rifle AK 5. Berlin RH (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Berlin%20RH%22%5BAuthor%5D), Janzon B (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Janzon%20B%22%5BAuthor%5D), Lidén E (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Lid%C3%A9n%20E%22%5BAuthor%5D), Nordström G (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Nordstr%C3%B6m%20G%22%5BAuthor%5D), Schantz B (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Schantz%20B%22%5BAuthor%5D), Seeman T (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Seeman%20T%22%5BAuthor%5D), Westling F (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Westling%20F%22%5BAuthor%5D). Division of Surgery II, University of Göteborg, Sweden. ) A figure in this paper shows the peak force to be approximately 12000 Newtons, which equates to nearly 2700 pounds. As this pressure radiates outward to the surface of a 1 inch diameter sphere (the basis of the numbers used in the discussion of BPW above), it covers an effective area of 0.785 sq. in. for a peak pressure of 2700/0.785 = 3440 psi. However, this load penetrates only 20 cm or so, so it falls short of the 30 cm penetration requirement suggested by American researchers for duty ammunition.

Your point #6 is not widely shared by Europeans (hence the popularity of the 5.7x28mm), but seems to be common among Americans. A group at West Point wrote:

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.

[MinervaDoe]

NOW my question......When this is ALL OVER.....who is going to translate this into English for me and a few others here?:headscratch:
I completely lack any interest in physics, but I believe folks are arguing over the effects of high velocity in terms of temporary cavitation and neurogenic shock.

Several people are in the camp, that says that generally more velocity leads to more incapicitation. While a couple of others are posting niche data on extremely light rifle bullets to demonstrate a less optimal side effect demonstrated only by extremely light, fragmenting, high velocity rounds (what used to be referred to as overpenetration).

You "physics experts" feel free to jump in any time and provide the rest of us with a lay summary of your treatise.

[cole]

NOW my question......When this is ALL OVER.....who is going to translate this into English for me and a few others here?

IMO, translation not needed. Just stick with what most LE use; they use it for good reason (and likewise don't use something else - e.g. 10mm - for good reason). If they change en masse, then you can consider a change, too. However, if you choose to deviate from LE majority, then you can break out the dictionary, use Google and big words, and reference/quote dated/fringe scientific “experts” (the more out of context the better) ad nauseam, while you apply what you believe to be clearly superior brain matter to try to incessantly validate to yourself (and probably others) why you choose what you chose so you can sleep better at night knowing you use magic bullets sprinkled with fairy dust. Whew... this has been fun!

[MinervaDoe]

IMO, translation not needed. Just stick with what most LE use; they use it for good reason (and likewise don't use something else - e.g. 10mm - for good reason). If they change en masse, then you can consider a change, too. However, if you choose to deviate from LE majority, then you can break out the dictionary, use Google and big words, and reference/quote dated/fringe scientific “experts” (the more out of context the better) ad nauseam, while you apply what you believe to be clearly superior brain matter to try to incessantly validate to yourself (and probably others) why you choose what you chose so you can sleep better at night knowing you use magic bullets sprinkled with fairy dust. Whew... this has been fun!
I mostly agree with you, but IMHO, I think law enforcement did get it WAY wrong with the 9mm 147 grain subsonic round. Good enough excuse for me to go through this exercise.

[geo57]

Here's a night vision capable C-MORE Railway mounted on a SLPS for tactical/defense use;

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/12guagereclinerFederalOOBuck1325fps018.jpg

One of the more spectacular 10mm tests that I've done was with a 6" KKM barrel and a 180gr Golden Saber running in the upper 1300s. Steel plate was penetrated at this very shallow angle;

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/10mmpeelbacksoftsteelplus4waterjugs.jpg

Steel peeled back with a large hole left by the penetrating GS, there was enough momentum left to explode all 4 water bottles;

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/Bottles2-410mm180grGSgapingsteelhol.jpg

Not bad for old tech, 0.720" expansion;

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/-720expansion10mm.jpg

Bullet jacket and lead core were found next to each other in #4 bottle.

At a later time, I used this same steel plate to test factory Remington .40 S&W 180gr JHP at ~15-20 yards, a vertical/horizontal complex angle of about 30-45 degrees. None of the .40 rounds penetrated, all were deflected by the steel plate.

The 6" barrel typically chronographs about 70-90fps faster than the 4.6" barrel. If bullets hold together, the handloaded 10mm/6" definitely exhibits a dramatic increase of power over the .40. If the 10mm bullets blow-up, the advantage reverts back to the .40 IMO.

