Confused about 9mm & .357mag effectiveness. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Confused about 9mm & .357mag effectiveness.


Pages : [1] 2

dp2002813
12-31-2011, 10:07
OK, so I am looking at both right now, a 125g hollow point in 9mm & .357 magnum.

The 9mm travels at ~1100fps & the .357 at ~1400fps.

True or not, I hear a lot of talk of the 9mm creating a devastating wound, but not a high number of one-shot stops. (we all know about shot placement and all; lets assume a center of mass hit for this.) In other words, the treat is generally not neutralized as quickly.

A .357mag has a reputation for one-shot stops with very devastating wounds. The treat is, in general, neutralized quickly.

These are the reputations that I have heard. The question is why? Is the 300fps average increase in velocity making that much of a difference? Or am I missing out on something more important?

If velocity is so important, why does the .45acp have a reputation for one-shot stops... aside from just being almost twice as large, 230g at ~850-900fps. ?

I have no ego attached to either round, I'm looking for "just the fact, ma'am".

Thanks in advance!

9mm +p+
12-31-2011, 11:05
357 mag is a velocity killer, 125@1450 is devastating in flesh as I have witnessed first hand. 9mm is also high velocity but not as high as the 357, you can get +p/+p+ loads which is all I use in my 9's that brings it very close to lower end 357 mag load. 300 fps is a HUGE difference in how bullets perform in flesh. The 45 on the other hand is all about that big heavy bullet at moderate to low velocities, both types will do the job just fine if you do yours.

Danny Reid
12-31-2011, 11:34
357 mag is a velocity killer, 125@1450 is devastating in flesh as I have witnessed first hand. 9mm is also high velocity but not as high as the 357, you can get +p/+p+ loads which is all I use in my 9's that brings it very close to lower end 357 mag load. 300 fps is a HUGE difference in how bullets perform in flesh. The 45 on the other hand is all about that big heavy bullet at moderate to low velocities, both types will do the job just fine if you do yours.Very well said!

fredj338
12-31-2011, 12:05
It's always about the bullet. You can get a factory 9mm that will run 1300fps+, but the bullet will be very light & shed vel quickly when it impacts. If it expands violently, it will leave a shallow but large wound. Same for the 357mag if you used sim wt bullets. The great advantage in power w/ the 357mag is in bullets 125gr & heavier. A heavier/longer bullet offers more mat'l for expansion & still have enough mass behind it to penetrate. With that extra wt & vel though comes the recoil.
The bigger the target, the less impressive the high speed bullets will be. You need penetration to reach vitals first. That comes from having enough mass. Then if it expands, great, bigger hole going deeper. That is the benefit of the 45acp vs 9mm, but with todays JHP, the 9mm is a very good round, but you have to be picky about your ammo choice.

Darkangel1846
12-31-2011, 12:44
You cannot count on a "one shot stop", in fact many consider it a myth. Short of a Brain or high central nervous system hit one becomes incapasitated by shock and loss of blood. Many cases of people being shot mulp times ansd still completing their act.
Bigger bullets seem to work better, and big fast bullets seem to work the best.
In the SD world high cap 9mm seem to be carried more then low cap .357.
Good choice in bullets count also.

dpadams6
12-31-2011, 12:49
This is a good example showing that "velocity" does matter, and i can't understand why some say that it does not. Same with 357 mag vs. 38 spl....The faster one is clearly better

barth
12-31-2011, 13:12
The thing is, particularly with high velocity ammo, you NEED to
put barrel length in the equation.

The all mighty 357 Magnum, that I own and love,
runs a 125 gr bullet at about 1450 fps from a 4" barrel.
Who carries a 4" 357?
I know some do, but a lot more carry 2" snub nose guns (like me).
You're only looking at about 1200 fps ~400 E from a 2" barrel.

GDHP 124 gr 9mm +P runs 1220 from a 4" barrel.
G26 avg 1201 @ E 368
I load my G27/9mm conversion with Winchester Ranger 127 +P+.
People have clocked them at 1258fps 446 E from a G26!

smokeross
12-31-2011, 13:18
The thing is, particularly with high velocity ammo, you NEED to
put barrel length in the equation.

The all mighty 357 Magnum, that I own and love,
runs a 125 gr bullet at about 1450 fps from a 4" barrel.
Who carries a 4" 357?
I know some do, but a lot more carry 2" snub nose guns (like me).
You're only looking at about 1200 fps and 400 E from a 2" barrel.

GDHP 124 gr 9mm +P runs 1220 from a 4" barrel.
I load my G27/9mm conversion with Winchester ranger 127 +P+.
People have clocked them at 1258fps 446 E from a G26!
My SHORTEST .357 bbl is 4" and the longest is 10". I load them hot, and the lightest bullet I use is 158 gr. Want to try a whopper of a .357, go for the .357 Maximum in a Dan Wesson with 180's.

ponders
12-31-2011, 13:19
i think i need to step it up to +p or +p+ instead of standard pressure being that i carry 9mm.... (insert favorite cuss word here):embarassed::embarassed::embarassed::embarassed::embarassed: ... cant find gold dots in my area tho.. (minot ND)

fredj338
12-31-2011, 13:52
The thing is, particularly with high velocity ammo, you NEED to
put barrel length in the equation.

The all mighty 357 Magnum, that I own and love,
runs a 125 gr bullet at about 1450 fps from a 4" barrel.
Who carries a 4" 357?
I know some do, but a lot more carry 2" snub nose guns (like me).
You're only looking at about 1200 fps ~400 E from a 2" barrel.

GDHP 124 gr 9mm +P runs 1220 from a 4" barrel.
G26 avg 1201 @ E 368
I load my G27/9mm conversion with Winchester Ranger 127 +P+.
People have clocked them at 1258fps 446 E from a G26!
Then the choice is a 357sig. You get 4" 357mag perf in a portable package & extra rds. I still love my 357snub, but mostly as a trail gun so I can have shot loads & it will handle heavy 170grLSWC for bigger things.:supergrin:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v703/fredj338/357mags.jpg

LEAD
12-31-2011, 13:59
300 FPS is over 204 miles per hour, when you look at it that way its not that insignificant. 100 fps is about 68 MPH.

Also when looking at energy as calculating muzzle energy ( which isn't the tell all of effectiveness) the velocity component is squared so the difference is likely greater than you'd assume.

flyboyvet
12-31-2011, 14:07
.45 or .22lr, the thing that matters most is hitting what you aim at. You could have a freakin bazooka but it is pretty much worthless if you miss what you are aiming at. Just my opinion. ~FBV

barth
12-31-2011, 14:13
[QUOTE=fredj338;18364461]Then the choice is a 357sig. You get 4" 357mag perf in a portable package & extra rds. I still love my 357snub, but mostly as a trail gun so I can have shot loads & it will handle heavy 170grLSWC for bigger things.:supergrin:

Already made that choice.
My extended 4.16" dual port Storm Lake 357 Sig G27 barrel arrives in Feburary.
Have to wait additional 30 days for isonite QPQ black finish on the stainless barrel.

BTW I already have a P239/357 LOL!
Getting a SRT installed as we speak
https://www.t-mobilepictures.com/myalbum/photos/photo36/3b/c7/d35bf19ef4d6__1322778218000.jpg

And My Trail Gun?
https://www.t-mobilepictures.com/myalbum/photos/photo25/86/cc/b09a8c52fb3b__1323801557000.jpghttps://www.t-mobilepictures.com/myalbum/photos/photo22/8a/31/a9c643751343__1323801967000.jpg

PghJim
12-31-2011, 14:54
Then the choice is a 357sig. You get 4" 357mag perf in a portable package & extra rds. I still love my 357snub, but mostly as a trail gun so I can have shot loads & it will handle heavy 170grLSWC for bigger things.:supergrin:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v703/fredj338/357mags.jpg

Fred - what is that bottom gun. It appears to have a Colt barrel, S&W hammer and sight and I cannot tell about the frame, but it looks S&W as well.

Ceapea
12-31-2011, 14:54
Who carries a 4" 357?



My most often carried 357 Mag is a 3" S&W 60-15.
A pretty good compromise, I think.

glock20c10mm
12-31-2011, 15:03
357 mag is a velocity killer, 125@1450 is devastating in flesh as I have witnessed first hand. 9mm is also high velocity but not as high as the 357, you can get +p/+p+ loads which is all I use in my 9's that brings it very close to lower end 357 mag load. 300 fps is a HUGE difference in how bullets perform in flesh. The 45 on the other hand is all about that big heavy bullet at moderate to low velocities, both types will do the job just fine if you do yours.
Precisely. :thumbsup:

glock20c10mm
12-31-2011, 15:06
In the SD world high cap 9mm seem to be carried more then low cap .357.
Sure, but that's got nothing to do with round effectiveness incapacitating adversaries quickest on average.

dp2002813
12-31-2011, 16:19
Thanks!

So the velocity from a .357 is creating a greater shock wave effect in organics than a slower bullet?

The .45 is creating a greater initial impact and dissipating most of its energy there.

One uses velocity and the other momentum to achieve the same outcome... it that right?

Shinesintx
12-31-2011, 16:38
300 FPS is over 204 miles per hour, when you look at it that way its not that insignificant. 100 fps is about 68 MPH.

Also when looking at energy as calculating muzzle energy ( which isn't the tell all of effectiveness) the velocity component is squared so the difference is likely greater than you'd assume.

Never looked at it that way...so I checked your math at 100 miles an hour:

There are 5,280 feet in a mile so at this speed, you are going at

528000 feet/hour

There are 60*60 = 3600 seconds in an hour, so you are going at

528000/3600 = 146.67 feet/second

Thank you for sharing as it puts things in a better perspective.

LEAD
12-31-2011, 17:05
http://www.calculateme.com/Speed/FeetperSecond/ToMilesperHour.htm

I cheated

fredj338
12-31-2011, 17:24
.45 or .22lr, the thing that matters most is hitting what you aim at. You could have a freakin bazooka but it is pretty much worthless if you miss what you are aiming at. Just my opinion. ~FBV

Except in the real world, your shot placement is going to be less than perfect. It's why the axiom for hunting dangerous game is the same for self def against a dangerous attacker IMO; use the largest gun you can shoot effectively. I get a bit tired of the "shot placement" is everything comment. ANyone that has any real wolrd exp hunting or against human attack will tell you the prefect shot placement isn't always possible. If it were, we would never have evolved much beyond the 22lr as a do everything round.:yawn:

fastbolt
12-31-2011, 19:07
Well, I wouldn't get too overly committed to placing an unrealistic amount of confidence on any particular handgun caliber, load or bullet (weight or design) being the definitive "best" for this sort of thing.

I had the opportunities (a couple of times) to listen to that LAPD cop who took a .357 Magnum bullet in her chest, at close range. It created what certainly seemed to be a horrific wound (from her detailed description of the events). However, after being shot, she shot her attacker 4 times with her issued Beretta, advancing to where he sank down to the rear of her truck (deceased), and then she checked for any other immediate threats ... and then she succumbed to unconsciousness due to blood loss.

It's a handgun, chambered in one of the commonly used defensive service calibers. It's not a rifle or shotgun.

There was a time as a young cop when I was really annoyed that I was having to turn in my .357 Magnum service revolver for one of the new hi-cap 9's becoming increasingly popular in LE work.

That changed over time. Knowledge, training, experience and improved ammunition have made it less of a concern to me.

I find myself carrying one of my 9's more often than one of my .45's ... and even more often than one of my .40's ... and almost as often as one of my .38 Spl's. ;)

Merkavaboy
12-31-2011, 19:09
Except in the real world, your shot placement is going to be less than perfect. It's why the axiom for hunting dangerous game is the same for self def against a dangerous attacker IMO; use the largest gun you can shoot effectively. I get a bit tired of the "shot placement" is everything comment. ANyone that has any real wolrd exp hunting or against human attack will tell you the prefect shot placement isn't always possible. If it were, we would never have evolved much beyond the 22lr as a do everything round.:yawn:

I hear ya Fred! Even the top competition shooters can't achieve a perfect 100% score upon demand. In a "fight or flight" situation the average gun carrier will be lucky to even hit their attacker let alone place a perfect heart or head shot using pure skill. It's usually the first person that gets the first shot on target, and the most lead on target, that's going to survive the encounter.

Unless one is highly trained and continues to keep up on their training, the average gun owner would be lucky to be able to keep even half of their shots in the X-Ring on a square target let alone the torso of their attacker in a life or death situation.

glock20c10mm
12-31-2011, 20:04
Thanks!

So the velocity from a .357 is creating a greater shock wave effect in organics than a slower bullet?
Kind of. Think of it more as the 357 Mag bullet having more energy available to push things around more and therefore doing greater damage.
The .45 is creating a greater initial impact and dissipating most of its energy there.
No. The 357 Mag in a proper 357 Mag load hits with greater initial impact. The 45 hits less hard but with more surface area. In the end you'll see the best 357 Mag creating more tissue damage further from the permanent wound cavity than you will with the best 45 Auto load. Now if you go to 45 Super it all goes back to favoring the 45. But not in 45 Auto.
One uses velocity and the other momentum to achieve the same outcome... it that right?
No, the 357 Mag in a proper load will damage more tissue. That's not the same outcome. The only outcome that could be close to the same comparing equal bullet construction between the two is penetration depth by itself and sometimes the 45 will leave a little larger permanent wound track if it outexpanded the 357 bullet it's being compared to.

cowboy1964
12-31-2011, 21:36
Yes, "One stop shot" is pretty much an invalid concept for handguns. All the major calibers penetrate about the same, which is the most important thing. Beyond that there are too many variable factors to quantify.

fredj338
12-31-2011, 22:09
Fred - what is that bottom gun. It appears to have a Colt barrel, S&W hammer and sight and I cannot tell about the frame, but it looks S&W as well.

That is a "Smolt" Jim. It started life as a 6" M19, my first handgun about 36yrs ago. I shot it a ton, had the bbl replaced w/ a then cheap Python 4" & hard chromed. It's a great shooter but I have retired it to a traning gun w/ 38sp for newb shooters. The action is smooth as silk. Of course, the year after I had it built, S&W came out with the M686. I can never sel it, too much money into it.:crying:

dp2002813
12-31-2011, 22:51
Kind of. Think of it more as the 357 Mag bullet having more energy available to push things around more and therefore doing greater damage.

No. The 357 Mag in a proper 357 Mag load hits with greater initial impact. The 45 hits less hard but with more surface area. In the end you'll see the best 357 Mag creating more tissue damage further from the permanent wound cavity than you will with the best 45 Auto load. Now if you go to 45 Super it all goes back to favoring the 45. But not in 45 Auto.

No, the 357 Mag in a proper load will damage more tissue. That's not the same outcome. The only outcome that could be close to the same comparing equal bullet construction between the two is penetration depth by itself and sometimes the 45 will leave a little larger permanent wound track if it outexpanded the 357 bullet it's being compared to.


Wow. Thanks glock20c10mm!

For comparison, I preferred the Buffalo Bore .357mag round. It appears to have a velocity pretty close to its advertised fps. From a 3" barrel, that was important to me... even if I had the reasoning for it all confused. I just saw no point in driving a Ferrari equipped with a Fiat engine.

glock20c10mm
01-01-2012, 13:56
Wow. Thanks glock20c10mm!

For comparison, I preferred the Buffalo Bore .357mag round. It appears to have a velocity pretty close to its advertised fps. From a 3" barrel, that was important to me... even if I had the reasoning for it all confused. I just saw no point in driving a Ferrari equipped with a Fiat engine.
The Buffalo Bore loads should do quite well at taking care of business. Pretty difficult to top those if not handloading your own.

English
01-01-2012, 17:41
Thanks!

So the velocity from a .357 is creating a greater shock wave effect in organics than a slower bullet?

The .45 is creating a greater initial impact and dissipating most of its energy there.

One uses velocity and the other momentum to achieve the same outcome... it that right?

Roughly speaking,no!

Think of it this way: A bullet does damage by the rate at which it has to move tissue out of its way in time for it to pass. A .45 is approximately 11.25mm and a 9mm is what it claims. So the areas are proportional to the square of their radii since the pies cancel out and so do any factors. So we can say that the area of the .45 relative to the 9 is 11.25 squared divided by 9 squared, which is 1.56. So for every inch the bullets move the 45 has to displace 56% more tissue. If we put that in terms of speed, the .45 can move at 1/1.56, or 0.64 of the speed. So if the 9mm is doing 1100fps the 45 can do about 705fps and produce the same damage for a short distance till they both slow enough to change the ratio. Since most .45ACPs do about 800 to 850fps, that means that the 45s do more damage than the 9mms close to the surface.

If you think of the wound track as a stack of thin cylinders then each of those cylinders absorbs energy from the bullet as it is slowed by drag. If we assume that both bullets have the same hydrodynamic coefficient (roughly the same shape) then the drag is proportional to the frontal area multiplied by the square of the speed. If the bullet stayed the same shape and calibre the width of those cyliders would be at a maximum at entry and would reduce with depth. As we are talking about expanding bullets it takes time for the bullet to expand the cylkinders start small in diameter, increase to a maximum and then decrease with depth. You can see this general shape in any of the die infiltrated gellatine blocks which are shown from time to time. In both cases this picture is complicated by the fact that the ballistic pressure wave that does the damage travels mainly forwards and outwards rather than just to the side. Incidentally, it is better to talk of a pressure wave or ballistic pressure wave since a shock wave is something different associated with super sonic displacement. It is also important to realise that the speed of sound in water, and bodies are mainly water, is greater than a very fast rifle bullet and so does not have any significant effect.

One of the definitions of energy is: That which does work against some resistance. In this case the work is done both accelerating the tissue to get it out of the way and tearing cell walls and connective tissue to do so. If you think of the pressure wave in front of the bullet, it is squashing cells along the direction of its movement. The surface area of a 3D object of a non compressible liquid is at a minimum when it is a sphere. As the object is made longer, wider and thinner, its surface area increases. Since a cell is a liquid object surrounder with a membane of limited elasticity, (think of the cells in an orange, but much smaller) there is a severe limit to how much of this a cell can take before it bursts. Only when the bullet speed has fallen to a low level does it push the tissue aside.

For most of its passage the pressure wave in fron of the bullet bursts the cells in front of it and for some distance to the side before it gets to them and hurls the mush aside. Because it has very little time to do this, they are hurled to the side at high speed and the combination of inertia and displacement of the surrounding tissue to make way for this movement creates a temporary cavity. What is called the permanent cavity is the part that is turned to mush.

That will have to do for now.

English

Metal_Tiger
01-02-2012, 04:00
English,
I am going to have to reread those paragraphs again for my own clarity. Well done from what I know.
David

cs133atom
01-02-2012, 06:12
Just to add to the conversation...

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

cowboy1964
01-02-2012, 13:29
"Ballistic pressure wave" doesn't create tissue damage (permanent cavity) with handgun bullets! How many times does this need to be covered?

fredj338
01-02-2012, 13:52
"Ballistic pressure wave" doesn't create tissue damage (permanent cavity) with handgun bullets! How many times does this need to be covered?

It actually can, on some tissue types. Nerves, bone, hard organs, etc, can all be affected by temp cavitation. To what degree is the debate. IMO, any add'l. wounding is a good thing & should not be discounted.:dunno:

cowboywannabe
01-02-2012, 14:08
nah, this settles the debate.

English
01-03-2012, 09:49
"Ballistic pressure wave" doesn't create tissue damage (permanent cavity) with handgun bullets! How many times does this need to be covered?

I suspect you don't understand what a ballistic pressure wave is or think I am talking about remote brain trauma cased by one.

What I am saying is that almost all the damage done by a bullet is caused by the ballistic pressure wave it creates. The pressure wave it creates in front of it turns the cells to mush before the bullet gets there except at the end of its travel when it has slowed a great deal. The pressure wave to the side of straight ahead does the same thing to cells there for some small distance which increases as the bullet is faster and wider. The combination of the two creates the permanent cavity about from the last two or thee inches which is actually LESS that bullet diameter as the bullet is then tearing the tissue apart rather than bursting cells.

For a typical bullet the permanent cavity is only bullet diameter at entry and at the crossover between cell bursting and cell tearing moded of penetration. Between those two points the permanent cavity is bigger than bullet diameter.

If you want to talk about remote brain trauma, that is a different issue.

English

Wonder140
01-03-2012, 10:38
nah, this settles the debate.

Now were talking.

dp2002813
01-03-2012, 16:23
English,

That explanation also is fantastic. Thank you! I wish I was closer to you, I'd buy you a pint... or several.

fastbolt
01-03-2012, 17:41
Sometimes it might be possible to get caught up in the pure science and hypothetical circumstances, and forget that we're still just talking about handguns, which are relatively low-powered, all things considered.

While I really do like the .357 Magnum, I don't expect a 'lightning bolt' effect, nor do I expect that the totality of all circumstances might come together to make the physiological and psychological factors result in a predictable "instant stop", or the type of wounding/damage that causes all human attackers to stop their volitional actions right away.

Every time I read about someone describing the supposed inherent velocity-related advantages of a handgun caliber (TC, BPW or any other velocity-related effect when it comes to wounding), I think back to the LAPD officer that suffered a close range (approx 5') gunshot wound from an attacker's .357 Magnum revolver.

I've had the chance to listen to her describe her experience in person twice, and learned a bit more each time (and have also read about it in Dr Blum's book).

She suffered a horrific gunshot wound to her chest which caused massive injury, including creating what she described as a tennis ball sized exit wound, as well as a small hole/tear in one chamber of her heart.

After she had been shot, she shot her attacker 4 times with her issued Beretta 92, advancing on him (he collapsed and died at the rear of her truck), checked for other attackers (there were other people in the vehicle which had followed her), and didn't collapse herself until trying to walk up the driveway (losing consciousness due to blood loss and blood pressure drop).

It's still just a handgun, and how a bullet may enter and proceed within a human body, causing damage of whatever nature ... as well as what may have happened to it if it had to defeat intermediate barriers (such as a human arm or shoulder), whether it was deflected or caused to yaw upon contact with a bone ... as well as the range of other unpredictable factors, influences and circumstances, not the least of which are the psychological ones, can make predictions about this subject problematic, at best.

Yes, I remember the FBI article published in their FTU at the end of the 80's (I received a copy when it was still new) which accepted that any slight potential advantage might be useful, but I also remember the rest of what was written and discussed. I feel the article and its conclusions are still pretty relevant today, more than 20 years later.

Also, consider that if even a rifle bullet doesn't provide for the desired sort of one-shot-stop, especially if the velocity and bullet construction don't result in fragmentation, but only bullet yaw and subsequent perforation (or, over-penetration, if you'd rather) ... and that's at velocities still not realized in service-type handgun calibers ... how can we be surprised when handguns aren't offering that level of damage and terminal ballistic effect?

If you want to use 9mm, why not?

If you want to use .357 Magnum, why not?

Can you actually use either of them in a safe, controllable, optimal & effective manner under dynamic and demanding conditions? Consistently? Do you invest enough time in frequency of practice (let alone training) to be able to use either of them to their potential?

It all pretty much comes back, to some reasonable degree, to the user being able to realize the "effectiveness", by virtue of the user's skillset (and mindset, don't forget) in being able to put rounds on the threat target, using good placement and in whatever quantities may be necessary, under whatever circumstances may exist at that time.

You can buy ammunition in a box. Ditto the handgun.

Skillset & mindset doesn't come that way, though.

I often suggest to the folks I help train that they not let their interest (or confusion) about the different handgun calibers, and available defensive loads, distract them from the important factors of their own skill development and maintenance.

Sometimes it's a lot easier if someone is restricted to a specific caliber/load, and then we can better ignore the distraction of debating subtle nuances, and get down to the business at hand regarding training & improving the shooter to actually wring the most from his/her weapon. ;)

Glolt20-91
01-03-2012, 19:21
^^^ well put fastbolt. During the day of 357mag carry, we always trained to shoot til the threat was no longer a threat. Come to think of it, same training philosophy with the M14, M16, M60 and M2 etc.

When I get a new student, we spend a lot of time on mindset/psychology, plus working through pain if the situation develops that way. Safety, force on force and trigger time follows. Caliber/platform choices come with experience and range time, after they've been introduced to firing a number of different combinations 9mm and above.

Too many people get rapped up with their personal choices instead of what works for the new shooter IMO.

fastbolt
01-03-2012, 19:31
Yeah, it's still not a requirement to be a rocket scientist down at the user level, and sometimes the more arcane hypotheses (still just educated guesses) are perhaps a bit less relevant and immediately applicable to a user's needs compared to being able to put lead on target in a timely, accurate and numerically sufficient manner. :wavey:

BlaineD
01-03-2012, 22:41
The bench mark load for Evan Marshall's compilation was the 125gr. Rem hollow point in the 357. This bullet is the key. The 357 Sig has never quite matched it due to bullet construction, not velocity. Also consider the platform these rounds are used in, and after reading a few hundred pages of Evan's and Mas's works, you see it makes a difference a well. Not by inherent accuracy but in training and philosophy. All these things factor in.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

Tiro Fijo
01-04-2012, 00:07
The bench mark load for Evan Marshall's compilation was the 125gr. Rem hollow point in the 357. This bullet is the key. The 357 Sig has never quite matched it due to bullet construction, not velocity...


Firstly, this so called "benchmark" in .357 Mag. was either the Fed. or Rem. 125 gr. HP and who said the .357 SIG was no equal due to bullet construction? Mr. Marshall hasn't & neither has Ayood to the best of my knowledge. :dunno:

The .357 SIG has performed marvellously with many DRT's. The only incident I know of requiring multiple hits was in a shootout in El Paso a few years back where a particularly nasty hombre needed five hits by the .357 SIG before checking into the wooden Waldorf.

BlaineD
01-04-2012, 14:51
My intent wasn't that the sig wasn't a great cartridge. It is. But the first few years it made Mr. Marshall's book it wasn't able to get to the 96 percent of the Remington 125gr 357 mag load. The question was why. It sure wasn't the .003" diameter difference. So it's either physiology or bullet construction. Probably both. In reality the differences are purely insignificant imho.

The only two cartridges/loads I ever remember Evan badmouthing were the 158gr. lead rn 38spl. and the fmj .380 Acp. Could be wrong though, been a few years since I wore his book out.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

cloudbuster
01-04-2012, 16:33
It boils down to the fact that objects with higher mass are both harder to accelerate/decelerate, and have more energy at a given velocity.

A light bullet is easier to get to a higher velocity, and velocity contributes more to the energy calculation than mass -- this is where the "light and fast" proponents are coming from.

However, here's the rub -- the forces acting against the bullet (air friction, gravity, resistance from clothes, bone, flesh, etc.), all have a greater impact on a lower mass object (because, as we said above, higher mass objects are harder to accelerate/decelerate -- they are more resistant to a change in state). So a light round loses its energy faster (this is where the "slow and heavy" proponents are coming from).

At the extremes, subatomic particles pass through your body at tremendous speeds, with tremendous energies all the time, with very little effect. Meanwhile, a 14 pound bowling ball doesn't really have to be moving comparatively fast to kill you, but the faster the better -- if it just got pushed along by a four-year-old with the gutter bumpers out, it's not much of a threat.

Faster is better than slower.
Heavier is better than lighter.

All the argument comes in figuring out the best proportions and there's not one good answer. If you get a 60 grain bullet moving fast enough, that will do the job just fine and it takes less force to accelerate a light round to those velocities, all things considered. But acceleration takes time, and short-barreled CCW weapons don't afford a lot of time for acceleration.

A 250gr. bullet doesn't have to be moving nearly as fast to do as much damage, and it's harder to stop -- it won't be as easily deterred by barriers and will retain a higher proportion of its energy for a longer distance, but big rounds are bulky, heavy and inconvenient (as are the guns that fire them).

Tiro Fijo
01-04-2012, 17:26
...Faster is better than slower.
Heavier is better than lighter...


Yes & no. Example: the .219 Zipper & the 50-70 Gov't with a 450 gr. bullet have approx. the same energy. Which would you rather shoot a buffalo with? :supergrin: Sometimes the lines become fuzzy & inverted.

DocKWL
01-04-2012, 18:01
Yes & no. Example: the .219 Zipper & the 50-70 Gov't with a 450 gr. bullet have approx. the same energy. Which would you rather shoot a buffalo with? :supergrin: Sometimes the lines become fuzzy & inverted.

It is only fuzzy when you do not understand the underlying physics.

Faster is better than slower.
Heavier is better than lighter.

Your energy example is just another of the millions floating around the Internet that once again prove that any attempt to ascribe wounding effectiveness with energy will fail.

English
01-05-2012, 08:33
It is only fuzzy when you do not understand the underlying physics.

Faster is better than slower.
Heavier is better than lighter.

Your energy example is just another of the millions floating around the Internet that once again prove that any attempt to ascribe wounding effectiveness with energy will fail.

Your exposition of phyisics cannot be disputed at a simple level but it implies that faster and heavier is best and that, in reality, is wrong. The reality is that all is compromise because an excess of faster and heavier will produce too much recoil to be manageable either because the shooter cannot control the recoil or because he cannot carry the weight of pistol that makes recoil manageable.

The reality is that any particular opponent or prey at any particular angle leaves you with a particular optimum combination of bullet weight and velocity, subject to carry weight. Since we cannot predict what that bullet weight and velocity optimum will be in some future use, we have to select a range of weight and velocity that covers a wider range of possiblitiies rather than being right for just one.

Although you claim a knowledge of physics you seem not to understand the basic definition of energy and its relationship to wounding. Energy is that which can do work against a resistance. That means that the upper limit of the tissue damage a bullet can do is limited to its kinetic energy. The problem then becomes one of optimising the transmission of that energy to the appropriate depth of penetration of the target. Tiro Fijo's example is a perfectly good example of this. The .219 Zipper is not heavy enough to penetrate far enough to kill a buffalo within a reasonable time frame, though it would make a nasty wound which might result in eventual death from sepsis. In contrast, the 50-70 does not really have enough energy for a rapid kill except with a very precise shot. That is often sufficient because the hunter is generally ambushing a stationary and unsuspecting animal rather than needing to kill an attacking animal before it kills him. It should be clear that this illustrates a major difference between what is needed for hunting and what is needed for self defence.

Since energy is the most essential component of a bullet without which nothing else can be achieved and since recoil sets the limit of useable controlability it is worth examining the relationship between them. Recoil is directly related to bullet momentum and so, for a given bullet velocity, it increases directly with the bullet weight. Rather than a direct increase of energy with bullet weight, energy increases with the square of the velocity. Since damage to, or work against, the integrity of tissue increases with energy delivered we have the option to increase velocity while decreasing bullet weight to obtain more terminal ballistic energy release for the same recoil. In general, this is limited by the need to keep enough penetration.

I don't know of all these millions of claims around the internet that ascribe effectiveness solely to kinetic energy. Before you claim erroneously again without giving any examples that both I and Dr. Courtney have done so I will state that neither of us has done so.

Dr. Courtney's claims are related to the peak pressure of the bullet's terminal ballistics. The threshold of the peak pressure above which remote brain trauma can be caused within the penetration limits that Dr. Courtney specifies does indeed need a relatively high level of energy. But energy alone is insufficient as he makes clear to anyone who reads and understands what he says instead of jumping to a conclusion about what he is saying based on their own preconceptions. It is easy to find loads which have a some chance of rapid incapacitation and others of the same KE which do not. Incidentally, in case you have misunderstood this, Dr. Courtney set an arbitray limit of 5 seconds for a test to count as rapid incapacitation, but all tests had different times of course.

I have argued Dr. Courtney's case in other threads but have also agued the case for cumulative degeneration produced by the transmission of energy from several bullet hits in a gun fight being closely related to KE appropriately delivered. Once again, it should be clear from what I have written that the energy needs to be delivered at appropriate depth with a sufficiently wide zone of critical tissue damage. This is a strategy that is related to the lack of precison fire which is likely in a close range gun fight. It is actually why all sensible people who have the choice would use expanding bullets. These bullets are not made to reduce the danger of over penetration but to deliver energy transmission at a more optimum depth.

As in another thread where you traduced my intelligence by claiming that I believe it possible to to predict the time of incapacitation I ask you for any example of the millions of claims that effectiveness of incapacitation is solely consequent on KE with any kind of reasoned argument?

English

481
01-05-2012, 10:25
As in another thread where you traduced my intelligence by claiming that I believe it possible to to predict the time of incapacitation I ask you for any example of the millions of claims that effectiveness of incapacitation is solely consequent on KE with any kind of reasoned argument?

English

Just because you didn't like the answer :crying: that you received to a question that you asked of him doesn't mean that the Doc "traduced your intelligence".

You asked, he answered.

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1390181&page=2

Deal with it.

English
01-05-2012, 13:03
Just because you didn't like the answer :crying: that you received to a question that you asked of him doesn't mean that the Doc "traduced your intelligence".

You asked, he answered.

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1390181&page=2

Deal with it.

Since it is manifestly stupid to believe that a time to incapacitation could be predicted for some particular load and since he said that I had claimed it to be possible in some unspecified thread, it clearly traduced my intelligence.

I asked and he gave false information as an answer. You might count false information as an answer -I don't.

English

janice6
01-05-2012, 13:12
Newtonian kinetic energy.........http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

Energy =1/2* m*V^2

So an increase in Mass will produce an increase in energy, while an increase in velocity will produce a velocity squared. Thus, velocity makes a great deal of difference versus a linear increase in mass.

dpadams6
01-05-2012, 16:46
Your exposition of phyisics cannot be disputed at a simple level but it implies that faster and heavier is best and that, in reality, is wrong. The reality is that all is compromise because an excess of faster and heavier will produce too much recoil to be manageable either because the shooter cannot control the recoil or because he cannot carry the weight of pistol that makes recoil manageable.

The reality is that any particular opponent or prey at any particular angle leaves you with a particular optimum combination of bullet weight and velocity, subject to carry weight. Since we cannot predict what that bullet weight and velocity optimum will be in some future use, we have to select a range of weight and velocity that covers a wider range of possiblitiies rather than being right for just one.

Although you claim a knowledge of physics you seem not to understand the basic definition of energy and its relationship to wounding. Energy is that which can do work against a resistance. That means that the upper limit of the tissue damage a bullet can do is limited to its kinetic energy. The problem then becomes one of optimising the transmission of that energy to the appropriate depth of penetration of the target. Tiro Fijo's example is a perfectly good example of this. The .219 Zipper is not heavy enough to penetrate far enough to kill a buffalo within a reasonable time frame, though it would make a nasty wound which might result in eventual death from sepsis. In contrast, the 50-70 does not really have enough energy for a rapid kill except with a very precise shot. That is often sufficient because the hunter is generally ambushing a stationary and unsuspecting animal rather than needing to kill an attacking animal before it kills him. It should be clear that this illustrates a major difference between what is needed for hunting and what is needed for self defence.

Since energy is the most essential component of a bullet without which nothing else can be achieved and since recoil sets the limit of useable controlability it is worth examining the relationship between them. Recoil is directly related to bullet momentum and so, for a given bullet velocity, it increases directly with the bullet weight. Rather than a direct increase of energy with bullet weight, energy increases with the square of the velocity. Since damage to, or work against, the integrity of tissue increases with energy delivered we have the option to increase velocity while decreasing bullet weight to obtain more terminal ballistic energy release for the same recoil. In general, this is limited by the need to keep enough penetration.

I don't know of all these millions of claims around the internet that ascribe effectiveness solely to kinetic energy. Before you claim erroneously again without giving any examples that both I and Dr. Courtney have done so I will state that neither of us has done so.

