Caliber Comparison: Test Data Summary Repository [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Caliber Comparison: Test Data Summary Repository


cole
05-09-2008, 12:24
Below is a summary of various test data providing an example of overall performance. There are always better load designs within a caliber (i.e. Brand X vs. Brand Y), but typical performance for a caliber by weight is a good place to start as it better predicts future outcomes (compared to only considering cherry-picked, best-case performance outcomes). Sources and references provided below.

=====

Test-to-Test Comparison Data, Overall Outcomes, All Shot Scenarios
Caliber Weight Penetration Expand, Ave.
Summary, Sorted by Penetration, at least 4 tests (w/out FBI and BC*)
.45acp 230 13.37 0.80
.40sw 180 13.25 0.69
9mm 147 12.72 0.66
9mm 124 12.49 0.64

Summary, Sorted by Expansion, at least 4 tests (w/out FBI and BC*)
.45acp 230 13.37 0.80
.40sw 180 13.25 0.69
9mm 147 12.72 0.66
9mm 124 12.49 0.64

Best Aggregate Outcome vs. Best Aggregate Outcome
Penetration
Caliber Inches Percent Advantage
.40sw 180gr > 9mm 124gr 0.76" 5.8%
.40sw 180gr > 9mm 147gr 0.67" 4.3%
.45acp 230gr > .40sw 180gr 0.12" 1%
.45acp 230gr > 9mm 124gr 0.88" 6.6%
.45acp 230gr > 9mm 147gr 0.65" 4.9%

Expansion
Caliber Inches Percent Advantage
.45acp 230gr > .40sw 180gr 0.11" 13.8%
.45acp 230gr > 9mm 124gr 0.16" 20%
.45acp 230gr > 9mm 147gr 0.14" 17.5%
.40sw 180gr > 9mm 124gr 0.05" 7.3%
.40sw 180gr > 9mm 147gr 0.03" 4.4%

Starting SURFACE AREA (Area = R x R x 3.14)
Caliber: Diameter in Milimeters, Area
.45acp: 11.43, 102.56
.40sw: 10.16, 81.03, vs. .45acp: -21.0%
9mm: 9.02, 63.83, vs. .45acp: -37.8%, vs. .40sw: -21.2%

Final SURFACE AREA
.45acp (230gr): .80"
.40sw (180gr): .69", vs. .45acp: -25.6%,
9mm (147gr): .66", vs. .45acp: -32.5%, vs. .40sw: -9.3%

Conclusions based on aggregate test data:
- The 230gr .45acp exhibits the largest overall ending diameter (and surface area)
- When 9mm expands to .40sw diameter it penetrates 1"-2" less than .40sw
- When .40sw underexpands to 9mm diameter it penetrates approximately 1.5"-2+" more than the optimal 9mm
- When .45acp underexpands to .40sw diameter it penetrates approximately 1.5"-2+" more than the optimal .40sw
- If the 9mm exands to the average diameter of the .40sw is does NOT reliably penetrate >12".
- Even the best 9mm result does NOT expand to the average .45acp diameter.
- The optimal/best 9mm outcome (with penetration AND expansion) is at best comparable to the average .40sw outcome
- No 230gr .45acp in any test scenario failed to penetrate 12" in any test scenario.
- The 230gr .45acp exhibits the most consistent overall penetration >12" WITH optimal expansion across all test scenarios.

Your personal opinion may differ with the actual data, but the data is the data.

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

There is simple science behind all load test data. And, absent large-scale real-world data, controlled scientific testing is what we have. A few key concepts:

> Penetration, in the same viscous medium, in this case geletin, is ALWAYS the result of weight + velocity + resistance = penetration. So, though the FBI data is old, the concepts of physics are constant.
Weight = Bullet weight in grains
Velocity = Speed of travel
Resistance = Surface area (caliber diameter and expansion diameter) and resulting resistance in given medium
> Momentum = Mass x Velocity
> New fangled bullet designs relate to the reliability of expansion, and do not change the underlying physics: In an indentical medium (itself a result of test controls), the more a bullet expands at given velocity the less it will penetrate, and the reverse.
- Smaller diameter = Less resistance = Greater penetration
- Less expansion overall = Act like FMJ more = Less resistance = Greater penetration
- Slower to expand fully = Act like FMJ for longer = Less resistance = Greater penetration
- Over-expansion = Act like FMJ more = Less resistance = Greater penetration

DATA TABLES (Average for all shot scenarios)

FBI DATA (http://www.firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/ammodata.htm)
ATK DATA (http://le.atk.com/general/irl/woundballistics.aspx)
WINCHESTER DATA (http://www.winchester.com/lawenforcement/flash/win_flash.html)
BRASS FETCHER (http://brassfetcher.com/)

Caliber, Type, Weight, Penetration in Inches, Expansion in Inches

Blue = Loads that did NOT meet 12" minimum penetration.