Bob :cowboy:

Bob, the steel sheet you chose looks to be about the same thickness of well made road signs a generation ago, and also the thickness of modern, outer auto door panels. Is that an accurate assumption ? If so, it's a bit hard to believe that factory .40 180 would not hole it. Did you go on to see if it would penetrate if fired closer to straight on to / closer to 90 degrees ? You also state you later used this same sheet for the .40 test. Did it not even bulge it out ? All I see is the one hole made by the 10mm you have circled in red. Regards

[Glolt20-91]

Bob, the steel sheet you chose looks to be about the same thickness of well made road signs a generation ago, and also the thickness of modern, outer auto door panels. Is that an accurate assumption ? If so, it's a bit hard to believe that factory .40 180 would not hole it. Did you go on to see if it would penetrate if fired closer to straight on to / closer to 90 degrees ? You also state you later used this same sheet for the .40 test. Did it not even bulge it out ? All I see is the one hole made by the 10mm you have circled in red. Regards

IIRC, the steel plate was about 3-4mm thick. The .40/180gr left deep grooves in the steel and deflected. Nearly all of the other steel barrier testing that I did was with a 1.5mm steel plate and all of the .40 JHPs tested, penetrated w/o issue..

The complex angle of the steel plate, plus the increased shooting distance made penetration for the .40 problematic.

Bob :cowboy:

[Glolt20-91]

Doc,

It always amazes me the lengths (especially the intellectual dishonesty that you've point out above) to which some people will go to support a questionable belief. If one must twist a fact in order to make an argument, an examination of that argument's validity is definitely in order.

One cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear. :upeyes:

You both make accurate statements. 481 and I have discussed the Hornady TAP rifle ammunition tests some time ago. Our conclusions, based upon Hornady's testing data, does not support BPW, hydraulic shock or hydrostatic shock.

Looking at bullet descriptions from Speer, Sierra, Hornady, Remington, Nosler and Winchester et al . . . Swede1945, please direct us to bullet descriptions regarding "hydraulic shock" and "hydrostatic shock."

The preceding paragraph to the North Caroling goat test describing the effects of the .308/110JHP:

"(Prior paragraph to Swede1945 quote)
The best of these bullets, like those used in the superb Hornady Tactical Application Police (TAP) ammunition, cause such a violent and large temporary cavity that a hit almost anywhere on the head or neck will break the target’s spine or severely damage the brain even if the brain is missed. Either situation causes the required instant incapacitation.


Swede1945
Bullet companies also seem to be big believers in these effects, as expressed in the terms "hydraulic shock" and "hydrostatic shock." In their "Hornady Tactical Application Police Ammunition Test Report and Application Guide" they write:


Quote:
Possibly even more significant is that a study conducted in North Carolina involving shooting large goats in the lungs with high velocity high energy frangible projectiles indicates that the large temporary cavity created by such a projectile can cause a severe blood pressure spike to the animal's brain causing instant incapacitation. In effect it is an artificially induced massive stroke. The test animals had special blood pressure monitoring probes surgically inserted into one of the animal's major neck arteries to the brain well prior to the shooting. When the projectile had a large and violent enough temporary cavity to cause a severe blood pressure spike, the animal was instantly incapacitated. The Hornady TAP rounds have energies and temporary cavity sizes well beyond those shown to cause instant incapacitation in the tests.

Following this excerpt reads:
(Following Swede1945 quote)
What this means is that by using this type of high energy violently expanding and fragmenting bullets the LE sniper can be confident that he can successfully deliver instant incapacitation, even with an upper torso shot. Also, when shooting conditions do not allow a stable shooting platform a much larger target area than the brain can be engaged with confidence that instant incapacitation can be achieved.

The bottom line is that the law enforcement sniper ammunition should be a highly accurate, deliver extremely limited penetration, and have a highly frangible bullet. Agencies using other calibers like .243, .270, or .30-06 can turn to light bullet varmint type loads in these chamberings to approximate the Hornady TAP performance. Regardless, what they should not be using is ammunition with non-expanding match ball bullet type bullets.


.308 Winchester 110gr TAP, total penetration 9.25” This bullet described above does not meet the required 12" of penetration required for BPW.

I can't find any published numbers on the penetration of the 50 grain SPT, but if you mean the Sierra 50 grain SPT that is designed as a varmint bullet, it probably does not come anywhere close to meeting minimum penetration requirements. The Hornady guide shows that 5.56mm bullets meeting minimum penetration requirements are the exception, even at 5.56x45 NATO velocities; at .220 Swift speeds, bullets that meet minimum penetration requirements are likely even more exceptional. Maybe the solid copper designs.