Dr. Courtney's claims are related to the peak pressure of the bullet's terminal ballistics. The threshold of the peak pressure above which remote brain trauma can be caused within the penetration limits that Dr. Courtney specifies does indeed need a relatively high level of energy. But energy alone is insufficient as he makes clear to anyone who reads and understands what he says instead of jumping to a conclusion about what he is saying based on their own preconceptions. It is easy to find loads which have a some chance of rapid incapacitation and others of the same KE which do not. Incidentally, in case you have misunderstood this, Dr. Courtney set an arbitray limit of 5 seconds for a test to count as rapid incapacitation, but all tests had different times of course.

I have argued Dr. Courtney's case in other threads but have also agued the case for cumulative degeneration produced by the transmission of energy from several bullet hits in a gun fight being closely related to KE appropriately delivered. Once again, it should be clear from what I have written that the energy needs to be delivered at appropriate depth with a sufficiently wide zone of critical tissue damage. This is a strategy that is related to the lack of precison fire which is likely in a close range gun fight. It is actually why all sensible people who have the choice would use expanding bullets. These bullets are not made to reduce the danger of over penetration but to deliver energy transmission at a more optimum depth.

As in another thread where you traduced my intelligence by claiming that I believe it possible to to predict the time of incapacitation I ask you for any example of the millions of claims that effectiveness of incapacitation is solely consequent on KE with any kind of reasoned argument?

English

Wow, that was a lot of info. What caliber/round do you consider ideal for defense against 2 legged creatures?

481
01-05-2012, 20:27
Since it is manifestly stupid to believe that a time to incapacitation could be predicted for some particular load and since he said that I had claimed it to be possible in some unspecified thread, it clearly traduced my intelligence.

:crying:





http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1441826943740&id=c05f676543cf659699ae251eaaa827ac&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.redrockdecals.com%2fmedia%2fcatalog%2fproduct%2fcache%2f1%2fthumbnail%2f600x600 %2f9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95%2fs%2fi%2fsign_whining.jpg

Tiro Fijo
01-06-2012, 00:55
481, why do you always have to add personal attacks? The mature individual knows that only when a point/argument is lost does someone resort to infantile ad hominem attacks.

English
01-06-2012, 08:07
481, why do you always have to add personal attacks? The mature individual knows that only when a point/argument is lost does someone resort to infantile ad hominem attacks.

Tiro,
He is a one trick pony. I have read many of his posts and most are abusive, but not one has made a reasoned explanation of anything. In reaction to this long term behaviour in the Caliber Corner thread "COR®BON; Stopping Power Myths Addressed!" post #59on 11th July 2011 I wrote:

481,
In case you have not noticed, Glock Talk and Caliber Corner Corner within it are part of the internet and, with a few exceptions, the contributors here write under pseudonyms. For reasons particular to themselves, individuals give more or less information about themselves, but, as they are not writing under their own names, others are unable to verify that information. Under such circumstances, what people post should be judged on its own merit as an argument from fact or common sense rather than from their claimed credits. If you pay for an opinion from a doctor of medicine, a lawer or an engineer you are justified in asking for his or her qualifications but you will be wiser, if you are able, to ask others about his or her ability.

None of that applies here since all that is posted is posted without a fee. You can take it for what it offers and you can argue against it from fact and logic. Since it is the internet and you are anonymous you can, in a cowardly way, abuse the poster within vague limits or lie about his or her qualifications to dare to post an opinion or argument you disagree with. You can, and do, even make boringly repeated attacks on the country of a poster's origin or a random typo or spelling mistake as though it is a joke worth making and repeating. Part of your basic repetoire is accusing those you disagree with of lying and you make these same accusations time after time through different threads.

In view of your obsession with qualifications, it seems worth while to examine yours. We don't know who you are or where you gained the qualifications you gained so we are unable to check on their reality.

In your Sig line, if that is the correct term, you claim to be a Super Genius though you rank this below the relatively trivial qualification of a Glock armourer. For a long time, as someone who judges by what a poster writes rather than what they claim for themselves, I thought that this was an attempt at humour. Then I realised that humour was not part of your personality and, as an ordinary genius I wondered what a super genius could be. That caused me to look at your self description:

About 481

Biography
Masters in Organic Chemistry, undergraduate (B.Sc. double major) Russian and physics
Location
USA
Interests
Marksmanship, hunting, physics, calculus, ballistic testing, modeling and analysis
Occupation
Sworn LEO (ret.)

Who would have thought the above to be so by reading your pompous posts which are so concerned about qualifications but which show no understanding of the nature of scientific proof or scientific method beyond the highly fallible peer review system which is not part of the scientific method at all but a convenience to the editors of learned journals. With all that education and super genius level IQ, why is it that your posts are notable for their ad hominem attacks and complete lack of logical argument or creative or destructive nature?

Of course, the claims to IQ and education might be no more than vapour. Let us look at them in more detail. You have a lower case p for Physics but upper case initial letters for Organic, Chemistry and Russian. Could the great 481 have committed a typo to the internet? I promise not to repeat this for my next 20 posts! Even super geniuses should be allowed the occasional typo.

Then we have, "undergraduate (B.Sc. double major) Russian and physics". This is a little strange. Did you drop out of your double major before you graduated? It would be more normal to say, "B.Sc. double major graduate in Russian and Physics".

How did you get from there to a "Masters in Organic Chemistry"? For something as specialised as Organic Chemistry, most schools would require a lower degree in Chemistry as an entry requirement. As a super genius, had you been able to complete the course content of a Chemistry degree without being formally enrolled and so able to talk your way into a Masters in Organic Chemistry? Enquiring minds would like to know! Or is it half, or three quarters, or all imaginary?

Then what happened? You joined the police force and as a super genius you did not become, in time, the head of a major City, Region or federal department, but, from other posts, rose to the dizzying heights of member of a SWAT team. You didn't even make use of your supposed intellect as a detective.

With all that talent, why did you not go on to do a Ph.D? If we assume that some of your claims are correct, I can make a guess based on the strange content of your numerous posts, where you show no scientific apptitude or understanding, and the above. As one kind of super genius you had a good memory, even a brilliant memory, and you could mop up information like a sponge. Undergraduate level work and exams in almost anything would have been very easy for you. Then you went on, by some means, to a Masters in a science but at that point you were found out by your project supervisor. You did not really understand the nature of science, you could not create a logical argument from facts, and you could not think an original thought. All you really felt at home with was the potted ideas of men you could respect.

You got your Masters because they felt it would have been too cruel to fail you and you joined the police force because you needed something that would give you authority over others. You are now retired and you seek that same feeling of authority based on no more than position which you had as a LEO. You get that to some extent by making many abusive posts and proclaiming your superior experience and knowledge.

How sad!

English
In post #60 481 responded:
Engli',

The energy that you've elected to devote to another rambling and embittered, several hundred word rant (above) in which you deride professions of authority and those that require advanced education suggests that your well-known anger and resentment towards those individuals so employed (you seem to possess an unusual amount of rage and hostility towards the police and the US military and those in the medical profession) continues to grow.

Given that you made your post above at approximately 12:21 p.m. (your time, local), I suppose that it is possible that alcohol played a major role in both the content and fueling the temperament of yet another whining 700+ word dissertation.

As the song says: "It's five o'clock somewhere!"
__________________
SUPER GENIUS
CERTIFIED GLOCK ARMORER
I responded to that with post #63:

481,
Can there be anyone else besides you on Glock Talk who thinks it funny to address me as Engli' rather than English because on some occasion I made a typo or the computer or the internet had a glitch? What kind of super genius does this take?

You question the energy I have expended on a 700 (your count) word post. As they say in the hair or makeup ads, it's because you are worth it.

I am not embittered and I approve of education, but I do despise those who claim education and intelligence but who cannot think. I don't despise the medical professsion, my daughter and my best friend at university were and are medics, but I do recognise them for what they are and do as they are in real life rather than some distant position of heroism. Likewise the military but that does not mean it would be efficient to look to military men for the next scientific breakthrough.

And the police, like any group they contain good and bad but because of their opportunities to gain from criminal action probably more go bad than the general population in other kinds of honest employment. At present we have an investigation into the corrupt provision of sensitive information to newspapers by members of the Metropolitan Police here. For a long time the head of the MET has been chosen from some other police force because it has been recognised that it was hard to rise through the MET without at least turning a blind eye towards some form of police corruption. A lawyer friend tells me that in one suburban court a large proportion of the accused complain of being fitted up but in a neighbouring one hardly any do so. The only sensible explanation is the difference in police cultures within those two areas. The Serpico story showed how corrupt the NYPD was at the time. You don't need a great intellect to know of many things like this but you do need a good pair of blinkers to pretend that they do not exist. The control of the police force is extremely difficult and is always a balance between effectiveness and honesty. A LEO needs a lot more than honesty to shop his criminal colleagues.

Where is any of this bitter? I am just realistic. The other problem with police is the tendency to jump to conclusions and to assume that everyone is dirty. Good policing takes an open mind and intelligence. Is the reason you didn't even make detective because they found out you lacked the first of those two essentials? Being on a SWAT team was so much simpler - all you had to do was shoot when someone told you to do so.

I think it is you who is bitter and who is projecting that bitterness onto me. There you were, a clever boy wanting to achieve things and lead an exciting life who had been sure of his ability and future as he had sailed through school with top marks year after year. You learned Russian and sciences so that you could become a spy, but the CIA turned you down and you couldn't make it in science. So you joined the police but couldn't make detective either. Bitter? That would be a good word for it and you have never recovered from it.

English
481 then made one more reply and several people made posts agreeing with the posts above. 481 then disappeared, only to re-surface again under the name Super Massive after a few days. When his unmistakable style was recognized he disappeared again and has now re-surfaced as 481 after nearly half a year.

English

481
01-06-2012, 18:50
481, why do you always have to add personal attacks? The mature individual knows that only when a point/argument is lost does someone resort to infantile ad hominem attacks.

Discussing his behavior (one of Engli's many, many tantrums) hardly constitutes an attack.

His preceding posts in this thread alone are another shining example of one his little tantrums and is "par for the course". Why is he still whining about the answers that he received in another thread? How does his continued whining contribute to this topic?

Are you now the one responsible for helping him handle his problems for him these days?

Given that Engli' is hardly above attacking others (he's done it many, many times and his posting history teems with examples) his whining about his dislike for the answer he received from DocKWL demonstrates once again the self-pitying behavior he has become so well known for.

Tiro Fijo
01-06-2012, 20:26
...Are you now the one responsible for handling his problems for him these days?...


No. However, I can't help but imagine that you have received several infractions here in the past and are probably on thin ice. :wavey:

481
01-06-2012, 21:57
No. However, I can't help but imagine that you have received several infractions here in the past and are probably on thin ice. :wavey:

Imagine whatever you want. :tinfoil:

:wavey:

sharpshooter
01-06-2012, 22:58
.357 magnum USED to be loaded to higher velocities. American ammo manufacturers have reduced it's velocity over the years, thus reducing it's effectiveness.

Or so I've read. I have only been shooting for a relatively short while.

Glolt20-91
01-07-2012, 00:44
The 357mag began its illustrious reputation as a long distance game killer shortly after its introduction in 1935; bullet was a 158gr lead round nose at around 1600fps. It wasn't until the 1960s when semi-jacketed bullets hit the commercial market. My Lyman reloading manual (1970) lists load data for Remington's 140/158gr SJHPs, the 125gr SJHP not available at that time.

Our dept and other agencies in the state carried the 158gr Remington SJHP into the 80s because it was an excellent fight stopper. Contrast that with CHP getting better results with the 40/180 than they did with the 357/125 and and you can get an understanding as to why many LEAs stayed with the 140/158gr carry weights.

The Remington 125gr SJHP is still a stout load, 1465fps out of a 4" Dan Wesson and 1635fps from a M686/6". However, the handoaded 140gr SJHP/1500fps is top tier in bullet performance and recoil.

Remington still makes a 180gr SJHP as a reloading component, what began as a fancy gas check bullet design for the SJHP line is still working over 40 years later, a tribute to one of the all time best and successful personal defense and hunting calibers designed.

Don't know which handgun caliber is handloaded the most often now, but the 357mag held that honor for over 30 continuous years at the beginning of the millennium. And for good reason, except for greater powder dispensed, bullets, brass and primers cost the same as 9mm. Too bad the shelf ammunition prices don't reflect that.

Glolt20-91
01-07-2012, 01:06
No. However, I can't help but imagine that you have received several infractions here in the past and are probably on thin ice. :wavey:

Given that english threatened to slice me up with a blade and stated that I was a wife beater, one wonders why the thin ice rule hasn't been applied to him. He does have a temper and bullies those who have opinions other than his :tongueout: not only on GT, but other forums as well. The difference on another forum was that the mods showed him the door.

I put english on my ignore list a long time ago and reading some of his current quotes, I made the correct choice.

English
01-07-2012, 07:11
Given that english threatened to slice me up with a blade and stated that I was a wife beater, one wonders why the thin ice rule hasn't been applied to him. He does have a temper and bullies those who have opinions other than his :tongueout: not only on GT, but other forums as well. The difference on another forum was that the mods showed him the door.

I put english on my ignore list a long time ago and reading some of his current quotes, I made the correct choice.

Two more lies repeated again. Between you and 481 i shouold have kept count of the number of times you have repeated these lies. Since that post made so much impression on you I am sure that you could find and reproduce it so that others can judge whether I threatened you or stated that you were a wife beater.

I am actually quite a calm individual but I will always fight back against false accusation and attacks. Bullying takes a level of support which you good ole boys certainly had from a group of people like yourselves who could not put an argument together. Incidentally, I have never been shown the door from any forum though I have two infractions from GT.

English

481
01-07-2012, 10:41
Two more lies repeated again. Between you and 481 i shouold have kept count of the number of times you have repeated these lies. Since that post made so much impression on you I am sure that you could find and reproduce it so that others can judge whether I threatened you or stated that you were a wife beater.

I am actually quite a calm individual but I will always fight back against false accusation and attacks. Bullying takes a level of support which you good ole boys certainly had from a group of people like yourselves who could not put an argument together. Incidentally, I have never been shown the door from any forum though I have two infractions from GT.

English

:crying:



Again with the persecution complex? :headscratch:

Perhaps you can explain to everyone here how your continued whining about an answer that you received from DocKWL...

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18353074&postcount=41

in another thread...

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1390181&page=2

addresses the OP's questions and concerns posed in this thread?


Apparently, DocKWL's response shook you to the core since you are still whining about it here in a different thread more than a week (nine days at this writing) later.

I do believe that we'd see less whining from two dozen drowning Girl Scouts. :drowning: :drowning: :drowning: :drowning:

JRWnTN
01-07-2012, 11:44
.357 magnum USED to be loaded to higher velocities. American ammo manufacturers have reduced it's velocity over the years, thus reducing it's effectiveness.

Or so I've read. I have only been shooting for a relatively short while.
Velocity is measured more accurately and realistically today. Older ammo was advertised with velocity measured with a solid test barrel, usually longer than normal barrel length. This made ammo fired from a 4" revolver seem low.

There are lighter loads, like Remington Golden Sabers. But the standard 125 and 158 grain loads are as fast as ever.

Glolt20-91
01-08-2012, 00:05
One of the neat things that Fackler invented (and Duncan MacPherson validated) was ballistic gel that simulates human soft tissue. Bullet expansion diameter and adequate penetration depth are key factors in the selection of personal defense ammunition for the LEO and civilian. Adequate penetration on a 135lb tweeker or a 3XL felon released from prison, both aggressively involved towards violence, have two sets of criteria.

With the right ammunition selection, both the 9mm and 357mag will expand and penetrate deep enough to severely damage vital organs. Some ammunition choices are better at busting up bones than others, and continue through to vital organs.

In the end, it's the user who makes the decision of what platform, caliber and bullet to carry into harm's way. Cold winter climates add heavy clothing as an added barrier to consider in ammunition selection.

Both ATK and Winchester LE ammo have heavy clothing test results for the 9mm and other service calibers. The only wounding factors to be considered for service calibers are the size of the crush cavity/cavities and laceration. Colored dye injected into ballistic gel to give the impression that it illustrates/replicates the permanent wound cavity is incorrect because the sole purpose of ballistic gel is to measure penetration.

Tiro Fijo
01-08-2012, 00:30
...because the sole purpose of ballistic gel is to measure penetration.


Huh? What about expansion? :dunno:

English
01-08-2012, 07:06
One of the neat things that Fackler invented (and Duncan MacPherson validated) was ballistic gel that simulates human soft tissue. Bullet expansion diameter and adequate penetration depth are key factors in the selection of personal defense ammunition for the LEO and civilian. Adequate penetration on a 135lb tweeker or a 3XL felon released from prison, both aggressively involved towards violence, have two sets of criteria.

With the right ammunition selection, both the 9mm and 357mag will expand and penetrate deep enough to severely damage vital organs. Some ammunition choices are better at busting up bones than others, and continue through to vital organs.

In the end, it's the user who makes the decision of what platform, caliber and bullet to carry into harm's way. Cold winter climates add heavy clothing as an added barrier to consider in ammunition selection.

Both ATK and Winchester LE ammo have heavy clothing test results for the 9mm and other service calibers. The only wounding factors to be considered for service calibers are the size of the crush cavity/cavities and laceration. Colored dye injected into ballistic gel to give the impression that it illustrates/replicates the permanent wound cavity is incorrect because the sole purpose of ballistic gel is to measure penetration.

This is a confused post which does not address the issue.
Adequate penetration on a 135lb tweeker or a 3XL felon released from prison, both aggressively involved towards violence, have two sets of criteria.
By this I assume you meant to say that the optimum bullets and loads for these two very different individuals are not the same. This is entirely true but how does that help someone to choose which load to carry since he does not know which kind of individual he will, in some unpredictable future, need to shoot?
With the right ammunition selection, both the 9mm and 357mag will expand and penetrate deep enough to severely damage vital organs. Some ammunition choices are better at busting up bones than others, and continue through to vital organs.
This is true but are you talking about human rib bones or cow thigh bones? Since there is a great tendency to fixate on the BG's weapon there is a tendency to shoot at it and hit the extended forearm at an angle. Is this the bone you are talking about? If it is would not an "ordinary" rather than bone smashing bullet be sufficiently damaging to the shooting capability of the BG to allow a second and third or fourth shot to be made before he could transfer his weapon to his other hand? Lungs, kidneys and livers are undoubtedly vital but if you penetrate one, how long will it take, on average, for the BG to be unable to continue to shoot at you as a consequence? What any sensible person is looking for in a pistol round is a means of stopping the BG shooting at them as quickly as possible. Can penetrating a vital organ, especially the most probably vital organ, the lung, be relied upon to do this?
In the end, it's the user who makes the decision of what platform, caliber and bullet to carry into harm's way.
Well, yes it is, but he is asking for advice about the difference in the effectiveness between the 9mm and the .357 Magnum. What are you advising here? Does your wealth of experience not allow you to say that, shot for shot, the .357 Magnum will stop someone shooting at you in less time than a 9mm but that the advantage of the 9mm is that a typical 9mm pistol is smaller, lighter and carries more rounds than a .357 magnum revolver?The only wounding factors to be considered for service calibers are the size of the crush cavity/cavities and laceration. Colored dye injected into ballistic gel to give the impression that it illustrates/replicates the permanent wound cavity is incorrect because the sole purpose of ballistic gel is to measure penetration.
Why is that the only factor to be considered and how do you calculate it?

As you almost managed to say, ballistic gel was developed (rather than invented actually) to replicate the aproximate penetration and expansion of bullets in flesh. On that basis we could not expect it to replicate the permanent cavity since homogenous gel could not replicate cells being burst by dynamic pressure differentials. What we can say is that the ammount of damage done outside the bullet track in gel will be proportionate to the amount of damage done in flesh. That is, a greater diameter or volume of damage to the gel will almost certainly correlate to a greater diameter or volume of damage to tissue. Gel shows us that .357 Magnums do a lot more damage than 9mms.

In this instance, the volume of damage which takes tissue out of action in the fight will be much greater from a good hollow point .357 magnum which does not over penetrate than from an equally oprimised 9mm. The extra kinetic energy of the .357 magnum can only be held to the same penetration by greater expansion and so the extra diameter and extra speed transmit more energy to the surrounding tissue. This extra damage will produce several benefits. It will slow the time to the BG's next shot as the impact and temporay cavity effect will have knocked him off aim. It will reduce the functionality of his normal bodily movements which he needs to aim and fire because some muscles and possibly bones that his brain relies upon to make those movements will be out of action. It will make a greater contribution to the total bodily damage which is needed to make the BG incapable of continuing the fight and give the GG more time to make the next hit before the BG can compensate for the damage he has sustained and make another shot of his own. If this was not so, we would all be using full metal jacket .32ACPs with the same penetration as hollow point 9mms.

Could you try to help the OP by making reasoned rebuttals of the issues raised above rather than your usual unsupported statements from a belief in your own superior authority?

English

PATRICK RYAN
01-08-2012, 09:07
From Steve Reichert's blog

http://stevereichert.com/srs-handgun-caliber-choice-and-why/

AWESOMO 4000
01-08-2012, 09:13
357 mag is a velocity killer, 125@1450 is devastating in flesh as I have witnessed first hand. 9mm is also high velocity but not as high as the 357, you can get +p/+p+ loads which is all I use in my 9's that brings it very close to lower end 357 mag load. 300 fps is a HUGE difference in how bullets perform in flesh. The 45 on the other hand is all about that big heavy bullet at moderate to low velocities, both types will do the job just fine if you do yours.

This. Also why the 147gr 9mm still makes no sense to me. What's the point of making a smaller bullet a tick heavier and a lot slower? It's also why 115gr +P+ Federal and 115gr +P CorBon have been nearly as effective as the .357 125gr load for 30 years, and why the .357SIG really only comes in one flavor: the one that works.

unit1069
01-08-2012, 10:27
This. Also why the 147gr 9mm still makes no sense to me. What's the point of making a smaller bullet a tick heavier and a lot slower?

I've never shot 147-grain ammo in any of the 9mm handguns I've owned but I suspect the original intent in producing a heavyweight 9mm round was to mimic .45ACP without having to go to that caliber. The first 147-grain 9mm rounds were reputed to be extremely unreliable but I've read the newer designs work very well. That said, if I believed the 115- and 124-grain 9mm premium self-defense JHP rounds weren't adequate to stop a determined aggressor then I've got the wrong caliber weapon to begin with. I do believe 9mm loaded with the rounds the caliber was designed for are very capable of getting the job done.

It's also why 115gr +P+ Federal and 115gr +P CorBon have been nearly as effective as the .357 125gr load for 30 years, and why the .357SIG really only comes in one flavor: the one that works.

I'm currently carrying 147-grain Double Tap Gold Dot JHP in my G-32 and I hold out high hopes that the 147-grain Hornady XTP will prove just as good as the Double Tap. The heavier rounds exhibit a somewhat milder recoil than the normal 125-grain rounds, and if 147-grain subsonic is such a wonderful round in 9mm it's got to be a real barnburner at 1250 fps/510 ft lbs muzzle energy from a .357sig. It seems to me .357sig currently comes in two flavors and I expect more will be on the way in time.

dpadams6
01-08-2012, 10:38
This. Also why the 147gr 9mm still makes no sense to me. What's the point of making a smaller bullet a tick heavier and a lot slower? It's also why 115gr +P+ Federal and 115gr +P CorBon have been nearly as effective as the .357 125gr load for 30 years, and why the .357SIG really only comes in one flavor: the one that works.

My thoughts too.

481
01-08-2012, 12:37
This is a confused post which does not address the issue.

If anyone would know what makes a post "confused", it would be you.

By this I assume you meant to say that the optimum bullets and loads for these two very different individuals are not the same. This is entirely true but how does that help someone to choose which load to carry since he does not know which kind of individual he will, in some unpredictable future, need to shoot?

The predicate assumption of your question, that it is possible to predict who will need to be shot, makes such a question a fool's errand. Do you have an equation for this, too?

This is true but are you talking about human rib bones or cow thigh bones? Since there is a great tendency to fixate on the BG's weapon there is a tendency to shoot at it and hit the extended forearm at an angle. Is this the bone you are talking about? If it is would not an "ordinary" rather than bone smashing bullet be sufficiently damaging to the shooting capability of the BG to allow a second and third or fourth shot to be made before he could transfer his weapon to his other hand? Lungs, kidneys and livers are undoubtedly vital but if you penetrate one, how long will it take, on average, for the BG to be unable to continue to shoot at you as a consequence? What any sensible person is looking for in a pistol round is a means of stopping the BG shooting at them as quickly as possible. Can penetrating a vital organ, especially the most probably vital organ, the lung, be relied upon to do this?

Are these some of the metrics by which you claim to be able to predict time to incapacitation?

Well, yes it is, but he is asking for advice about the difference in the effectiveness between the 9mm and the .357 Magnum. What are you advising here? Does your wealth of experience not allow you to say that, shot for shot, the .357 Magnum will stop someone shooting at you in less time than a 9mm but that the advantage of the 9mm is that a typical 9mm pistol is smaller, lighter and carries more rounds than a .357 magnum revolver?

Yet again, your repeated allusion to the concept of predicting time to incapacitation suggests that you believe such a calculation is possible. Let's have a look at your equation for that, shall we?


Why is that the only factor to be considered and how do you calculate it?

As you almost managed to say, ballistic gel was developed (rather than invented actually) to replicate the aproximate penetration and expansion of bullets in flesh. On that basis we could not expect it to replicate the permanent cavity since homogenous gel could not replicate cells being burst by dynamic pressure differentials. What we can say is that the ammount of damage done outside the bullet track in gel will be proportionate to the amount of damage done in flesh. That is, a greater diameter or volume of damage to the gel will almost certainly correlate to a greater diameter or volume of damage to tissue. Gel shows us that .357 Magnums do a lot more damage than 9mms.

In this instance, the volume of damage which takes tissue out of action in the fight will be much greater from a good hollow point .357 magnum which does not over penetrate than from an equally oprimised 9mm. The extra kinetic energy of the .357 magnum can only be held to the same penetration by greater expansion and so the extra diameter and extra speed transmit more energy to the surrounding tissue. This extra damage will produce several benefits. It will slow the time to the BG's next shot as the impact and temporay cavity effect will have knocked him off aim. It will reduce the functionality of his normal bodily movements which he needs to aim and fire because some muscles and possibly bones that his brain relies upon to make those movements will be out of action. It will make a greater contribution to the total bodily damage which is needed to make the BG incapable of continuing the fight and give the GG more time to make the next hit before the BG can compensate for the damage he has sustained and make another shot of his own. If this was not so, we would all be using full metal jacket .32ACPs with the same penetration as hollow point 9mms.

Are these the metrics by which you claim to be able to predict time to incapacitation for different cartridges?

Could you try to help the OP by making reasoned rebuttals of the issues raised above rather than your usual unsupported statements from a belief in your own superior authority?


Your questions above call into doubt to your ability to discern a reasoned rebuttal from any other. As a result, your self-professed "expertise" carries little weight with anyone grounded in reality.

English
01-08-2012, 14:21
If anyone would know what makes a post "confused", it would be you.



The predicate assumption of your question, that it is possible to predict who will need to be shot, makes such a question a fool's errand. Do you have an equation for this, too?



Are these some of the metrics by which you claim to be able to predict time to incapacitation?



Yet again, your repeated allusion to the concept of predicting time to incapacitation suggests that you believe such a calculation is possible. Let's have a look at your equation for that, shall we?




Are these the metrics by which you claim to be able to predict time to incapacitation for different cartridges?



Your questions above call into doubt to your ability to discern a reasoned rebuttal from any other. As a result, your self-professed "expertise" carries little weight with anyone grounded in reality.

481,
You are again scrabbling around for something to attack me with while failing to put forward any reasoned argument. Perhaps that makes sense to a super genius but not to me!

I am not assuming tht it is possible to predict the time to incapacitation of any particular shot but simply that ON AVERAGE the transmission of more energy from the bullet to the animal or person shot will lead to a faster incapacitation. Do super geniuses not understand the concept of the average of the semi randon outcomes of series of events with approximately the same initial conditions?

One of the things you failed to grasp when you were struggling to do your MSc in Organic Chemistry, if ever you were even enrolled for it, is the requirements for a rebuttal. There are two primary requirement. One is the production of reproducible facts which are contrary to the proposed theory. The other is an analysis of the logic of the theory which shows it to be false. Neither you nor you collaborator Glolt have ever even started to do such a thing. What Glolt does is trot out the same tired pieces of someone else's writing as though it could not be questioned by any right thinking person or make statements as though we are all expected to believe him because he is a retired LEO. You don't even manage that and stick to sneering at insignificant things such as the fact that I come from the UK. Wow! How could a non American dispute things about firearms with an american ex cop? Such effrontery is clearly not something you can tolerate.

English

fredj338
01-08-2012, 15:01
As you almost managed to say, ballistic gel was developed (rather than invented actually) to replicate the aproximate penetration and expansion of bullets in flesh. On that basis we could not expect it to replicate the permanent cavity since homogenous gel could not replicate cells being burst by dynamic pressure differentials. What we can say is that the ammount of damage done outside the bullet track in gel will be proportionate to the amount of damage done in flesh. That is, a greater diameter or volume of damage to the gel will almost certainly correlate to a greater diameter or volume of damage to tissue.
THis is often missed by caliber debating crowd. Even the FBI, inventors of the gel testing protocol, admit that some stopping affect is realized by a temp cav (see my sig line), they just can't validate it in their tests. To think otherwise is just not paying attention to what happens to live tissue when shot w/ high vel expanding bullets. There is a huge amount of blunt trauma, blood shot tissue, etc. It must add something to the ultimate end of the fight, how much, who cares, even 5% is greater than 0.

Tiro Fijo
01-08-2012, 15:15
This. Also why the 147gr 9mm still makes no sense to me. What's the point of making a smaller bullet a tick heavier and a lot slower? It's also why 115gr +P+ Federal and 115gr +P CorBon have been nearly as effective as the .357 125gr load for 30 years, and why the .357SIG really only comes in one flavor: the one that works.

The 147 came about for two reasons, more due to the former than latter that will follow:

1. the Facklerites

2. a lot of LEO's & civilians don't like the heavier recoiling 115 gr. +p+

FWIW, I agree with you 100% & carry +p+ 9mm ammo.



THis is often missed by caliber debating crowd. Even the FBI, inventors of the gel testing protocol, admit that some stopping affect is realized by a temp cav (see my sig line), they just can't validate it in their tests. To think otherwise is just not paying attention to what happens to live tissue when shot w/ high vel expanding bullets. There is a huge amount of blunt trauma, blood shot tissue, etc. It must add something to the ultimate end of the fight, how much, who cares, even 5% is greater than 0.


Well stated, Fred. Obviously it happens or else there would be no difference between a .22 LR 40 gr. bullet impact & a 40 gr. .220 Swift.

481
01-08-2012, 15:31
481,
You are again scrabbling around for something to attack me with while failing to put forward any reasoned argument. Perhaps that makes sense to a super genius but not to me!

I am not assuming tht it is possible to predict the time to incapacitation of any particular shot but simply that ON AVERAGE the transmission of more energy from the bullet to the animal or person shot will lead to a faster incapacitation. Do super geniuses not understand the concept of the average of the semi randon outcomes of series of events with approximately the same initial conditions?

Sure. We also know when someone can't support his own deceptive behavior.

As usual, when asked to support one of your wild claims, you resort to one of your typical tantrums:rant: and start whining :crying: that such a request constitutes an attack.


...that ON AVERAGE the transmission of more energy from the bullet to the animal or person shot will lead to a faster incapacitation.


OK, so now we have the metric (the transmission of more energy from the bullet to the animal or person shot) by which you claim to be able to determine the time (ON AVERAGE) to incapacitation.

Let's see the equation.


One of the things you failed to grasp when you were struggling to do your MSc in Organic Chemistry, if ever you were even enrolled for it, is the requirements for a rebuttal. There are two primary requirement. One is the production of reproducible facts which are contrary to the proposed theory. The other is an analysis of the logic of the theory which shows it to be false.

Funny, you have yet to provide the method by which you claim to be able make such a prediction (time to incapacitation). You've done nothing but whine about being attacked in deference to providing a quantitative expression in support of your claim (the ability to predict time to incapacitation by means of the transmission of more energy from the bullet to the animal or person shot) and it appears that all you have is your "say so".

In order to rebut something, there must first be something against which to rebut. Since you have produced nothing so far, there is nothing to rebut.



You don't even manage that and stick to sneering at insignificant things such as the fact that I come from the UK. Wow! How could a non American dispute things about firearms with an american ex cop? Such effrontery is clearly not something you can tolerate.

English

Since you cannot help but keep whining about something that happened over six months ago, it would seem that you have a bigger problem (your persecution complex just keeps popping up, doesn't it?) with where you reside than I.

Get over it.

Unless you can provide the method (an equation, reading tea leaves, rolling dice, interpreting what the bumps on your head mean) by which you can predict time to incapacitation (using your selected metric of "the transmission of more energy from the bullet to the animal or person shot"), it becomes apparent to everyone here that you are engaging in intentional deception. :shame:

Merkavaboy
01-08-2012, 20:27
Also why the 147gr 9mm still makes no sense to me. What's the point of making a smaller bullet a tick heavier and a lot slower? It's also why 115gr +P+ Federal and 115gr +P CorBon have been nearly as effective as the .357 125gr load for 30 years, and why the .357SIG really only comes in one flavor: the one that works.

The purpose behind the 147gr loads (specifically in JHP) was for the suppressed MP5 subgun. It was never intended to be a LE or SD pistol load. The only reason the 147JHP was made popular was because of the FBI's adoption of this bullet for duty use back in 1987 after the 1986 Miami FBI incident.

Glolt20-91
01-09-2012, 02:59
Huh? What about expansion? :dunno:

Some people believe, like english et al) that neither expansion or penetration are key factors in wound incapacitation.

http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?78350-Some-numbers&highlight=Some+numbers

Chris Upchurch, a staff instructor at Suarez International writes in post #7 states there are five ways to stop an attacker:

1. Fear
2. Pain
3. Destroy the brainstem
4. Sever the spinal cord
5. Lower blood pressure (either destroy the heart or let a lot of blood out)

Post #12 is a post by english attacking Upchurch and others, like what we are seeing in this thread.

Post #20 was written by another Suarez staff instructor, Al Lipscomb in response to english;

" Just make it easy your assertion is not correct. Depth of penetration is the key metric in wounding, that is why it is measured.
Your explanation of what is theory track with your claims of education."

Post #22 and english throws a temper tantrum against Mr. Lipscomb ultimately resulting with the thread being closed.

Both the above thread and this one involve the 9mm.

Referring back to the Win LE ammo/gel data with heavy clothing;

RA9124T, 124+P/1180fps, 13.3"/.68"

Comparison with the 357SIG,
RA357SIGT, 125/1350fps, 10.7"/.69"

Energy doesn't always guarantee better bullet performance, does it?

RA9B, 147/995fps, 15.8"/.58"
RA357SB, 125/1350fps, 16.9"/.55"
RA9BAB, 124+P/1180fps, 18.2"/.56"

It would appear that the 9mm Ranger line of ammo compares very well heads up with the 357SIG against winter outer clothing.

For those who like wide expansion and deep penetration;

RA45TP, 230+P/990fps, 15.7"/.78"
The 230+P round expands aggressively and is one of the hardest hitting bullets I've had the pleasure to test.

Overall I was impressed with the quality of the Suarez program combined with their simple explanations of complex wounding mechanisms.