ATK Sacramento
.40sw 180 14.36 0.66
.45acp 230 14.00 0.76
9MM 124 11.08 0.64
9mm +P+ 127 11.33 0.64
9MM 147 11.75 0.68

ATK Santa Clara
.40sw 180 11.79 0.73
.45acp 230 12.33 0.81
9mm 147 11.71 0.70

ATK Portland
45 230 13.37 0.75
9MM 124 13.06 0.59
9mm 147 13.11 0.58
9mm 127+p+ 11.50 0.57

ATK Kern Co.
45 230 13.08 0.74
40 180 13.81 0.71

ATK Fresno
40 165 13.38 0.58
40 180 11.63 0.62
45 185 11.60 0.61
45 230 12.18 0.77

ATK San Diego
40 180 13.3 0.67

ATK San Angelo
.40sw 165 13.65 0.66
.40sw 180 14.35 0.61
.45acp 230 14.75 0.75

ATK Riveside
38sp 110 10.67 0.64
.40sw 180 12.28 0.76
.45acp 230 12.33 0.79
9mm 147 11.50 0.66

ATK Butte
357 125 11.7 0.59
40 180 12.4 0.70
45 230 12.9 0.75

ATK Ft. Collins
9mm 124 12.75 0.58
9mm 127 12.00 0.57
9mm 147 12.25 0.64
40 180 12.19 0.76
45 230 12.80 0.83

ATK Aurora
9mm 124 11.85 0.63
9mm 147 13.13 0.73
40 165 12.88 0.68
40 180 11.88 0.81
45 230 12.31 0.93

ATK LA County
9mm 115 9.00 0.57
9mm 147 11.03 0.68
45 230 13.63 0.91

Winchester Manufacturer Data
9mm T-Series +p 124 13.35 0.68
9mm T-Series +p+ 127 12.20 0.67
9mm Bonded 147 15.14 0.62
.40sw Bonded 165 14.79 0.63
.40sw Bonded 180 15.86 0.62
.45acp T-Series 230 14.78 0.72
.45gap T-Series 230 12.95 0.73
.357sig Bonded 125 13.64 0.60

FBI Data*
9mm 115 12.46 0.57
9mm 124 15.65 0.55
9mm 147 16.76 0.53
.40sw 155 14.80 0.66
.40sw 165 15.97 0.61
.40sw 180 16.44 0.62
.45acp 185 14.79 0.78
.45acp 200 16.31 0.63
.45acp 230 16.08 0.68

Brass Catcher*
9mm 115 15.70 0.42
9mm 124 12.58 0.55
9mm 127 10.40 0.64
9mm 147 14.42 0.59
.40sw 165 11.54 0.53
.40sw 180 13.42 0.62
.45acp 200 13.20 0.67
.45acp 230 12.60 0.70

*The older FBI test tested older bullets design that on average expanded less and penetrated more, especially in 9mm loads. Modern optimal HP bullets expand more reliably. FBI data is useful as reference, but is not representative of modern HP performance where optimal expansion is consistently attained. Brass Catcher (BC) test controls (e.g. gelatin consistency within and between tests) are argueable.

AVERAGES ACROSS ALL DATA SETS (including BC/FBI)
9mm 115 11.25 0.61
9mm 124 12.49 0.64
9mm 127 11.12 0.64
9mm 147 13.48 0.65
.40sw 180 12.51 0.65
.45acp 185 13.61 0.59
.45acp 230 13.37 0.80