To estimate the peak pressure wave of a given load, one must first determine the peak force of the impact with a suitable tissue simulant. Data are not available for every bullet and possible impact velocity, but data has been published by Swedish researchers for the SS109 bullet from the Swedish assault rifle. (J Trauma. 1988 Jan;28(1 Suppl):S75-83. Wound ballistics of Swedish 5.56-mm assault rifle AK 5. Berlin RH, Janzon B, Lidén E, Nordström G, Schantz B, Seeman T, Westling F. Division of Surgery II, University of Göteborg, Sweden. ) A figure in this paper shows the peak force to be approximately 12000 Newtons, which equates to nearly 2700 pounds. As this pressure radiates outward to the surface of a 1 inch diameter sphere (the basis of the numbers used in the discussion of BPW above), it covers an effective area of 0.785 sq. in. for a peak pressure of 2700/0.785 = 3440 psi. However, this load penetrates only 20 cm or so, so it falls short of the 30 cm penetration requirement suggested by American researchers for duty ammunition.


Since the .220 Swift/50gr SPT at 4000fps does not meet BPW requirements, some further background on slower velocity Hornady sniper ammunition, that also do not meet BPW criteria;

Hornady T.A.P. Ammunition

.223 Remington/5.56mm NATO

Summary: Hornady .223 TAP loads are unique offering to Law Enforcement. They offer dramatically better performance than any handgun cartridge, yet they do not demonstrate over penetration in ballistic gelatin testing. All four rounds defeat level IIIA ballistic body armor with little effect on the bullets’ performance. The 75 grain bullet showed significantly better performance on glass than the lighter bullets, showing less deflection and better penetration after penetrating glass.

40 grain TAP, Polymer tipped spitzer boat tail, part #3256 and B.C. =.200:This bullet offers high velocity even in shorter barreled weapons with reliable functioning in the AR-15 weapon system. It also offers rapid expansion, high fragmentation, and little retained weight. This round is intended primarily for situations where it has a limited penetration, extreme fragmentation and reduced ricochet potential are desired.

55 grain TAP, Polymer tipped spitzer flat base, part #3276, B.C. = .255:This bullet offers high velocity even in shorter weapons. It also offers rapid expansion, high fragmentation and low retained weight. The bullet will begin to fragment in a sheetrock wall but still has significant retained velocity, weight and penetration in ballistic gelatin.

60 grain TAP, polymer tipped spitzer flat base, part #3286, B.C. = .265:
This bullet offers high velocity in medium length, 14.5” or longer. The bullet offers performance similar to the 55gr TAP with slightly lower velocity, 10 to 15% greater penetration and slightly more retained weight. This bullet weight is the heaviest acceptable for 1-12” twist weapons.

75 grain TAP, boat tail hollow point, part #80265, B.C. = .390:This match quality bullet is the Hornady Company’s heaviest T.A.P. offering in .223 caliber. It demonstrates rapid expansion and a fragmenting bullet for both the precision rifle and the carbine. This bullet demonstrates deeper penetration than the 55gr and 60gr bullets yet penetrates less than most police handgun service rounds. It penetrates glass with minimal deflection, due to its retained weight. The bullet shows minimal break up on sheetrock, retaining most of its weight and penetration.

.223 40gr TAP Urban, total penetration 6.0”
.223 55gr TAP Urban, total penetration 8.75”
.223 60gr TAP Urban, total penetration 10.0”
.223 75 gr. BTHP TAP, total penetration 12.0”

These ammunition penetration depths, especially the Urban TAP designs achieve rapid incapacitation times by means other than BPW. Handguns in service calibers, including the 10mm, do not achieve temporary cavities large enough for BPW incapacitation.

Hornady .223 62 grain Barrier Ammunition Testing:
Bare gelatin = 16.5”

Hornady's 62gr Barrier ammunition achieves deeper penetration than the above mentioned, 23 year-old Swedish SS109/M855 test.

Bob :cowboy:

[481]

Dr Courtney, (so it's swede1945 this time 'round, huh?)

The assertion was made above that several fine Swedish researchers (B. Janzon, R. Berlin, and T. Seeman) can be classified as opponents to the importance of energy transfer and remote effects of ballistic pressure waves in missile wounding. The fact is that these scientists have all published support:

Berlin R H, Gelin L E, Janzon B, Lewis D H, Rybeck B, Sandegård J, Seeman T (1976): Local Effects of Assault Rifle Bullets in Live Tissues. Acta Chir Scand, Suppl. 459, 1976

Rybeck B, Janzon B (1976): Absorption of missile energy in soft tissue. Acta Chir Scand, 142(1976)201

Berlin R H, Janzon B, Rybeck B, Sandegård J, Seeman T (1977): Local Effects of Assault Rifle Bullets in Live Tissues. II. Further Studies in Live Tissues and Relations to Some Simulant Media. Acta Chir Scand, Suppl. 477, 1977

Berlin, R., B. Janzon, et al. (1977). Local Effects of Assault Rifle Bullets in Live Tissues and Relations to Simulant Media. 3rd International Symposium on Ballistics, Karlsruhe, Federal Republic of Germany.