It's unfortunate that some try try to make a big splash with the real deal only to find themselves doing a belly flop on an ant hill. :)

English
01-09-2012, 06:11
Sure. We also know when someone can't support his own deceptive behavior.

As usual, when asked to support one of your wild claims, you resort to one of your typical tantrums:rant: and start whining :crying: that such a request constitutes an attack.



OK, so now we have the metric (the transmission of more energy from the bullet to the animal or person shot) by which you claim to be able to determine the time (ON AVERAGE) to incapacitation.

Let's see the equation.



Funny, you have yet to provide the method by which you claim to be able make such a prediction (time to incapacitation). You've done nothing but whine about being attacked in deference to providing a quantitative expression in support of your claim (the ability to predict time to incapacitation by means of the transmission of more energy from the bullet to the animal or person shot) and it appears that all you have is your "say so".

In order to rebut something, there must first be something against which to rebut. Since you have produced nothing so far, there is nothing to rebut.




Since you cannot help but keep whining about something that happened over six months ago, it would seem that you have a bigger problem (your persecution complex just keeps popping up, doesn't it?) with where you reside than I.

Get over it.

Unless you can provide the method (an equation, reading tea leaves, rolling dice, interpreting what the bumps on your head mean) by which you can predict time to incapacitation (using your selected metric of "the transmission of more energy from the bullet to the animal or person shot"), it becomes apparent to everyone here that you are engaging in intentional deception. :shame:

Still not answering any question. Still claiming I say things I have never said.

Those who cannot see you for what you are will not be persuadable by anything anyone writes about you.

English

English
01-09-2012, 07:28
Some people believe, like english et al) that neither expansion or penetration are key factors in wound incapacitation.

http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?78350-Some-numbers&highlight=Some+numbers

Chris Upchurch, a staff instructor at Suarez International writes in post #7 states there are five ways to stop an attacker:

1. Fear
2. Pain
3. Destroy the brainstem
4. Sever the spinal cord
5. Lower blood pressure (either destroy the heart or let a lot of blood out)

Post #12 is a post by english attacking Upchurch and others, like what we are seeing in this thread.

Post #20 was written by another Suarez staff instructor, Al Lipscomb in response to english;

" Just make it easy your assertion is not correct. Depth of penetration is the key metric in wounding, that is why it is measured.
Your explanation of what is theory track with your claims of education."

Post #22 and english throws a temper tantrum against Mr. Lipscomb ultimately resulting with the thread being closed.

Both the above thread and this one involve the 9mm.

Referring back to the Win LE ammo/gel data with heavy clothing;

RA9124T, 124+P/1180fps, 13.3"/.68"

Comparison with the 357SIG,
RA357SIGT, 125/1350fps, 10.7"/.69"

Energy doesn't always guarantee better bullet performance, does it?

RA9B, 147/995fps, 15.8"/.58"
RA357SB, 125/1350fps, 16.9"/.55"
RA9BAB, 124+P/1180fps, 18.2"/.56"

It would appear that the 9mm Ranger line of ammo compares very well heads up with the 357SIG against winter outer clothing.

For those who like wide expansion and deep penetration;

RA45TP, 230+P/990fps, 15.7"/.78"
The 230+P round expands aggressively and is one of the hardest hitting bullets I've had the pleasure to test.

Overall I was impressed with the quality of the Suarez program combined with their simple explanations of complex wounding mechanisms.

It's unfortunate that some try try to make a big splash with the real deal only to find themselves doing a belly flop on an ant hill. :)

Glolt,
Thank you for finding that. It is interesting that I am still a member of Warrior Talk and 481 is not. I don't think he lasted 2 weeks!

By the way, i was not attacking Chris Upchurch but simply putting an alternative view.

My post #12 is relevant here so I will repeat it so that others can make their own judgement more easily:
Most people who know me know that I am someone who does not like to get into arguments or upset people but that just occasionally I feel it necessary for the public good that I stand up to be counted.

In computing we have the acronym GIGO, garbage in garbage out. Mathmaticians are more polite and say that if the model is wrong, no amount of calculation will get the right answer. Getting the model right depends on intelligent observation, hypothesis, testing the hypothesis against counter arguments and observation, and testing the hypothesis against experiment. This is very like the OODA loop and if you actually look at Boyd's diagram of the OODA loop you will see a remarkable number of interacting things within the orientation box. Winning the fight does not mean that your orientation, decision and action was the optimum - you just might have been lucky.

After you get to the stage where the experiments have not falsified the hypothesis you can think about calling your hypothesis a theory but a theory is just a hypothesis that has not yet been proved false in much the way that winning the fight does not prove you followed the best strategy or tactic. There is no proof of a mathematical kind in the real world and even in law there is only proof beyond all reasonable doubt which too often turns out to be wrong.

I have said "intelligent observation" rather than just observation above because the borderline between observation and orientation is fuzzy. Observation depends on intelligence, knowledge and experience. Lots of people observed falling apples before Newton linked it to the process that made planets orbit round the Sun. An intelligent experienced LEO will observe things which others will merely see.

So, one of the things we have all seen is the pictures of dye infiltrated into blocks of ballistic gelatine which have been shot with different pistol bullets. We can see areas of darker colour and areas of streaky colour. With the application of a little intelligence and knowledge we can interpret this as an observation that the darker, more solid, colour must be volumes containing a greater density of dye and therefore a lower density of the original gel. For this to be so the gel must have been moved elsewhere and we assume that it must have been washed out with liquid dye and that this was possible because it had been broken up into small separate pieces by the action of the bullet. We aslo conclude that the dye is semi transparent and so the darkest colour is where the depth of dye has the greatest depth into the picture. This also tells us that the streaky or feathery looking parts are tears in the gel which have fallen back into place but have a thin layer of dye along the splits between blocks that had been separated by the action of the bullet.

Now we know what we are looking at we can see distinct similarities and differences between the tracks of the different bullets. The first thing of note is that the widest part of the deepest colour, let us call it the permanent cavity, is about a quater to a third of the way along the length of penetration. We can then see that the extent of tearing around the permanent cavity is roughly proportional to the width of the permanent cavity. That is, it is not a constant width on top of the permanent cavity. Since we can see the bullets still embedded in the gel we can also see that something like the last fifth of the permanent cavity is narrower than actual width of the bullet. Since it is obvious that the bullet starts out moving quickly and then comes to a stop we can conclude that the bullet is being slowed progressively along its track and that the width of the permanent cavity and of the total zone of apparent damage is related to the speed of the bullet where, apart from the anomaly of the first section, both the width of the permanent cavity and the zone of apparent damage are directly related to the speed of the bullet. We can think of two possible explanations for the anomalous zone. One is that the bullet takes time to expand and the other is that the effect at a distance from the bullet must be related to a cone like distribution in front of the bullet rather than to a cylinder around it.

We can all see the same information and the observations above don't require knowledge of mathematics or physics or the writings of Duncan MacPherson so why do we not all observe what is obvious? Ballistic gel is obviously not the same as flesh. It is calibrated to produce close to the same bullet expansion and penetration as shots into soft tissue. Where in a human body can we find 12 to 15 inches of homogenous soft tissue to shoot into? We can't, but this is the best we can do. What we can say is that a bullet fired into soft tissue will follow roughly the same process. The bullet will start out fast and come to a stop. The drag will expand the bullet. The damage to tissue along side the direct bullet track will also be related to the speed of the bullet. With any number of provisos, the thing we can be really sure of is that the permanent cavity will not be the same width, except at one point, as the diameter of the bullet as it passed that point. Why, why, why do so many people think that it is when we have all seen the simple evidence that it is not?

Just to make it really easy for us the famous picture has sub pictures of three different 9mms - the 124gn and 147gn 9x19mms and the 125gn 357SIG. The narrowest permanent cavity is created by the 147gn, the 124gn comes next and the widest, by a good margin, is created by the 357SIG. So straight away we can see that bullet speed is at least as significant, if we couldn't see that before, as bullet diameter. This simple insight is reinforced when we compare the 357SIG to the .45ACP. The .45 has over 60% more frontal area but the size and shape of the permanent cavities are remarkably similar. Why do so many people keep talking so much nonsense about what is so simple? Why do so many people keep comparing cartridges and loadings by expanded bullet diameter and depth of penetration? Well actually, there is a simple answer to that question - it is easy to measure those two criteria. Unfortunately it does not tell us much about bullet trauma.

I could continue to discuss other parts of this thread topic for at least four times as many words again. but I will stop here.

English
Al Lipscomb's post is also interesting:
Just to make it really easy your assertion is not correct. Depth of penetration is the key metric in wounding, that is why it is measured.

Your explanations on what is a theory track with your claims of education.
Note that it does not say why my assertion is incorrect. The second sentence is even more illuminating and does not say why depth of penetration is the key metric in wounding and continues by saying that that is why it is measured. Unfortunately we have the more probable explanation that it is measured because it is easy to measure rather than because it is the key metric in wounding.

The presumtion behind something that is the key metric is that more is better than less. i.e 24 inches is better than 15 inches but not as good as 36 inches. That is clearly rubbish and so we have to fall back on the idea that there is some optimum penetration depth, perhaps 12". But that also is clearly wrong as a key metric because we can find or make low energy .22 or .32 rounds with round nose full metal jackets of good sectional density which will satisfy that criterion of penetration while being very poor at stopping or killing. In other words, like many of your favourite ideas, the idea that penetration is the key metric of wounding is nonsense and Al Lipscomb is in no position to comment on my understanding of the nature of a theory.

I see you also repeat another of your favourite lies:
Some people believe, like english et al) that neither expansion or penetration are key factors in wound incapacitation.
None of the people you are refering to, Dr. Courtney, glock20c10mm, uz2bUSMC, myself and others have ever said any such thing. On the contrary, we have all stressed, and especially when this lie is repeated, that penetration is an essential factor of wounding. How could it not be? Equally, expansion is another key factor. Without sufficient expansion, energy is not delivered at a high enough rate to damage sufficient tissue to the side of the bullet track. Without sufficient penetration that energy is delivered at too shallow a depth. With too much penetration the zone of damage is too narrow and reduces the possibilty of a high enough ballistic pressure wave peak to cause remote brain trauma. None of these things can be done at a sufficiently high level without enough kinetic energy in the bullet and so KE is a key factor in wounding.

The not simple enough for you to grasp fact is that wounding effectiveness is a complex of all these factors and not just the two that are easy to measure.

How you and you friends get away with making these same lies so often and for so long is something I cannot understand.

Then you finnish off with another lie! By saying that my so called tantrum against Al Lipscomb in post #22 resulted in the thread bing closed. In fact the thread continued till post#25 which was by 481 and typical of his style. That got the thread closed and from memory, (2009 was a long time back) we did not see 481 in Warrior Talk again That is, it was 481 who was shown the door rather than me. I was not even given a warning!

You really do astound me.

English

DocKWL
01-09-2012, 07:52
English,

It seems as your time here on GT has become a little more difficult.

It also seems that you have dpadams6 on your line. Can you answer his question addressed to you:

"Wow, that was a lot of info. What caliber/round do you consider ideal for defense against 2 legged creatures?"

Make sure you explain why your answer is the 10mm and .357 SIG.

DocKWL
01-09-2012, 08:20
Roughly speaking,no!

Think of it this way: A bullet does damage by the rate at which it has to move tissue out of its way in time for it to pass. A .45 is approximately 11.25mm and a 9mm is what it claims. So the areas are proportional to the square of their radii since the pies cancel out and so do any factors. So we can say that the area of the .45 relative to the 9 is 11.25 squared divided by 9 squared, which is 1.56. So for every inch the bullets move the 45 has to displace 56% more tissue. If we put that in terms of speed, the .45 can move at 1/1.56, or 0.64 of the speed. So if the 9mm is doing 1100fps the 45 can do about 705fps and produce the same damage for a short distance till they both slow enough to change the ratio. Since most .45ACPs do about 800 to 850fps, that means that the 45s do more damage than the 9mms close to the surface.

If you think of the wound track as a stack of thin cylinders then each of those cylinders absorbs energy from the bullet as it is slowed by drag. If we assume that both bullets have the same hydrodynamic coefficient (roughly the same shape) then the drag is proportional to the frontal area multiplied by the square of the speed. If the bullet stayed the same shape and calibre the width of those cyliders would be at a maximum at entry and would reduce with depth. As we are talking about expanding bullets it takes time for the bullet to expand the cylkinders start small in diameter, increase to a maximum and then decrease with depth. You can see this general shape in any of the die infiltrated gellatine blocks which are shown from time to time. In both cases this picture is complicated by the fact that the ballistic pressure wave that does the damage travels mainly forwards and outwards rather than just to the side. Incidentally, it is better to talk of a pressure wave or ballistic pressure wave since a shock wave is something different associated with super sonic displacement. It is also important to realise that the speed of sound in water, and bodies are mainly water, is greater than a very fast rifle bullet and so does not have any significant effect.

One of the definitions of energy is: That which does work against some resistance. In this case the work is done both accelerating the tissue to get it out of the way and tearing cell walls and connective tissue to do so. If you think of the pressure wave in front of the bullet, it is squashing cells along the direction of its movement. The surface area of a 3D object of a non compressible liquid is at a minimum when it is a sphere. As the object is made longer, wider and thinner, its surface area increases. Since a cell is a liquid object surrounder with a membane of limited elasticity, (think of the cells in an orange, but much smaller) there is a severe limit to how much of this a cell can take before it bursts. Only when the bullet speed has fallen to a low level does it push the tissue aside.

For most of its passage the pressure wave in fron of the bullet bursts the cells in front of it and for some distance to the side before it gets to them and hurls the mush aside. Because it has very little time to do this, they are hurled to the side at high speed and the combination of inertia and displacement of the surrounding tissue to make way for this movement creates a temporary cavity. What is called the permanent cavity is the part that is turned to mush.

That will have to do for now.

English


Since most .45ACPs do about 800 to 850fps, that means that the 45s do more damage than the 9mms close to the surface.

This is false. Decades of shooting data prove that tissue damage (and maximum size of the TC) occur past the point of entry and after the bullet has slowed dramatically.

Please provide evidence supporting your theory.

If we assume that both bullets have the same hydrodynamic coefficient (roughly the same shape) then the drag is proportional to the frontal area multiplied by the square of the speed. If the bullet stayed the same shape and calibre the width of those cyliders would be at a maximum at entry and would reduce with depth.

"We" can not assume. "We" cannot interject "if". The events you describe do not occur in real life so your theory may be ignored.

In both cases this picture is complicated by the fact that the ballistic pressure wave that does the damage travels mainly forwards and outwards rather than just to the side.

There is no such thing as a "ballistic pressure wave". Please provide evidence to the contrary outside of the claims made by Dr. Courtney.

It is also important to realise that the speed of sound in water, and bodies are mainly water, is greater than a very fast rifle bullet and so does not have any significant effect.

At least there is something factual in this post.

To be clear, you have no medical training, never attended an autopsy, never part of LE or the military, are not connected to the firearms or ammunition industry, have no insider connections, and live in a country where handgun ownership is heavily restricted.

DocKWL
01-09-2012, 08:50
Your exposition of phyisics cannot be disputed at a simple level but it implies that faster and heavier is best and that, in reality, is wrong. The reality is that all is compromise because an excess of faster and heavier will produce too much recoil to be manageable either because the shooter cannot control the recoil or because he cannot carry the weight of pistol that makes recoil manageable.

The reality is that any particular opponent or prey at any particular angle leaves you with a particular optimum combination of bullet weight and velocity, subject to carry weight. Since we cannot predict what that bullet weight and velocity optimum will be in some future use, we have to select a range of weight and velocity that covers a wider range of possiblitiies rather than being right for just one.

Although you claim a knowledge of physics you seem not to understand the basic definition of energy and its relationship to wounding. Energy is that which can do work against a resistance. That means that the upper limit of the tissue damage a bullet can do is limited to its kinetic energy. The problem then becomes one of optimising the transmission of that energy to the appropriate depth of penetration of the target. Tiro Fijo's example is a perfectly good example of this. The .219 Zipper is not heavy enough to penetrate far enough to kill a buffalo within a reasonable time frame, though it would make a nasty wound which might result in eventual death from sepsis. In contrast, the 50-70 does not really have enough energy for a rapid kill except with a very precise shot. That is often sufficient because the hunter is generally ambushing a stationary and unsuspecting animal rather than needing to kill an attacking animal before it kills him. It should be clear that this illustrates a major difference between what is needed for hunting and what is needed for self defence.

Since energy is the most essential component of a bullet without which nothing else can be achieved and since recoil sets the limit of useable controlability it is worth examining the relationship between them. Recoil is directly related to bullet momentum and so, for a given bullet velocity, it increases directly with the bullet weight. Rather than a direct increase of energy with bullet weight, energy increases with the square of the velocity. Since damage to, or work against, the integrity of tissue increases with energy delivered we have the option to increase velocity while decreasing bullet weight to obtain more terminal ballistic energy release for the same recoil. In general, this is limited by the need to keep enough penetration.

I don't know of all these millions of claims around the internet that ascribe effectiveness solely to kinetic energy. Before you claim erroneously again without giving any examples that both I and Dr. Courtney have done so I will state that neither of us has done so.

Dr. Courtney's claims are related to the peak pressure of the bullet's terminal ballistics. The threshold of the peak pressure above which remote brain trauma can be caused within the penetration limits that Dr. Courtney specifies does indeed need a relatively high level of energy. But energy alone is insufficient as he makes clear to anyone who reads and understands what he says instead of jumping to a conclusion about what he is saying based on their own preconceptions. It is easy to find loads which have a some chance of rapid incapacitation and others of the same KE which do not. Incidentally, in case you have misunderstood this, Dr. Courtney set an arbitray limit of 5 seconds for a test to count as rapid incapacitation, but all tests had different times of course.

I have argued Dr. Courtney's case in other threads but have also agued the case for cumulative degeneration produced by the transmission of energy from several bullet hits in a gun fight being closely related to KE appropriately delivered. Once again, it should be clear from what I have written that the energy needs to be delivered at appropriate depth with a sufficiently wide zone of critical tissue damage. This is a strategy that is related to the lack of precison fire which is likely in a close range gun fight. It is actually why all sensible people who have the choice would use expanding bullets. These bullets are not made to reduce the danger of over penetration but to deliver energy transmission at a more optimum depth.

As in another thread where you traduced my intelligence by claiming that I believe it possible to to predict the time of incapacitation I ask you for any example of the millions of claims that effectiveness of incapacitation is solely consequent on KE with any kind of reasoned argument?

English

Your exposition of phyisics cannot be disputed at a simple level but it implies that faster and heavier is best and that, in reality, is wrong. The reality is that all is compromise because an excess of faster and heavier will produce too much recoil to be manageable either because the shooter cannot control the recoil or because he cannot carry the weight of pistol that makes recoil manageable.

The topic of this thread is wound trauma, not recoil management.

more terminal ballistic energy release

Time to re-write the journals to include your terminology.

Incidentally, in case you have misunderstood this, Dr. Courtney set an arbitray limit of 5 seconds for a test to count as rapid incapacitation, but all tests had different times of course.

What is this? Someone ascribing time to incapacitation? I thought you said that has not been done?

but all tests had different times of course.

Of course they have.

As in another thread where you traduced my intelligence by claiming that I believe it possible to to predict the time of incapacitation I ask you for any example of the millions of claims that effectiveness of incapacitation is solely consequent on KE with any kind of reasoned argument?

Asked and answered. You now added the additional parameter of, "incapacitation is solely consequent on KE". You are on record (including this thread) of ascribing a time to incapacition for a myriad of reasons. Just read your latest posts, you are continually tip-toeing around the subject.

If not, why all the chest thumping you display concerning the 10mm and .357 SIG? Do you now not think they incapacitate faster than a 9mm?

DocKWL
01-09-2012, 08:58
Since it is manifestly stupid to believe that a time to incapacitation could be predicted for some particular load and since he said that I had claimed it to be possible in some unspecified thread, it clearly traduced my intelligence.

I asked and he gave false information as an answer. You might count false information as an answer -I don't.

English

I never claimed that. You however, claim that certain calibers (i.e. 10mm and .357 SIG) are more effective at producing rapid incapacition than others.

So you will now go on record as saying the M&S data set (and others like it) are useless? Or do you agree that calibers such as the .357 MAG produce on average 96% one shot stops?

Be prepared to answer the question as to how, according to the M&S data, that the slow moving .45 ACP can achieve a near 100% rapid one shot stop.

DocKWL
01-09-2012, 09:21
This is a confused post which does not address the issue.
By this I assume you meant to say that the optimum bullets and loads for these two very different individuals are not the same. This is entirely true but how does that help someone to choose which load to carry since he does not know which kind of individual he will, in some unpredictable future, need to shoot?
This is true but are you talking about human rib bones or cow thigh bones? Since there is a great tendency to fixate on the BG's weapon there is a tendency to shoot at it and hit the extended forearm at an angle. Is this the bone you are talking about? If it is would not an "ordinary" rather than bone smashing bullet be sufficiently damaging to the shooting capability of the BG to allow a second and third or fourth shot to be made before he could transfer his weapon to his other hand? Lungs, kidneys and livers are undoubtedly vital but if you penetrate one, how long will it take, on average, for the BG to be unable to continue to shoot at you as a consequence? What any sensible person is looking for in a pistol round is a means of stopping the BG shooting at them as quickly as possible. Can penetrating a vital organ, especially the most probably vital organ, the lung, be relied upon to do this?
Well, yes it is, but he is asking for advice about the difference in the effectiveness between the 9mm and the .357 Magnum. What are you advising here? Does your wealth of experience not allow you to say that, shot for shot, the .357 Magnum will stop someone shooting at you in less time than a 9mm but that the advantage of the 9mm is that a typical 9mm pistol is smaller, lighter and carries more rounds than a .357 magnum revolver?
Why is that the only factor to be considered and how do you calculate it?

As you almost managed to say, ballistic gel was developed (rather than invented actually) to replicate the aproximate penetration and expansion of bullets in flesh. On that basis we could not expect it to replicate the permanent cavity since homogenous gel could not replicate cells being burst by dynamic pressure differentials. What we can say is that the ammount of damage done outside the bullet track in gel will be proportionate to the amount of damage done in flesh. That is, a greater diameter or volume of damage to the gel will almost certainly correlate to a greater diameter or volume of damage to tissue. Gel shows us that .357 Magnums do a lot more damage than 9mms.

In this instance, the volume of damage which takes tissue out of action in the fight will be much greater from a good hollow point .357 magnum which does not over penetrate than from an equally oprimised 9mm. The extra kinetic energy of the .357 magnum can only be held to the same penetration by greater expansion and so the extra diameter and extra speed transmit more energy to the surrounding tissue. This extra damage will produce several benefits. It will slow the time to the BG's next shot as the impact and temporay cavity effect will have knocked him off aim. It will reduce the functionality of his normal bodily movements which he needs to aim and fire because some muscles and possibly bones that his brain relies upon to make those movements will be out of action. It will make a greater contribution to the total bodily damage which is needed to make the BG incapable of continuing the fight and give the GG more time to make the next hit before the BG can compensate for the damage he has sustained and make another shot of his own. If this was not so, we would all be using full metal jacket .32ACPs with the same penetration as hollow point 9mms.

Could you try to help the OP by making reasoned rebuttals of the issues raised above rather than your usual unsupported statements from a belief in your own superior authority?

English

This is a confused post which does not address the issue.

What is the issue, English?

Does your wealth of experience not allow you to say that, shot for shot, the .357 Magnum will stop someone shooting at you in less time than a 9mm but that the advantage of the 9mm is that a typical 9mm pistol is smaller, lighter and carries more rounds than a .357 magnum revolver?

So it is your belief that "shot for shot" (or to put it in mathematical terms, on average) that the .357 MAG will incapacitate quicker than the 9mm?

On that basis we could not expect it to replicate the permanent cavity since homogenous gel could not replicate cells being burst by dynamic pressure differentials.

Or it could be something as simple as the varying densities of tissues.

That is, a greater diameter or volume of damage to the gel will almost certainly correlate to a greater diameter or volume of damage to tissue. Gel shows us that .357 Magnums do a lot more damage than 9mms.


This is false. How does ballistic gelatin show us that ".357 Magnums do a lot more damage than the 9mms"?

transmit more energy to the surrounding tissue. This extra damage will produce several benefits.

Ah, the 'ole energy dump theory in action.

It will slow the time to the BG's next shot as the impact and temporay cavity effect will have knocked him off aim. It will reduce the functionality of his normal bodily movements which he needs to aim and fire because some muscles and possibly bones that his brain relies upon to make those movements will be out of action. It will make a greater contribution to the total bodily damage which is needed to make the BG incapable of continuing the fight and give the GG more time to make the next hit before the BG can compensate for the damage he has sustained and make another shot of his own.

How can you predict such things? Is there averages you can calculate for us? It will slow the BG by how much? How much will it knock him off his aim? How much reduced functionality can we expect and how is this calculated?

DocKWL
01-09-2012, 09:26
481,
You are again scrabbling around for something to attack me with while failing to put forward any reasoned argument. Perhaps that makes sense to a super genius but not to me!

I am not assuming tht it is possible to predict the time to incapacitation of any particular shot but simply that ON AVERAGE the transmission of more energy from the bullet to the animal or person shot will lead to a faster incapacitation. Do super geniuses not understand the concept of the average of the semi randon outcomes of series of events with approximately the same initial conditions?

One of the things you failed to grasp when you were struggling to do your MSc in Organic Chemistry, if ever you were even enrolled for it, is the requirements for a rebuttal. There are two primary requirement. One is the production of reproducible facts which are contrary to the proposed theory. The other is an analysis of the logic of the theory which shows it to be false. Neither you nor you collaborator Glolt have ever even started to do such a thing. What Glolt does is trot out the same tired pieces of someone else's writing as though it could not be questioned by any right thinking person or make statements as though we are all expected to believe him because he is a retired LEO. You don't even manage that and stick to sneering at insignificant things such as the fact that I come from the UK. Wow! How could a non American dispute things about firearms with an american ex cop? Such effrontery is clearly not something you can tolerate.

English

I am not assuming tht it is possible to predict the time to incapacitation of any particular shot but simply that ON AVERAGE the transmission of more energy from the bullet to the animal or person shot will lead to a faster incapacitation.

As a mathematician you should be able to calculate for us using numbers how this average is derived. Please do so.

English
01-09-2012, 09:56
I never claimed that. You however, claim that certain calibers (i.e. 10mm and .357 SIG) are more effective at producing rapid incapacition than others.

So you will now go on record as saying the M&S data set (and others like it) are useless? Or do you agree that calibers such as the .357 MAG produce on average 96% one shot stops?

Be prepared to answer the question as to how, according to the M&S data, that the slow moving .45 ACP can achieve a near 100% rapid one shot stop.

I refer you to http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1390181&page=2 posts #36, #39 and #40. You either have problems with reading comprehension or writing what you mean to say.

DocKWL:.....
I will write it again:

Whether man or beast, there is no way to predict incapacitation times.
English:
can you point us to anyone, anywhere, any time, who has suggested that there is?

English

DocKWL:1. Yourself

2. Dr. Courtney

3. M & S.....

Saying that certain calibers are more effective than others does not mean that I or anyone else can predict what the times to incapacitation of some particular shooting will be.

I don't doubt the honesty of Marshall and Sanow in there attempts to quantify handgun cartridge effectiveness but I do doubt their methodology. As such I have no comment about their one shot stop rates for any cartridge but will point out a fact you appear not to understand. M&S did not even give average times for incapacitation, much less make predictions of times. Their concern was limited to whether one shot was enough. They made no control for what particular loading of a cartidge had been involved and their rates were simply unbelievable.

English

DocKWL
01-09-2012, 10:02
I refer you to http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1390181&page=2 posts #36, #39 and #40. You either have problems with reading comprehension or writing what you mean to say.

DocKWL:
English:


DocKWL:

Saying that certain calibers are more effective than others does not mean that I or anyone else can predict what the times to incapacitation of some particular shooting will be.

I don't doubt the honesty of Marshall and Sanow in there attempts to quantify handgun cartridge effectiveness but I do doubt their methodology. As such I have no comment about their one shot stop rates for any cartridge but will point out a fact you appear not to understand. M&S did not even give average times for incapacitation, much less make predictions of times. Their concern was limited to whether one shot was enough. They made no control for what particular loading of a cartidge had been involved and their rates were simply unbelievable.

English

Saying that certain calibers are more effective than others does not mean that I or anyone else can predict what the times to incapacitation of some particular shooting will be.

So on what basis do you say makes a caliber more effective than another?

They made no control for what particular loading of a cartidge had been involved and their rates were simply unbelievable.

You got that right!

English
01-09-2012, 10:19
What is the issue, English?
The issue was the relative effectiveness of the 9mm and the .357 Magnum.
So it is your belief that "shot for shot" (or to put it in mathematical terms, on average) that the .357 MAG will incapacitate quicker than the 9mm?Yes, as previously stated.
Or it could be something as simple as the varying densities of tissues.Oo! You are clever. I could never have thought of that, but it does not make any difference to the fact that gel cannot replicate cells.
This is false. How does ballistic gelatin show us that ".357 Magnums do a lot more damage than the 9mms"?
Because you can see that the extent or volume of gel that is torn is much greater. This does not mean that the same volume of fresh as gel will be torn but it is hard to argue against the idea that more implies more.
Ah, the 'ole energy dump theory in action.
Do try harder to say something sensible.
How can you predict such things? Is there averages you can calculate for us? It will slow the BG by how much? How much will it knock him off his aim? How much reduced functionality can we expect and how is this calculated?
I have explained this at length on other threads. It probably takes about 1000 words. You did't understand it then and I don't expect you to do so now. Someone with your claimed knowledge of physics shoul not need an explanation. And no you can't expect a metric of reduced functionality for the same reason you can't expect a prediction of time to incapacitation of any particular shot.

By the way, somewhere amongst your jumble of posts you claim that Dr. Courtney makes a prediction of incapacitation in 5 seconds. He did no such thing! What he did do was set 5 seconds as the upper limit to what he would count as rapid incapacitation. Some came inside that limit and others did not. As I have said several times before, you appear to suffer from difficulties with reading comprehension. There could be another explanation of course.

English

English
01-09-2012, 10:36
This is false. Decades of shooting data prove that tissue damage (and maximum size of the TC) occur past the point of entry and after the bullet has slowed dramatically.

Please provide evidence supporting your theory.

I did the maths for you. Try to work your way through it - it was very simple.
"We" can not assume. "We" cannot interject "if". The events you describe do not occur in real life so your theory may be ignored.
You really can't follow the idea of a simplyfied model can you?
There is no such thing as a "ballistic pressure wave". Please provide evidence to the contrary outside of the claims made by Dr. Courtney.
This migh be you reading comprehension problem again but start by finding any competent physicist and ask him about the dynamic wave created as a solid moves at subsonic speed through a fluid. Then when he explains it to you, if he has the patience, ask him whether the term "ballistic pressure wave" is appropriate to it. A BPW is simple undisputed physics! If, on the other hand you think I am talking about the remote brain trauma which is the most probable cause of the rapid incapcitation observed and measured in Dr. Courtney's work, that is a different thing. Courtney did not claim a mechanism for his data but simply demonstrated that the rate of rapid incapacitation increased as the peak pressure of the BPW rose above a level below which he saw no rapid incapacitations from pistol bullet wounds to dear in the thoracic area, which intentionally missed both heart and spine. This information has been in the public domain for several years now and no one has refuted it with anything other than bluster. On that basis we have to suspect that his data and calculations are sound and that the blusterers are not.[QUOTE]
...........

English

DocKWL
01-09-2012, 10:42
The issue was the relative effectiveness of the 9mm and the .357 Magnum.Yes, as previously stated.Oo! You are clever. I could never have thought of that, but it does not make any difference to the fact that gel cannot replicate cells.
Because you can see that the extent or volume of gel that is torn is much greater. This does not mean that the same volume of fresh as gel will be torn but it is hard to argue against the idea that more implies more.
Do try harder to say something sensible.
I have explained this at length on other threads. It probably takes about 1000 words. You did't understand it then and I don't expect you to do so now. Someone with your claimed knowledge of physics shoul not need an explanation. And no you can't expect a metric of reduced functionality for the same reason you can't expect a prediction of time to incapacitation of any particular shot.

By the way, somewhere amongst your jumble of posts you claim that Dr. Courtney makes a prediction of incapacitation in 5 seconds. He did no such thing! What he did do was set 5 seconds as the upper limit to what he would count as rapid incapacitation. Some came inside that limit and others did not. As I have said several times before, you appear to suffer from difficulties with reading comprehension. There could be another explanation of course.

English

but it does not make any difference to the fact that gel cannot replicate cells.
Because you can see that the extent or volume of gel that is torn is much greater. This does not mean that the same volume of fresh as gel will be torn but it is hard to argue against the idea that more implies more.


Just as ballistic gelatin can not replicate cells, gelatin can not replicate the volume of tissue (cell) damage. This is fundamental. Gelatin does not work that way. And you can not have it both ways.

You claim:

transmit more energy to the surrounding tissue. This extra damage will produce several benefits.

Common sense tells me this is the energy dump premise. Is it not? What is your definition of the energy dump theory?

What he did do was set [A TIME OF] 5 seconds as the upper limit to what he would count as rapid incapacitation. Some came inside that [TIME] limit and others did not [COME INSIDE THAT TIME LIMIT].

Since you are the de facto expert on Dr. Courtney's theory, can you explain for the benefit of us all what the primary and fundamental purpose of Dr. Courtney's theory is please?

DocKWL
01-09-2012, 10:53
I did the maths for you. Try to work your way through it - it was very simple.
You really can't follow the idea of a simplyfied model can you?
This migh be you reading comprehension problem again but start by finding any competent physicist and ask him about the dynamic wave created as a solid moves at subsonic speed through a fluid. Then when he explains it to you, if he has the patience, ask him whether the term "ballistic pressure wave" is appropriate to it. A BPW is simple undisputed physics! If, on the other hand you think I am talking about the remote brain trauma which is the most probable cause of the rapid incapcitation observed and measured in Dr. Courtney's work, that is a different thing. Courtney did not claim a mechanism for his data but simply demonstrated that the rate of rapid incapacitation increased as the peak pressure of the BPW rose above a level below which he saw no rapid incapacitations from pistol bullet wounds to dear in the thoracic area, which intentionally missed both heart and spine. This information has been in the public domain for several years now and no one has refuted it with anything other than bluster. On that basis we have to suspect that his data and calculations are sound and that the blusterers are not.[QUOTE]
...........

English

I did the maths for you. Try to work your way through it - it was very simple.

Your math is wrong.

This is fact:

Decades of shooting data prove that tissue damage (and maximum size of the TC) occur past the point of entry and after the bullet has slowed dramatically.

None of your formulations will change this fact.

You really can't follow the idea of a simplyfied model can you?


Yes I can. There is no place in math, science, physics, or terminal ballistics for "if" and "assume". You of all people should understand that.

You are not original by introducing "if" and "assume" to make ones theory on a subject make sense. It does not make it correct either.

This information has been in the public domain for several years now and no one has refuted it with anything other than bluster.

This is not correct. You do not agree with the findings and the actual reports are not available to you so you call it bluster. It does not change the fact that Dr. Courtney's theory is dead in the water.

DocKWL
01-09-2012, 11:13
English,

When I stumbled into this thread, I used a methodical approach to responding to posts. As a man of science, I would have thought this would have been your approach also. You appear to be skipping around and only answering certain questions.