Sorted by Penetration
Caliber, Weight, Test, Penetration, Expansion
9mm 115 ATK 9.00 0.64
9mm 115 ATK 9.00 0.57
9mm 127 BC 10.40 0.64
38sp 110 ATK 10.67 0.64
9mm 147 ATK 11.03 0.68
9mm 124 ATK 11.08 0.64
9mm 127 ATK 11.33 0.64
9mm 127 ATK 11.50 0.57
9mm 147 ATK 11.50 0.66
.40sw 165 BC 11.54 0.53
.45acp 185 ATK 11.60 0.61
.40sw 180 ATK 11.63 0.62
.357sig 125 ATK 11.67 0.59
9mm 147 ATK 11.71 0.68
9mm 147 ATK 11.71 0.70
9mm 147 ATK 11.75 0.68
.40sw 180 ATK 11.79 0.73
9mm 124 ATK 11.85 0.63
.40sw 180 ATK 11.88 0.81
38sp+p 135 ATK 12.00 0.56
9mm 115 DT 12.00 0.70
9mm 127 ATK 12.00 0.57
9mm 124 ATK 12.10 0.69
.45acp 230 ATK 12.18 0.77
.40sw 180 ATK 12.19 0.76
9mm 127 WIN 12.20 0.67
9mm 147 ATK 12.25 0.64
.40sw 180 ATK 12.28 0.76
.45acp 230 ATK 12.31 0.93
.45acp 230 ATK 12.33 0.79
.45acp 230 ATK 12.33 0.81
.40sw 180 ATK 12.44 0.70
9mm 115 FBI 12.46 0.57
9mm 124 BC 12.58 0.55
.45acp 230 BC 12.60 0.70
.45acp 185 DT 12.75 0.82
9mm 124 ATK 12.75 0.58
.45acp 230 ATK 12.80 0.83
.45acp 230 ATK 12.83 0.84
.40sw 165 ATK 12.88 0.68
.45acp 230 ATK 12.94 0.75
.45acp 230 ATK 12.95 0.73
9mm 124 ATK 13.06 0.59
.45acp 230 ATK 13.08 0.74
9mm 147 ATK 13.11 0.58
9mm 147 ATK 13.13 0.73
.45acp 230 ATK 13.25 0.61
9mm 124 DT 13.25 0.70
.40sw 180 ATK 13.30 0.67
9mm 124 WIN 13.35 0.68
.45acp 230 ATK 13.37 0.75
.40sw 165 ATK 13.38 0.58
.40sw 180 BC 13.42 0.62
.40sw 180 ATK 13.60 0.66
.357sig 125 ATK 13.64 0.60
.40sw 165 ATK 13.65 0.66
.40sw 180 ATK 13.81 0.71
.40sw 165 DT 14.00 0.70
.45acp 230 ATK 14.00 0.76
9mm 147g DT 14.00 0.66
.45acp 185 ATK 14.08 0.64
9MM 127 ATK 14.10 0.60
.45acp 230 ATK 14.25 0.74
.40sw 180 ATK 14.35 0.61
.40sw 180 ATK 14.36 0.66
9mm 147 BC 14.42 0.59
9mm 147 ATK 14.54 0.59
.40sw 180 DT 14.75 0.68
.45acp 230 ATK 14.75 0.75
.45acp 185 FBI 14.79 0.78
.40sw 155 FBI FBI 14.80 0.66
.40sw 165 WIN 14.80 0.64
.45acp 230 WIN 14.87 0.73
9mm 115 ATK 15.00 0.53
9mm 147 WIN 15.14 0.63
.45acp 230 DT 15.25 0.95
9mm 124 FBI 15.65 0.55
9mm 115 BC 15.70 0.42
.40sw 180 WIN 15.87 0.63
.40sw 165 FBI 15.97 0.61
.45acp 230 FBI 16.08 0.68
.40sw 180 FBI 16.44 0.62
9mm 147 FBI 16.76 0.53

logan2302
05-09-2008, 22:15
I know there have been many threads on caliber and performance data. I'm new at this forum, but I'll try to get something started .. from a simple standpoint. I personally look at three things when selecting a caliber and cartridge for sd.

1) the cartridge should deliver the near max ENERGY for the caliber selected. Velocity doesn't mean anything to me. I go to the ballistics tables presented by the manufacturer and go straight to the energy column, then I find the the cartridge that delivers the highest energy. I then analyse the bullet.

2) the bullet should penetrate gel from 11" to 15". less than 11, the cartridge is too weak, over 15", it is overpenetrating.

3) the bullet should be of a HP 'cutter' design like a Talon, Gold Dot, and Solden Sabre and should not fragment excessively. i.e. fast, light Cor-Bon cartridges seem to frag sometimes %100 in gel alone although they are oustanding quality products!

As far as the question of minimun acceptable energy, that may be the MIL$ question. Is 350 lbs the lower limit? 300? 250? A 380 will deliver 250 lbs and will take about anyone down with well placed shots, but I'd never select it as my primary sd weapon! (I suspect it would fail the gel test though)

I suspect you veteran posters get bored and maybe frustrated with these discussions, but maybe some of you can give your ideas.

speedlace
05-09-2008, 22:41
What??! No, 10mm?:supergrin:

Rugby
05-10-2008, 08:21
I know there have been many threads on caliber and performance data. I'm new at this forum, but I'll try to get something started .. from a simple standpoint. I personally look at three things when selecting a caliber and cartridge for sd.