Berlin R, Janzon B, Rybeck B, Seeman T (1978): Effects of energy absorption in missile wounding. Revue Int des Services de Santé des Armées de Terre, de Mer et de I'Air. 51(1978)No. 12, p. 1025

Berlin, R., B. Janzon, et al. (1980). Effects of Assault Rifle Bullets against Live Targets and Energy Transfer Measurements in Tissue Simulant. 5th International Symposium on Ballistics, Toulouse, France.

Berlin R H, Janzon B, Rybeck B, Schantz B, Seeman T (1982): A proposed standard methodology for estimating the wounding capacity of small calibre projectiles or other missiles. Acta Chir Scand., Suppl. 508:11-28, (FOA report B 20037-D4(M3)) 1982

Janzon B, Seeman T (1985): Muscle devitalization in High-Energy Missile Wounds and its Dependence on Energy Transfer. J Trauma 25(1985) pp 138-144

Janzon B, Schantz B, Seeman T (1988): Scale Effects in Ballistic Wounding. J Trauma 28(1988)1, Supplement pp 29-32

Suneson A, Hansson HA, Seeman T: Pressure Wave Injuries to the Nervous System Caused by High Energy Missile Extremity Impact: Part I. Local and Distant Effects on the Peripheral Nervous System. A Light and Electron Microscopic Study on Pigs. The Journal of Trauma. 30(3):281–294; 1990.

Suneson A, Hansson HA, Seeman T: Pressure Wave Injuries to the Nervous System Caused by High Energy Missile extremity Impact: Part II. Distant Effects on the Central Nervous System. A Light and Electron Microscopic Study on Pigs. The Journal of Trauma. 30(3):295–306; 1990.

Suneson A, Hansson HA, Seeman T: Peripheral High-Energy Missile Hits Cause Pressure Changes and Damage to the Nervous System: Experimental Studies on Pigs. The Journal of Trauma. 27(7):782–789; 1987. Suneson A, Hansson HA, Seeman T: Central and Peripheral Nervous Damage Following High-Energy Missile Wounds in the Thigh. The Journal of Trauma. 28(1 Supplement):S197-S203; January 1988.

I'm sure we could debate the validity and relevance of these published works. However, at a minimum, these citations demonstrate that the scientists who were claimed to be opponents of the importance of energy transfer and distant wounding have actually published considerable support.


Up to the same old chicanery again? :shame:

Here's a little bit of background from DrJSW over on m4carbine.com so that anyone reading this can see for themselves just what and with whom they are dealing with. The information below flies in the face of the claim that you posted above. (both in red)



"I have been far too busy to do a detailed critique of the inferences and conclusions you have published based on the work of Gorannson and Suneson, but I have read your papers as well as having reviewed both Gorannson and Suneson's work. Not only have I reviewed them myself, but I have also reviewed them with other persons with extensive background in physiological research, both in vivo and in vitro.
Neither I nor anyone I have reviewed these papers with is particularly impressed with the applicability of these studies to the physiology of human GSW's. The papers published by Wong's group which you also rely on do NOT support the assertions you have ascribed to them, and upon which you based the hypothesis upon which you based your research questions."

Courtney also claimed the existance of shell-shock during WWI as evidence of his ballistic pressure wave theory, despite the fact that many of the people who suffered from "shell shock" aka combat fatigue, had not been shot by anything or wounded, but were psychologically traumatized--this included people like medical personnel who had no exposure to gunfire or shelling but were emotionally devastated from treating wounded and dead.

Dr Courtney believed among other things that God spoke to him and told him that he would marry a woman with pink tassled sneakers, or something to that effect:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/50d38a25eb99e5b3?&q=michael+courtney

From this link: "Courtney is now posting to alt.religion.christian,
with what looks like stuff he kept since then. He seems to be in
the regular kook cycle : post, argue, get abused, disappear, wait
a while, then start at the beginning on a new group." (Hmm....this does seem to be a familiar pattern of behavior for you doesn't it, eh, Mikey?) :winkie:

Dr Courtney also believes that he is a Prophet sent by God:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/bf62c9a9039bcc15"

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/bf62c9a9039bcc15

In the prior link he (Michael Courtney) writes:
"I am a prophet sent by God to declare the destruction of the United States because of abortion. "


You are kind of a "one trick pony" aren't you? :shakehead:

[SDGlock23]

One of the nicest things about the 10mm is its versatility. You can load it for whatever purpose you're going to use it for, whether just plinking, self defense or as a hunting sidearm/protection piece. I don't go overboard thinking the 10mm is something that it clearly isn't, as it's still a handgun, but it does offer a good amount of firepower on hand it a lightweight and accurate package (referring to my G20sf).