So I ask, do you have any intention on answering the question:

"Wow, that was a lot of info. What caliber/round do you consider ideal for defense against 2 legged creatures?"

If you do, your completeness will include an explination as to why.

English
01-09-2012, 13:21
Just as ballistic gelatin can not replicate cells, gelatin can not replicate the volume of tissue (cell) damage. This is fundamental. Gelatin does not work that way. And you can not have it both ways.

You claim:



Common sense tells me this is the energy dump premise. Is it not? What is your definition of the energy dump theory?



Since you are the de facto expert on Dr. Courtney's theory, can you explain for the benefit of us all what the primary and fundamental purpose of Dr. Courtney's theory is please?

I am sure it will be a relief to everyone when I say that this is the last time I respond to you.

I do not claim that you can have it both ways, but there is a limit to the pressure diferential that cells can withstand before bursting and there is a limit to the extent that flesh can be stretched without tearing. A ballistic pressure wave exerts both phenomena and a stronger wave does the same only more so. The disruption shown in gel shows the effect of the BPW and shows which bullets produce a greaster effect than others.

Drag is a measure of how rapidly a solid passing through a fluid medium looses KE. It is proportional to frontal area and the square of the velocity and modified by its coefficient of drag. If the drag brings the bullet to rest in a certain distance it has done so precisely because that distance has used up all its KE. Since, as you agree, ballistic gelatin provides almost identical drag and therefore penetration as flesh, the bullet must be loosing KE and transmitting it to the flesh or gelatin at virtually the same rate, penetration depth for penetration depth, in the two media. Just as a higher rate of energy loss clearly does more damage to the gel so it must do more damage to flesh unless flesh has some magical component unknown to science.

It would help if you told us exactly what the so called energy dump theory claims. Without that I can hardly make a sensible comment. I suspect it came in with the SuperVel bullet era and was an unscientifically stated vague kind of idea that if you had a really high KE in a wide expanding bullet it would often put someone out of the fight far faster than bleed out would allow for. If that is so then Dr. Courtney's work quantifies this effect for a number of pistol bullets at pistol cartridge speeds. As far as I know, the energy dump theory never got beyond a sexy sounding idea in the head of a gun mag writer that got lots of people excited. The term hydrostatic shock was used in much the same way and, if anything, is even more unscientific since a BPW is a dynamic pressure wave and since "shock" is confused with the ideas of supersonic shock waves on one hand and severe surprise on the other.

I get the feeling at times that you are either trying to waste my time or are just overcome with the beauty of my prose style and succinct explanations of things you don't understand.

I would not describe myself as the de facto expert on Dr. Courtney's theory and until pushed to it in two recent threads I have not discussed it in a long time. I have spent far more time discussing BPW effects on localised tissue disruption. However, as stated above, Courtney's work simply did two things. First it established that rapid incapacitation can occur without penetration of organs which might produce such an effect and in far less time than could occur from blood loss. Secondly it shows that the probability of this effect, which can occur only via some kind of damage to the brain though he does not specify what kind of damage, increases with the peak pressure of the BPW, over some minimum level, provided that the bullet penetrates at least 12 inches.

In a probably vain attempt to stop non-sensical post before they start I will try to elaborate. Peak pressure is proportional to bullet drag and so it increases directly with the frontal area and with the square of bullet speed. It also increases with containment. What does that mean? It means that pressure tends to push its way out through weaker directions and so a bullet traveling through an arm will still be releasing the same energy at the same speed but will produce a far larger temporary cavity with less pressure than the same bullet at the same speed deep within the body where the pressure is contained by the resistance of the surounding mass of flesh. In one case a smaller mass is accelerated at a higher rate. In the other a higher mass is accelerated at a lower rate. Both use the same energy over any given small increment of loss of speed at a particular initial speed.

Please, please, please note that KE, penetration, expanded diameter and velocity are all essential components of this effect.

In real terms, what does this mean? It means that all normal 9mms and a good proportion of .45ACPs including all FMJs do not reach the minimum pressure level. The best 9mm+P and +P+ do but their penetration is marginal and their probability of rapid incapacitation is relatively low. The .45ACP covers a much wider range from well below the pressure threshold to nearly as good, in light weight high velocity bullets, as the best 10mms. next are the .40S&Ws with a good proportion inside the rapid incapication zone with probabilities, from memory, of rapid incapacitation in the 25 to 40% range. The 357SIGs do better but have a smaller spread. They get up to the 50 to 60% probability range. The 10mms are better again and get up to the 70 to 90+ % probability of rapid incapacitation. It is worth noting that these are not the 10mm lites of the major manufacturers but are up in the 750ft.lbf range with 135 or 155 gn bullets.

The 9mms perform badly in this respect because they don't have enough energy to both penetrate enough and reach a high enough peak pressure. The .40S&Ws, 357SIGs and 10mms can do both but more KE allows them to produce a higher peak pressure and sufficient penetration. The .40 and 357 KEs are similar but the 40s tend to heavier bullet weights at lower speeds than the 357s and so produce lower peak pressure. It is worth noting that Courtney produce a formula to produce a probably peak pressure given the KE and pentration of a particular bullet and a formula to predict the probability of rapid collapse based on peak pressure. This does not, I believe, mean that peak pressure is the only determinant since the integral of pressure and duration might be more significant given some limits but for reasonable simplicity, peak pressure is what he used.

Anyone who want to take advantage of this effect, which adds an extra level to the probability to their chances of survival, must be prepared to carry and fire a higher recoiling and noisier pistol than the typical 9mm but otherwise loses nothing and gainss extra tissue damage per shot.

Once above the pressure threshold limit the probability of rapid incapacitation first rises rapidly but then less so. By the time the probability reaches 90% (to be more technical, 0.9) it takes big increases of BPW pressure to gain small increases of probability.

In a different practical sense, it ties the probability of achieving a rapid collapse to the pistol size and weight an individual can practically carry or is prepared to carry. At the large end the 10mm is clearly best if you can and will carry it. Next is the .357SIG in the same size as the 9mms, as far as Glocks go. Both of those will achieve substantial probability of rapid collapse. That demotes the 9mm to smaller and more concealable pistols than the G26. These pistols are a lot better than no pistol but, with the addition of the shorter barrel, are most unlikely to produce this effect. Smaller still and we are down to .380ACPs and then .32ACPs. These too are better than no pistol but will certainly not produce this effect.

DocKWL took issue with me for mentioning recoil in a comparison of terminal balistics in one of his posts above but recoil, size and weight are fundamental to what can or will be carried by a particular person and so determine the kind of cartridge he can shoot. This relationship is made very clear by Dr. Courtney's findings about rapid incapacitation but the less official part of the findings came from the autopsies conducted to make sure that neither heart nor spine had been impacted. The tissue damage done by the 357SIG was so dramatically greater than that of the 9mms that Dr. Courtney's wife and co-experimentalist changed her EDC immediately.

English

English
01-09-2012, 13:23
English,

When I stumbled into this thread, I used a methodical approach to responding to posts. As a man of science, I would have thought this would have been your approach also. You appear to be skipping around and only answering certain questions.

So I ask, do you have any intention on answering the question:

"Wow, that was a lot of info. What caliber/round do you consider ideal for defense against 2 legged creatures?"

If you do, your completeness will include an explination as to why.

Breaking my word already! See the post above.

English

DocKWL
01-09-2012, 13:29
I refer you to http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1390181&page=2 posts #36, #39 and #40. You either have problems with reading comprehension or writing what you mean to say.

DocKWL:
English:


DocKWL:

Saying that certain calibers are more effective than others does not mean that I or anyone else can predict what the times to incapacitation of some particular shooting will be.

I don't doubt the honesty of Marshall and Sanow in there attempts to quantify handgun cartridge effectiveness but I do doubt their methodology. As such I have no comment about their one shot stop rates for any cartridge but will point out a fact you appear not to understand. M&S did not even give average times for incapacitation, much less make predictions of times. Their concern was limited to whether one shot was enough. They made no control for what particular loading of a cartidge had been involved and their rates were simply unbelievable.

English

M&S did not even give average times for incapacitation, much less make predictions of times. Their concern was limited to whether one shot was enough.

For the uninitiated, "one-shot stop" is a term used originally by police officer Evan Marshall, who compiled official reports of shootings from law enforcement agencies around the country and attempted to derive the incidence of instantaneous incapacitation brought about by wounds inflicted by firearms. To separate the effects of multiple injuries and different ammunition natures, Marshall used only incidents involving a single injury to the torso, "one shot". Marshall further required the definition of incapacitation or "stopping" to be a complete cessation of attack / flight within one or two seconds. Single shot incapacitation within three to five seconds, or ten seconds or thirty, is allegedly excluded.

From THIS (http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/1shotstops.html)

English
01-09-2012, 13:43
[QUOTE=English;18406524]....
Your math is wrong.

This is fact:

Decades of shooting data prove that tissue damage (and maximum size of the TC) occur past the point of entry and after the bullet has slowed dramatically.

None of your formulations will change this fact.

You have misread what I said. Let me re-phrase it. I was comparing the initial damage of the 9mm with the initial damage of the .45. Immediately at and shortly after entry the larger diameter of the .45 puts it ahead of the 9mm in spite of the extra speed of the 9mm. That is the maths I was talking about. Read it again!

Of course the maximum size of permantnt and temorary cavity is greater deeper in - it takes time and distance for the bullet to expand.

Yes I can. There is no place in math, science, physics, or terminal ballistics for "if" and "assume". You of all people should understand that.

You are not original by introducing "if" and "assume" to make ones theory on a subject make sense. It does not make it correct either.
On the contray there is a place for it mathematical modelling in which you set the parameters. In this case I was trying to make the parameters simple enough for you to understand. Failed again!

This is not correct. You do not agree with the findings and the actual reports are not available to you so you call it bluster. It does not change the fact that Dr. Courtney's theory is dead in the water.

As I have said many times, a theory is never found to be true but is provisional if it seems reasonable until it is disproved. You and many others were bleating for Courtney to "prove" his theory but you don't know how science works or the philosophical basis of knowledge. It is open to others to prove him wrong since he can never prove himself right. No one has done this. No one has even replicated a small section of his experiments or if so they have got the same results and have kept it quiet. These were simple experiments requiring relatively little equipment. If it is so important to your little band of facklerites, why haven't you done it? Was faklerite the stuff that neutralised gravity in one of H.G. Wels' novels? Most approriate if it was.

You say somewhere that I do not answer all your questions in a systematic way. Indeed I don't. I have better things to do and answer only what is interesting enough or too silly to leave unaswered. Why should I answer questions I have answered before?

English

English
01-09-2012, 13:51
.... Marshall used only incidents involving a single injury to the torso, "one shot". Marshall further required the definition of incapacitation or "stopping" to be a complete cessation of attack / flight within one or two seconds. Single shot incapacitation within three to five seconds, or ten seconds or thirty, is allegedly excluded.
....

You might note that this is not equivalent to making a prediction of the length of time to incapacitation in a particular event. By the nature of things the times were not recorded but judged by the officers concerned. Also, autopsies to determine just what damage was done were rare and did not exclude hits to the spine.

If .45ACPs always did produce one shot stops within 1 to 2 seconds no one would be using 9mms. And you seem to believe this is valid data!

English

481
01-09-2012, 14:10
Glolt,
Thank you for finding that. It is interesting that I am still a member of Warrior Talk and 481 is not. I don't think he lasted 2 weeks!

By the way, i was not attacking Chris Upchurch but simply putting an alternative view.

Which was that no one bought because no one there is no one willing at WT to entertain your pompous, delusional rants. You were the only to be admonished by 'site staff. Although you are no doubt used to the condition by now, you are once again wrong; I remain a member at Warrior Talk to this day having just posted there today (see post #24 in the linked thread below):

http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?93587-Carry-Ammo-for-Glock-19-Lets-here-what-and-why&p=1305278#post1305278

Al Lipscomb's post is also interesting:
Note that it does not say why my assertion is incorrect.

Yes, Lipscomb did say that your assertion is incorrect. I’ve underlined and bolded it in red it since you missed it the first time. You've managed to prove that once again and that at any given time, you are unsure whether you are afoote or horseback.

"Just to make it easy your assertion is not correct. Depth of penetration is the key metric in wounding, that is why it is measured.
Your explanation of what is theory track with your claims of education."

Al Then you finnish off with another lie! By saying that my so called tantrum against Al Lipscomb in post #22 resulted in the thread bing closed. In fact the thread continued till post#25 which was by 481 and typical of his style. That got the thread closed and from memory, (2009 was a long time back) we did not see 481 in Warrior Talk again That is, it was 481 who was shown the door rather than me. I was not even given a warning!


Another lapse of memory, Engli’?

I remain a member at Warrior Talk (see the link above) and never received a warning or infraction. You were the only one in the thread who needed to be corrected by the staff there as evidenced by Al Lipscomb's statement that you were (and still are) incorrect.



None of the people you are refering to, Dr. Courtney, glock20c10mm, uz2bUSMC, myself and others have ever said any such thing. On the contrary, we have all stressed, and especially when this lie is repeated, that penetration is an essential factor of wounding. How could it not be? Equally, expansion is another key factor. Without sufficient expansion, energy is not delivered at a high enough rate to damage sufficient tissue to the side of the bullet track. Without sufficient penetration that energy is delivered at too shallow a depth. With too much penetration the zone of damage is too narrow and reduces the possibilty of a high enough ballistic pressure wave peak to cause remote brain trauma. None of these things can be done at a sufficiently high level without enough kinetic energy in the bullet and so KE is a key factor in wounding.

The not simple enough for you to grasp fact is that wounding effectiveness is a complex of all these factors and not just the two that are easy to measure.

So here we have all of the metrics that you claim to use in order to predict the differences in time to incapacitation for different cartridges to include the previous metric that you mentioned earlier…

that ON AVERAGE the transmission of more energy from the bullet to the animal or person shot will lead to a faster incapacitation

So, I too, repeat DocKWL’s request…


As a mathematician you should be able to calculate for us using numbers how this average is derived. Please do so.


...that you demonstrate and exercise this awesome ability that you claim to possess.



I did the maths for you.


On the contray there is a place for it mathematical modelling in which you set the parameters. In this case I was trying to make the parameters simple enough for you to understand. Failed again!

You state that you have the parameters so let's have it.

Do the "maths" as you've claimed that you can and did.

You now have everyone's attention. I even saw that good ol' Mas Ayoob was present on this thread at 3:17 p.m.

So, here's your chance to shine.

Swim fish.



Asking you to do as you've claimed you can does not constitute an attack of any sort upon you.

Your failure to perform as you've claimed you can means only one thing: you are engaging in intentional deception. :shame:

DocKWL
01-09-2012, 14:11
We present time domain analysis of the Strasbourg test data showing that the probability of incapacitation depends on two independent mechanisms. One mechanism works quickly (< 5 seconds) and can be accurately modeled as a function of the ballistic pressure wave magnitude. The second mechanism works slowly (> 5 seconds) and is related to blood pressure drop from internal bleeding.

Finally, this article presents an empirical model for predicting relative incapacitation probability in humans by employing the hypothesis that the wound channel and pressure wave effects each have an associated independent probability of incapacitation.

From THIS (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211769)

Glolt20-91
01-09-2012, 15:37
We present time domain analysis of the Strasbourg test data showing that the probability of incapacitation depends on two independent mechanisms. One mechanism works quickly (< 5 seconds) and can be accurately modeled as a function of the ballistic pressure wave magnitude. The second mechanism works slowly (> 5 seconds) and is related to blood pressure drop from internal bleeding.

Finally, this article presents an empirical model for predicting relative incapacitation probability in humans by employing the hypothesis that the wound channel and pressure wave effects each have an associated independent probability of incapacitation.

From THIS (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211769)

This graph may help,

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock

As of today, predictive incapacitation times are directly related to bullet velocities per Courtney.

Tiro Fijo
01-09-2012, 17:04
As usual, this thread has descended into needless backbiting & childish accusations by both sides of the argument. :upeyes:

English
01-09-2012, 17:17
We present time domain analysis of the Strasbourg test data showing that the probability of incapacitation depends on two independent mechanisms. One mechanism works quickly (< 5 seconds) and can be accurately modeled as a function of the ballistic pressure wave magnitude. The second mechanism works slowly (> 5 seconds) and is related to blood pressure drop from internal bleeding.

Finally, this article presents an empirical model for predicting relative incapacitation probability in humans by employing the hypothesis that the wound channel and pressure wave effects each have an associated independent probability of incapacitation.

From THIS (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211769)

In many things it is possible to ask question like, "Which of the words, 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand. In this case it is, "Do you understand the meaning of the words 'relative' and 'probability' in the sentence, 'Finally, this article presents an empirical model for predicting relative incapacitation probability in humans' do you understand and how do you get from there to predicting the time to incapacitation in a future shooting?

English

English
01-09-2012, 17:41
.....
Quote:
[QUOTE]Originally Posted by English
Note that it does not say why my assertion is incorrect.
Yes, Lipscomb did say that your assertion is incorrect. I’ve underlined and bolded it in red it since you missed it the first time. You've managed to prove that once again and that at any given time, you are unsure whether you are afoote or horseback.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Lipscomb:
"Just to make it easy your assertion is not correct. Depth of penetration is the key metric in wounding, that is why it is measured. .
Even a super genious can be so eager to find something to be nasty about that he can fail to read the sentence he is sneering at. To make it easy for you I have underlined the "why". Any fool can say something is incorrect but it is a meaningless statement unless he can back it with fact or argument.

Tell me why a SWAT marksman needs to be a super genious again? I seem to have forgotten. Since you have dropped that claim in your current self description were you even in a SWAT team?

English

English
01-09-2012, 17:43
Tiro,
Quite correct. The spirit was willing but the flesh was weak.

English

pisc1024
01-09-2012, 17:57
Tiro,
He is a one trick pony. I have read many of his posts and most are abusive, but not one has made a reasoned explanation of anything. In reaction to this long term behaviour in the Caliber Corner thread "COR®BON; Stopping Power Myths Addressed!" post #59on 11th July 2011 I wrote:




Your one to talk pot, I seem to remember more than one exchange I have had with you that got personal.

481
01-09-2012, 18:29
Even a super genious can be so eager to find something to be nasty about that he can fail to read the sentence he is sneering at. To make it easy for you I have underlined the "why". Any fool can say something is incorrect but it is a meaningless statement unless he can back it with fact or argument.

Tell me why a SWAT marksman needs to be a super genious again? I seem to have forgotten. Since you have dropped that claim in your current self description were you even in a SWAT team?

English

For one who whines whenever he believes that an insult has been leveled against him, you sure are quick to resort to that behavior.

Such behavior is that of a hypocrite.

Asking you to do as you've claimed you can does not constitute an attack of any sort upon you.

Dodge it as you may your continuing failure to perform as you've claimed you can means only one thing: you are engaging in intentional deception. :shame:

Such behavior is that of a liar.

How unfortunate that you cannot live up to the standards that you espouse.

So, we still have remaining all of the metrics that you claim to use in order to predict the differences in time to incapacitation for different cartridges to include the previous metric that you mentioned earlier.

Let's see you do what you've claimed you can do.

DocKWL
01-09-2012, 18:38
In many things it is possible to ask question like, "Which of the words, 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand. In this case it is, "Do you understand the meaning of the words 'relative' and 'probability' in the sentence, 'Finally, this article presents an empirical model for predicting relative incapacitation probability in humans' do you understand and how do you get from there to predicting the time to incapacitation in a future shooting?

English

Yes, I do understand the words "relative" and "probability" in the sentence. "Probability" is irrelevant in this discussion. What is relevant are the words, "relative incapacitation", the definition of which is, "a subsequent period of confusion and/or disorientation" or in our case, incapacitation.

You asked if I could, "point us to anyone, anywhere, any time, who has suggested that there is [a way to predict incapacitation times]"? I have answered your question more than once now.

Dr. Courtney himself presented an empirical model for predicting relative incapacitation probability in humans by employing the hypothesis that the wound channel and pressure wave effects each have an associated independent probability of incapacitation.

Instead of being so defensive and quick to slander, stop backpedaling, read the article, and admit that there are people (including yourself) who have attempted to predict incapacitation times.

Your words:

The interesting thing is what causes one shot stops and how does that relate to multiple shot stops. Let us start with a sensible definition. A stop means that the person shot is physically unable to keep shooting or fighting effectively. That is, he is "out of it". He might be unconscious but he might still be on his feet with his eyes open but unable to focus, think or co-ordinate his movements. We could say that a rapid stop achieves this in less than 5 seconds and very likely in less than 1 second.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1c/TBIpwave.jpg/400px-TBIpwave.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TBIpwave.jpg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.18/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TBIpwave.jpg)
Average time until incapacitation decreases rapidly with pressure wave magnitude as magnitudes approach 500 psi (3,400 kPa). See: Links between traumatic brain injury and ballistic pressure waves originating in the thoracic cavity and extremities. Brain Injury 21(7): 657–662, 2007.

481
01-09-2012, 19:01
As usual, this thread has descended into needless backbiting & childish accusations by both sides of the argument. :upeyes:

Here's something to consider before you get back upon that high horse of yours:

You were part of it.

PrecisionRifleman
01-09-2012, 19:07
No reason to be confused!! Get a 10mm Glock and put that arguement/decision to rest. You will get the best qualities of the 357sig (hyper speed with light bullet weights) along with the best qualities of the 45ACP (heavy weights but also fast), and high capacity. Why people haven't realized this and started flocking to this cartridge is beyond me. I think ignorant, and arrogant gun shop sales man have a lot to do with it since they tend to steer people into other cartridges. Give the 10mm a try and put the caliber debate to rest. It really does offer everything the other cartridge do and then some.

pisc1024
01-09-2012, 19:56
...I think ignorant, and arrogant gun shop sales man have a lot to do with it since they tend to steer people into other cartridges. Give the 10mm a try and put the caliber debate to rest. It really does offer everything the other cartridge do and then some.

Also the fact that there are only two hollow point rounds that are designed for the 10, neither of which is bonded... This fact alone in the opinion of many kicks it out of the ring of serious contenders for honest to goodness professionals, who look at more than just velocity numbers.

Tiro Fijo
01-09-2012, 23:07
Here's something to consider before you get back upon that high horse of yours:

You were part of it.


Look, BUDDY. I'm not on anyone's "side" here. I don't know any of you and don't want to. However, if you can't relay your thoughts w/o insults then maybe it's time to take up a new hobby. :wavey:

XXLTexan
01-09-2012, 23:20
If it's been said ignore but I didn't want to read 6 pages + of data.
357 mag is .357
9mm is .353

357 mag goes about 1400fps
9mm +P+ (like the federal LEO round) runs about 1300fps

Conclusion: If you you shoot the same area through the same clothing you will get almost the exact same results. Add +P+ bullets that are bonded and don't fragment nearly as much as rounds that are not and you have a round that performs basically the same as a 357 magnum with 7-33 round capacity in a Glock as opposed to 5-8 in a revolver. The 357 Sig rouns changes that math a bit as the rounds that can be carried are increased in an auto pistol but they are more expensive to plink with the cheap rounds and much more for the carry rounds...my $0.02.

Also for what it's worth I only carry 9mm (+P+) and .45ACP (185 +P bonded) in my carry pistols. Cheap to practice with, readily available, and the people that keep score say they get the job done.

tsmo1066
01-09-2012, 23:21
It isn't the arrow that counts, it's the Indian.

You guys are arguing about a tempest in a teapot. Choose a round that works well in the platform you need and then TRAIN.

"Ballistic Wave" be damned. Learn your weapon and learn a proper mindset and tactical know-how.

A well-trained man with the right mindset, who is armed with a .22 caliber Derringer has all the cards in a defensive situation over a poorly trained, mentally unprepared man with a custom .45.

The service calibers will ALL kill if you do your part. BE READY TO DO YOUR PART.

desertrefugee
01-09-2012, 23:45
You know as a new forum member (but quite active on others) this thread caught my eye, both for its subject line and for its length (which I assumed was on topic).

Imagine my disappointment in finding that at least half of the thread spiraled into juvenile bantering that served no purpose. I don't presume to have all the history behind the drama - and danged sure ain't interested in it.

Grow up gentlemen - or take up checkers.

And I suppose it can be assumed that these fora are unmoderated.

There are WAAAY too many other spots on the web to get information without the unnecessary clutter of wasted minds. I believe I'll go there instead.

Glolt20-91
01-10-2012, 14:34
It isn't the arrow that counts, it's the Indian.

You guys are arguing about a tempest in a teapot. Choose a round that works well in the platform you need and then TRAIN.

"Ballistic Wave" be damned. Learn your weapon and learn a proper mindset and tactical know-how.

A well-trained man with the right mindset, who is armed with a .22 caliber Derringer has all the cards in a defensive situation over a poorly trained, mentally unprepared man with a custom .45.

The service calibers will ALL kill if you do your part. BE READY TO DO YOUR PART.

If only this was true. Many years ago I sat behind a widow and children of a fallen detective who had honed his mindset and skills during his years of service. A lucky shot to the head from a 9mm by a youthful hood leaving the scene of an armed robbery ended the detectives life. Return fire by other officers ended the tragic scene as the hood bled out in the snow.

A couple of nights before the hood was also lucky, a deputy and I (both recently returned Vietnam vets) were on stake out duty outside a convenience store based upon a tip. We were ready when the hood entered the store with a couple of his buddies; however, a robbery didn't occur that night and the trio drove off after making a purchase.

Never underestimate the luck factor because a number of us posting on this thread have the mindset, scholastic and experiential knowledge to share what we've learned. In addition, we understand what it means to be a survivor and we all have our lucky stories.

Unfortunately there are those wannabes who openly disrespect those with professional backgrounds, not only on this thread and forum, but other forums as well. This thread and the one linked to the Suarez instructors are prime examples of what venomous, personal attacks on professionals looks like and those attacks typically lead to closed threads.

By contrast, when those individual wannabes are not involved, threads here and other websites go remarkably well. In the end, this has been going on for years on CC, all one has to do is look at the member's background to validate credibility.

pisc1024
01-10-2012, 15:10
If only this was true. Many years ago I sat behind a widow and children of a fallen detective who had honed his mindset and skills during his years of service. A lucky shot to the head from a 9mm by a youthful hood leaving the scene of an armed robbery ended the detectives life. Return fire by other officers ended the tragic scene as the hood bled out in the snow.

A couple of nights before the hood was also lucky, a deputy and I (both recently returned Vietnam vets) were on stake out duty outside a convenience store based upon a tip. We were ready when the hood entered the store with a couple of his buddies; however, a robbery didn't occur that night and the trio drove off after making a purchase.

Never underestimate the luck factor because a number of us posting on this thread have the mindset, scholastic and experiential knowledge to share what we've learned. In addition, we understand what it means to be a survivor and we all have our lucky stories.

Unfortunately there are those wannabes who openly disrespect those with professional backgrounds, not only on this thread and forum, but other forums as well. This thread and the one linked to the Suarez instructors are prime examples of what venomous, personal attacks on professionals looks like and those attacks typically lead to closed threads.

By contrast, when those individual wannabes are not involved, threads here and other websites go remarkably well. In the end, this has been going on for years on CC, all one has to do is look at the member's background to validate credibility.

A good point from one of the few people on this forum who seem to have any real experience with the topic…

tsmo1066
01-10-2012, 16:27
If only this was true. Many years ago I sat behind a widow and children of a fallen detective who had honed his mindset and skills during his years of service. A lucky shot to the head from a 9mm by a youthful hood leaving the scene of an armed robbery ended the detectives life. Return fire by other officers ended the tragic scene as the hood bled out in the snow.

A couple of nights before the hood was also lucky, a deputy and I (both recently returned Vietnam vets) were on stake out duty outside a convenience store based upon a tip. We were ready when the hood entered the store with a couple of his buddies; however, a robbery didn't occur that night and the trio drove off after making a purchase.

Never underestimate the luck factor because a number of us posting on this thread have the mindset, scholastic and experiential knowledge to share what we've learned. In addition, we understand what it means to be a survivor and we all have our lucky stories.

Unfortunately there are those wannabes who openly disrespect those with professional backgrounds, not only on this thread and forum, but other forums as well. This thread and the one linked to the Suarez instructors are prime examples of what venomous, personal attacks on professionals looks like and those attacks typically lead to closed threads.

By contrast, when those individual wannabes are not involved, threads here and other websites go remarkably well. In the end, this has been going on for years on CC, all one has to do is look at the member's background to validate credibility.

I would never argue that luck doesn't play a role. Heck, when you get right down to it, luck can (and often does) trump everything else. We can't control for luck, though. All we can do is make sure that we control what we can, though training and hard work, and although there are many tragic exceptions, there is validity to the old adage that fortune favors the prepared.

I very much agree with your points on civility as well. I just believe that some folks around here would be very well served if they invested as much time training and practicing as they spend endlessly debating the 'caliber wars' and pissing all over each other regarding 'ballistic coefficients' and 'energy dump'.

Tiro Fijo
01-10-2012, 17:29
...A lucky shot to the head from a 9mm by a youthful hood leaving the scene of an armed robbery ended the detectives life...


...Eine Kugel kam geflogen:
Gilt sie mir oder gilt sie dir?
Sie hat ihn weggerissen,
Er liegt zu meinen Füßen
Als wär's ein Stück von mir...

...A bullet flew towards us
meant for you or for me?
It did tear him away,
he lies at my feet
like he was a part of me...

Ich hatt' einen Kameraden

fastbolt
01-10-2012, 17:29
Yep, luck (good or bad), timing and circumstances can all have an influence on how situations unfold, and even whether we have the chance to respond to them in the manner we'd desire.

You want an outstanding range of medium-bore handgun power and versatility? The .357 Magnum cartridge offers loadings, bullet weights and velocities that run below the 9mm and also beyond the .357SIG.

You want a pistol and some higher capacity than a revolver? Pick one of the assorted 9mm or .357SIG pistols that best suits your perceived needs, suits your skillset & experience ... or just tickles your fancy.

I'm getting ready to run out for a walk (no pun intended :rofl: ( and do some errands. Instead of taking one of my littler 9's or belting on my Riger SP101 DAO (which would probably get loaded with the W-W 145gr STHP, even though I have a lot of the Rem 125gr SJHP :whistling: ) ... I decided I'll once again slip one of M&P 340's into a jacket pocket. It'll also be loaded with the 130gr +P RA38B (also known as the PDX1 in the commercial packaging) instead of Magnum loads.

Why? Because just the other day I once again demonstrated (to myself and my former agency) that I can shoot it rapidly, accurately & controllably for quals. Good enough for my needs in this role.

I do like the 9mm and .357 Magnum, though. ;)

Not so much the .357SIG, since I already have so many 9's, .40's, .45's and assorted .38 & .357Magnum revolvers.

Everyone can suits themselves. I do.

What's to argue about? They've all demonstrated they can "work".

481
01-10-2012, 17:50
If only this was true. Many years ago I sat behind a widow and children of a fallen detective who had honed his mindset and skills during his years of service. A lucky shot to the head from a 9mm by a youthful hood leaving the scene of an armed robbery ended the detectives life. Return fire by other officers ended the tragic scene as the hood bled out in the snow.

A couple of nights before the hood was also lucky, a deputy and I (both recently returned Vietnam vets) were on stake out duty outside a convenience store based upon a tip. We were ready when the hood entered the store with a couple of his buddies; however, a robbery didn't occur that night and the trio drove off after making a purchase.

Never underestimate the luck factor because a number of us posting on this thread have the mindset, scholastic and experiential knowledge to share what we've learned. In addition, we understand what it means to be a survivor and we all have our lucky stories.

Unfortunately there are those wannabes who openly disrespect those with professional backgrounds, not only on this thread and forum, but other forums as well. This thread and the one linked to the Suarez instructors are prime examples of what venomous, personal attacks on professionals looks like and those attacks typically lead to closed threads.

By contrast, when those individual wannabes are not involved, threads here and other websites go remarkably well. In the end, this has been going on for years on CC, all one has to do is look at the member's background to validate credibility.

Well said.

No one can honestly claim that they can predict reliably any aspect of a gun fight since no one can account for the infinite variability that comes with such events.

Once over, those variables have been answered and everything else is just arm-chair quarterbacking.

English
01-10-2012, 18:47
If only this was true. Many years ago I sat behind a widow and children of a fallen detective who had honed his mindset and skills during his years of service. A lucky shot to the head from a 9mm by a youthful hood leaving the scene of an armed robbery ended the detectives life. Return fire by other officers ended the tragic scene as the hood bled out in the snow.

A couple of nights before the hood was also lucky, a deputy and I (both recently returned Vietnam vets) were on stake out duty outside a convenience store based upon a tip. We were ready when the hood entered the store with a couple of his buddies; however, a robbery didn't occur that night and the trio drove off after making a purchase.

Never underestimate the luck factor because a number of us posting on this thread have the mindset, scholastic and experiential knowledge to share what we've learned. In addition, we understand what it means to be a survivor and we all have our lucky stories.

Unfortunately there are those wannabes who openly disrespect those with professional backgrounds, not only on this thread and forum, but other forums as well. This thread and the one linked to the Suarez instructors are prime examples of what venomous, personal attacks on professionals looks like and those attacks typically lead to closed threads.

By contrast, when those individual wannabes are not involved, threads here and other websites go remarkably well. In the end, this has been going on for years on CC, all one has to do is look at the member's background to validate credibility.

Very good. I have often suspected that you were cleverer and sneakier than 481. What have you done here? You have played the honourable service card twice. Risking life for country in Vietnam and then risking life for country and law in the police force. How could such a selfless man be a liar? Having raised sympathy you then refer to wannabes, which can only mean me since I am the only one standing up to your lies at length and claim that I openly disrespect those with professional backgrounds.

That takes us to at least two places doesn't it? First, I am not a wannabe. I have no wish to be a LEO or a soldier and I certainly would not wish to be a member of your closed minded set of bullies. Second, I have lots of respect for professionals that justify my respect - it is just that you and 481 in particular are not amongst them. I also have great respect for scholarship as a whole, though some is almost certainly a waste of a good mind.

One of the most important things about scholarship and professionalism is the ability to think and adapt to new information and ideas. An idea that is dead is just that and a scholar or professional that cannot accept that his or her favourite idea is dead is not worthy of the name. A scholar or professional who trades on his or her authority to maintain his or her "face" while they continue to support the dead idea on which they have built their reputation is not even worthy of sympathy. Unfortunately the halls of the academics and professionals are full of vicious catfights which are often based on precisely such issues. This is probably less true of scientific disciplines than of the arts since the evidence is usually more clear cut, but, for example, there was a period when a good proportion of professional physicists understood the evidence for the existence of electrons but refused to believe it because electons could not be seen. In the issue at dispute here my opposition are faklerites. a such they are talking pseudo science without an understanding of the science basics and they are fighting a disgraceful rearguard action on ideas that should never have become accepted.

You and 481 are retired LEOs and as such do not really qualify for the term professional which you apply to yourselves. It really applies to doctors of medicine, lawyers, accountants and at least some ministers of religion. You might be said to belong to the profession of law enforcement but that is a courtesy. Within that occupation I can believe that you have done some academic work and that some of it is related to ballistics. I believe that you at least have attended autopsies, though this is the internet and anything is possible. I even believe that you have risked your lives in the service of your country. But this does not make you a forensic pathologist or a surgeon. None of it makes you a scientist and in more threads than I can remember, you and 481, to say nothing of DocKWL the dentist, have demonstrated a failure to understand the nature of a scientific theory, proof, falsifiability or even basic physics though 481 used to claim that he graduated in Physics and Russian. The sad fact is that neither of you can reason worth a damn, and that might be too generous.