1) the cartridge should deliver the near max ENERGY for the caliber selected. Velocity doesn't mean anything to me. I go to the ballistics tables presented by the manufacturer and go straight to the energy column, then I find the the cartridge that delivers the highest energy. I then analyse the bullet.

2) the bullet should penetrate gel from 11" to 15". less than 11, the cartridge is too weak, over 15", it is overpenetrating.

3) the bullet should be of a HP 'cutter' design like a Talon, Gold Dot, and Solden Sabre and should not fragment excessively. i.e. fast, light Cor-Bon cartridges seem to frag sometimes %100 in gel alone although they are oustanding quality products!

As far as the question of minimun acceptable energy, that may be the MIL$ question. Is 350 lbs the lower limit? 300? 250? A 380 will deliver 250 lbs and will take about anyone down with well placed shots, but I'd never select it as my primary sd weapon! (I suspect it would fail the gel test though)

I suspect you veteran posters get bored and maybe frustrated with these discussions, but maybe some of you can give your ideas.

1) the cartridge should deliver the near max ENERGY for the caliber selected. Velocity doesn't mean anything to me. I go to the ballistics tables presented by the manufacturer and go straight to the energy column, then I find the the cartridge that delivers the highest energy. I then analyse the bullet.

I go to the ballistics tables presented by the manufacturer and go straight to the energy column, then I find the the cartridge that delivers the highest energy.

That's exactly why the manufacturers list energy numbers; for people with your mindset.

Velocity doesn't mean anything to me.

No? You realize that the bullet with the highest velocity within a caliber, will have the highest energy numbers, don't you? Do you realize that if a manufacturer didn't list energy numbers, you could still pick the bullet with the highest energy from the velocity numbers alone? Did you know the formula for calculating energy is KE=1/2*M*V^2? This means that as the velocity is doubled, KE is quadrupled. Sounds like velocity means everything to you.

2) the bullet should penetrate gel from 11" to 15". less than 11, the cartridge is too weak, over 15", it is overpenetrating.

Why is 15" "overpenetrating"?

3) the bullet should be of a HP 'cutter' design like a Talon, Gold Dot, and Solden Sabre and should not fragment excessively. i.e. fast, light Cor-Bon cartridges seem to frag sometimes %100 in gel alone although they are oustanding quality products!

Why is some fragmentation good, but excessive fragmentation bad? If you claim that CorBon fragments almost 100% of the time, and fragmentation is bad, how can CorBon be an excellent product? Can you post where you got this gel test information that shows CorBon fragmenting almost 100% of the time? What do you consider to be acceptable fragmentation and what do you consider to be exessive fragmentation?

Glolt20-91
05-10-2008, 10:12
Unfortunately, none of these figures tells the final shape of the bullet or the permanent wound volume.

As the size of many Americans is trending toward the robust, 14" is minimum penetration for the "I beat anorexia" types, IMHO. Tweekers on the other hand, only need tweeker spray, preferably the non-pepper kind. However, if tweekers are in the paranoia stages, a picture of Janet Reno in 8.5"x10" will lead to instant incapacitation.

Bullets that expand/compress flat in shape, and leave nasty exit wounds tend to have faster incapacitation times. If two bullets exit at the same velocity, a flat shaped, fast expanding bullet (say .6" expansion) in all liklihood will have caused more communition than an umbrella shaped bullet (let's say .75" expansion) since it would have needed a higher initial velocity for a greater rate of energy transfer.
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=868217


For those concerned with over penetration, may I suggest movement during the draw to minimize collateral risks.

Thanks Cole for taking the time to break down the data and share it with the rest of us. :)

Bob :cowboy:

Preußen
05-10-2008, 10:45
Unfortunately, none of these figures tells the final shape of the bullet or the permanent wound volume.

Bullets that expand/compress flat in shape, and leave nasty exit wounds tend to have faster incapacitation times. If two bullets exit at the same velocity, a flat shaped, fast expanding bullet (say .6" expansion) in all liklihood will have caused more communition than an umbrella shaped bullet (let's say .75" expansion) since it would have needed a higher initial velocity for a greater rate of energy transfer.
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=868217

I have to disagree with that for a variety of reasons.
First of which is bullets never look like they do after fired into water or ballistics gelatin like when recovered from bodies. Bones, obstacles, and clothing are often encountered.