I usually load the 10mm with "full power" loads and the recoil isn't bad at all (certainly not after entertaining my .454 Casull for awhile!), and I've always found the G20 to be a surprising accurate pistol. I do typically carry full power loads for personal defense in the 10mm, but it's not really necessary most of the time. The .40 is proven to be very effective, and if you want to load the 10mm like a .40, have at it. Or if you want a little more than what the .40 offers, you have that option too.

It's a bit pricey to shoot, even comparing 10mm reloads to other reloads, but if one can overlook that, the 10mm has a lot to offer.

[uz2bUSMC]

Then I'm not sure why you posted those psi numbers. The psi numbers you calculated are insufficient to cause JHP deformation.

Bob :cowboy:

The psi numbers are after the fact, the HP bullet has already expanded and I'm sure he did not shoot the high speed pressure transducer, so it would more or less have to be out of the way of the bullet path to avoid destruction... and pressure is reduced over distance.

[uz2bUSMC]

Blunt Trauma Concussion of Spinal Cord as Mechanism of Instantaneous Collapse Produced by Centerfire Rifle Bullet Wounds to the Torso

Why does a felon (or a large game animal) instantly collapse after being shot in the torso with a centerfire rifle bullet when the speed in which this occurs is obviously too quick to have been caused by substantial blood loss?

The reason is most likely due to the diameter of the temporary cavity produced by an expanding centerfire rifle bullet, combined with the location of the temporary cavity within the body. The temporary cavity produced by an expanding .30 caliber rifle bullet ranges between 7-9 inches in diameter, which is about the diameter of a volleyball. Violent displacement of such a large mass of tissue within the thoracic or abdominal cavity can cause the spinal bones to collide forcefully against the spinal cord, disrupting nerve transmissions and causing instantaneous flaccid paralysis, in which the felon (or animal) drops in his tracks like a rock (1). The effect is indistinguishable from a shot that physically severs the spinal cord. Once the felon (or animal) is down, the effects of blood loss take over and a complete loss of consciousness usually occurs in a matter of seconds.

The above is an admittance of the BPW effect.

The location of the temporary cavity is an important component of this mechanism, especially with large game animals.

Remember this above sentence for later... in relation to another of your posts, Bob.

A shot that impacts and penetrates low in the chest of an animal may not have the same effect as a shot that hits the middle or upper chest closer to the spinal column. This explains why some animals instantly collapse, and why others might run until blood loss finally brings them down.

The temporary cavity produced by common combat handgun cartridges, even high-velocity loads like MagSafe, is too small to produce this effect. Handgun bullets simply cannot duplicate the wounding effects of centerfire rifle bullets.

For comparison purposes, an expanding .223 Remington bullet produces a temporary cavity that is approximately 5 inches in diameter, and the high-velocity (1700+ fps) MagSafe .45 ACP Defender handgun bullet produces a baseball-sized temporary cavity slightly less than 4 inches in diameter.

A short bbl .223 can have similar energy as a 10mm. The above mentioned was a .45, not a 10mm. What was the grains, energy and penetration depth of that .45 round??

Although the temporary cavity of the 223 cartridge can produce blunt trauma concussion of the spinal cord, the effect is less reliable because it is highly dependent on shot placement and the location where the temporary cavity is formed in the body.

Did Fackler test the temp cav of the above mentioned .223, was it GEL that told him that??

In 1989, an Alexandria, Virginia police officer was killed when a .223 bullet failed to quickly incapacitate a felon who was high on PCP and cocaine, and holding a 12 gauge shotgun to the head of a civilian hostage. According to the police report, the bullet "...struck [the felon's] back in the center of his torso, grazed a vertebrae, severed the aorta, penetrated his right lung and liver, and exited his body in the right abdominal area." As he fell to the ground, he fired a shot from his pump-action 12 gauge shotgun into the face of a nearby SWAT officer killing him. He was able to pump the shotgun’s action and wound a second officer before he was finally stopped (2).

The point of this is what? Did the bullet expand? A pin-prick of a .223 is hardly that of a .70"+ 10mm projectile bashing it's way through the vitals.

Endnotes
1.Fackler, Martin L., M.D.: "Incapacitation Time." Wound Ballistics Review 4(1), Spring 1999; 4-8.

2.Walts, Earl, Lt.: "Report on the Special Investigation of the March 22, 1989 Incident at 316 Hopkins Court." City of Alexandria, Virginia; April 3, 1989; 12 pages.


.....