Over some years and many threads you have both shown a complete inability to put together any kind of rational argument based on facts and well established scientific theory. You have shown no ability to criticise such arguments on the same terms but have consistently fallen back on ad hominem attacks. On the basis of this and your occupational history and slightly more than your amateur and uncritical level knowledge of ballistics and wound ballistics you have the outright gall to expect me or anyone with reasonable intelligence and education to respect you and believe everything you say because it is you who is saying it. Time after time I have asked you for explanations in support of your ridiculous assertions and you have never been able to do it.

And then you move on to to those other professionals, the Suarez international instructors at Warrior Talk as though they are all against me even though Gabe Suarez has thanked me for one post and another instructor thanked me for something which he had never thought of.

The simple fact is that I will argue with anyone if I think that they are wrong and I will explain why. It is then open to them to argue back and on occasion I discover that I am wrong and I change my mind. Sometimes, and in the example you have given, Al Lipscomb is one, their reaction is to shout that I am wrong and possibly add on a little abuse. They never change my mind! In that thread you or 481 thinks that I was "attacking" the OP. Well, is a disagreement an attack? Must we all agree with everything that anyone else, or perhaps any person in authority, says? If we did how would we ever make any progress?

I encourage anyone reading this to do a little research, here or on Warrior Talk. Glolt20-91 thinks that all you need to do is look at the background of the participants. He would do so because he has nothing else to offer. Rather than that, remember that this is the internet. Any one can claim any kind of background or expertise. What they can't do is fake actual knowledge expressed as intelligent explanation or argument.

In any of the threads in which I make long posts, and you will find plenty on topics other than terminal ballistics, read them with an open mind and see if they make sense. That does not mean that you need to agree with them, but just see if I am making rational arguments. If someone is making abusive posts directed at me, first see if they are making a rational argument or just shouting. Then work back and find out where the abuse started. Take note of the lies mixed in with this abuse.. How do you know that they are lying? You start from the fact that I or someone on my side of the argument says that they are lying. You will find a little group all making the same lies but you will have to dig a lot deeper to confirm that they are lies and I can't help you with that. What should strike you is that the accusations of lying are one sided. They will use this tactic against me with ridiculous claims about what I have said. They used it about Dr. Courtney and claimed that his whole research was a lie. They lied about Glock10mm20c's occupation. They even claimed that work on microscopically visible brain damage from gunshot wounds to the chest done by a University in the Czech Republic was either false or part of some Courtney led conspiracy.

If you, as an independent observer, can bring yourself to read through enough of this stuff with an open and investigative mind the difference between the two sides of this dispute will be very clear. You might disagree with the arguments made by me and other on the same side, but you should see that respect is the last thing that should be given to my opposition. A such, it is not worth believing a thing they say, even when they are not lying.

English

481
01-10-2012, 19:54
What a surprise. Another tantrum. :rant:


Very good. I have often suspected that you were cleverer and sneakier than 481. What have you done here? You have played the honourable service card twice. Risking life for country in Vietnam and then risking life for country and law in the police force. How could such a selfless man be a liar? Having raised sympathy you then refer to wannabes, which can only mean me since I am the only one standing up to your lies at length and claim that I openly disrespect those with professional backgrounds.

That takes us to at least two places doesn't it? First, I am not a wannabe. I have no wish to be a LEO or a soldier and I certainly would not wish to be a member of your closed minded set of bullies. Second, I have lots of respect for professionals that justify my respect - it is just that you and 481 in particular are not amongst them. I also have great respect for scholarship as a whole, though some is almost certainly a waste of a good mind.

One of the most important things about scholarship and professionalism is the ability to think and adapt to new information and ideas. An idea that is dead is just that and a scholar or professional that cannot accept that his or her favourite idea is dead is not worthy of the name. A scholar or professional who trades on his or her authority to maintain his or her "face" while they continue to support the dead idea on which they have built their reputation is not even worthy of sympathy. Unfortunately the halls of the academics and professionals are full of vicious catfights which are often based on precisely such issues. This is probably less true of scientific disciplines than of the arts since the evidence is usually more clear cut, but, for example, there was a period when a good proportion of professional physicists understood the evidence for the existence of electrons but refused to believe it because electons could not be seen. In the issue at dispute here my opposition are faklerites. a such they are talking pseudo science without an understanding of the science basics and they are fighting a disgraceful rearguard action on ideas that should never have become accepted.

You and 481 are retired LEOs and as such do not really qualify for the term professional which you apply to yourselves. It really applies to doctors of medicine, lawyers, accountants and at least some ministers of religion. You might be said to belong to the profession of law enforcement but that is a courtesy. Within that occupation I can believe that you have done some academic work and that some of it is related to ballistics. I believe that you at least have attended autopsies, though this is the internet and anything is possible. I even believe that you have risked your lives in the service of your country. But this does not make you a forensic pathologist or a surgeon. None of it makes you a scientist and in more threads than I can remember, you and 481, to say nothing of DocKWL the dentist, have demonstrated a failure to understand the nature of a scientific theory, proof, falsifiability or even basic physics though 481 used to claim that he graduated in Physics and Russian. The sad fact is that neither of you can reason worth a damn, and that might be too generous.

Over some years and many threads you have both shown a complete inability to put together any kind of rational argument based on facts and well established scientific theory. You have shown no ability to criticise such arguments on the same terms but have consistently fallen back on ad hominem attacks. On the basis of this and your occupational history and slightly more than your amateur and uncritical level knowledge of ballistics and wound ballistics you have the outright gall to expect me or anyone with reasonable intelligence and education to respect you and believe everything you say because it is you who is saying it. Time after time I have asked you for explanations in support of your ridiculous assertions and you have never been able to do it.

And then you move on to to those other professionals, the Suarez international instructors at Warrior Talk as though they are all against me even though Gabe Suarez has thanked me for one post and another instructor thanked me for something which he had never thought of.

The simple fact is that I will argue with anyone if I think that they are wrong and I will explain why. It is then open to them to argue back and on occasion I discover that I am wrong and I change my mind. Sometimes, and in the example you have given, Al Lipscomb is one, their reaction is to shout that I am wrong and possibly add on a little abuse. They never change my mind! In that thread you or 481 thinks that I was "attacking" the OP. Well, is a disagreement an attack? Must we all agree with everything that anyone else, or perhaps any person in authority, says? If we did how would we ever make any progress?

I encourage anyone reading this to do a little research, here or on Warrior Talk. Glolt20-91 thinks that all you need to do is look at the background of the participants. He would do so because he has nothing else to offer. Rather than that, remember that this is the internet. Any one can claim any kind of background or expertise. What they can't do is fake actual knowledge expressed as intelligent explanation or argument.

In any of the threads in which I make long posts, and you will find plenty on topics other than terminal ballistics, read them with an open mind and see if they make sense. That does not mean that you need to agree with them, but just see if I am making rational arguments. If someone is making abusive posts directed at me, first see if they are making a rational argument or just shouting. Then work back and find out where the abuse started. Take note of the lies mixed in with this abuse.. How do you know that they are lying? You start from the fact that I or someone on my side of the argument says that they are lying. You will find a little group all making the same lies but you will have to dig a lot deeper to confirm that they are lies and I can't help you with that. What should strike you is that the accusations of lying are one sided. They will use this tactic against me with ridiculous claims about what I have said. They used it about Dr. Courtney and claimed that his whole research was a lie. They lied about Glock10mm20c's occupation. They even claimed that work on microscopically visible brain damage from gunshot wounds to the chest done by a University in the Czech Republic was either false or part of some Courtney led conspiracy.

If you, as an independent observer, can bring yourself to read through enough of this stuff with an open and investigative mind the difference between the two sides of this dispute will be very clear. You might disagree with the arguments made by me and other on the same side, but you should see that respect is the last thing that should be given to my opposition. A such, it is not worth believing a thing they say, even when they are not lying.

:crying:

English



http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1441826943740&id=c05f676543cf659699ae251eaaa827ac&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.redrockdecals.com%2fmedia%2fcatalog%2fproduct%2fcache%2f1%2fthumbnail%2f600x600 %2f9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95%2fs%2fi%2fsign_whining.jpg (http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1441826943740&id=c05f676543cf659699ae251eaaa827ac&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.redrockdecals.com%2fmedia%2fcatalog%2fproduct%2fcache%2f1%2fthumbnail%2f600x600 %2f9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95%2fs%2fi%2fsign_whining.jpg)

Glolt20-91
01-10-2012, 20:29
^^^^

Some profiles are very predictable and validating. :)

481
01-10-2012, 20:55
^^^^

Some profiles are very predictable and validating. :)

I'll say.

As you know all too well, profiles can be extremely useful and accurate (especially in LE) since behavioral impulses can be incredibly irresistible.

pisc1024
01-10-2012, 21:16
Very good. I have often suspected that you were cleverer and sneakier than 481. What have you done here? You have played the honourable service card twice. Risking life for country in Vietnam and then risking life for country and law in the police force. How could such a selfless man be a liar? Having raised sympathy you then refer to wannabes, which can only mean me since I am the only one standing up to your lies at length and claim that I openly disrespect those with professional backgrounds.



To think that you attack someone in this way is pretty disgusting even for you. First of all, the damned post you are referring to didn't even have anything to do with you! Second, the fact that you are trying to claim that he is trying to parlay his experiences and sacrifices into sympathy from some dude on the internet is nothing short of despicable on your part! Just because you hide behind your school desk, and don't have the balls to go out and put your butt on the line doesn’t mean you get to walk around and demean those of us who have not made the same decision! That post was nothing short of complete and total garbage, and even you ENGLISH should be ashamed of yourself!

English
01-11-2012, 06:05
To think that you attack someone in this way is pretty disgusting even for you. First of all, the damned post you are referring to didn't even have anything to do with you! Second, the fact that you are trying to claim that he is trying to parlay his experiences and sacrifices into sympathy from some dude on the internet is nothing short of despicable on your part! Just because you hide behind your school desk, and don't have the balls to go out and put your butt on the line doesn’t mean you get to walk around and demean those of us who have not made the same decision! That post was nothing short of complete and total garbage, and even you ENGLISH should be ashamed of yourself!

I haven't seen you around for a long time pisc. Did they call you in to make it 4.5 to one instead of 3.5 to one?

The reason I would not want to be a policeman or soldier is smply that there are too many like 481, Glolt and you in those occupations. This is not something to demean soldiers and LEOs as a whole. There are great, intelligent and honest men in those occupations. Unfortunately they tend to spend their carreers struggling with the likes of 481 and Glolt on one side and politicians on the other. The army in particular is far better now than it used to be. It is far less likely to be planning the next war on the basis of the last. Armies have learned many lessons from Vietnam and probably more from the Israelis.

Take careful note here pisc. You too, just like your heroes, have not managed a reasoned rebuttal of anything I have said. Do you understand what is meant by reasoning? You build from existing reason and fact to reach a reasoned conclusion. You might then go on to incorporate that into some other reasoned conclusion and so on. It does take some level of intelligence to do it but given that, which I feel you probably have, it is a matter of practice to make it a habit of mind.

Proper reasoning does require also that you are honest with yourself and that you have the moral courage to face up to conclusions contrary to your preconceptions or prejudices. These might be more important characteristics than intelligence. If you can learn to do it you will find it liberating, enlightening and useful. Note that none of those three words applies to your present level of thinking. You don't have to believe in nonsense just because some swaggering fool in a position of authority tells you to believe it.

English

PS Guess what pisc, I am not in the least ashamed of myself, but I am appalled by your little gang.

English
01-11-2012, 06:09
481,
I believe that inserting emoticons and other changes to someone elses post in quotes is against the forum rules. You keep quoting forum rules so you should be able to tell us whether that is correct. If so you should at least edit it out of your post above. if you can find an emoticon for disgust you have my permission to insert that.

English

481
01-11-2012, 09:40
481,
I believe that inserting emoticons and other changes to someone elses post in quotes is against the forum rules. You keep quoting forum rules so you should be able to tell us whether that is correct. If so you should at least edit it out of your post above. if you can find an emoticon for disgust you have my permission to insert that.

English

Aww, another tantrum.

You ask DocKWL a question and get an answer that you don't like.

You respond with an insult laden tantrum.

You claim the ability to predict time to incapacitation for different rounds and are asked to provide proof of that claim.

You respond with an insult laden tantrum.

You deny having claimed the ability to predict time to incapacitation for different rounds and are confronted with your own words as evidence of making that claim.

You respond with an insult laden tantrum.

You are asked by two GT members to answer dpadam6's question, a question that he put forth in good faith.

You respond with an insult laden tantrum.

Glolt20-91 posts his experiences gained during a lifetime of service to his Nation.

You respond with an insult laden tantrum.

pisc1024 calls you on what is clearly an attack against our Nation's servicemen and women and their valor and service.

You respond with an insult laden tantrum.

You are called on your most recent tantrum.

You respond with an insult laden tantrum.


I think that by now everyone reading this thread "has your number".

pisc1024
01-11-2012, 10:18
I haven't seen you around for a long time pisc. Did they call you in to make it 4.5 to one instead of 3.5 to one?



No one called me in for anything, I stumbled on your little gem of an exchange all by my little self.

The reason I would not want to be a policeman or soldier is smply that there are too many like 481, Glolt and you in those occupations. This is not something to demean soldiers and LEOs as a whole. There are great, intelligent and honest men in those occupations. Unfortunately they tend to spend their carreers struggling with the likes of 481 and Glolt on one side and politicians on the other. The army in particular is far better now than it used to be. It is far less likely to be planning the next war on the basis of the last. Armies have learned many lessons from Vietnam and probably more from the Israelis.



Yet another example of you talking about something you have no experience with. I guess you are just so desperate for acceptance you just have to go on line and bloviate the way you are known to do, in hopes of finding someone who is gullible enough to buy the crap you’re selling.

Take careful note here pisc. You too, just like your heroes, have not managed a reasoned rebuttal of anything I have said. Do you understand what is meant by reasoning? You build from existing reason and fact to reach a reasoned conclusion. You might then go on to incorporate that into some other reasoned conclusion and so on. It does take some level of intelligence to do it but given that, which I feel you probably have, it is a matter of practice to make it a habit of mind.



I have not even interjected myself in the current debate; I feel that I have more the sufficiently shot down your argument for BPW. I am just presenting myself as a character witness for you.

I PS Guess what pisc, I am not in the least ashamed of myself, but I am appalled by your little gang.

I can tell you’re not ashamed of yourself...

English
01-11-2012, 11:48
Aw, another tantrum.

You ask DocKWL a question and get an answer that you don't like.

You respond with an insult laden tantrum.
Lie!
You claim the ability to predict time to incapacitation for different rounds and are asked to provide proof of that claim.
Lie! i have never made such a claim and believe it no more than you do.
You respond with an insult laden tantrum.
Justified insults. See below for tantrum.
You deny having made the claimed ability to predict time to incapacitation for different rounds and are confronted with your own words as evidence of making that claim.
And I deny it yet again. Neither you nor anyone else showed anything to the contrary.
You respond with an insult laden tantrum.
As above.
You are asked by two GT members to answer dpadam6's question, a question that he put forth in good faith.
If you want me to answer that question about a question you must reemind me what it was. I have answered the OP's question more than fully.
You respond with an insult laden tantrum.
See below.
Glolt20-91 posts his experiences gained during a lifetime of service to his Nation.

You respond with an insult laden tantrum.
Only part of what he posted, say one part of three, was a brief history of his heroism. I pointed out that he was looking for sympathy and that admirable though heroism is it is irrelevant to whether or not I am a wannabe LEO/soldier, which was the second of three parts. The third part was a return to an apeal to authority in the form of Suarez instructors. I believe real heroes don't talk much about their heroism but i suppose there must be exceptions to everything. For tanrum see below.
pisc1024 calls you on what is clearly an attack against our Nation's servicemen and women and their valor and service.
So he did and I answered him.
You respond with an insult laden tantrum.

You are called on your most recent tantrum.

You respond with an insult laden tantrum.
See below.
I think that by now everyone reading this thread "has your number".
I am sure some share your opinion of me and some share my opinion of you.

Now tantrums! As I understand it a tantrum is an incohate expression of rage lacking meaningful structure or constructiveness. A three year old lying on the floor banging his heels and screaming, "Shan't! Shan't! Shan't!" or "Won't! Won't!" or "I'm not listening! I'm not listening!" or an adult screaming "Whining!" on a forum. Almost all of my posts are constructive whether they are about technical matters related to firearms, pointing out your lies or the lies of your friends, politics, rationality, or the methodology and philosophy of science. The exceptions to this are of a few humorous posts and an analysis of the strange claims you make for yourself. Even my insults are constructive! Of course, you might claim that it is whining to say that you are lying but that is not something many people who are lied about would agree with.

The rational conclusion to this is that my posts are not tantrums, but a large proportion of yours have no content beyond being tantrums of the most childish kind.

English

Glolt20-91
01-11-2012, 12:05
Aww, another tantrum.

You ask DocKWL a question and get an answer that you don't like.

You respond with an insult laden tantrum.

You claim the ability to predict time to incapacitation for different rounds and are asked to provide proof of that claim.

You respond with an insult laden tantrum.

You deny having claimed the ability to predict time to incapacitation for different rounds and are confronted with your own words as evidence of making that claim.

You respond with an insult laden tantrum.

You are asked by two GT members to answer dpadam6's question, a question that he put forth in good faith.

You respond with an insult laden tantrum.

Glolt20-91 posts his experiences gained during a lifetime of service to his Nation.

You respond with an insult laden tantrum.

pisc1024 calls you on what is clearly an attack against our Nation's servicemen and women and their valor and service.

You respond with an insult laden tantrum.

You are called on your most recent tantrum.

You respond with an insult laden tantrum.


I think that by now everyone reading this thread "has your number".

Unfortunately engli's attacks don't end here, not inclusive, because there are more, but these highly regarded professionals have been on the receiving end of his vitriolic rants;

Doc Gary Roberts
All those who were part of the $6mil/4yr terminal ballistic research project, perhaps in part because BPW was not accepted as a wounding incapacitation mechanism,

Duncan MacPherson,
Eugene Wolberg
A trauma surgeon who presented a research paper at the Baylor School of Medicine was called "stupid",

Dr Fackler and his facklerites,

Garbage in garbage out Suarez Int'l instructors .....

Seems like this whole situation/s is more of one person against the world than between two legitimate sides!

481
01-11-2012, 12:45
Unfortunately engli's attacks don't end here, not inclusive, because there are more, but these highly regarded professionals have been on the receiving end of his vitriolic rants;

Doc Gary Roberts
All those who were part of the $6mil/4yr terminal ballistic research project, perhaps in part because BPW was not accepted as a wounding incapacitation mechanism,

Duncan MacPherson,
Eugene Wolberg
A trauma surgeon who presented a research paper at the Baylor School of Medicine was called "stupid",

Dr Fackler and his facklerites,

Garbage in garbage out Suarez Int'l instructors .....

Seems like this whole situation/s is more of one person against the world than between two legitimate sides!

I'll say.

The ever-present persecution complex, chronic tantrums and increasingly frequent infantile statements such as...

....Even my insults are constructive! ....

...demonstrates a greater degree of disturbance than ever before.

Glolt20-91
01-11-2012, 14:52
Aww, another tantrum.

You ask DocKWL a question and get an answer that you don't like.

You respond with an insult laden tantrum.

You claim the ability to predict time to incapacitation for different rounds and are asked to provide proof of that claim.

You respond with an insult laden tantrum.

You deny having claimed the ability to predict time to incapacitation for different rounds and are confronted with your own words as evidence of making that claim.

You respond with an insult laden tantrum.

You are asked by two GT members to answer dpadam6's question, a question that he put forth in good faith.

You respond with an insult laden tantrum.

Glolt20-91 posts his experiences gained during a lifetime of service to his Nation.

You respond with an insult laden tantrum.

pisc1024 calls you on what is clearly an attack against our Nation's servicemen and women and their valor and service.

You respond with an insult laden tantrum.

You are called on your most recent tantrum.

You respond with an insult laden tantrum.


I think that by now everyone reading this thread "has your number".

No one called me in for anything, I stumbled on your little gem of an exchange all by my little self.



Yet another example of you talking about something you have no experience with. I guess you are just so desperate for acceptance you just have to go on line and bloviate the way you are known to do, in hopes of finding someone who is gullible enough to buy the crap you’re selling.



I have not even interjected myself in the current debate; I feel that I have more the sufficiently shot down your argument for BPW. I am just presenting myself as a character witness for you.


I can tell you’re not ashamed of yourself...

Wow, just read your post again, so........ engli "the reason", not "a" reason he never went into the military/LE was because of people like "us". Kinda tells me he's had his temper tantrum problems long before any of us joined GT.

Anyway, Natchez has 357mag/145gr Silvertips on sale; $43.67/50 count. Silvertips are expensive across the board, but this caliber/bullet choice has a long, good record for personal defense situations. But then, a lot of 357mag ammo is/has a good record for ending violent social issues. :)

Spinnerblade
01-11-2012, 17:17
I just read this thread and I find myself agreeing with English. I don't think he is the one with tantrum problems, either.

I'm not a professional, just a casual observer, though.

Ha ha, what a thread!

pisc1024
01-11-2012, 18:56
Wow, just read your post again, so........ engli "the reason", not "a" reason he never went into the military/LE was because of people like "us". Kinda tells me he's had his temper tantrum problems long before any of us joined GT.

Anyway, Natchez has 357mag/145gr Silvertips on sale; $43.67/50 count. Silvertips are expensive across the board, but this caliber/bullet choice has a long, good record for personal defense situations. But then, a lot of 357mag ammo is/has a good record for ending violent social issues. :)

LOL... Yea silver tips are good rounds for 357. I find myself moving more toward the 158 gr. Hornadys though, that's what I have in my gun right now.

Glolt20-91
01-11-2012, 21:29
LOL... Yea silver tips are good rounds for 357. I find myself moving more toward the 158 gr. Hornadys though, that's what I have in my gun right now.

Good choice, I've loaded the 140 XTPs ~1500s and it's pretty wicked. Last summer while going out the front door with the dog I noticed a 200lb hog in the front yard about 90yds away. Was carrying my 686 with handloaded 158gr Noslers, figured that was a good combination for the hog at that distance. Ground was hard from the drought and I was concerned that the bullet would deflect off the ground on a through and through.

Anyway, the hog went through the barbed fence and kept on going toward barking dogs at a neighbor's house about a 1/4 mile away. Dogs don't mix with just about any of the wild 4-legged critters in these parts. Javelina and coatimundis can travel in packs, view dogs as threats, often ripping out a dog's intestines. Then there's the big cats ..... :)

Lots of sign out back and the dog stays inside, like today, had a friendly encounter with a couple of critters by myself. One of my favorite carries here is a Colt 1911 in 38Super stoked with handloaded 125gr XTPs, a 357mag bullet leaving the muzzle at 1491fps, recoil is comparable to a G17. For whatever reason it's seen a lot of action against all kinds of vermin intent on doing harm, more than all of the other carries combined.

357mag has to be one of the most versatile calibers available and a lot people own at least one and they don't disappoint in the field, as you well know. :)

PersonOfInterest
01-12-2012, 01:35
G'Day Bob, just a side not on the Win Silvertips in the 357 magnum (as you know im a big fan) I had no idea you payed that much for them over there! its been a while since ive seen them in shops here (I bought some 130gn Federals in 357magnum just to try - those impressed me quite alot to be honest) unless i do a special order through a shop it might be a while before i see the silvertips again, they are a great round, i know youve had some experience in loading the 135gn GoldDot in the .38special ive been thinking theyed be a great round in the 357magnum - however they may result in some early expansion and lead to some shallow penetration - hard to say, im just looking for something to substitute the Silvertip.
Anyway just thought id say hi and comment on the silvertip - hope your good.

Glolt20-91
01-12-2012, 02:24
G'Day Bob, just a side not on the Win Silvertips in the 357 magnum (as you know im a big fan) I had no idea you payed that much for them over there! its been a while since ive seen them in shops here (I bought some 130gn Federals in 357magnum just to try - those impressed me quite alot to be honest) unless i do a special order through a shop it might be a while before i see the silvertips again, they are a great round, i know youve had some experience in loading the 135gn GoldDot in the .38special ive been thinking theyed be a great round in the 357magnum - however they may result in some early expansion and lead to some shallow penetration - hard to say, im just looking for something to substitute the Silvertip.
Anyway just thought id say hi and comment on the silvertip - hope your good.

Hey, thanks for the feedback on the Silvertips, the mag has a lot of good choices to choose from. I don't know if the 135gr GD will hot rod much, not sure where the upper velocity limit is. I've heard rumors of a 140gr GD, I haven't checked recently, have you heard anything? If the rumors are true and it's a shallow cavity design, 1400/1500s should make for hammer of Thor performance in the field.

Everybody safe from the fires? Any goat activity?

9x23Win/125gr Silvertips are on the market too, keep wondering how they'd do out of a Super barrel, 1450fps is cooking and they expand aggressively.

PersonOfInterest
01-12-2012, 02:44
Hey, thanks for the feedback on the Silvertips, the mag has a lot of good choices to choose from. I don't know if the 135gr GD will hot rod much, not sure where the upper velocity limit is. I've heard rumors of a 140gr GD, I haven't checked recently, have you heard anything? If the rumors are true and it's a shallow cavity design, 1400/1500s should make for hammer of Thor performance in the field.

Everybody safe from the fires? Any goat activity?

9x23Win/125gr Silvertips are on the market too, keep wondering how they'd do out of a Super barrel, 1450fps is cooking and they expand aggressively.

Ok thats interesting on the 140gn GD's - this is something ive always been meaning to ask you - i noticed you prefer the 158gn in 357 as an all rounder (ive been a much bigger fan of the 125gn ive used it for culling 100's of animals on farms and loved it - hence i never used the 158gn - id still be open to it however) now most of the worries in regards to using a 125gn SJHP was the possibility of under penetration - however most of that school of thought was around before advent of bonded projectiles with the shallow cavity of the gold dot - lets face it those GD's hold together pretty good even at high speeds so my thoughts where - are we just better off using those knowing they probably wont under penetrate due to there construction? just something ive always meant to ask you.
Well i should have some 135gns within a few months and ill work some up and let you know my findings.

I think from memory the fires we saw here in Aus were mostly in the west of country most the east where i am is pretty cool right now - still pretty soaked from alot of rain in the past 6 months. My dads farm has had over 600mm in 1 year!! so where pretty safe here :) Thanks for your concern.
Havent done much culling in a while however July i may get to do some more - wanna see those 124gn +P factory Gold Dots from the 9mm and how much damage they do 1st hand - ill see how i go.
Take care mate.

unit1069
01-12-2012, 06:31
I just read this thread and I find myself agreeing with English. I don't think he is the one with tantrum problems, either.

I'm not a professional, just a caual observer, though.

Ha ha, what a thread!

I'm in the same category as you, my friend.

I have no idea why the theory of BPW causes such insecurity is some folks, but whenever the subject comes up it brings out a few Glock Talk members whose only motive appears to be to shut down the discussion as quickly as possible. They've been able to accomplish this by drawing a few on the other side of the issue into a pissing contest, and although a few of us casual observers have cautioned against being drawn into those needless exchanges it seems some can't resist the urge.

BPW theory is worthy of consideration whether one accepts it or not. When you visit threads where this is being discussed be prepared to read that BPW advocates are recommending a "magic bullet", when in fact Dr. Courtney has made it abundantly clear that BPW should only be considered after the FBI protocol for a round's effectiveness has been satisfied. No matter how many times some of us have asked for verification that anyone --- on either side (or the middle) of the issue --- is recommending a "magic bullet" the proof has never been produced. It's a complete red herring used to stop the discussion so disregard that nonsense when you see it. To my knowledge there's not a single member of Glock Talk who carries a self-defense round based upon BPW theory.

Glolt20-91
01-13-2012, 12:16
Ok thats interesting on the 140gn GD's - this is something ive always been meaning to ask you - i noticed you prefer the 158gn in 357 as an all rounder (ive been a much bigger fan of the 125gn ive used it for culling 100's of animals on farms and loved it - hence i never used the 158gn - id still be open to it however) now most of the worries in regards to using a 125gn SJHP was the possibility of under penetration - however most of that school of thought was around before advent of bonded projectiles with the shallow cavity of the gold dot - lets face it those GD's hold together pretty good even at high speeds so my thoughts where - are we just better off using those knowing they probably wont under penetrate due to there construction? just something ive always meant to ask you.
Well i should have some 135gns within a few months and ill work some up and let you know my findings.

I think from memory the fires we saw here in Aus were mostly in the west of country most the east where i am is pretty cool right now - still pretty soaked from alot of rain in the past 6 months. My dads farm has had over 600mm in 1 year!! so where pretty safe here :) Thanks for your concern.
Havent done much culling in a while however July i may get to do some more - wanna see those 124gn +P factory Gold Dots from the 9mm and how much damage they do 1st hand - ill see how i go.
Take care mate.

Hey mate,

Like the 125s, but I load them in 38Super. 125gr (designed for the 357mag) exiting a Colt 1911 at 1491fps, and I'm still under the VihtaVuori #4 data for max load. Hornady has load data for their 140gr XTP in 38Super, have the 140s on the shelf, but haven't done the workups yet.

To answer your question, since high velocity 125s loaded with copious amounts of slow burning powders cut into the topstrap, I load heavier bullets using less powder. However, there's nothing like watching 125gr Gold Dots do there thing in the mid 1600s. :)

What wounding incapacitation differences do you see between the mag and 9mm, if any?
Also, what are your bullets of choice?

Have a great day and don't fall off the earth down there. :tongueout:

Almost forgot, I got deeper penetration from the 125gr SJHPs using a 4" (1465fps) than a 6" (1626fps), Remington factory ammo chronogrphed.

The Win 9mm 127gr +P+ gets about the same penetration as the 125gr SJHP. The 357mag/158gr Gold Dot can be pushed and it'll give you 19-20" of soft tissue penetration, meaning it'll reach the vitals from any angle of fire against the critters you and I will see in the field.

PersonOfInterest
01-14-2012, 00:09
Hey mate,

Like the 125s, but I load them in 38Super. 125gr (designed for the 357mag) exiting a Colt 1911 at 1491fps, and I'm still under the VihtaVuori #4 data for max load. Hornady has load data for their 140gr XTP in 38Super, have the 140s on the shelf, but haven't done the workups yet.

To answer your question, since high velocity 125s loaded with copious amounts of slow burning powders cut into the topstrap, I load heavier bullets using less powder. However, there's nothing like watching 125gr Gold Dots do there thing in the mid 1600s. :)

What wounding incapacitation differences do you see between the mag and 9mm, if any?
Also, what are your bullets of choice?

Have a great day and don't fall off the earth down there. :tongueout:

Almost forgot, I got deeper penetration from the 125gr SJHPs using a 4" (1465fps) than a 6" (1626fps), Remington factory ammo chronogrphed.

The Win 9mm 127gr +P+ gets about the same penetration as the 125gr SJHP. The 357mag/158gr Gold Dot can be pushed and it'll give you 19-20" of soft tissue penetration, meaning it'll reach the vitals from any angle of fire against the critters you and I will see in the field.

Hey buddy
well theres some interesting fields of thought there - all of which i happen to agree with.
The 38 super is a great round - i was all set to buy one and start reloading however with the current stock of models here and pricing and the type of sights i wanted to fit - it just didnt work out so i ended up buying a Gen 3 Browning High Power 9mm - something id wanted for a long time. Just after i bought it i found a shop selling Mil Spec Springfield 1911's in 38super for 2/3 the price of the browning!! just my luck:crying:anyway ill see what happens there later on.

Good point on all the plus's of using heavy projectiles in the 357mag - i use the same principle of thought with the 9mm and loading up to +P+ levels - it can be hard on the gun and the 147gn's still do a decent job on living things without all that pressure, as for wounding and incapacitation compared to the 9mm and 357mag well - using my handloaded +P+ 9mm's - there wasnt that much of difference - but i always knew deep down you keep the 357mag close no matter what - sure the 9mm with the right loads is great but the 357magnum you just know deep down its gonna do the job no matter what - i learned that very young.

There were times using the wheel gun id see some very severe blood loss and wounds (i mean holes you could litterally see into) my father whose a long time rifle shooter and used to big calibers and the damage they do was sometimes just blown away at what the 357 would do.

Mostly now days in the 357 i just use 125gn XTP's at varying velocities and also the gold dots but im yet to make a kill using the GD's - ive loaded them upto 1800fps and all the way down to 1250fps back in the days when i had short barrel guns, but nowdays with a 4" im happy duplicating factory speeds (around 1450fps) works just fine (back in the days of doing alot of culling when i didnt have time to reload Winchester or PMC 125gn factory loads worked great for me too)
I see what you mean about the 158gn's i will definately give that some thought as time goes on.
Stay safe mate. :wavey:

Tiro Fijo
01-14-2012, 03:59
but i always knew deep down you keep the 357mag close no matter what - sure the 9mm with the right loads is great but the 357magnum you just know deep down its gonna do the job no matter what - i learned that very young...

The first handgun failure-to-stop (FTS) I experienced was with a 4-inch .357 Magnum and 158 gr. JHPs. My adversary panicked upon realizing he had been hit in the chest, abandoned his weapon and ran a full sixty yards in the opposite direction before he became incapacitated, collapsed and died.

http://chucktayloramericansmallarmsacademy.com/stoppingpower.html


Sometimes getting the job done doesn't always work out like we think.

OctoberRust
01-14-2012, 17:38
Wow, this thread is unbelievable. To dismiss BPW without concrete evidence it has NOTHING to do with incapacitation is not smart. To rely solely on BPW is also not too smart though.

PersonOfInterest
01-15-2012, 01:07
http://chucktayloramericansmallarmsacademy.com/stoppingpower.html


Sometimes getting the job done doesn't always work out like we think.
Well theres been plenty of failures to stop with all calibers - i was referring to my own shooting of animals - fact is the 357magnum never failed me, i did have alot of failures using other calibers the .45 auto being the most common to let me down - next in line was the 9mm 115gn at standard pressure next was the .40 cal using 180gn JHP's.
Im sure theres been plenty of FTS's with the 357magnum but fact is when i was shooting large numbers of feral pests it never failed me.
Ive seen 1 FTS on a human being that involved a .45.

PghJim
01-15-2012, 06:23
Hey mate,

Like the 125s, but I load them in 38Super. 125gr (designed for the 357mag) exiting a Colt 1911 at 1491fps, and I'm still under the VihtaVuori #4 data for max load.

Don't take this as doubting you, but can you really get close to 1,500 fps out of a 125 gr bullet out of a 38 super in a 1911? Also, when you say "designed for the 357mag", are you saying the bullet diameter is .357?

I do not own a 38 Super. I have always thought it a little wimpy compared to the 357 sig and the 9x23, but that velocity is right in there.

English
01-15-2012, 09:47
Wow, this thread is unbelievable. To dismiss BPW without concrete evidence it has NOTHING to do with incapacitation is not smart. To rely solely on BPW is also not too smart though.

A small quibble. It isn't possible to rely solely on the BPW effect because any bullet that produces it is more powerful in other respects than the usual standard and you still need to keep shooting till the BG goes down.

English

Glolt20-91
01-15-2012, 19:11
Don't take this as doubting you, but can you really get close to 1,500 fps out of a 125 gr bullet out of a 38 super in a 1911? Also, when you say "designed for the 357mag", are you saying the bullet diameter is .357?