Second, is how will a larger diameter expanded bullet be less effective than a smaller diameter slug because of its shape? You're basing this assertion on shooting bullets into plastic water-filled milk containers as far as i can tell. I do agree that a flat meplate should rend, or crush flesh more efficiently as opposed to pushing it aside like a RNL/FMJ, but you said expanded bullet.. In theory, a flat-meplate bullet should be more efficient, and permanently crush more tissue than a FMJ/RNL because it starts off and ends its path of penetration with a flat surface
How do you know they have faster incapacitation times, though?

If you believe in "energy transfer", HERE'S (http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=672450) a good long thread for you to read about on the subject.

ricciardelli
05-10-2008, 11:31
http://stevespages.com/page8f.htm

logan2302
05-10-2008, 15:30
Now remember the guidelines I use are personal and not statements of fact. All comments are welcome though. I don't post to make statements so much. I post to learn from others.

That's exactly why the manufacturers list energy numbers; for people with your mindset.

Yes your brain must be very large compared to mine.


No? You realize that the bullet with the highest velocity within a caliber, will have the highest energy numbers, don't you? Do you realize that if a manufacturer didn't list energy numbers, you could still pick the bullet with the highest energy from the velocity numbers alone? Did you know the formula for calculating energy is KE=1/2*M*V^2? This means that as the velocity is doubled, KE is quadrupled. Sounds like velocity means everything to you.

I know how to calculate energy.

Energy is a better indicator of effectiveness for people like me with very small brains.


Why is 15" "overpenetrating"?

I double checked this and I should have said 18" My mistake. Or, my brain.
Although, I can't remember seeing a gel test where a 9mm penetrated >18" except for fmj's.


Why is some fragmentation good, but excessive fragmentation bad? If you claim that CorBon fragments almost 100% of the time, and fragmentation is bad, how can CorBon be an excellent product? Can you post where you got this gel test information that shows CorBon fragmenting almost 100% of the time? What do you consider to be acceptable fragmentation and what do you consider to be exessive fragmentation?

I mean to say the light, fast Cor-Bons often fragment 100%, (I think they are 115 gr +p, not sure). After I post this, I'll send another with a link to a gel test I'm thinking of.

100% is too much. I'll never use frangibles except for target practice. WAIT, if a frangible hits a person in the rib cage, Are we talking killing with energy dispersion or veloci...... Oh never mind. Its a small brain thing.

logan2302
05-10-2008, 15:40
http://www.brassfetcher.com/135%20grain%20+P%20Cor-Bon%20JHP.html

I just thought this particular case was interesting

Jeff82
05-13-2008, 07:01
tagged

cole
05-16-2008, 01:47
More data added...

cole
05-22-2008, 20:40
Added Brass Catcher data to the overall data table (with a disclaimer).

If you have links to test data please send a link and I'll take a look.

glock20c10mm
05-24-2008, 13:29
That's exactly why the manufacturers list energy numbers; for people with your mindset.

No? You realize that the bullet with the highest velocity within a caliber, will have the highest energy numbers, don't you? Do you realize that if a manufacturer didn't list energy numbers, you could still pick the bullet with the highest energy from the velocity numbers alone? Did you know the formula for calculating energy is KE=1/2*M*V^2? This means that as the velocity is doubled, KE is quadrupled. Sounds like velocity means everything to you.

Why is 15" "overpenetrating"?

Why is some fragmentation good, but excessive fragmentation bad? If you claim that CorBon fragments almost 100% of the time, and fragmentation is bad, how can CorBon be an excellent product? Can you post where you got this gel test information that shows CorBon fragmenting almost 100% of the time? What do you consider to be acceptable fragmentation and what do you consider to be exessive fragmentation?

Maybe you could have helped him understand what's he's wrongly looking at and why, instead of just telling him he's stupid, or, depending on how you take it, making it look like you're stupid? Now I know you're not stupid, but Mr. logan2302 doesn't. Didn't you see in his original post where he posted; "I'm new at this forum..." And then later; "I suspect you veteran posters get bored and maybe frustrated with these discussions, but maybe some of you can give your ideas." I just think you could have been a bit more helpful to him, instead of letting him sit there in the dark where he started in the first place.

cole
05-25-2008, 22:10
Updated with comparison summary.

BrokenArrow
05-29-2008, 10:27
Yada, yada , yada... but very slickly yaded. Good job!