[uz2bUSMC]

Anyone who has knowledge of physics knows also that the pressure produced upon impact between a bullet and the target media produces pressure at impact, pressure that can be quantified by the expression:

P = ρ V² where ρ = gelatin density which is ~1.03 grams/cm3 and V equals the bullet's impact velocity

Converting "ρ" to English units yields a density of 6.430079939 x 10-3 pounds for an equivalent volume of soft tissue or ordnance gelatin

so that pressure can then be expressed as being = 6.430079939 x 10-3 (V²) (in tissue or calibrated ordnance gelatin)

Stagnation pressure is a function of velocity. That pressure is the pressure exerted on the bullet that not only drives expansion (once it exceeds the ultimate yield strength of the bullet material) but is also the pressure that is exerted against the media (soft tissue, water, ordnance gelatin, etc.) as the bullet traverses the media and is the pressure present as BPW that Courtney cannot even properly calculate.

For a velocity of 100 fps, 6.430079939 x 10-3 x 100² = 64.3008 psi
For a velocity of 900 fps, 6.430079939 x 10-3 x 900² = 5,208.3647 psi
For a velocity of 1,100 fps, 6.430079939 x 10-3 x 1100² = 7,780.3967 psi
For a velocity of 1,400 fps, 6.430079939 x 10-3 x 1400² = 12,602.9566 psi
For a velocity of 2,700 fps, 6.430079939 x 10-3 x 2700² = 46,875.2828 psi

It is that simple!

BPW is simply stagnation pressure.

As a "frame of reference", dead soft refined lead has a UTS (ultimate tensile yield strength) of about 1,740-1,890 psi, harder antimonial (4%) lead has a UTS of about 4,350 psi.

Exceed these values and these alloys will deform at the respective velocities of 542.154 fps (soft refined lead) and 822.501 fps. (4% antimonial lead)


Sooo, where does this account for different penetration depths?? Or rate of transfer, I should say. A bullet going 1400 fps penetrating 5" would yield higher peak psi that the same bullet traveling the same speed which penetrates 15"... if tested the same distance away from said pressure spike.

[uz2bUSMC]

From Bob

In fact, MacPherson sums up the problem with Courtney's faulty model (perhaps without knowing it?) on page 15 of his WTI book (2006 edition, second printing) when he states, "The reason that kinetic energy and damage are not always correlated is that dynamic damage is not due to energy absorption but to stress (force per area). In many cases, absorption of larger kinetic energy causes larger forces and more damage, but this connection is by no means assured because many other factors come into play."



Courtney understands there are other variables. His theory lays probable percentages and he never said it is 100%. I thought that was a relatively easy concept to grasp and has been said adnauseum. It's not a perfect world, he understands that and has explained that.

[uz2bUSMC]

From Rugby,

From Dr. Roberts:

"...I was a member of the Joint Service Wound Ballistic Integrated Product Team, the U.S. government study that gathered numerous experts from a variety of disciplines, including military and law enforcement end-users, trauma surgeons, aero ballisticians, weapon and munitions engineers, and other scientific specialists to conduct a 4 year, 6 million dollar study to determine what terminal performance assessment best reflected the actual findings noted in OCONUS combat the past few years. Courtney's "hydrostatic shock" was NOT found to be a valid or relevant factor. Likewise, I work at a large Level I trauma center and get to treat people who are shot in the face and jaws--guess what, NO remote CNS or other "hydrostatic shock" effects of the type Courtney espouses have occurred in ANY of these patients.

So, are they opening up live patients, playin with there brains to have a good look... then once satisfied that no BPW has taken place, puttin' the people (and their mouths) back together and sending them on their way? Lets see, in the mouth you have Air, spit, a bunch of teeth... that seems like a perfect area to determine BPW effects. That's about as good as an air filled lung as an example to justify your claims. In other words, you probably wouldn't want to shoot a sack full of pebbles and porkchops to find the answers to your terminal ballistic queries in relation to BPW.

Currently I am qualified on .45 ACP 1911 and 9 mm Glock; if I ever go back to LE Patrol duties, I'll likely carry a .40 S&W M&P. I don't really care that much about which one I am issued, as ALL the handgun service calibers work similarly.

During the early to mid 1980’s, like many people, I was duped by articles singing the praises of the .357 Mag 125 gr JHP. I carried a 4” 686 and a customized 3” M13 loaded with Fed 125 gr JHP. However, after going on active military duty and being in a position to test ammunition at the Letterman Army Institute of Research with Dr. Fackler, it became obvious that the .357 Magnum 125 gr JHP’s tended to have relatively shallow penetration, frequently fragmented with resultant decrease in permanent crush cavity, and had temporary cavities of insufficient size to contribute significantly to wounding. In addition, these loads had a large muzzle flash and blast, as well as a relatively harsh recoil which inhibited accuracy and re-engagement speed. As the FBI established a science based ammunition testing program, their research data also showed less than stellar performance from the lightweight .357 Mag loadings, including the 125 gr JHP’s. For those individuals who doubt evidence based research and prefer “street results”, the CHP, the largest agency to issue .357 Mag 125 gr JHP’s on the West Coast, clearly reports significantly better results in their officer involved shootings since switching to .40 S&W 180 gr JHP loadings, based on officer perception, objective crime scene measurements, as well as the physiological damage described in the relevant autopsy studies.