I do not own a 38 Super. I have always thought it a little wimpy compared to the 357 sig and the 9x23, but that velocity is right in there.

I think a lot of people believe the Super to be anemic when compared to the 9x23, 357SIG, but loading the Super with a neutral powder such as N105 puts the124/125gr bullets in the 1500fps range. Most handgun powders are classified as degressive with a high pressure spike. Neutral powders (N105) create a lower Pmax, yet maintains the same area under the pressure curve.

For whatever reasons, VihtaVuori doesn't have N105 load data for the 9x23 or 357SIG and according to load data at Pete's 357SIG website, N105 doesn't work well in the SIG caliber.

Going to the Hornady manual, most of their N105 load data didn't cycle the Colt because of slow slide speed. Using upper load weights in Sierra V and starting load data from VihtaVuori #4, 124gr/125gr XTPs chronogrphed w/i 1fps.

Loading 357 cal bullets in the Super goes back decades and they tend to be more accurate than the 9mm/355 bullets.

The 124gr XTP is a tough design, but it comes apart in the high 1300s to low 1400s, as verified by Person of Interest.

There was an old timer (older than me) at the gun store when I bought the Super and he smiled and stated, "Ah, 357mag in a 1911!" Little did I know at that time he was speaking literally, not figuratively as many do in their description of the 357SIG. :)

Glolt20-91
01-15-2012, 19:20
Wow, this thread is unbelievable. To dismiss BPW without concrete evidence it has NOTHING to do with incapacitation is not smart. To rely solely on BPW is also not too smart though.

Actually there has been extensive research regarding terminal ballistics and BPW was NOT found to be a contributing factor in wound trauma incapacitation.

OctoberRust
01-16-2012, 14:48
Actually there has been extensive research regarding terminal ballistics and BPW was NOT found to be a contributing factor in wound trauma incapacitation.


So you'd feel just as comfortable carrying a .38 special that reliably expands just as much as a .357 magnum @ 1500 fps on 125 rgains?

I mean, you'll get the same penetration, right? That BPW or how the bullet stops shouldn't matter right?


Out of curiousity, why do you think some agencies use the .357 sig round?

Glolt20-91
01-16-2012, 15:21
So you'd feel just as comfortable carrying a .38 special that reliably expands just as much as a .357 magnum @ 1500 fps on 125 rgains?

I mean, you'll get the same penetration, right? That BPW or how the bullet stops shouldn't matter right?


Out of curiousity, why do you think some agencies use the .357 sig round?

Read/study the research. :)

English
01-16-2012, 17:42
Read/study the research. :)

I believe the extensive research you refer to was the decision prior to research that BPW effects were not worth considering in the research. That is, the particular research you refer to did not test or experiment with BPW effects in any way. Is that not so? If not, can you give us the reference and quote part of what it says?

English

pisc1024
01-16-2012, 22:35
Out of curiousity, why do you think some agencies use the .357 sig round?

To be honest, I feel that agencies that pick the 357 sig round do it really for one reason, velocity. If you look at the testing that compares the 357 sig to a .40 S&W, besides velocity, there is nothing the .357 can do that the 40 cannot do as well or better. I am speaking in terms of FBI protocols, which like it or not is the most common way bullets are tested for LE. Some people say the recoil of the sig is a little less than the 40, yet some claim it is a little more. Is this to say that officers who are armed with a .357 sig are not well armed? I think the obvious answer to that is no.

cowboy1964
01-17-2012, 12:36
If you look at the testing that compares the 357 sig to a .40 S&W, besides velocity, there is nothing the .357 can do that the 40 cannot do as well or better.

The .357 Sig has been proven to be a better penetrator.

OctoberRust
01-17-2012, 14:53
Read/study the research. :)


So English will give a detailed response, yet you can't?

You run a very convincing argument!

pisc1024
01-17-2012, 17:35
The .357 Sig has been proven to be a better penetrator.

How do you figure? In all the FBI testing I have seen the 40 is at least equal to the sig in every event.

Glolt20-91
01-17-2012, 17:46
So English will give a detailed response, yet you can't?

You run a very convincing argument!

English has been on my ignore list for a very long time. Many of us have had extensive experience posting with Courtney when he was using his own name and later when he posted under the psuedonym of pastuer.

Enough research has been done that invalidates the BPW/hydrostatic shock THEORY prior to 2006.

If you wish to rehash previous arguments, I suggest you search CC and read the thousands of posts on the subject. If you want to learn about wound trauma incapacitation then you can begin with published research conducted by the FBI, Duncan MacPherson and Doc Gary Roberts et al.

Glolt20-91
01-17-2012, 18:20
How do you figure? In all the FBI testing I have seen the 40 is at least equal to the sig in every event.

The FBI chose the Winchester RA40B ammunition for their agents to carry.

Winchester LE ammo comparisons between the SIG and 40 S&W, since it's winter time I'll choose their heavy clothing data;

RA357SIGT - 125/1350fps, 10.7"/.69"
RA357SB - 125/1350fps, 16.9"/.55"

RA40BA - 165/1140fps, 15.75"/.57"
RA40TA - 165/1140fps, 14.3"/.68"
RA40T - 180/990fps, 13.4"/.64"
RA40B - 180/1025fps, 19.0"/.59"

The FBI HRT/SWAT agents and a number of other SWAT personel choose to carry the 45auto, many in the 1911 platform.

Kinda looks like the FBI, remember, they were involved with the wound trauma incapacitation research, chose two calibers that don't (can't) achieve the minimum BPW requirements over the 'BPW' calibers. :)

Tiro Fijo
01-17-2012, 18:45
...Enough research has been done that invalidates the BPW/hydrostatic shock THEORY prior to 2006...


I don't buy that. If indeed that is true, then why did (and some still do) THOUSANDS of LEOs swear by the .357 Mag. 125 gr. & the 9mm 115 gr. +p+?

The answer is that the lab eggheads rarely talk to field people. I've personally spoken to two ballistic engineers. Neither one had ever been in a gunfight, attended an autopsy or even seen in person another human being shot. One couldn't understand why I wanted 115 gr. +p+ when he kept trying to push 147 gr. off on me. It was then that I asked him if he had ever seen it used or seen the results firsthand. He said nothing.

"Q" stays in the lab, 007 is in the field. :cool:

Glolt20-91
01-17-2012, 19:38
I don't buy that. If indeed that is true, then why did (and some still do) THOUSANDS of LEOs swear by the .357 Mag. 125 gr. & the 9mm 115 gr. +p+?

The answer is that the lab eggheads rarely talk to field people. I've personally spoken to two ballistic engineers. Neither one had ever been in a gunfight, attended an autopsy or even seen in person another human being shot. One couldn't understand why I wanted 115 gr. +p+ when he kept trying to push 147 gr. off on me. It was then that I asked him if he had ever seen it used or seen the results firsthand. He said nothing.

"Q" stays in the lab, 007 is in the field. :cool:

Speaking of field results, perhaps you can explain why the CHP had better street results with the 40/180 than they had with the 357mag/125gr?

I go back to the 357mag days, before the 125s were marketed. We had excellent street results with Remington's 158gr SJHP. I'm not taking anything away from the 125gr, but the 158s were popular in our area and Paco Kelly writes about the 158s used by the feds in the Southwest.

I know guys who carried the 357mag/125s on door entries and it created devastating wound channels and dynamic exit wounds, but the same can be said of the 158s and other carries.

When you disparage the research as you did, you also disparage those who participated in the research, including trauma surgeons and forensic pathologists.

I'll take the research, complete with the input of surgeons and pathologists over some guy expressing his opinion on the internet. :)

pisc1024
01-17-2012, 20:07
I don't buy that. If indeed that is true, then why did (and some still do) THOUSANDS of LEOs swear by the .357 Mag. 125 gr. & the 9mm 115 gr. +p+?

The answer is that the lab eggheads rarely talk to field people. I've personally spoken to two ballistic engineers. Neither one had ever been in a gunfight, attended an autopsy or even seen in person another human being shot. One couldn't understand why I wanted 115 gr. +p+ when he kept trying to push 147 gr. off on me. It was then that I asked him if he had ever seen it used or seen the results firsthand. He said nothing.

"Q" stays in the lab, 007 is in the field. :cool:

This is simply untrue. The field of ballistics research has come a long way after the Miami shoot out. The days of the "egg head" pushing what SHOULD work, with no real evidence of that thing working are gone. The fact is that with monotonous regularity the FBI requirements and testing are shown to be valid, both in the lab and yes... even in the field period end dot. I personally have shown several tests that back up what is shown in the lab is almost 100% of the time borne out in the field. The fact that you and others in this forum refuse to accept these studies, and personal testimony by those of us on this forum that have experience in this matter is mind boggling. At the end of the day, if you sleep sound with a 115 gr +p+ in your 9, then fine that's what you run. I can't think of any modern law enforcement agency, or anyone who relies on a gun for their lively hood who still subscribe to your "ballistic school of thought”.

pisc1024
01-17-2012, 20:11
The FBI chose the Winchester RA40B ammunition for their agents to carry.

Winchester LE ammo comparisons between the SIG and 40 S&W, since it's winter time I'll choose their heavy clothing data;

RA357SIGT - 125/1350fps, 10.7"/.69"
RA357SB - 125/1350fps, 16.9"/.55"

RA40BA - 165/1140fps, 15.75"/.57"
RA40TA - 165/1140fps, 14.3"/.68"
RA40T - 180/990fps, 13.4"/.64"
RA40B - 180/1025fps, 19.0"/.59"

The FBI HRT/SWAT agents and a number of other SWAT personel choose to carry the 45auto, many in the 1911 platform.

Kinda looks like the FBI, remember, they were involved with the wound trauma incapacitation research, chose two calibers that don't (can't) achieve the minimum BPW requirements over the 'BPW' calibers. :)

Excellent point, I have seen it time and again, people who know, and can chose their own rounds more time than not go for big heavy and slow. Something about it just works I guess...

Snapper2
01-17-2012, 20:30
I don't buy that. If indeed that is true, then why did (and some still do) THOUSANDS of LEOs swear by the .357 Mag. 125 gr. & the 9mm 115 gr. +p+?

The answer is that the lab eggheads rarely talk to field people. I've personally spoken to two ballistic engineers. Neither one had ever been in a gunfight, attended an autopsy or even seen in person another human being shot. One couldn't understand why I wanted 115 gr. +p+ when he kept trying to push 147 gr. off on me. It was then that I asked him if he had ever seen it used or seen the results firsthand. He said nothing.

"Q" stays in the lab, 007 is in the field. :cool:
For the "field hands":rofl: it would seem out of a handgun the need to penetrate would trump the luxury of an expanding bullet at +p+ velocity given the fact that most hollow points plug. Is a plugged 115gr +p+ better than a plugged 147gr bullet of same design? But for us "house hands" or civilians the 115+p+ might be the ticket. The question I have is .....wouldnt the hollowpoint(plugged) traveling faster have the best chance to expand. Or would speed make that much difference once the hollowpoint is plugged with heavy clothing? In other words, would a plugged hollowpoint negate the BPW?

unit1069
01-17-2012, 20:40
The field of ballistics research has come a long way after the Miami shoot out.

It's my understanding reading the report of the Miami shootout that of the 9mm ammo used there was a fatal shot to one of the criminals in the initial wound delivered to him. It's also my understanding that all calibers fail and some valid criticism of the FBI report is that the Agency panicked needlessly, considering that a number of critics fault tactics far more than weapons or ammo. The fact that the 9mm round would eventually have proved fatal nevertheless is after-the-fact secondary to the fact that the perp was able to fight for some time after receiving the initial wound. Do we now have ironclad guarantees that the .40S&W issue guns/ammo will stop a committed felon intent on shooting it out with agents?

At the end of the day, if you sleep sound with a 115 gr +p+ in your 9, then fine that's what you run. I can't think of any modern law enforcement agency, or anyone who relies on a gun for their lively hood who still subscribe to your "ballistic school of thought”.

The 9mm ammo used in the Miami shootout wasn't the 115-grain +P+ but the 115-grain Winchester Silvertip, is my understanding. The Silvertip is hardly in use for self-defense purposes today whereas the few +P+ versions are still reputed to be among "the best of the best" for 9mm caliber.

pisc1024
01-17-2012, 23:08
The 9mm ammo used in the Miami shootout wasn't the 115-grain +P+ but the 115-grain Winchester Silvertip, is my understanding. The Silvertip is hardly in use for self-defense purposes today whereas the few +P+ versions are still reputed to be among "the best of the best" for 9mm caliber.

By who?


you might find this interesting... maybe not though.

As Platt crawled through the passenger side window, one of Dove’s 9mm bullets hit his right upper arm, just above the inside crook of the elbow. According to Dr. Anderson, the bullet passed under the bone, through the deltoid, triceps and teres major muscles, and severed the brachial arteries and veins. The bullet exited the inner side of his upper arm near the armpit, penetrated his chest between the fifth and sixth ribs, and passed almost completely through the right lung before stopping. The bullet came to a rest about an inch short of penetrating the wall of the heart.

You can read the whole report here: http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm

481
01-17-2012, 23:55
I'll take the research, complete with the input of surgeons and pathologists over some guy expressing his opinion on the internet. :)

Same here. Words to live by. :cool:

481
01-18-2012, 00:06
Excellent point, I have seen it time and again, people who know, and can chose their own rounds more time than not go for big heavy and slow. Something about it just works I guess...

Those who do so find themselves in good company. Dr Fackler, Dr Roberts, Duncan MacPherson all advocate the use of "heavy for caliber" ammunition for self-defense. Penetration comes first, all else is "icing on the cake".

Of the agencies adjacent to mine (there are nine of them in the immediate metro area), all issue "heavy for caliber" ammunition for use in field operations.

English
01-18-2012, 07:31
This is simply untrue. The field of ballistics research has come a long way after the Miami shoot out. The days of the "egg head" pushing what SHOULD work, with no real evidence of that thing working are gone. The fact is that with monotonous regularity the FBI requirements and testing are shown to be valid, both in the lab and yes... even in the field period end dot. I personally have shown several tests that back up what is shown in the lab is almost 100% of the time borne out in the field. The fact that you and others in this forum refuse to accept these studies, and personal testimony by those of us on this forum that have experience in this matter is mind boggling. At the end of the day, if you sleep sound with a 115 gr +p+ in your 9, then fine that's what you run. I can't think of any modern law enforcement agency, or anyone who relies on a gun for their lively hood who still subscribe to your "ballistic school of thought”.

Pisc, this is another post full of confused thinking. Unless the FBI were the people who funded the Strasborg Tests, the FBI used no evidence what so ever about actual incapacitation effectiveness. They set up protocols for penetration of car windscreens and bodywork. In the test that declared the 10mm a marginal winner ahead of the .45ACP they limited all cartridges admitted to the test to the recoil of the 230gn FMJ .45ACP. They set penetration criteria in gel and declared that a through and through was better than a bullet that stayed in the body on the claimed basis that that no one ever lost a gunfight because of over penetration.

The only practical method of rating bullet/load effectiveness is by testing on large numbers of animals along the lines described in what was published of the Strasborg Tests or Dr. Courtney's experiments. By that I do not mean that the tests have to set out to show the existence of remote brain trauma from BPW effects but just be an open minded examination of how well different loads work and an attempt to classify the results. The FBI did not do this and there are two possible explanations for that. Either they were so convinced that they knew best, even though their previous efforts had been rubbish, or the didn't have the courage to face the outcry about tests on animals.

If the FBI requirements result in the most effective loadings it is by accident and not by intelligent experimental findings. You have no means of knowing from your "several tests" that these loads are the optimum because you have no properly authenticated yardstick to measure them with. Quite apart from that, it is inconceivable that you could do a large enough number of tests to provide any statisically meaningful results. If "that's what you run" with, that is fine, but don't try to persuade us of your superior knowledge about what works and how good it is because that knowledge does not exist.

English

PghJim
01-18-2012, 08:35
Jim Cirillo was the best gun fighter of the 20th century, if not all time. As part of the NYPD stake out unit, he killed well over a dozen armed offenders. Cirillo was required to attend post mortem in order to assist the forensic investigation. Those autopsies help show Cirillo what worked and what didn't work in actual shootings.

Although he was limited to a 38 Special, he had Lee Jurras of Super Vel hand make special 110gr cup point JHP's, which were probably +p+ and that is what he used. Light and fast was his preference. I really think this has as much credence to me as the FBI performance criteria.

I feel just fine using 115gr +p+ 9mm rounds from Federal or Winchester.

pisc1024
01-18-2012, 10:11
Pisc, this is another post full of confused thinking. Unless the FBI were the people who funded the Strasborg Tests, the FBI used no evidence what so ever about actual incapacitation effectiveness. They set up protocols for penetration of car windscreens and bodywork. In the test that declared the 10mm a marginal winner ahead of the .45ACP they limited all cartridges admitted to the test to the recoil of the 230gn FMJ .45ACP. They set penetration criteria in gel and declared that a through and through was better than a bullet that stayed in the body on the claimed basis that that no one ever lost a gunfight because of over penetration.

Please show me one case that proves this theory wrong! Just one... The fear of over penetration has been trumped up by ignorant police administrators who are worried about getting sued.

The only practical method of rating bullet/load effectiveness is by testing on large numbers of animals along the lines described in what was published of the Strasborg Tests or Dr. Courtney's experiments. By that I do not mean that the tests have to set out to show the existence of remote brain trauma from BPW effects but just be an open minded examination of how well different loads work and an attempt to classify the results. The FBI did not do this and there are two possible explanations for that. Either they were so convinced that they knew best, even though their previous efforts had been rubbish, or the didn't have the courage to face the outcry about tests on animals.



I have posted reports that show this to be untrue. If you want to google it there is a report out there that shows that bullets perform in people almost exactly as shown in jell. The report studies many officer involved shootings from San Diego PD. Many people believe that the Strasbourg tests did not even happen, if those tests are so important, why then has no one tried to recreate the tests with modern ammo? Animals are not an effective test medium; there are way too many variables there that you just can't account for. You should know that...

If the FBI requirements result in the most effective loadings it is by accident and not by intelligent experimental findings. You have no means of knowing from your "several tests" that these loads are the optimum because you have no properly authenticated yardstick to measure them with. Quite apart from that, it is inconceivable that you could do a large enough number of tests to provide any statisically meaningful results. If "that's what you run" with, that is fine, but don't try to persuade us of your superior knowledge about what works and how good it is because that knowledge does not exist.

English


No one is trying to persuade anyone here. All I am doing is voicing my opinion that the BPW is not a wounding mechanism in hand gun rounds, and that light for caliber is not the most effective way to go for hand guns. Like I said if that is what works for you, then go for it. I just think that the testing shows differently. I guess you are much smarter than the FBI, that’s really the only thing I got out of this little exchange. The FBI were idiots for not going to you first after the Miami shootout, shame on them!

pisc1024
01-18-2012, 10:14
Jim Cirillo was the best gun fighter of the 20th century, if not all time. As part of the NYPD stake out unit, he killed well over a dozen armed offenders. Cirillo was required to attend post mortem in order to assist the forensic investigation. Those autopsies help show Cirillo what worked and what didn't work in actual shootings.

Although he was limited to a 38 Special, he had Lee Jurras of Super Vel hand make special 110gr cup point JHP's, which were probably +p+ and that is what he used. Light and fast was his preference. I really think this has as much credence to me as the FBI performance criteria.

I feel just fine using 115gr +p+ 9mm rounds from Federal or Winchester.

That’s nice... So I guess you’re saying that I should ditch the .40 cal and go with Jim's pet load a 38 special with 110 gr rounds. I have seen the error of my ways, thanks! The fact remains that things are much different today. Many officer involved shootings occur in or around vehicles; this load would not work very well against any intermediate barrier.

PghJim
01-18-2012, 10:30
That’s nice... So I guess you’re saying that I should ditch the .40 cal and go with Jim's pet load a 38 special with 110 gr rounds. I have seen the error of my ways, thanks! The fact remains that things are much different today. Many officer involved shootings occur in or around vehicles; this load would not work very well against any intermediate barrier.

Get up on the wrong side of the bed? If you were not smart enough to know that I was not advocating a 110gr 38 load, I do not know what to say. I just point out, given the choice, he choose fast and lite.

Glolt20-91
01-18-2012, 11:51
Jim Cirillo was the best gun fighter of the 20th century, if not all time. As part of the NYPD stake out unit, he killed well over a dozen armed offenders. Cirillo was required to attend post mortem in order to assist the forensic investigation. Those autopsies help show Cirillo what worked and what didn't work in actual shootings.

Although he was limited to a 38 Special, he had Lee Jurras of Super Vel hand make special 110gr cup point JHP's, which were probably +p+ and that is what he used. Light and fast was his preference. I really think this has as much credence to me as the FBI performance criteria.

I feel just fine using 115gr +p+ 9mm rounds from Federal or Winchester.

Super Vel was the hot ticket for its time, I still have some. Ammunition design has advanced a lot since the Super Vel days and the 115 +P+ carries of the '90s. Winchester spent a $1mil R&D, over million rounds fired before marketing, their bonded Ranger design. Winchester's bonded 40/180 was awarded the FBI contract.

Jim Cirillo used what he thought best at that time, that does not mean he would make the same choice today does it?

I have one dedicated 38Spcl revolver, a M64/3", and the few times that I carry it, it's loaded with RA38B (bonded 130gr), not Super Vel, 158 SWCHP or other old designs. Winchester developed the 130gr bonded at the request of LEOs who still carry the 38Spcl and they didn't go fast and light like the old design 110s.

English
01-18-2012, 12:22
Please show me one case that proves this theory wrong! Just one... The fear of over penetration has been trumped up by ignorant police administrators who are worried about getting sued.
I am not concerned about the dangers of over penetration but I am concerned with incapacitating as much tissue as possible and not wasting energy on the srrounding scenery. Individual cases are able to show nothing significant. It would need a statistical anlysis of a large differentiated set of data.
I have posted reports that show this to be untrue. If you want to google it there is a report out there that shows that bullets perform in people almost exactly as shown in jell. The report studies many officer involved shootings from San Diego PD. Many people believe that the Strasbourg tests did not even happen, if those tests are so important, why then has no one tried to recreate the tests with modern ammo? Animals are not an effective test medium; there are way too many variables there that you just can't account for. You should know that...
I don't know the report yu are talking about but it is not part of this discussion. We are not talking about what the bullet does to gel or a body but to how well it tends to incapacitate quickly. On top of that the measures you are almost certainly using and that your report will have used are penetration depth and bullet expansion. That is insufficient to begin to give you the information you need. Perhaps you should give some kind of search terms that will get to the report.

If you re-read what I said I did not say that the Strasborg Tests actually happened. I said that the methodology published about them was sound. Actually I find their results entirely believable and contrary to the general opinions of the formative influences of the day and therefore I tend to believe they did exist.

Animals are just not a perfect "test medium", they are the best we have and the similarities are far more important than the differences. They will give a guide to rates of incapacitation but not an identical correspondence. They are alive, they can be stunned, they can die. They have brains, skeletons with a mainly one to one correspondence, hearts lungs, arteries and veins. The major problem is that we have to shoot them from the side rather than from beneath.
No one is trying to persuade anyone here. All I am doing is voicing my opinion that the BPW is not a wounding mechanism in hand gun rounds, and that light for caliber is not the most effective way to go for hand guns. Like I said if that is what works for you, then go for it. I just think that the testing shows differently. I guess you are much smarter than the FBI, that’s really the only thing I got out of this little exchange. The FBI were idiots for not going to you first after the Miami shootout, shame on them!
We are all trying to persuade and, apart from the purely malicious, trying to counter what we consider bad information and ideas. As I have explained many times in detail of the physics involved, which no one has attempted to refute, the BPW is precisely the mechanism of wounding. For the great majority of the wound channel the bullet is in contact with nothing but liquified tissue. Light for caliber, fast and wide expanding bullets produce more powerful BPWs but penetrate less far. Sometimes one is more approriate than the other but in general the fast light bullets will be more effective.

I am sure there must be brighter individuals than me in the FBI but the FBI suffers the cultural problems of large authoritan organizations which pass bad ideas from one generation to the next and those that say, "But..." don't rise or last. As they say, a camel is a giraffe that was designed by a committee. The FBI does everything by committee because the really important thing is not to be solely responsible for a foul up. So they end up with people with high IQs and little imagination or courage to stand against the received wisdom. In a business this leads to sclerosis and then collapse because businesses depend on profitability and continued profitability depends on the ability to change. The FBI does not have that yardstick and so it survives by politics. After 9/11 it should probably not have survived at all apart from the difficulty of knowing how to replace it.

English

pisc1024
01-18-2012, 14:28
I am sure there must be brighter individuals than me in the FBI but the FBI suffers the cultural problems of large authoritan organizations which pass bad ideas from one generation to the next and those that say, "But..." don't rise or last. As they say, a camel is a giraffe that was designed by a committee. The FBI does everything by committee because the really important thing is not to be solely responsible for a foul up. So they end up with people with high IQs and little imagination or courage to stand against the received wisdom. In a business this leads to sclerosis and then collapse because businesses depend on profitability and continued profitability depends on the ability to change. The FBI does not have that yardstick and so it survives by politics. After 9/11 it should probably not have survived at all apart from the difficulty of knowing how to replace it.

English

You worked for the FBI? How long? Man that is so awesome! I can only surmise based on your intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the FBI that you must have been a real big wig.

English
01-18-2012, 15:05
You worked for the FBI? How long? Man that is so awesome! I can only surmise based on your intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the FBI that you must have been a real big wig.

You have jumped to the wrong conclusion. It was the CIA, but that meant I got to see a lot of how the FBI worked. I try not to boast about these things but sometimes the truth just escapes control. I know how impressive this must be to someone like you but try to keep calm and don't tel anyone else.:supergrin:

Glolt20-91
01-18-2012, 15:17
You worked for the FBI? How long? Man that is so awesome! I can only surmise based on your intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the FBI that you must have been a real big wig.

If engli's quote wasn't so pitiful it would be laughable; but it's a keeper for obvious reasons and I doubt Courtney will be giving him a star for his clairvoyance abilities. :rofl:

pisc1024
01-18-2012, 15:34
......

481
01-18-2012, 15:42
You worked for the FBI? How long? Man that is so awesome! I can only surmise based on your intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the FBI that you must have been a real big wig.

You have jumped to the wrong conclusion. It was the CIA, but that meant I got to see a lot of how the FBI worked. I try not to boast about these things but sometimes the truth just escapes control. I know how impressive this must be to someone like you but try to keep calm and don't tel anyone else.:supergrin:

If engli's quote wasn't so pitiful it would be laughable; but it's a keeper for obvious reasons and I doubt Courtney will be giving him a star for his clairvoyance abilities. :rofl:

Nah, Engli's response simply illustrates that if he isn't on head meds he needs to be and if he has been prescribed such meds, maybe somebody oughtta increase his dosage.

His response is that of just another anonymous nut-job cryin' out for attention on the 'net and nothing more.

Get well, Engli'!

:animlol:

unit1069
01-18-2012, 20:05
(The 115-grain JHP +P+ ammo recommended) By who?

You might read through some Glock Talk GATE forums, where Federal 9BPLE is favorably mentioned by some of the experts there. I believe Winchester's 115-grain +P+ JHP as well as 115-grain Gold Dot +P+ also get good press.

you might find this interesting... maybe not though.

I have read the report, and part of my post above your response pointed out the fact that the initial wound from the agent's 9mm Silvertip round would have eventually proved fatal.


You can read the whole report here: http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm

Are the folks at firearmstactical.com going to nominate or recommend a handgun/cartridge combination that they're willing to guarantee won't fail to immediately incapacitate a determined, violent felon?

If not I think you've emphasized the original point I made.

pisc1024
01-18-2012, 21:18
You might read through some Glock Talk GATE forums, where Federal 9BPLE is favorably mentioned by some of the experts there. I believe Winchester's 115-grain +P+ JHP as well as 115-grain Gold Dot +P+ also get good press.



So that is your go to source for all things ballistic? I look around at all the police departments and LE agencies in this country, and what do I see? The over whelming majority are going, or have gone to heavy for caliber bullets. That is just the fact. I'll give you an agency who just not too long ago switched, the US Border Patrol and ICE. They ran the 155 gr .40, and now they run the 180's. Once again, I'll ask the question: Who? What LE Agency is currently saying "No thanks, I'll stick with my light for caliber loads"? Check this out too.: http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1389143 I found it interesting.


I have read the report, and part of my post above your response pointed out the fact that the initial wound from the agent's 9mm Silvertip round would have eventually proved fatal.




Yes eventually proved fatal. If you read my quote however the round stopped an inch from platt's heart. The bullet came to a rest about an inch short of penetrating the wall of the heart.
Penetration is the number one thing; it is aided most by mass, not by velocity. It is actually hindered by velocity in an expanding bullet. If that round had penetrated Platt's heart, I doubt you would find anyone who would argue his effectiveness in the fight would have been dramatically reduced. As it stands it didn't, and he was effective for a significant amount of time.
Are the folks at firearmstactical.com going to nominate or recommend a handgun/cartridge combination that they're willing to guarantee won't fail to immediately incapacitate a determined, violent felon?



Come on, really? That is the point; pistols are not capable of that. That is why so many people, professionals, and LEO's are going heavy for caliber. No gun/bullet combination is going to be 100%, but if you have mass, you can at least penetrate deeper, thus causing more damage. There is no magic bullet; you and I both know that.

English
01-19-2012, 06:36
Nah, Engli's response simply illustrates that if he isn't on head meds he needs to be and if he has been prescribed such meds, maybe somebody oughtta increase his dosage.

His response is that of just another anonymous nut-job cryin' out for attention on the 'net and nothing more.

Get well, Engli'!

:animlol:

You poor dumbos, scrabbling around for something, anything, to attack me with. I even put a supergrin on it so that even you would not think I was anymore serious than pisc.

English

Glolt20-91
01-19-2012, 13:14
So that is your go to source for all things ballistic? I look around at all the police departments and LE agencies in this country, and what do I see? The over whelming majority are going, or have gone to heavy for caliber bullets. That is just the fact. I'll give you an agency who just not too long ago switched, the US Border Patrol and ICE. They ran the 155 gr .40, and now they run the 180's. Once again, I'll ask the question: Who? What LE Agency is currently saying "No thanks, I'll stick with my light for caliber loads"? Check this out too.: http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1389143 I found it interesting.



Yes eventually proved fatal. If you read my quote however the round stopped an inch from platt's heart.
Penetration is the number one thing; it is aided most by mass, not by velocity. It is actually hindered by velocity in an expanding bullet. If that round had penetrated Platt's heart, I doubt you would find anyone who would argue his effectiveness in the fight would have been dramatically reduced. As it stands it didn't, and he was effective for a significant amount of time.


Come on, really? That is the point; pistols are not capable of that. That is why so many people, professionals, and LEO's are going heavy for caliber. No gun/bullet combination is going to be 100%, but if you have mass, you can at least penetrate deeper, thus causing more damage. There is no magic bullet; you and I both know that.

I've seen x-rays of the 9/115s deflecting off bones, it certainly doesn't inspire confidence when dealing with a 300# felon.

Anyway, people have to live with their choices and I can only guess at the thought process of someone who is in a lethal situation and is forced to deal with a caliber failure.

Tiro Fijo
01-20-2012, 02:44
I've seen x-rays of the 9/115s deflecting off bones, it certainly doesn't inspire confidence when dealing with a 300# felon...


Yet in another thread here you stated, and I quote:

I've only tested 115gr Gold Dots from a snub Taurus platform. Gunblast has given the caliber a heads up and so do I, it brings a load and those GDs are simply wicked....

So the 115 gr. .327 Mag. bullets are somehow more lethal than 115 gr. 9mm bullets driven at higher velocities? :dunno:

To answer your question earlier about why you believe CHP has better success with 180 gr. .40 S&W my answer is very simple: it's a far easier round to shoot accurately and most people shoot semi autos better than DA revolvers, especially the younger generation who is totally unfamiliar with revolvers. Few people can master a DA revolver shooting hot 125 gr. Magnums.

CHP, like countless other depts. & agencies, switched to the .40 S&W because it seemed like the thing to do and not because it was a "death" ray. Many depts. & agencies need to justify their budgets, i.e., "use it or lose it." The Feds have operated that way for decades. They then switched to the 180 gr. loads mainly because the 155 gr. & 165 gr. loads are too hot for the women & the Poindexters to shoot well. Of course, it's not politically expedient to talk about that publicly.

NG VI
01-20-2012, 10:27
So the 115 gr. .327 Mag. bullets are somehow more lethal than 115 gr. 9mm bullets driven at higher velocities?



I don't think the 9BPLE is faster than the 115 grain .327 Gold Dot loads, and it also doesn't have as much sectional density, which greatly improves penetrating ability, especially with expanding bullets.

unit1069
01-20-2012, 12:00
I don't think the 9BPLE is faster than the 115 grain .327 Gold Dot loads, and it also doesn't have as much sectional density, which greatly improves penetrating ability, especially with expanding bullets.

Here's another quote from the same thread mentioned previously:

I have a 3" SP101. Six shots. Not five. And those 115 grain gold dots make an honest 1315 fps over my chrony (that's 442 fpe). And they penetrate like the dickens and don't break up, either.

The 9BPLE is listed on Cheaper Than Dirt at 1300 fps (I assume from the standard 4" barrel). And as previously mentioned there's a wealth of testimonials from various writers on the effectiveness of the 9BPLE, most notably designated as the Illinois State Police (ISP) load.

I really can't believe the .327 Magnum Gold Dot would be considered an effective round without any documented "street cred" while the 9BPLE would be deemed ineffective with the number of testimonials this round has garnered over the years.

I'm perfectly willing to give the little Magnum's undocumented capability the benefit of the doubt; I'm not prepared to discount the number of felons the ISP and other LEO officers stopped when those agencies were issuing the ISP Load.

pisc1024
01-20-2012, 13:33
Here's another quote from the same thread mentioned previously:



The 9BPLE is listed on Cheaper Than Dirt at 1300 fps (I assume from the standard 4" barrel). And as previously mentioned there's a wealth of testimonials from various writers on the effectiveness of the 9BPLE, most notably designated as the Illinois State Police (ISP) load.

I really can't believe the .327 Magnum Gold Dot would be considered an effective round without any documented "street cred" while the 9BPLE would be deemed ineffective with the number of testimonials this round has garnered over the years.

I'm perfectly willing to give the little Magnum's undocumented capability the benefit of the doubt; I'm not prepared to discount the number of felons the ISP and other LEO officers stopped when those agencies were issuing the ISP Load.

I would be surprised if the ISP still used 9bple. Anyone have any idea what gun round combo they are using today?

fastbolt
01-20-2012, 13:45
I would be surprised if the ISP still used 9bple. Anyone have any idea what gun round combo they are using today?

One of the forum members retired from there and has posted info about their use of the 115gr +P+ JHP (by Win & Fed), including their agency's part in the development & refinement of that load and its use in the 39/439, as well as the eventual replacement guns/caliber (G22/23's?). You might PM him.

Tiro Fijo
01-20-2012, 14:56
I would be surprised if the ISP still used 9bple. Anyone have any idea what gun round combo they are using today?


They jumped on the .40 S&W bandwagon. Glock 22 I believe.


FWIW, I have & carry BPLE and sometimes even the old ISP successor to BPLE, Win. Ranger 115 gr. +p+ which is hotter. Remember that these companies load to pressure and not velocity so one lot can be hotter than another. BPLE usually averages around 1275 to 1300 fps while the aforementioned Ranger load averages 1325 to 1350 fps. Both rounds have street cred that is unsurpassed.