The nine is fine, the 40/357 finer, the 45 finest.

My nine is still fine enough for me. YMMV.

The data is the data, but it takes us different places.

It takes the DOJ (FBI, DEA, USMS, BATF) to a minimum of 12 inches and 147/9s and 180/40s.

It takes DHS (ICE, CBP, USSS, USCG, FAM, FPS) to a minimum of 9 inches and 124/9s and 155/40s.

Data takes DOJ to mostly Glocks, DHS to mostly SIGs...

The data is coming to take you away ha, ha? ;)

BrokenArrow
05-29-2008, 10:45
Although, I can't remember seeing a gel test where a 9mm penetrated >18" except for fmj's.

The 9s do >18 when they encounter the hard/soft barriers first. For example, 5 round avg through FBI heavy cloth:

115 ST 11.8
115 GD, 22.1
124 GD, 22
124 GD +P, 20.25
124 Starfire, 20.1
124 XTP, 18.3
127 SXT +P+, 19.8
147 HS, 19,
147 GD, 18.2
147 SXT, 22.8
147 XTP, 20.5

Some have changed a lot since then, some a little, some none at all. HS and XTP pretty much the same. The new (>2000) GDs:

115 +P+ 12.75
124 +P 14.1
147 GD 14.9

124 +P GD:

steel 27.6

The FBI likes an _avg_ of between 12 - 18 for the entire 40 shot/8 event test series, w as many individual rounds of at least 12 as possible.

FBI 40 round avgs

9mm
115 ST 11.4
115 GD 17.9
124 GD 17
124 HS 14.4
147 GD 14.9
147 HS 17.2

40
155 GD 16
180 GD 17.9

45
230 GD 14.8
230 HS 18.3
230 GS 16.7

Beware: gel test results can vary a LOT when comparing FBI, manufacturers, or demo results. At least as much as real bad guys. ;)

tyger006
05-30-2008, 10:38
tagged

cole
05-30-2008, 19:21
...
Although, I can't remember seeing a gel test where a 9mm penetrated >18" except for fmj's.
...


When the 9mm HP does NOT expand it will penetrate that deeply. The key numbers are BOTH expansion and penetration.

The data above shows, overall, with the 9mm, pick one or the other (deep penetration >12" or wide expansion >.64"), you can't have both. The data above shows that the 9mm will RELIABLY penetrate >12" ONLY if it does NOT expand beyond about .64". For the 180gr .40sw, this threashold looks about .72+" and for the 230gr .45acp about .77+" or so (see table sorted by penetration).

ALso, keep surface AREA in mind, NOT diameter. So, at >12" penetration, area of tissue disruption (RxRx3.14):
.64" = .32
.72" = .41 = +22% 9mm, -13% .45acp
.77" = .47 = +32% 9mm

You simply cannot expect a lighter bullet ravelling at the same velocity as a heavier one to be comparably effective. Physics refutes it, and the data bears that out. That's why I included a table that shows expansion relative to penetration. FMJ will out-penetrate HP, so, again, it's about expansion relative to penetration. And, between the two, penetration is prefered.

I find it's the cherry-picking of load data that tends to give people the results they were looking for. When I use the term "cherry pick", a 9mm example I often think of is where people take FBI-type deep 9mm penetration paired it huge Winchester-type 9mm expansion and think you get both. The argument then follows that 9mm has "closed the gap" on the .40sw. But, the actual data shows you simply do not get both in one shot.

They are all excellent choices for self-defense. There is good-bestter-best in both the data and in your application. But, I believe that expectations should be based on aggregate, objective data. That's just me.

cole
05-30-2008, 19:25
The 9s do >18 when they encounter the hard/soft barriers first. For example, 5 round avg through FBI heavy cloth:

115 ST 11.8
115 GD, 22.1
124 GD, 22
124 GD +P, 20.25
124 Starfire, 20.1
124 XTP, 18.3
127 SXT +P+, 19.8
147 HS, 19,
147 GD, 18.2
147 SXT, 22.8
147 XTP, 20.5

Some have changed a lot since then, some a little, some none at all. HS and XTP pretty much the same. The new (>2000) GDs:

115 +P+ 12.75
124 +P 14.1
147 GD 14.9

124 +P GD:

steel 27.6

The FBI likes an _avg_ of between 12 - 18 for the entire 40 shot/8 event test series, w as many individual rounds of at least 12 as possible.