What's the basis of comparison? One shot stops? Or is there a comparison of platforms that is cleverly obfuscated here? You can clearly ask an officer or any gun carryin' American what they prefer... .40 or .357mag, the platform will certainly be considered. Same can be said for this study. Did the platform allow more efficient engagement? Are there any links to this that give specifics?? You like to ask for links so I'm guessing you can provide them.

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 from 1989-90, 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. I first saw the data when it was presented during a wound ballistic conference I attended at the CHP Academy in the early 1990's; I heard it discussed again at a CHP Officer Involved Shootings Investigation Team meeting in November of 1997 at Vallejo, CA. The information reviewed the differences in ammunition terminal performance such as penetration depth, recovered bullet characteristics, tissue damage and other physiological measurements and physical evidence detailed during forensic analysis..."

"...JSWB-IPT was initiated in 2002 and concluded in 2006. I should note that the joint USMC-FBI ammunition study of 2006 also found the same results. Oh...and the CTTSO/TSWG MURG program of 2007-2008 also made the same conclusions.

In what? GEL, perhaps?

Please think through this--the JSWB-IPT, FBI BRF, AFTE, and other organizations get to assess an extensive amount of post-shooting forensic data; the whole raison d'être of these independent, non-profit organizations is to interpret and disseminate information that will help LE and military personnel more safely and effectively perform their duties and missions. Why would they discount or ignore a potentially important incapacitation mechanism if there was any validity to it? I challenge you to read through all of the papers cited in Courtney's work and then make you own conclusions--everyone I know who has done just that has walked away utterly unconvinced of their merit."

Dr. Roberts is currently on staff at Stanford University Medical Center; this is a large teaching hospital and Level I Trauma center were he performs hospital dentistry and surgery. After completing his residency at Navy Hospital Oakland in 1989 while on active military duty, he studied at the Army Wound Ballistic Research Laboratory at the Letterman Army Institute of Research and became one of the first members of the International Wound Ballistic Association. Since then, he has been tasked with performing military, law enforcement, and privately funded independent wound ballistic testing and analysis. He remains a Navy Reserve officer and has recently served on the Joint Service Wound Ballistic IPT, as well as being a consultant to the Joint FBI-USMC munitions testing program and the TSWG MURG program. He is frequently asked to provide wound ballistic technical assistance to numerous U.S. and allied SOF units and organizations. In addition, he is a technical advisor to the Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners, as well as to a variety of Federal, State, and municipal law enforcement agencies. He has been a sworn Reserve Police Officer in the San Francisco Bay Area, where he now he serves in an LE training role.

Dr. Roberts is far more than a dentist. If you dipute this, please cite your qualifications in the field of ballistics preceeding your response.

Also, you should not call others internet bullies there, Rug, it's hipocritical of you.

[uz2bUSMC]

From Bob,

As most police agencies learned, the 357 is an exceptionally pragmatic and efficient weapon for enforcement purposes when loaded with the right ammo. Those in my agencies that carried the 357 had to carry as a minimum 158/160grain magnum plus P loads.

Yea, what criteria for this selection. He's seen "stuff" and it was a lot of shootings... I'm guessing most of them after the fact. But we don't have his oppinions on the shootings... he might have a phobia of car doors and windshields for all we know. There are plenty on here that can say they prefer 9mm 147 grn'rs for one reason or another... that won't convince me of anything and it damn sure won't impress me. Gotta do better than some cool chief just sayin what he preferes.

[uz2bUSMC]

What Dr. Courtney's cronies fail to understand is that there was a time when Dr. Courtney's theory was given serious consideration. The theory was studied and dismissed. Because those who studied the theory do not loiter on GT, then (according to the cronies) it must not have happened and everyone else is wrong. This is simply not the case.

It should be as simple as crossposting those studies or reviews here. Roberts has posted here in the past and has had nothing to offer. He dodges questions (same as Dr. C is accused of) and then runs off in the face of opposition. This is because his chronies are not as heavy over here and this is what happens to Dr.C when he goes onto someone else's turf... yeah, they laugh him away cause they are all on GKR knob, just like you.