NG VI
01-20-2012, 15:25
The .327 doesn't have any street record, but I would hope that Speer, one of the largest duty/defense bullet makers in the world, has learned how to make their flagship defensive offering work properly, even in a slightly different bore size than they've been making. I kind of think it would be silly not to give them some benefit of the doubt actually.

A 115 grain .32 bullet still has better sectional density than a 115 grain .355 bullet. There isn't a single shred of doubt in my mind that the 115 grain Gold Dot .327 load will be a better penetrator than either of the 115 +P+ Illinois loads, and will be a reliable expander.

NG VI
01-20-2012, 15:27
Regardless of how well the 115+P+ loads worked, to me, a bullet that has some more sectional density in the same velocity range has more designed-in breathing room in case something goes wrong with the shot.

tsmo1066
01-20-2012, 16:24
Jim Cirillo was the best gun fighter of the 20th century, if not all time. As part of the NYPD stake out unit, he killed well over a dozen armed offenders. Cirillo was required to attend post mortem in order to assist the forensic investigation. Those autopsies help show Cirillo what worked and what didn't work in actual shootings.

Although he was limited to a 38 Special, he had Lee Jurras of Super Vel hand make special 110gr cup point JHP's, which were probably +p+ and that is what he used. Light and fast was his preference. I really think this has as much credence to me as the FBI performance criteria.

I feel just fine using 115gr +p+ 9mm rounds from Federal or Winchester.

The Atlanta PD has been using the 115+P+ BPLE round for years with great results as well, while the NYPD is reportedly very happy with the Gold Dot 124+P rounds that they carry. The Texas Rangers used the .45 for decades with great success and are now using the .357 Sig with equal success.

There are good loads with well proven track records of street success in the heavy, middle and light weights as well as in all of the major service calibers.

Generally speaking, I just pick a quality load for the platform I use (currently 124+P Gold Dots in a G19) and forget about the caliber wars and "BPW" debates.

Glolt20-91
01-20-2012, 17:17
Yet in another thread here you stated, and I quote:



So the 115 gr. .327 Mag. bullets are somehow more lethal than 115 gr. 9mm bullets driven at higher velocities? :dunno:

To answer your question earlier about why you believe CHP has better success with 180 gr. .40 S&W my answer is very simple: it's a far easier round to shoot accurately and most people shoot semi autos better than DA revolvers, especially the younger generation who is totally unfamiliar with revolvers. Few people can master a DA revolver shooting hot 125 gr. Magnums.

CHP, like countless other depts. & agencies, switched to the .40 S&W because it seemed like the thing to do and not because it was a "death" ray. Many depts. & agencies need to justify their budgets, i.e., "use it or lose it." The Feds have operated that way for decades. They then switched to the 180 gr. loads mainly because the 155 gr. & 165 gr. loads are too hot for the women & the Poindexters to shoot well. Of course, it's not politically expedient to talk about that publicly.

Wow, now we're adding the 327mag to the thread. Yes, I chronogrphed a 5 shot average at 1368fps from a 2.5" barrel and yes, it's a tough bullet design that holds together. Since heavy for caliber bullets have been discussed a number of times on this thread, the 327/115 falls into this group. The 327/115 basically shares the same SD as the 9/147 and both combinations fall into the 40/180 and 45/230 sectional density group.

There is no way to predict incapacitation times or a bullet's lethality; however, the 327/115 will/does out penetrate the 9/115.

It may come as a surprise to you, but women LEOs qualified with the 357mag and I'm skeptical that the reason LEAs changed from the mag to pistols was because of women. Some decades ago LEOs carrying revolvers were increasingly involved in high cap 9 shoot outs.

Generally speaking, LEAs changed to high cap 9s in an effort to bring fire power equity to counter act what they were witnessing in the field. By the late 90s, larger calibers and heavier bullet weights were being carried in the field in increasing numbers.

In time, even the ISP changed over to 40, I don't know their ammo choice.

I'm not questioning the effectiveness of Federal 9/115 ammunition in the field; however, the 327/115 is often compared to the 9/124 +P.

pisc1024
01-20-2012, 17:48
CHP, like countless other depts. & agencies, switched to the .40 S&W because it seemed like the thing to do and not because it was a "death" ray. Many depts. & agencies need to justify their budgets, i.e., "use it or lose it." The Feds have operated that way for decades. They then switched to the 180 gr. loads mainly because the 155 gr. & 165 gr. loads are too hot for the women & the Poindexters to shoot well. Of course, it's not politically expedient to talk about that publicly.


My wife was a Police Officer for a while, and before that she worked as a Sheriff’s Deputy in the county where I worked. During her time in LE she qualified many times with a broad range of weapons and calibers from 9mm to .45 ACP. Her first gun was a Glock 17 with Speer gold Dot 147gr rounds. She also qualified with a SIG p229 in 357 sig, once again with Speer GD's 125 gr. Her final carry weapon was a Glock 21 SF firing the 230gr .45 ACP from Winchester. She would always qualify 95% or higher with all three of these weapons. The state qualification course where we worked was fairly intense, granted it was no U.S. Air Marshals course, but it did a good job of weeding out the non shooters
My personal experience with LE has shown me that by in large, the administrators don't really care about any one failing to qual enough to change rounds. Granted I would guess they would do it if 30% of the department had a hard time, but that is just not the case. Just about anyone when properly coached can pass most LE pistol qual courses with almost any of the commonly issued calibers and loads. One thing I have noticed is that if someone fails to qual, it is often times a failure of the training staff, or the individual in some way, not the particular duty load.

unit1069
01-20-2012, 17:55
I'm not questioning the effectiveness of Federal 9/115 ammunition in the field; however, the 327/115 is often compared to the 9/124 +P.

Well it certainly seems to some of us that a few GT members did call into question the 115-grain +P+ rounds that do have street cred while putting forth undocument claims for the .327 Magnum round.

I --- for one --- am happy to give the benefit of the doubt to the .327 Magnum round because on paper it appears to be a credible caliber and cartridge; and truth be told I think the .327 Magnum revolver is a wave-of-the-future competition for micro 9mm pistols once the comparisons are widely known. Speaking for myself, my next 9mm ammo purchase is definitely going to be Speer 124-grain Gold Dot +P.

So I propose we put this baby to bed. The 9BPLE and other similar rounds don't need to be needlessly defended because of its street cred. If anyone wants to argue technology has produced a better 9mm round that's fine. Let's just say because bullet/ballistics technology has taken slightly forward steps that fact doesn't mean proven rounds are suddenly ineffective, especially for normal civilian self-defense scenarios.

Can't we all just get along? (Rodney King, Los Angeles performance artist)

Tiro Fijo
01-20-2012, 18:03
...It may come as a surprise to you, but women LEOs qualified with the 357mag and I'm skeptical that the reason LEAs changed from the mag to pistols was because of women...


Let me clarify my experiences with this. Women ON THE WHOLE do not handle recoil as well as men. That's just a fact of life. Sure, there are aberrations, but I'm not talking about a 6'2" lesbian that has more testosterone raging through her than a Navy SEAL. As a matter of fact, that was one of the reasons the FBI dropped the 10mm. Women and the runt males could not shoot it well. That's a fact that has been stated by many FBI higher ups.

I know a woman who is a superb shot and outshoots 95% of the males with a .40 S&W Glock. Of course, she has a lot of free time on her hands to practice as with her face she doesn't get too many dates. :whistling: :supergrin:

Merkavaboy
01-20-2012, 19:43
One of the forum members retired from there and has posted info about their use of the 115gr +P+ JHP (by Win & Fed), including their agency's part in the development & refinement of that load and its use in the 39/439, as well as the eventual replacement guns/caliber (G22/23's?). You might PM him.

And that person would be isp2605. In the past he has also posted about some of his investigations of other local agencies' OIS's involving the FBI's darling Win 147JHP subsonic that performed poorly.

PrecisionRifleman
01-20-2012, 19:51
nah, this settles the debate.

I become convinced in my 10mm as being the ultimate semi auto self defense cartridge when I dropped a doe in her tracks last season using my G20SF w/ 6.02" barrel and 180gr XTP handloads @ 1300fps in the extended barrel. The bullet made a complete pass through entering high in the lungs and also taking out about 3-4" of spine. Now for many that kind of penetration is a concern for SD scenarios, but I'm convinced that with good placement or even mediocre placement it's going to put a bad guy flat on their tush (no doubt in my mind).

I don't use handloads for self defense for certain reasons, but I do use the 175gr Silver Tip. I'd be willing to bet that a lighter grain like the 155-165 would be excellent for 2 legged threats, without having quiet as much a change of over penetration although I'm pretty sure in a small to medium size human it will easily be a clean pass through either way.

When decided between the 9mm and 357mag you really have to consider your uses. If it be city/urban my vote is easily in favor of the 9mm or more preferably the 357sig. On the other hand if you are going to carry more in the country, hiking, and hunting type stuff the 357 Mag is the way to go between those choices. I'm personally clearly in favor of the 10mm however, and should you give it a try and have to use it you will be happy with that choice be it hunting of self defense. The 10mm is pretty much the 30-06 of the semi auto handgun world. It's up to whatever task you throw at it.

fastbolt
01-20-2012, 20:37
And that person would be isp2605. In the past he has also posted about some of his investigations of other local agencies' OIS's involving the FBI's darling Win 147JHP subsonic that performed poorly.

Yeah, I just didn't want to throw his forum name right into the general ring in this particular thread ... since it's involved a lot of disappointing conduct. I figured the other forum member would either PM me for the member name, or do a few minutes of Searching and find it out for themselves.

;)

pisc1024
01-20-2012, 22:11
Let me clarify my experiences with this. Women ON THE WHOLE do not handle recoil as well as men. That's just a fact of life. Sure, there are aberrations, but I'm not talking about a 6'2" lesbian that has more testosterone raging through her than a Navy SEAL. As a matter of fact, that was one of the reasons the FBI dropped the 10mm. Women and the runt males could not shoot it well. That's a fact that has been stated by many FBI higher ups.

I know a woman who is a superb shot and outshoots 95% of the males with a .40 S&W Glock. Of course, she has a lot of free time on her hands to practice as with her face she doesn't get too many dates. :whistling: :supergrin:

You callin' my wife ugly? :supergrin:
I hear ya on the butch ones I've seen a few of them in my time too. My wife is a smallish girl though. She is 5'4" and about 115lbs.
Like I said, I see your point, just saying it can be done. Also I don't think that the brass care too much when it comes to the "standard" service cals. I think full house 10mm might be a bit much though.

English
01-21-2012, 07:07
Regardless of how well the 115+P+ loads worked, to me, a bullet that has some more sectional density in the same velocity range has more designed-in breathing room in case something goes wrong with the shot.

Following the Oxford school of literary deconstruction, I believe your post means, "Be d~@%ed to the facts. I prefer my own ideas about what makes a bullet effective."

English

NG VI
01-21-2012, 15:11
The facts are that 115+P+ bullets have a designed-in weakness that can cause a bullet to fail the person who was depending on it, and that is light construction, and shallow penetration. I don't think expansion is meaningless, far from it, but I also prefer my bullets to have some margin of error built in to them. I like my heavyweight bullets, because they will penetrate further and more reliably than a lightweight bullet that expands to the same diameter, factually.

They might have a great "street" record, but that's because they were the only way to get any reliable JHP performance for a couple of decades. They are also more likely to underpenetrate and not make it to the vitals on a good but obstructed shot. A good 147 bullet is more likely to make it deep enough from any angle.

Tiro Fijo
01-21-2012, 17:59
The facts are that 115+P+ bullets have a designed-in weakness that can cause a bullet to fail the person who was depending on it, and that is light construction, and shallow penetration. I don't think expansion is meaningless, far from it, but I also prefer my bullets to have some margin of error built in to them. I like my heavyweight bullets, because they will penetrate further and more reliably than a lightweight bullet that expands to the same diameter, factually.

They might have a great "street" record, but that's because they were the only way to get any reliable JHP performance for a couple of decades. They are also more likely to underpenetrate and not make it to the vitals on a good but obstructed shot. A good 147 bullet is more likely to make it deep enough from any angle.


Your conclusion defies logic. However, it is yet another wonderful example of how people just "know" their chosen carry round "must" work as it was selected on their personal belief system and not one shred of empirical evidence, i.e., street cred.

That's like buying a new car based on the color. Just because a bullet goes "deep" does not mean it is an effective stopper.

pisc1024
01-21-2012, 18:37
Your conclusion defies logic. However, it is yet another wonderful example of how people just "know" their chosen carry round "must" work as it was selected on their personal belief system and not one shred of empirical evidence, i.e., street cred.

That's like buying a new car based on the color. Just because a bullet goes "deep" does not mean it is an effective stopper.

I think there is tons of "street cred" for the 147's. There are a lot of Southern California departments who issue that weight in various makes, and no one seems to complain much about their effectiveness.

I think that if you look hard enough, and filter what you find to reflect whatever opinion you may have, then you can find "street cred" for most rounds. Heck more people are killed every year with the little old .22 LR, the pure numbers on that would seem to indicate that the 22 lr has some sort of magical powers. However if you look closer at the numbers you see that in reality there are just a lot of people out shooting each other, and many of them are armed with the 22 lr.

The bottom line is that street cred is only anecdotal evidence.
I know that some people here have an issue with bullet testing as it stands now however, it has been proven time and again to be a very good predictor of what round x will do when fired at a human target in various situations

NG VI
01-21-2012, 19:39
Just because a bullet has a good reputation doesn't mean it's the best load for the job, either. Just because the 115+P+ loads were ubiquitous during a pretty crime-heavy part of the last forty years and lots of people got shot with them doesn't mean they are actually the most reliable performers on people.

Unless you believe that kinetic energy or ballistic pressure waves are meaningful wounding mechanisms in service pistol calibers on 100-300 pound animals like people, what reason could you possibly have to want a 115 grain bullet that expands to .60ish" over a 147 that expands more reliably to .70ish" and penetrates a little bit deeper in the process?

Why, because nobody's written entire books propping them up yet? Because some cops who might have shot one or two people over the course of their career haven't promoted them yet? Choosing a defensive load based on objective testing, and choosing one that has been designed with 30-40 years of JHP performance data is absolutely not illogical, or anything like choosing the best car based on color.

From the sounds of it, the 147 HST is doing at least as well as the 115 grain bullets for the departments who are using it and shooting people, and so far I haven't heard any stories of people being killed because their 147 HST failed to penetrate deep enough or broke up before hitting anything important. Since anecdotes seem to be so important, I mean if that's happened, by all means post a link to it.

Thinking that decades of research and development, along with objective testing and real-world shooting information, doesn't have the slightest relevance in how well a bullet is likely to perform if you need it to save your life is retarded. Do any of you honestly think that bullet manufacturers have ALL shifted focus to heavy for caliber service pistol ammunition purely for politics? Do you think the time and money ATK and Winchester spends developing duty ammunition and revamping their machinery doesn't result in a better bullet?

Why, why on Earth would any of the manufacturers go to such great lengths to continue improving their product lines if the old-school, ragged edge of fragmentation 115+P+ loads were really the best choice?

Handguns aren't magic, they work by SCIENCE!!! and just because the 115 grain bullets were the best thing available by far when the other options were non-barely expanding 147s or non-expanding bullets, doesn't mean thy're the best today. They still work, sure, just as well as they used to, but their performance reviews when they were dominant is colored by the utter lack of anything that could comparably expand out of a pistol. There was literally NOTHING else that acted the same in the pistol market except the magnum revolver loads. Today we have bullets that expand more than the old 115s, penetrate a little deeper in the process, and do so with greater reliability. Aside from the lack of twenty years of unmitigated praise, where do today's best bullets lose out to the 115s?

NG VI
01-21-2012, 19:43
The bottom line is that street cred is only anecdotal evidence.


I think it's easy for people in 2012 to forget that in 1989, the 115s were really the only thing going, there wasn't really anything to compare them to except non-expanding bullets. The only real difference I can see in the anecdotal performance of new bullets compared to the 115s is that today's bullets do their work a little more reliably, and they don't seem to get any credit at all for anecdotal stories, because they have peers, where the old loads didn't.

unit1069
01-21-2012, 20:50
Heck more people are killed every year with the little old .22 LR, the pure numbers on that would seem to indicate that the 22 lr has some sort of magical powers. However if you look closer at the numbers you see that in reality there are just a lot of people out shooting each other, and many of them are armed with the 22 lr.

I keep reading this anecdotal statement about .22lr but have never seen the actual evidence that it's true.

The bottom line is that street cred is only anecdotal evidence.
I know that some people here have an issue with bullet testing as it stands now however, it has been proven time and again to be a very good predictor of what round x will do when fired at a human target in various situations

I think the term street cred can be applied to situations where LEO officers issued a particular ammunition and who successfully stopped felons in the course of their duties have witnessed that gun/ammo effectiveness. Once a critical mass of these anecdotal testimonials are collected then a particular round can honestly be said to have street cred.

Certain rounds may look good on paper and perform well in controlled lab tests but until a critical mass of anecdotal evidence from LEO is on record it's not confirmed that these rounds will live up to expectations.

tsmo1066
01-21-2012, 21:00
I think it's easy for people in 2012 to forget that in 1989, the 115s were really the only thing going, there wasn't really anything to compare them to except non-expanding bullets. The only real difference I can see in the anecdotal performance of new bullets compared to the 115s is that today's bullets do their work a little more reliably, and they don't seem to get any credit at all for anecdotal stories, because they have peers, where the old loads didn't.

You make a good point. Back in the 'dark ages' before many of the modern innovations in bullet design, there were really only two reliable avenues to get solid terminal performance out of a handgun round. One was to shoot a large, fat, heavy round that makes a huge hole, and the other was to shoot something that had enough velocity behind it to guarantee HP expansion no matter how the hollowpoint on it was designed. That's why you hear so much about the storied effectiveness of the .45ACP and the .357 Magnum from those days. One round made big holes regardless of expansion and the other drove its payload so fast that the lead had no choice but to deform and expand in any sort of HP design.

Today it's a different ballgame. Real engineering has been applied to HP construction that allows for aggressive, reliable expansion and consistent penetration in a wide range of different calibers, weights and velocities, and a number of calibers and rounds that would have been considered marginal at best 20-30 years ago are true performers today. In the service calibers there are very effective loads available whether you're shooting a .38 snubbie or a full-sized .357 Sig.

I used to be heavily into the caliber wars and the BPW debate, but these days I am far more agnostic on such topics and instead tend to focus on platform, mindset and training. My view is choose a platform that serves your specific needs, become proficient with it, pick a quality, premium HP load for it and don't worry about the little stuff.

unit1069
01-21-2012, 21:08
Just because a bullet has a good reputation doesn't mean it's the best load for the job, either. Just because the 115+P+ loads were ubiquitous during a pretty crime-heavy part of the last forty years and lots of people got shot with them doesn't mean they are actually the most reliable performers on people.

It doesn't mean these rounds are currently the most reliable fight stoppers compared to a few other more recent rounds and I don't think anybody has claimed that.

Unless you believe that kinetic energy or ballistic pressure waves are meaningful wounding mechanisms in service pistol calibers on 100-300 pound animals like people, what reason could you possibly have to want a 115 grain bullet that expands to .60ish" over a 147 that expands more reliably to .70ish" and penetrates a little bit deeper in the process?

Nobody has to believe in kinetic energy or ballistic pressure waves to give credence to sworn LEO testimonials about what stopped felons who presented a mortal danger to themselves and the population at large.

From the sounds of it, the 147 HST is doing at least as well as the 115 grain bullets for the departments who are using it and shooting people, and so far I haven't heard any stories of people being killed because their 147 HST failed to penetrate deep enough or broke up before hitting anything important. Since anecdotes seem to be so important, I mean if that's happened, by all means post a link to it.

That's fine if the documented evidence is there for researchers to verify. The nub here on this thread is that some people question the 115-grain +P+ rounds where there's no reason to due to its documented history of stopping felons. Other rounds like the 124-grain Gold Dot +P are claimed to be better and I won't dispute that because the same researchers can provide info to back up that assertion using evidence from such sources as the NYPD.

If a certain round achieves critical mass in documented stops it is what it is. That doesn't mean that earlier rounds that successfully stopped felons suddenly fail to stop felons upon the arrival of the newer round.

But the bottom line for me is documentation by LEO testimonials that researchers can verify and not the sterile reports from guys in white lab coats who tend to favor knit Polo shirts with logo, bifocals and calculators.

pisc1024
01-21-2012, 21:52
I think the term street cred can be applied to situations where LEO officers issued a particular ammunition and who successfully stopped felons in the course of their duties have witnessed that gun/ammo effectiveness. Once a critical mass of these anecdotal testimonials are collected then a particular round can honestly be said to have street cred.



And you are saying the same can't be said by the LAPD's use of 147 gr 9mm's or the LASD? What about the CHP's use of heavy for caliber 180gr .40 S&W. That is the same CHP who switched from 357 mag 125gr. The CHP did a study that showed unequivocally that the 180 gr .40 cal was more effective in OIS than the prior issued .357 mag. Why is this not enough street cred for you?

I would say that together, these three agencies alone in the last 10 years have a kill total rivaling that of small pox. If anyone can speak with authority on how shooting people works, I would say these guys can.

pisc1024
01-21-2012, 22:04
I think it's easy for people in 2012 to forget that in 1989, the 115s were really the only thing going, there wasn't really anything to compare them to except non-expanding bullets. The only real difference I can see in the anecdotal performance of new bullets compared to the 115s is that today's bullets do their work a little more reliably, and they don't seem to get any credit at all for anecdotal stories, because they have peers, where the old loads didn't.

This is a good point. In the late 80's and early 90's LE was just beginning to figure out that they didn't even know what they needed in the way of bullet performance. The turning point was the FBI's Miami shoot out. This gave LE a good idea of what they really needed their bullets to do, and let them know just how inferior their current selection of rounds was. After a little trial and error, the FBI finally settled on the 180 gr .40 cal, and has never looked back. I would dare say that the 180 gr .40 cal is quite possibly the most tested and proven LE round in the last 10 or 15 years. I could be wrong on that, but it would at least be in the top two or three.

unit1069
01-21-2012, 22:14
I would say that together, these three agencies alone in the last 10 years have a kill total rivaling that of small pox. If anyone can speak with authority on how shooting people works, I would say these guys can.

I think all anybody asks is for documentation to be presented concerning the rounds you mentioned. Well-known researchers have written extensively about the various 115- and 124-/127-grain +P and +P+ rounds.

I'd just like to see the same information from researchers to back up the 147-grain 9mm ammo. In my own humble opinion if I wanted a slow moving 9mm bullet to do the job a slow moving .45ACP does I'd just go with the .45ACP to begin with.

Tiro Fijo
01-21-2012, 22:25
FWIW, few in CHP used a true magnum as most carried the .38 Special 110 gr. +p to the best of my knowledge.


I have nothing against progress, however the human body has not changed anatomically. Personally I believe bullet design is critical, however only a fool would totally discount velocity as being an important factor as well. There is just too much anecdotal evidence. Whether it can be repeated in a lab is another story. I can't show proof of "love" per se in a lab but I believe in it. :supergrin:

OctoberRust
01-21-2012, 22:37
Another advantage velocity would have is if it's hitting bone. Less of a chance of deflecting, and will shatter it more violently, yes?

pisc1024
01-21-2012, 23:17
I think all anybody asks is for documentation to be presented concerning the rounds you mentioned. Well-known researchers have written extensively about the various 115- and 124-/127-grain +P and +P+ rounds.

I'd just like to see the same information from researchers to back up the 147-grain 9mm ammo. In my own humble opinion if I wanted a slow moving 9mm bullet to do the job a slow moving .45ACP does I'd just go with the .45ACP to begin with.

I'd say the fact that the average line officer for these agencies are not crying out for different ammo should be good. By the way what well documented reports do you have for the 115 again?

Glolt20-91
01-22-2012, 01:13
If anyone is looking for street creds look no further than Frank Hamer. One of the very top LE gun fighters of the 20th century having been involved in approximately 50 gun fights; he also tracked down Bonnie and Clyde.

His tools of the trade consisted of a Colt SAA/45 Colt, S&W 44, Colt 1911 in 38Super and a semi automatic Remington rifle.

Hard to argue with his success and achievements. :)

unit1069
01-22-2012, 01:24
If anyone is looking for street creds look no further than Frank Hamer. One of the very top LE gun fighters of the 20th century having been involved in approximately 50 gun fights; he also tracked down Bonnie and Clyde.

His tools of the trade consisted of a Colt SAA/45 Colt, S&W 44, Colt 1911 in 38Super and a semi automatic Remington rifle.

Hard to argue with his success and achievements. :)

What rounds did Hamer carry in his handguns, FMJ or JHP? Do you carry the same rounds today as Hamer did in the 1930s?

RangeRover
01-22-2012, 06:07
I think all anybody asks is for documentation to be presented concerning the rounds you mentioned. Well-known researchers have written extensively about the various 115- and 124-/127-grain +P and +P+ rounds.

I'd just like to see the same information from researchers to back up the 147-grain 9mm ammo. In my own humble opinion if I wanted a slow moving 9mm bullet to do the job a slow moving .45ACP does I'd just go with the .45ACP to begin with.

Stroll over to Evan Marshall's site and see what he has to say about 147 grain ammo. He used to be a proponent of light and fast.

AWESOMO 4000
01-22-2012, 11:35
Marshall's stated preferred 9mm rounds are 115gr DPX, 9BPLE, and 115/125gr CorBon JHP. He says there have been great strides made with the 147gr....but he still sides with the lighter/faster loads.

The Border Patrol traditionally goes light and fast as well -- 115gr +P+, 155gr .40. Secret Service: 125gr .357SIG.

With modern bonded bullet construction, an extra 300fps isn't probably a bad thing. In +P guise, a little extra oomph isn't a bad thing either if the weapon is gummed up with mud or blood. Making a .355 try to do an impression of a .45 just never made sense to me.

Oh well...gives us something to talk about I guess. :cowboy:

unit1069
01-22-2012, 12:04
With modern bonded bullet construction, an extra 300fps isn't probably a bad thing. In +P guise, a little extra oomph isn't a bad thing either if the weapon is gummed up with mud or blood.

I really like nice expanding rounds like HST but I'm increasingly leaning towards bonded rounds lately. And the most intriguing thing to me about +P is reading how the added pressure lends reliable cycling of the slide, more an advantage than the slightly faster velocity it provides.

Making a .355 try to do an impression of a .45 just never made sense to me.

I completely agree.

NG VI
01-22-2012, 12:20
The Border Patrol traditionally goes light and fast as well -- 115gr +P+, 155gr .40.


Not anymore they don't. They've switched over to a 180 grain load, I think the same bonded Winchester bullet the FBI is using.

RangeRover
01-22-2012, 12:57
Marshall's stated preferred 9mm rounds are 115gr DPX, 9BPLE, and 115/125gr CorBon JHP. He says there have been great strides made with the 147gr....but he still sides with the lighter/faster loads.

You have either not looked carefully or never looked at all. IF you bother to look, you will find he has stated something to the effect that he'd rather discuss something important like what he'd have for lunch rather than differences between the 115 and 147gr load

English
01-22-2012, 13:07
The facts are that 115+P+ bullets have a designed-in weakness that can cause a bullet to fail the person who was depending on it, and that is light construction, and shallow penetration. I don't think expansion is meaningless, far from it, but I also prefer my bullets to have some margin of error built in to them. I like my heavyweight bullets, because they will penetrate further and more reliably than a lightweight bullet that expands to the same diameter, factually.

They might have a great "street" record, but that's because they were the only way to get any reliable JHP performance for a couple of decades. They are also more likely to underpenetrate and not make it to the vitals on a good but obstructed shot. A good 147 bullet is more likely to make it deep enough from any angle.

NG VI,
This is very confused. To say that the 115+P+ bullets have a designed in weakness is either intended to confuse or a misunderstanding. Its light conastruction allows it to have greater velocity and energy and it could easily have been made a little tougher so that it expanded less and pentrated more. As it was its penetration was reduced to do more damage at a reduced depth. Sometimes that will be better and sometimes it will be worse but on average it looks, from the volumes of numerous anecdotes as though it was a successful compromise.

You might as well say that the 147 has a designed in weakness because it has less energy and does not deliver a wide enough zone of damage, but in fact it is just a different attempt to deliver the same optimum probability of rapid incapacitation. In the hands of NYPD it was known, I believe, as the widow maker precisely because it did not incapacitate rapidly enough. By designing it to expand more you simply decrease its penetration and increase the diameter of its zone of damage.

You talk of being let down by a bullet because it does not penetrate far enough. You can also be let down by a bullet that does not incapacitate quickly enough, or by a bullet that does ntot produce enough partial incapacitation per shot. It is pointless to talk in these terms because you can't predict which characteristics you will need for the next time you need to shoot at someone and all you could go on, if the data were available, is what has worked best on average for people with SD problems similar to your own. You can't escape from the averages and they will not be the same between 115+P+ and 147 whether you are a LEO or a civillian. To make this decision on whether the bullet penetrates more or less is futile.

You say that the 115 was the only way to get adequate expansion in the past, but that expansion was a choice and could have been applied to the 147 but the marketing people wanted more penetration because that was what the FBI said they wanted. When the FBI does your marketing for you, why not make the most of the sales it offers.

The problem with the 9mm is that it is teetering on the edge of inadequate. It does not have enough KE to both penetrate and produce a wide enough zone of damage. Either of the .357 Magnum or 357SIG in about 125gn has the KE to do more of both at the same time.

English

DocKWL
01-22-2012, 13:26
NG VI,
This is very confused. To say that the 115+P+ bullets have a designed in weakness is either intended to confuse or a misunderstanding. Its light conastruction allows it to have greater velocity and energy and it could easily have been made a little tougher so that it expanded less and pentrated more. As it was its penetration was reduced to do more damage at a reduced depth. Sometimes that will be better and sometimes it will be worse but on average it looks, from the volumes of numerous anecdotes as though it was a successful compromise.

You might as well say that the 147 has a designed in weakness because it has less energy and does not deliver a wide enough zone of damage, but in fact it is just a different attempt to deliver the same optimum probability of rapid incapacitation. In the hands of NYPD it was known, I believe, as the widow maker precisely because it did not incapacitate rapidly enough. By designing it to expand more you simply decrease its penetration and increase the diameter of its zone of damage.

You talk of being let down by a bullet because it does not penetrate far enough. You can also be let down by a bullet that does not incapacitate quickly enough, or by a bullet that does ntot produce enough partial incapacitation per shot. It is pointless to talk in these terms because you can't predict which characteristics you will need for the next time you need to shoot at someone and all you could go on, if the data were available, is what has worked best on average for people with SD problems similar to your own. You can't escape from the averages and they will not be the same between 115+P+ and 147 whether you are a LEO or a civillian. To make this decision on whether the bullet penetrates more or less is futile.

You say that the 115 was the only way to get adequate expansion in the past, but that expansion was a choice and could have been applied to the 147 but the marketing people wanted more penetration because that was what the FBI said they wanted. When the FBI does your marketing for you, why not make the most of the sales it offers.

The problem with the 9mm is that it is teetering on the edge of inadequate. It does not have enough KE to both penetrate and produce a wide enough zone of damage. Either of the .357 Magnum or 357SIG in about 125gn has the KE to do more of both at the same time.

English

This sentence is confusing:

As it was its penetration was reduced to do more damage at a reduced depth.If you are implying that this particular bullet acted the way it did by intent, you are wrong. If you claim that penetration of this bullet was purposely reduced [compared to what?], you will need to provide evidence to back this claim.

In the hands of NYPD it was known, I believe, as the widow maker precisely because it did not incapacitate rapidly enough."Widow maker" originated from one particular .38 Spl. load.

pisc1024
01-22-2012, 13:41
NG VI,
This is very confused. To say that the 115+P+ bullets have a designed in weakness is either intended to confuse or a misunderstanding. Its light conastruction allows it to have greater velocity and energy and it could easily have been made a little tougher so that it expanded less and pentrated more. As it was its penetration was reduced to do more damage at a reduced depth. Sometimes that will be better and sometimes it will be worse but on average it looks, from the volumes of numerous anecdotes as though it was a successful compromise.



I don't think that any one was confused by what NG VI said here English. You are simply trying your slight of hand tricks again by attacking the poster as some one who has an ulterior motive.
Some one who is such an intellectual giant as your self should also be able to comprehend the fact that more velocity RETARDS penetration in expanding bullets. This can be seen in every example from 9mm, to 357 sig/mag, 40 and even 45.
You also posit that perhaps a 115gr round could be made tougher so as to expand less and penetrate more. This shows that you understand fully what the poster is saying, you are just attempting to muddy the waters. As it stands the 115 gr rounds have a hard time keeping up with the heavier one’s when it comes to expansion. One other thing they have going against them is they are much easier to clog with clothing material, thus negating any possible BPW gain by the round in the first place.

Once again you point to anecdotal evidence, and no real evidence that these rounds have any more REAL effect on a target than 124's or 147's. Please do tell me you are not going to try and rehash Dr. C's claims of BPW


You might as well say that the 147 has a designed in weakness because it has less energy and does not deliver a wide enough zone of damage, but in fact it is just a different attempt to deliver the same optimum probability of rapid incapacitation. In the hands of NYPD it was known, I believe, as the widow maker precisely because it did not incapacitate rapidly enough. By designing it to expand more you simply decrease its penetration and increase the diameter of its zone of damage.



I think that we have proven that energy produced by hand gun rounds has no effect in the wounding properties. Hand gun bullets do not produce a temporary wound channel despite what many people believe.
What proof do you have that the NYPD ever used a 147 gr JHP as an issue round? I have NEVER heard of that round being issued to the troops. The round they had before they went to the 124 +p was of a FMJ design. That being the case the weight of the round really didn't matter.
True the modern 147 gr rounds are designed to expend, and yes this dose retard the penetration seen from them, as in the 115. This being the case the 147 gr consistently out performs any 115 gr in the FBI testing protocols, which I'll remind you, is the largest factor in most PD's ammo choice.

To make this decision on whether the bullet penetrates more or less is futile.



This to me truly shows your ignorance or arrogance on the subject of terminal ballistics. How you can have hundreds if not thousands of LE agencies disagree with your opinion so completely, and still spout the crap you do is nothing short of astounding. LE agencies who's officers lives depend on the ammo they chose every day.
Once again, what are your credentials? How many OIS's have you seen, been involved with? How many times in your life have you even carried a gun for personal defense or because your job required it?


You say that the 115 was the only way to get adequate expansion in the past, but that expansion was a choice and could have been applied to the 147 but the marketing people wanted more penetration because that was what the FBI said they wanted. When the FBI does your marketing for you, why not make the most of the sales it offers.




So I guess years of study and tons of money spent by the FBI counts for nothing but a big marketing campaign huh? The FBI has a vested interest in giving the troops the best that money can offer period. After years of study, they came to the conclusion (one shared by many LEA's) that penetration was most important. This has been shown, through the crucible of real life and death situations to be the correct choice.

The problem with the 9mm is that it is teetering on the edge of inadequate. It does not have enough KE to both penetrate and produce a wide enough zone of damage. Either of the .357 Magnum or 357SIG in about 125gn has the KE to do more of both at the same time.