FBI 40 round avgs

9mm
115 ST 11.4
115 GD 17.9
124 GD 17
124 HS 14.4
147 GD 14.9
147 HS 17.2

40
155 GD 16
180 GD 17.9

45
230 GD 14.8
230 HS 18.3
230 GS 16.7

Beware: gel test results can vary a LOT when comparing FBI, manufacturers, or demo results. At least as much as real bad guys. ;)


This is the summry FBI data with expansion included:
FBI Data*
9mm 115 12.46 0.57
9mm 124 15.65 0.55
9mm 147 16.76 0.53
.40sw 155 14.80 0.66
.40sw 165 15.97 0.61
.40sw 180 16.44 0.62
.45acp 185 14.79 0.78
.45acp 200 16.31 0.63
.45acp 230 16.08 0.68

Of course the 9mm gets deep penetration in the FBI tests because it's getting dismal expansion. Most every load in the old FBI testing showed poor expansion and deep penetration when compared to new loads. Which is why new bullet designs emphasize reliable expansion.

Berto
05-30-2008, 20:37
Great info, cole, thanks for posting that.

My brain hurts now.:crying:

cole
06-01-2008, 17:35
Great info, cole, thanks for posting that.

My brain hurts now.:crying:


You are welcome.

Berto
06-01-2008, 19:03
This should be a sticky.

zeke013
06-01-2008, 20:17
This should be a sticky.

+1

Great info here.

RUSH2112
06-02-2008, 20:15
As the size of many Americans is trending toward the robust, 14" is minimum penetration for the "I beat anorexia" types, IMHO. Tweekers on the other hand, only need tweeker spray, preferably the non-pepper kind. However, if tweekers are in the paranoia stages, a picture of Janet Reno in 8.5"x10" will lead to instant incapacitation.


"Tweekers" :rofl: :rofl:

cowboy1
06-02-2008, 20:46
Makes a strong case for the Forty....9mm looks like a poor choice if a one shot stop is required versus some of it's competition from the forty and forty five-

BrokenArrow
06-03-2008, 10:47
Then you have "odd" stuff like the SCHP (solid copper hollow points) from Corbon/DPX and Magtech/First Defense. They penetrate deeper than you would expect for their weight. The space between the expanded petals cuts drag allowing them to go deeper, but it also reduces total tissue actually crushed. Petals may not crush as much as a smaller JHP, but if sharp may cut more... petals that stay extended v petals that fold back after a certain point, etc.

The SCHPs do about the same in bare gel as they do through denim:

denim

92.6g/1330 fps First Defense, 12/.63
115g/1275 fps DPX, 15/.58


http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l256/mso357/fdvdpx.jpg

Both did at least 12 inches through glass too.

The 9s are doing better than they were 20 yrs ago, but so is everything else.

P.K.
06-03-2008, 14:57
I would have to disagree that all Cor-Bon bullets fragment on impact. If you look under the .357 sig under brassfetcher you clearly see that there was no fragmentation with the bullets used. Even going through a 2X4 and stayed intact going into another gel block. The posted link showing the bullets fragmented might have been a defect from the manufacture. Which that isn't good for business. What you posted though seemed to be an isolated incident. All the other Cor-bon rounds for the testing didn't fragment in that manor.

arizona_andy
08-07-2008, 14:26
I realize this thread is from June, however, cole still has a link to it in his sig, so it appears he still wants it to be seen.

I glanced over it and I saw very quickly that some of the data presented is incorrect. Whether this was intentional or not, I have no idea.

The first thing that stood out to me was a group of data which shows penetration/expansion numbers from the ATK WBW held in Sacramento County. The penetration numbers for 9mm are simply wrong.

He states that the 147gr 9mm on average failed to meet FBI minimum penetration requirements. This is incorrect, and below is the table which shows the real data from their tests:

Test data (http://i36.tinypic.com/x3smlf.jpg)

The real average penetration was 13.17".

Also, I would say his "average penetration" figures for the 9mm are skewed. Many of the tests he cites happen to contain data for the performance of the Federal HST 9mm loads in Auto Glass. It is well known that this particular load performs exceedingly poor in this scenario (7-8"), and penetrates well below-average compared to other loads (whether bonded or not).

Including a large number of instances of this poorly-performing load has clearly skewed the overall penetration numbers for the 9mm.

So, this makes me wonder what else is wrong with the data. It seems you put quite a bit of effort into it, so I do wonder why you made such an obvious mistake.

J.P.
08-07-2008, 15:38
3) the bullet should be of a HP 'cutter' design like a Talon, Gold Dot, and Solden Sabre and should not fragment excessively. i.e. fast, light Cor-Bon cartridges seem to frag sometimes %100 in gel alone although they are oustanding quality products!