[uz2bUSMC]

What may seem new to you is actually antiquated. I will again refer you to Dr. Roberts, a man who has forgotten more about this stuff than we will ever pretend to know:

"No respected wound ballistic researchers dye gel. The photo you depict was a series of tests done by Doug Carr while he was at Federal Cartridge--ammo companies frequently dye their gel, as it makes the wounds tracks look larger, since the dye leaks into the cracks caused by the temp cavity stretch. In the photo above, all of the TSC's, except the slightly smaller 9mm's, are approximately the same size--in this case, ALL are less than the diameter of a baseball and would likely cause minimal wounding effects in most elastic soft tissue."

Ballistic gelatin is not (and was never designed to be) an accurate medium for estimating the temporary cavity.

Hmmm, curious sentence above. Then where do the GEL chronies get there authority on temp cavs??
The 9mm HST 124gr. +P failed FBI protocol testing.

.....

[uz2bUSMC]

:yawn:

Of note Dr. Courtney, the articles you cited were published between the years of 1976 to 1990 . . . . 21 to 35 years ago!

.This is surprising yet Urey's trash gets brought up all the time, same with the now defunct IWBA publishings

Given the BPW formulas previously posted on this thread, the Double Tap 10mm/135gr Nosler ammo ("frag nasty") is cited as having a remarkable BPW incapacitation capability.

If that's the case, then a 50 grain jacketed SPT fired from a .220 Swift (over 4000fps and ~1800 ft/lbs of energy) should be a premier SD combination based upon BPW. However, we know this is simply not true.

Now go refer to the sentence I told you to remember for later and through this we can eventually get you to explain all of this to yourself.

From MacPherson 2006, published 16 years after your last published source;

"The .220 Swift was the first 4,000+ ft/sec factory cartridge, developed over fifty years ago. This round exhibited the extreme expansion that has been recognized in such high velocity loads ever since that time. These bullets seem to have an almost explosive effect; in actuality, the effect is merely production of a very large diameter temporary cavity. The temporary cavity produced by this bullet is larger than small (varmint sized) animals, and so is well beyond any elastic limit of their tissue; this produces the well known effect of the small animal literally being torn apart. These same bullets were originally (and unwisely) used on larger game with unsatisfactory (but now entirely predictable) results; the resulting wounds on body shots were very wide and shallow; but did not penetrate to vital organs. The temporary cavity in these wounds stretched the surface tissues well beyond their elastic limit and destroyed them, leading to a slow death from massive trauma to non-vital tissue. Sensible and humane hunters soon learned to use other loads on larger game animals. Other rifle cartridges with velocities in the 2500-3000 ft/sec range also have a large diameter temporary cavity, but with proper bullet design expansion can be limited to achieve adequate penetration and to locate the cavity well inside the body. These temporary cavities have diameters large enough to cause strain beyond the elastic limit of most tissue in animals of moderate size (including man), and so have a significant contribution to WTI."

If the .220 Swift is unable to incapacitate by BPW, with an "energy dump" of ~1800 ft/lbs; then how on earth can a handgun 10mm 135gr JHP be considered a "great" BPW incapacitation platform???

Dr. C has explained this a million times, everyone else has explained it but it is somehow too complicated to commit to memory... He has said that adequate penetration is the most important besides shot placement. He has also said the ideal bullet would somehow penetrate roughly 4" into the body( theoretical perfect world example), then transfer all of it's energy to place the BPW in a more optimum location that would contribute to rapid incapacitation. If the .220 swift could penetrate 4-5" and then do what it does (within the vitals) it would be more effective based on the BPW theory then blowing up litteraly under the skin immediately after penetration. Do you understand, I don't know how to write it any more simply?Please post the BPW numbers for the .220 Swift.

Bob :cowboy:

.....

[Glolt20-91]

It should be as simple as crossposting those studies or reviews here. Roberts has posted here in the past and has had nothing to offer. He dodges questions (same as Dr. C is accused of) and then runs off in the face of opposition. This is because his chronies are not as heavy over here and this is what happens to Dr.C when he goes onto someone else's turf... yeah, they laugh him away cause they are all on GKR knob, just like you.

Nine posts in a row w/o adding anything to the 10mm thread, you represent the first sentence of your sig line very well. :wavey:

Bob :cowboy:

[cole]

I mostly agree with you, but IMHO, I think law enforcement did get it WAY wrong with the 9mm 147 grain subsonic round. Good enough excuse for me to go through this exercise.

We do think the opposite regarding the 147gr 9mm. I think it's the better option in modern 9mm HP as I prefer heavy-for-caliber loads in all service calibers.

[KenB22]

Has anyone noticed that after not posting for a long time in caliber corner, Uz2b chimes in with 8-9 posts in a row 2 posts after Swede1945 gets called out and quits responding. Same person??