English

You couldn't be more wrong, yet again. The 9 is fine, there are a whole crap load of people who are not breathing right now who would have a bone to pick with what you just said! More armies and police departments use the 9mm around the world than any thing else. To say that it can't hold up to the 357 sig or the maggie is just plain wrong. It has far out stepped the magnum in the last 30 years. I would say in about 99.99% of the situations if you can't get it done with a 9mm then you probably should have brought a rifle.

English
01-22-2012, 15:27
This sentence is confusing:


by English
As it was its penetration was reduced to do more damage at a reduced depth.

Yes. Agree that it is. What I was trying to say was that the overall design of the 115+P+ is intended to do more damage at a reduced depth. That is part of the necessary compromise because you can't have both without more KE.

I hope that is now clear.

English

English
01-22-2012, 18:12
I don't think that any one was confused by what NG VI said here English. You are simply trying your slight of hand tricks again by attacking the poster as some one who has an ulterior motive.
Some one who is such an intellectual giant as your self should also be able to comprehend the fact that more velocity RETARDS penetration in expanding bullets. This can be seen in every example from 9mm, to 357 sig/mag, 40 and even 45.
I can see why an intellectual pygmy such as you might think these things, but I am simply trying to be clear about what I say. I have no ulterior motive and am not trying to use "slight of hand tricks". Actually it is sleight) Velocity does not retard penetration unless it is combined with lighter weight and/or wider expansion. For a given bullet weight and expanded diameter, penetration is entirely dependent on KE - more KE gives more penetration. KE is needed to do work against the resistance of penetration and at any given point that resistance is approximately proportional to the frontal area of the bullet and the square of its speed times a factor for the resistance of the medium. If you reduce the resistance, the drag, then you reduce the rate at which KE is expended. You can do this either by reducing frontal area or by reducing speed, but if you reduce speed you have to increase bullet weight to regain the same level of KE, and vice versa of course. This is the entire basis of the mishaprehension that you and other labour under and which you express above. So, heavier slower bullets of the same KE and frontal area WILL penetrate further because they are not using as much energy for each small unit of penetration. By not using as much energy for each small unit of penetration they are NECESSARILY doing less damage for each small unit of penetration.

I know you have difficulty understanding this concept but think of it in terms you can understand from experience. If you drive your car on a flat road at 80mph then put it into neutral and coast, will you travel a greater or lesser distance than if you had done the same thing at 100mph? Just in case you are struggling with that, the answer is that you would travel further from the 100mph start.
You also posit that perhaps a 115gr round could be made tougher so as to expand less and penetrate more. This shows that you understand fully what the poster is saying, you are just attempting to muddy the waters. ..... Please do tell me you are not going to try and rehash Dr. C's claims of BPW
I am not trying to muddy the waters. That is a technique of your little group. I have not mentioned Dr. Courtney or a BPW effect producing remote brain trauma. It is you bringing this up as another red herring, not me. That apart, almost all wounding effects of bullets are the direct result of ballistic pressure wave effects. You cannot fire a bullet into a fluid medium without a dynamic pressure wave being produced and because it is dynamic it produces a pressure gradient which forces the medium from high pressure zones to low pressure zones. In doing so it produces damage. It really is very simple but you are so obsessed with Dr. Courtney's work that every time you see the acronym BPW you think someone is trying to talk about remote brain trauma.
I think that we have proven that energy produced by hand gun rounds has no effect in the wounding properties. Hand gun bullets do not produce a temporary wound channel despite what many people believe.
You have proved no such thing. All you have done is state it many times. In contrast, what I have done is EXPLAIN why energy is the entire basis of handgun wounding and that all the other factors just determine the depth and width of the damage done. Your idea that handgun bullets do not produce a temporary cavity is simply laughable. There are slow motion videos of bullets hitting gel that show it clearly. It was so powerful that it broke the standard testing table when testing 357SIG and 10mm rounds. You should be able to find similar shots of handgun bullets fired into animal carcases where you can see the bulge on the outer surface. Can you really tell me that you have not seen any of these things or are you so brain washed with your ideas of terminal ballistics that you can't understand what you see?
What proof do you have that the NYPD ever used a 147 gr JHP as an issue round? I have NEVER heard of that round being issued to the troops. The round they had before they went to the 124 +p was of a FMJ design. That being the case the weight of the round really didn't matter.
True the modern 147 gr rounds are designed to expend, and yes this dose retard the penetration seen from them, as in the 115. This being the case the 147 gr consistently out performs any 115 gr in the FBI testing protocols, which I'll remind you, is the largest factor in most PD's ammo choice.
I have no proof of what the NYPD used and merely remembered that it was so. You are more likely than I to know their history. Yes the FBI testing protocal is the largest factor in most PD's ammo choice. That does not mean that it is correct.
This to me truly shows your ignorance or arrogance on the subject of terminal ballistics. How you can have hundreds if not thousands of LE agencies disagree with your opinion so completely, and still spout the crap you do is nothing short of astounding. LE agencies who's officers lives depend on the ammo they chose every day.
Once again, what are your credentials? How many OIS's have you seen, been involved with? How many times in your life have you even carried a gun for personal defense or because your job required it?
I can't be bothered to read what I have said that you are responding to here. It is very easy to have hundreds or thousands of LE agencies and the FBI believing nonsense because they are people who follow authority and don't have scientific minds. For a long long time the .45ACP was the real deal. Why? It was promoted by a very persuasive individual writing in gun magazines and teaching the Modern Technique to LEOs across the country. I believed it myself. It was persuasive but it had no foundation of evidence. The Thompson-LaGarde Tests were a joke run by an Infantry Officer and a Medic. Unfortunately the FBI seems to have continued along the same lines of unfounded and unsupported assumptions though they have spent a lot more money on the subject.
So I guess years of study and tons of money spent by the FBI counts for nothing but a big marketing campaign huh? The FBI has a vested interest in giving the troops the best that money can offer period. After years of study, they came to the conclusion (one shared by many LEA's) that penetration was most important. This has been shown, through the crucible of real life and death situations to be the correct choice.
Yes, mainly wasted. Do you really think I was saying that the FBI was running a marketing campaign? It was just that their protocol acted like that for the ammunition companies. The ammunition companies did not need to do their own research into wounding effectiveness and it would have been a waste of time for them to do so because the FBI name had more weight to it. So all they had to do was the easy bit of matching loadings to the FBI protocol.

I don't think the FBI does its research on behalf of the troops but for its own agents. The fact that they came to the conclusion after years of study, if that is what they did, that penetration was most important shows their incompetence. Penetration is important but it is just one of several factors and they have inflated it beyond its worth for other users. You need penetration of 18 inches or so if you expect to be shooting people in cars but for civillians that is not likely. Their protocol has not "been shown, through the crucible of real life and death situations to be the correct choice" because it has not been compared to other possibilities over a sufficient number of cases to iron out the randomness. The FBI has decided and everyone else has gone along.
You couldn't be more wrong, yet again. The 9 is fine, there are a whole crap load of people who are not breathing right now who would have a bone to pick with what you just said! More armies and police departments use the 9mm around the world than any thing else. To say that it can't hold up to the 357 sig or the maggie is just plain wrong. It has far out stepped the magnum in the last 30 years. I would say in about 99.99% of the situations if you can't get it done with a 9mm then you probably should have brought a rifle.
And there might be many who would be alive if they had had something better. The simple fact is that you can't support your statement because it is unsupportable. You have no evidence of the superiority of the 9 over the 357SIG, .40S&W, .45ACP or 10mm. All of these have their limitations but the 9 is more limited than any of the others which all can have highe energy. The .357 Magnum is a different issue because it is a revolver cartridge with a relatively reduced round count. The 9mm has not "outstepped" the magnum in 30 years because both have developed. If you compare hardcast 158gn .357s to 115+P+ hollow points you might have some value in your claim but not with modern 125gn .357s, shot for shot.

Please don't bring up the dumb rifle thing. For most situations, if people knew they were going to be in a gun fight they would bring a rifle. The reality is that pistols are for those situations where you don't expect to be under fire and so the choice is a compromise between carriability, power and round count. On that basis the 9 has its place in a size below the G26 but for the G26 size and above, most people who can handle it will probably be better served with the 357SIG and for Service pistol size or a little below the 10mm.

As a final thought on the FBI's assessment designs, consider the history of the 10mm. The initial protocol had not envisaged testing the 10mm but it had expected to test the .38 as a comparisson with the 9mm and .45ACP and had said that nothing must have more total recoil than the 230gn FMJ .45ACP. This later constraint was because they did not want pistols that were too hard to handle but they had not done tests to determine what could be handled by their range of people or what weight they could reasonably carry. They just made an assumption. The 10mm got into their tests by accident because one of the team was a fan. He down loaded it to match the recoil of the .45ACP and that was the 10mm lite and the equivalent of the .40S&W. In this form it was slightly ahead of the .45ACP on their range of tests for penetration on car bodies and screens, accuracy and so on. It was brought into service and after a little while it was discarded. Why was that? There was a turf war and for one party it was necessary to discredit the head of the testing team. That was done with rumoured about the 10 mm being too powerful for women agents but the S&Ws they had contracted for were heavier than the 1911 and the felt recoil was less. A non armourer was put incharge of testing the pistols as they arrived from S&W with the instruction that if he found any thing at all, no matter how minor, that was not perfect he was to return the pistol to S&W. After a time S&W were happy to allow the FBI to escape from the contract.

This is a fine tale of testing that failed to test what mattered and making assumptions without evidence followed by double dealing within the FBI for the sake of promotion rather than cost or the safety of the FBI's agents. I am sure this will not penetrate the warm glow you feel for the FBI or make you wonder whether there really was any truth in the lovely idea of the girly men FBI agents who couldn't shoot a 10mm lite from a 40 ounce pistol. When they brought it into service they contracted to buy 10mm rounds to the lite specification and that is what they issued. They never issued full strength 10mm rounds.

By the way, the complaint of agents about the 10mm lite was that the pistol was too heavy to carry all day and not that it was too difficult to fire. many liked it a lot and one agent managed to not hand his in for two years after he had been told to do so.

English

pisc1024
01-22-2012, 19:47
I can see why an intellectual pygmy such as you might think these things, but I am simply trying to be clear about what I say. I have no ulterior motive and am not trying to use "slight of hand tricks". Actually it is sleight) Velocity does not retard penetration unless it is combined with lighter weight and/or wider expansion. For a given bullet weight and expanded diameter, penetration is entirely dependent on KE - more KE gives more penetration. KE is needed to do work against the resistance of penetration and at any given point that resistance is approximately proportional to the frontal area of the bullet and the square of its speed times a factor for the resistance of the medium. If you reduce the resistance, the drag, then you reduce the rate at which KE is expended. You can do this either by reducing frontal area or by reducing speed, but if you reduce speed you have to increase bullet weight to regain the same level of KE, and vice versa of course. This is the entire basis of the mishaprehension that you and other labour under and which you express above. So, heavier slower bullets of the same KE and frontal area WILL penetrate further because they are not using as much energy for each small unit of penetration. By not using as much energy for each small unit of penetration they are NECESSARILY doing less damage for each small unit of penetration.

I know you have difficulty understanding this concept but think of it in terms you can understand from experience. If you drive your car on a flat road at 80mph then put it into neutral and coast, will you travel a greater or lesser distance than if you had done the same thing at 100mph? Just in case you are struggling with that, the answer is that you would travel further from the 100mph start.
I am not trying to muddy the waters. That is a technique of your little group. I have not mentioned Dr. Courtney or a BPW effect producing remote brain trauma. It is you bringing this up as another red herring, not me. That apart, almost all wounding effects of bullets are the direct result of ballistic pressure wave effects. You cannot fire a bullet into a fluid medium without a dynamic pressure wave being produced and because it is dynamic it produces a pressure gradient which forces the medium from high pressure zones to low pressure zones. In doing so it produces damage. It really is very simple but you are so obsessed with Dr. Courtney's work that every time you see the acronym BPW you think someone is trying to talk about remote brain trauma.
You have proved no such thing. All you have done is state it many times. In contrast, what I have done is EXPLAIN why energy is the entire basis of handgun wounding and that all the other factors just determine the depth and width of the damage done. Your idea that handgun bullets do not produce a temporary cavity is simply laughable. There are slow motion videos of bullets hitting gel that show it clearly. It was so powerful that it broke the standard testing table when testing 357SIG and 10mm rounds. You should be able to find similar shots of handgun bullets fired into animal carcases where you can see the bulge on the outer surface. Can you really tell me that you have not seen any of these things or are you so brain washed with your ideas of terminal ballistics that you can't understand what you see?
I have no proof of what the NYPD used and merely remembered that it was so. You are more likely than I to know their history. Yes the FBI testing protocal is the largest factor in most PD's ammo choice. That does not mean that it is correct.
I can't be bothered to read what I have said that you are responding to here. It is very easy to have hundreds or thousands of LE agencies and the FBI believing nonsense because they are people who follow authority and don't have scientific minds. For a long long time the .45ACP was the real deal. Why? It was promoted by a very persuasive individual writing in gun magazines and teaching the Modern Technique to LEOs across the country. I believed it myself. It was persuasive but it had no foundation of evidence. The Thompson-LaGarde Tests were a joke run by an Infantry Officer and a Medic. Unfortunately the FBI seems to have continued along the same lines of unfounded and unsupported assumptions though they have spent a lot more money on the subject.
Yes, mainly wasted. Do you really think I was saying that the FBI was running a marketing campaign? It was just that their protocol acted like that for the ammunition companies. The ammunition companies did not need to do their own research into wounding effectiveness and it would have been a waste of time for them to do so because the FBI name had more weight to it. So all they had to do was the easy bit of matching loadings to the FBI protocol.

I don't think the FBI does its research on behalf of the troops but for its own agents. The fact that they came to the conclusion after years of study, if that is what they did, that penetration was most important shows their incompetence. Penetration is important but it is just one of several factors and they have inflated it beyond its worth for other users. You need penetration of 18 inches or so if you expect to be shooting people in cars but for civillians that is not likely. Their protocol has not "been shown, through the crucible of real life and death situations to be the correct choice" because it has not been compared to other possibilities over a sufficient number of cases to iron out the randomness. The FBI has decided and everyone else has gone along.
And there might be many who would be alive if they had had something better. The simple fact is that you can't support your statement because it is unsupportable. You have no evidence of the superiority of the 9 over the 357SIG, .40S&W, .45ACP or 10mm. All of these have their limitations but the 9 is more limited than any of the others which all can have highe energy. The .357 Magnum is a different issue because it is a revolver cartridge with a relatively reduced round count. The 9mm has not "outstepped" the magnum in 30 years because both have developed. If you compare hardcast 158gn .357s to 115+P+ hollow points you might have some value in your claim but not with modern 125gn .357s, shot for shot.

Please don't bring up the dumb rifle thing. For most situations, if people knew they were going to be in a gun fight they would bring a rifle. The reality is that pistols are for those situations where you don't expect to be under fire and so the choice is a compromise between carriability, power and round count. On that basis the 9 has its place in a size below the G26 but for the G26 size and above, most people who can handle it will probably be better served with the 357SIG and for Service pistol size or a little below the 10mm.

As a final thought on the FBI's assessment designs, consider the history of the 10mm. The initial protocol had not envisaged testing the 10mm but it had expected to test the .38 as a comparisson with the 9mm and .45ACP and had said that nothing must have more total recoil than the 230gn FMJ .45ACP. This later constraint was because they did not want pistols that were too hard to handle but they had not done tests to determine what could be handled by their range of people or what weight they could reasonably carry. They just made an assumption. The 10mm got into their tests by accident because one of the team was a fan. He down loaded it to match the recoil of the .45ACP and that was the 10mm lite and the equivalent of the .40S&W. In this form it was slightly ahead of the .45ACP on their range of tests for penetration on car bodies and screens, accuracy and so on. It was brought into service and after a little while it was discarded. Why was that? There was a turf war and for one party it was necessary to discredit the head of the testing team. That was done with rumoured about the 10 mm being too powerful for women agents but the S&Ws they had contracted for were heavier than the 1911 and the felt recoil was less. A non armourer was put incharge of testing the pistols as they arrived from S&W with the instruction that if he found any thing at all, no matter how minor, that was not perfect he was to return the pistol to S&W. After a time S&W were happy to allow the FBI to escape from the contract.

This is a fine tale of testing that failed to test what mattered and making assumptions without evidence followed by double dealing within the FBI for the sake of promotion rather than cost or the safety of the FBI's agents. I am sure this will not penetrate the warm glow you feel for the FBI or make you wonder whether there really was any truth in the lovely idea of the girly men FBI agents who couldn't shoot a 10mm lite from a 40 ounce pistol. When they brought it into service they contracted to buy 10mm rounds to the lite specification and that is what they issued. They never issued full strength 10mm rounds.

By the way, the complaint of agents about the 10mm lite was that the pistol was too heavy to carry all day and not that it was too difficult to fire. many liked it a lot and one agent managed to not hand his in for two years after he had been told to do so.

English

:yawn: I'm sorry did you say something?

English
01-23-2012, 07:18
:yawn: I'm sorry did you say something?

Yes, but don't worry. You would not have understood it.

English

pisc1024
01-23-2012, 09:49
yes, but don't worry. You would not have understood it.

English

..... :)

tsmo1066
01-23-2012, 11:29
You couldn't be more wrong, yet again. The 9 is fine, there are a whole crap load of people who are not breathing right now who would have a bone to pick with what you just said! More armies and police departments use the 9mm around the world than any thing else. To say that it can't hold up to the 357 sig or the maggie is just plain wrong. It has far out stepped the magnum in the last 30 years. I would say in about 99.99% of the situations if you can't get it done with a 9mm then you probably should have brought a rifle.

Spot on. If the 9mm didn't work, and work well, it would not remain the hands-down #1 choice of the world's top anti-terrorist, police and military units worldwide after over 100 years of service.

Once you get outside of the United States, the caliber wars are OVER. When it comes to service handguns, it's a 9mm world and more soldiers, cops and operators worldwide trust their lives to the 9X19 than all other handgun calibers combined.

Tiro Fijo
01-23-2012, 15:07
Spot on. If the 9mm didn't work, and work well, it would not remain the hands-down #1 choice of the world's top anti-terrorist, police and military units worldwide after over 100 years of service.

Once you get outside of the United States, the caliber wars are OVER. When it comes to service handguns, it's a 9mm world and more soldiers, cops and operators worldwide trust their lives to the 9X19 than all other handgun calibers combined.


What you say is true and there is no greater fan of the 9mm than I with the right bullets. However, I will add a caveat to your statement and that is because outside the USA there is little desire to improve upon cartridges because there is little if any civilian usage, i.e., handguns are very restricted. In Europe the current trend is towards more "civilian safe" ammo as the people who approve ammo for LE are usually bleeding heart liberals who don't want the police to shoot anyone. :upeyes: There are no "boutique" ammo makers outside of the US as well who cater to those who want more out of their ammo. Hence, it's not really a fair comparison.

That said, in many Third World countries LE shoot a helluva lot people, e.g., Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela & Colombia, etc. They use 9mm ball ammo except in some highly specialized units.

tsmo1066
01-23-2012, 15:57
What you say is true and there is no greater fan of the 9mm than I with the right bullets. However, I will add a caveat to your statement and that is because outside the USA there is little desire to improve upon cartridges because there is little if any civilian usage, i.e., handguns are very restricted. In Europe the current trend is towards more "civilian safe" ammo as the people who approve ammo for LE are usually bleeding heart liberals who don't want the police to shoot anyone. :upeyes: There are no "boutique" ammo makers outside of the US as well who cater to those who want more out of their ammo. Hence, it's not really a fair comparison.

That said, in many Third World countries LE shoot a helluva lot people, e.g., Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela & Colombia, etc. They use 9mm ball ammo except in some highly specialized units.

It's true that civilian use of handguns is, in fact, greatly restricted in many countries outside of the USA, but I doubt this has a great impact on driving military and police caliber choice in those countries. By-and-large, groups like the British SAS, Israeli Mossad, French Commando Parachutiste and other elite military forces have a pretty decent voice in helping determine the equipment they carry regardless of what the civilian gun control arena looks like in their neck of the woods, and yet they generally continue choosing 9mm decade after decade.

I don't think that this choice makes 9mm "the best" by any stretch, but I do agree with the poster I originally quoted, who was himself responding to the absurd assertion that the 9mm is "teetering on the edge of inadequacy".

If the 9mm were so marginal, even in ball, it simply wouldn't remain the handgun caliber of choice of most of the world's top SF and counter-terrorism units worldwide after 100+ years of continuous service.

pisc1024
01-23-2012, 17:01
If the 9mm were so marginal, even in ball, it simply wouldn't remain the handgun caliber of choice of most of the world's top SF and counter-terrorism units worldwide after 100+ years of continuous service.

That is an excellent point.

One more point that a lot of people forget is that Europe loads their 9's hotter across the board than we do here in the U.S.

Once again, the 9 works fine for many people, and is far from being over taken by any other caliber.

unit1069
01-23-2012, 18:30
One more point that a lot of people forget is that Europe loads their 9's hotter across the board than we do here in the U.S.

Correct, and how many varieties of premium JHP self-defense rounds are available to the relatively smaller numbers of European civilians who own handguns compared to those who do here in America?

Maybe there's an opportunity for some free trade here: European ammo pressure standards become the standard for American ammo manufacturers and Yankee JHP bullets become prevalent in European ammunition.

Wouldn't this be a win-win for everyone concerned? Sheesh, we Yanks will even throw in our Second Amendment rights applying to European citizens in every European country without any additional demands or expectations. How's that for a deal, Europe?

pisc1024
01-23-2012, 18:45
Correct, and how many varieties of premium JHP self-defense rounds are available to the relatively smaller numbers of European civilians who own handguns compared to those who do here in America?

Maybe there's an opportunity for some free trade here: European ammo pressure standards become the standard for American ammo manufacturers and Yankee JHP bullets become prevalent in European ammunition.

Wouldn't this be a win-win for everyone concerned? Sheesh, we Yanks will even throw in our Second Amendment rights applying to European citizens in every European country without any additional demands or expectations. How's that for a deal, Europe?

That sounds like a win, win situation! I'm in :)

tsmo1066
01-23-2012, 19:37
One more point that a lot of people forget is that Europe loads their 9's hotter across the board than we do here in the U.S.



That's an important point, too. What most Europeans consider the "standard" 9mm loading would be considered "+P" here in the US. If I recall correctly, the original spec for the 9mm was a 124 grain bullet being pushed at 1200FPS out of a 4-5 inch barrel.

Any historical ammo gurus please correct me if that is wrong.

Tiro Fijo
01-23-2012, 19:43
It's true that civilian use of handguns is, in fact, greatly restricted in many countries outside of the USA, but I doubt this has a great impact on driving military and police caliber choice in those countries. By-and-large, groups like the British SAS, Israeli Mossad, French Commando Parachutiste and other elite military forces have a pretty decent voice in helping determine the equipment they carry regardless of what the civilian gun control arena looks like in their neck of the woods, and yet they generally continue choosing 9mm decade after decade...


The SAS used Fed. 9mm BP (standard 115 gr. HP) against civilian targets, e.g., IRA. The French GIGN used a Manhurin .357 Mag. revolver. As to the Mossad, last I knew Israeli SF switched from the High Power to the G19 and I have no idea what ammo they use.

Having lived & worked abroad in Latin America the vast majority don't really concern themselves with such matters as they are more militarized and see the handgun as a 2ndary weapon. Most will grab a Galil, FN FAL or a G3 for serious matters with lots of backup.

What caused the 9mm to be dominant as well was that after WWII there was a huge push by FN to market abroad in Latin America & other Third World countries as the European markets were dead, both literally & figuratively. Since most were arming with FN FAL's it made sense to buy the High Power as well as it was/is a great gun and they got sweet "combo" deals to boot. The Argentines even made their own licensed copies. After WWII the Americans didn't initially concentrate on arms exports as much with civilian arms even less due to restrictions on handguns and the fact that there was no 9mm available here until 1954 (S&W Model 39) and it lacked capacity and had no history as the High Power did. Plus, the 9mm was THE cartridge for subguns as well.

In essence, there were marketing, economic & other factors at play here as well. That's not to say that the 9mm is not a good cartridge however.

tsmo1066
01-23-2012, 20:33
The SAS used Fed. 9mm BP (standard 115 gr. HP) against civilian targets, e.g., IRA. The French GIGN used a Manhurin .357 Mag. revolver. As to the Mossad, last I knew Israeli SF switched from the High Power to the G19 and I have no idea what ammo they use.

Having lived & worked abroad in Latin America the vast majority don't really concern themselves with such matters as they are more militarized and see the handgun as a 2ndary weapon. Most will grab a Galil, FN FAL or a G3 for serious matters with lots of backup.

What caused the 9mm to be dominant as well was that after WWII there was a huge push by FN to market abroad in Latin America & other Third World countries as the European markets were dead, both literally & figuratively. Since most were arming with FN FAL's it made sense to buy the High Power as well as it was/is a great gun and they got sweet "combo" deals to boot. The Argentines even made their own licensed copies. After WWII the Americans didn't initially concentrate on arms exports as much with civilian arms even less due to restrictions on handguns and the fact that there was no 9mm available here until 1954 (S&W Model 39) and it lacked capacity and had no history as the High Power did. Plus, the 9mm was THE cartridge for subguns as well.

In essence, there were marketing, economic & other factors at play here as well. That's not to say that the 9mm is not a good cartridge however.

I agree with you. There are many reasons why the 9mm rose to dominance in the military/police handgun markets globally, and your summary is spot-on. Just as the Glock rose to dominance in the American LEO market largely due to marketing efforts, the 9mm owes its ascendancy to a multitude of factors, and marketing is one of them.

My point isn't so much how the 9mm got where it is, though. It's more about why it has stayed there. Like the Glock pistols, getting there is only part of the picture. 9mm stays at the top because it WORKS (a point which we both agree on), and it does so damned well. If Glock pistols were merely marginal performers, no amount of hype and marketing would keep military and LEO organizations going back to them for the past 30 years. By the same token, if 9mm didn't get the job done, no amount of marketing would keep the SAS and others going back to it.

The argument that 9mm "borders on inadequacy" simply doesn't hold water.

unit1069
01-24-2012, 06:23
My point isn't so much how the 9mm got where it is, though. It's more about why it has stayed there. Like the Glock pistols, getting there is only part of the picture. 9mm stays at the top because it WORKS (a point which we both agree on), and it does so damned well. If Glock pistols were merely marginal performers, no amount of hype and marketing would keep military and LEO organizations going back to them for the past 30 years. By the same token, if 9mm didn't get the job done, no amount of marketing would keep the SAS and others going back to it.

The argument that 9mm "borders on inadequacy" simply doesn't hold water.

" ... because it WORKS ... "

In the past several years National Public Radio has run segments on calibers that were turning 100 years old. The .30-06, 9mm, and 1911 .45ACP.

I wonder how many other calibers would have achieved critical mass of popular acceptance if certain factors would have come into play at the right time.

English
01-24-2012, 07:04
Correct, and how many varieties of premium JHP self-defense rounds are available to the relatively smaller numbers of European civilians who own handguns compared to those who do here in America?

Maybe there's an opportunity for some free trade here: European ammo pressure standards become the standard for American ammo manufacturers and Yankee JHP bullets become prevalent in European ammunition.

Wouldn't this be a win-win for everyone concerned? Sheesh, we Yanks will even throw in our Second Amendment rights applying to European citizens in every European country without any additional demands or expectations. How's that for a deal, Europe?

Ahhh! If only! Switzerland is about the most gun friendly country in Europe, though it is getting rapidly worse, but even there Swiss citizens cannot carry for self protection or buy hollow point ammunition any longer.

English

English
01-24-2012, 08:37
...
If the 9mm were so marginal, even in ball, it simply wouldn't remain the handgun caliber of choice of most of the world's top SF and counter-terrorism units worldwide after 100+ years of continuous service.

I fear this does not follow at all. Governments, police forces and the military all tend to be ignorant about handguns or uninterested in them with the exception of some US local agencies. None of them make decent efforts to determine their effectiveness and in most cases decisions are made on the basis of cost.

As an example, when the UK police decided that they should have a proper armed section they chose the S&W model 10 in .38Sp. this was at a time when the US had already changed to the 9mm! In general you get some old duffer with fixed, silly, ideas about stopping power or danger to the public making such decisions. For many decades, when the superior 9mm was available, European police forces were mainly armed with .32s and .380s. The main USSR military pistol was their slightly more powerful .380. Armies very rarely rely on handguns for killing people!

The experience of Ammolab, from memory, was that autopsies showed that, on average, it took 5 to 6 hits from 9mm to stop someone but about 3 of .40S&W or .45ACP. There could be explanations for this other than the obvious but though there is much evidence of this type that shows the relative ineffectiveness of the 9mm there has been no proper open minded investigation by major bodies to determine the relative effectiveness of different cartridges.

The situation is that all these non USA forces use 9mm without anything to compare it with and so they carry on using it. The US police agencies use, 9mm with 147, 125 and 115 grn bullets, .40S&W mainly with 180gns, 357SIG with 125 and there are probably a few using .45ACP and certainly .45Glock. but there does not seem to be any better designed system in use to compare their effectiveness than Marshall and Sanow's.

I am bored with explaining for the nth time how it is that bullets actually create wounds but it takes a strong power of ignorance or denial to believe that a bullet with more KE and the same penetration does not do more damage than one with less KE. It is equally difficult to believe that more damage per shot does not result in fewer shots to incapacitation. Ammolab's data seems to bear this out.

That leads to two issues. The first is that not everyone who can shoot a 9mm sufficiently well can shoot a .40S&W, 357SIG, .45 or 10mm sufficiently well. The reasons for this do not matter, but those people will just have to stick with the 9mm. For those people who can shoot one of those higher energy, heavier recoiling pistols the question is whether the increased split times that go with heavier recoil are enough to make the 9mm as effective. In my own tests the split time of the 10mm is about or 0.04, of a second greater than a 9mm, but my 9mm split times are about 0.2 second. if we add in reaction time, that is about 1.25 seconds for 6 shots. Three shots with the 10mm takes about 0.75 seconds. That was with 10mm loads not much above .40S&W level but is still is a big difference in favour of the 10mm.

The first shot suffers no different delay whether the pistol is 9mm or 10mm or in between. At the BG's end there is reason to believe that the delay in the ability to make a directed shot after being hit will be greater from one of the higher KE rounds than from the 9mm. On that basis the first shot, provided it is a hit, will give you more time in which you are not being shot at if you are using a round with higher KE than the 9mm's.

There is all sorts of data that could be collected to produce sensible even if not solid conclusions. For instance, it would be possible to collect data on the number of LEOs killed per gunfight when they are armed with pistols of different cartridges. That is relatively simple and fairly unambiguous relative to trying to find times to the collapse of BGs. The priority of being in a gunfight is surviving it and that is dependent on all these other factors or split time, damage per shot, actual accuracy and so on. The concern of those making decisions on equipment and training should be whether or not it improves the officer's chance of survival in a fight. This has nothing to do with a kind of popularity contest for which cartridge they "think" is best and not much to do with what is cheapest. Is anyone doing this relatively simple research. Not as far as anyone is saying.

English

tsmo1066
01-24-2012, 08:52
I fear this does not follow at all. Governments, police forces and the military all tend to be ignorant about handguns or uninterested in them with the exception of some US local agencies.


Yes, of course. Nobody knows anything about handguns but YOU...


:whistling:

English
01-24-2012, 11:07
Yes, of course. Nobody knows anything about handguns but YOU...


:whistling:

I made a perfectly civil reply to your post and I EXPLAINED why I thought you were wrong. I don't know why that makes you think that I think nobody knows anything about handguns but me but it is significant that of all the people attacking me there is no one who can put up a counter explanation to anything I say.

I don't usually say anything unless I have something I think worth saying and those topics I do say something about are fairly limited. You are ost unlikely to find me talking about rifles or rifle shooting for instance.

In contrast to an explanation, what we get from you are absolute statements which we are all expected to believe because it is you saying it. Whoever you might be.

I didn't actually say that your post was dumb and I thought I had hidden that opinion quite well, but dumb is what it was. If I said that socialsm has to be right because all of Europe and most of the USA is now socialist, would you accept that as a valid reason? Unless you are a socialist you wouldn't but it has just the same logic as your contention that the 9mm must be right because lots of countries use it. The simple fact is that no large authority has done and published a proper evaluation of the effectiveness of the 9mm relative to other cartridges. As a result they have no standard by which they can judge the effectiveness of the 9mm. The only small study of any worth is that done by Dr. Courtney which showed the 9mm to be the worst possible choice amongst "service" level cartridges. His study was rather specifically into remote brain trauma but the autopsies involved showed dramatically less wound damage than the 357SIG for instance.

If you want to debate you must make arguments that follow logical connections. Any child can say his dad can beat your dad and go Yah Boo shucks from a safe distance. I think you believe yourself to be a man rather than a child. Well, a man needs more than bluster backed up by his mates if he is to be a real man.

English

NG VI
01-24-2012, 11:44
In my own tests the split time of the 10mm is about or 0.04, of a second greater than a 9mm, but my 9mm split times are about 0.2 second. if we add in reaction time, that is about 1.25 seconds for 6 shots. Three shots with the 10mm takes about 0.75 seconds. That was with 10mm loads not much above .40S&W level but is still is a big difference in favour of the 10mm.


Your reaction time is .01 seconds?

Are you Flash Gordon?

cowboy1964
01-24-2012, 12:13
Once you get outside of the United States, the caliber wars are OVER. When it comes to service handguns, it's a 9mm world and more soldiers, cops and operators worldwide trust their lives to the 9X19 than all other handgun calibers combined.

I agree that in LE, 9mm JHPs are adequate worldwide but I think most soldiers aren't really too fond of 9mm FMJ.

English
01-24-2012, 12:16
Your reaction time is .01 seconds?

Are you Flash Gordon?

I used to be when I was younger.:supergrin:

In 6 shots there are only 5 split times. So that is 1 second and .25 seconds for the reaction time. In three shots there are only two split times so, with the 10mm, that is 0.48 seconds. Add on 0.25 reaction time and that is 0.75 near enough.

English

pisc1024
01-24-2012, 12:17
I don't usually say anything unless I have something I think worth saying and those topics I do say something about are fairly limited.

This is simply untrue...

cowboy1964
01-24-2012, 12:59
If the 9mm were so marginal, even in ball, it simply wouldn't remain the handgun caliber of choice of most of the world's top SF and counter-terrorism units worldwide after 100+ years of continuous service.

Those units frequently choose other than 9mm. It's the grunts who are stuck with 9mm.... and handguns are rarely used in combat. I don't think too many people would choose 9mm over 45 ACP if they're restricted to FMJ.

With many things there are historical and practical reasons something is a "standard" rather than for performance based reasons.

tsmo1066
01-24-2012, 13:28
I made a perfectly civil reply to your post and I EXPLAINED why I thought you were wrong.

Wrong. Far from being 'civil', your reply was arrogant and demeaning in the extreme. You did not explain why you thought I was wrong, you stated as fact that I was wrong while simultaneously placing your own amateur knowledge on the matter of caliber effectiveness above that of many of the top special forces and counter-terrorism organizations in the world.

Contrary to your claims, counter-terrorism units like the Israeli Mossad and British SAS do a great deal of up-close work with handguns. They know what works and what doesn't far better than you ever could from the comfort of your den and I can assure you that on the subject of effective killing in the REAL WORLD, organizations like these put your amateur-hour theories and sterile internet conjecture to shame.

Yet you would claim that they actually know very little on the topic and that YOU are the true expert in the field.

That's not "civility", my friend, it's base egotism.