As far as the question of minimun acceptable energy, that may be the MIL$ question. Is 350 lbs the lower limit? 300? 250? A 380 will deliver 250 lbs and will take about anyone down with well placed shots, but I'd never select it as my primary sd weapon! (I suspect it would fail the gel test though)


The Ranger T-series and Golden Saber are the only two rounds that are designed to use the jacket as a wounding mechanism,
They are sharp.

Re: minimum acceptable energy....
I don't have any figure for what would be the "minimum", but I try to choose the round within a group that has the highest energy and velocity whenever possible.
This does not take precedence over penetration however....it's just better to have more when you can.

I have to disagree with that for a variety of reasons.
First of which is bullets never look like they do after fired into water or ballistics gelatin like when recovered from bodies.
That's not always true and in fact there are many reports of the rounds looking exactly like they do in testing.

I'd be interested to know the exact percentage of times they do and don't.....but never say "never" because on this particular issue, it is wrong.

cole
08-07-2008, 21:51
I realize this thread is from June, however, cole still has a link to it in his sig, so it appears he still wants it to be seen.

I glanced over it and I saw very quickly that some of the data presented is incorrect. Whether this was intentional or not, I have no idea.

The first thing that stood out to me was a group of data which shows penetration/expansion numbers from the ATK WBW held in Sacramento County. The penetration numbers for 9mm are simply wrong.

He states that the 147gr 9mm on average failed to meet FBI minimum penetration requirements. This is incorrect, and below is the table which shows the real data from their tests:

Test data (http://i36.tinypic.com/x3smlf.jpg)

The real average penetration was 13.17".

Also, I would say his "average penetration" figures for the 9mm are skewed. Many of the tests he cites happen to contain data for the performance of the Federal HST 9mm loads in Auto Glass. It is well known that this particular load performs exceedingly poor in this scenario (7-8"), and penetrates well below-average compared to other loads (whether bonded or not).

Including a large number of instances of this poorly-performing load has clearly skewed the overall penetration numbers for the 9mm.

So, this makes me wonder what else is wrong with the data. It seems you put quite a bit of effort into it, so I do wonder why you made such an obvious mistake.

Considering you just glanced over it, you may want to actually take a closer, more objective look. You elude to mischief on my part, so again, you'll want to take a closer look before assuming I have some agenda. Also, you keyed in on 9mm and your signature shows you have 9mm Glocks (G17 and G26), so that's likely not coincidence.

I attempted to include data from shot scenarios with more than three shots, and did not play favorites with the 9mm by excluding shot scenarios where it performs poorly.

My method attempted to exclude loads with less than 3 examples or those test outcomes clearly outside the norm AND I did this for ALL calibers. This is the Sacremento data: http://le.atk.com/pdf/SacramentoCountyWBW.pdf. Looking at shots with at least three tests including all shot scenarios:
46 SIG 226 6 P9HST2 Federal HST 9MM 147 8 0.506 0.718 0.61 111.4 75.78%
34 SIG 226 1 P9HST2 Federal HST 9MM 147 13.25 0.755 0.774 0.76 148.4 100.95%
40 SIG 226 2 P9HST2 Federal HST 9MM 147 14 0.647 0.663 0.66 148.1 100.75%
Average = 11.75"

This is NOT about looking at only the best possible test outcomes for a caliber. It was looking at average outcomes. Average by defination is "an outcome to be expected". Regardless, looking at the best outcomes by caliber and by bullet weight and the relative differences are pretty much the same. All calibers were treated equally. I did not play favorites.

If you want to include all data, from just Sacremanto, the 147gr 9mm passes the 12" minimum but the 180gr .40sw delivers 10% more penetration with 3% more expansion, whereas the .45acp delivers over 5% more penetration with almost 20% more expansion.

My method (of excluding test outcome well outside norms) tended to FAVOR 9mm in that 9mm tends to have the poorest performers that I at times excluded because they were so bad. Regardless, aggregate data from a large data set tends to nulify (i.e. accoung for) extreme outcomes.

These were the aggregate outcomes using my, as you say, "flawed" data method:
Comparing the Best Aggregate Outcome to the Best Aggregate Outcome
Pentetration Caliber Inches Percent Advantage
.40sw > 9mm 0.66 4.3%
.40sw > .45acp 0.09 0.67%
.45acp > 9mm 0.57 4.9%
Expansion Caliber Inches Percent Advantage
.45acp > .40sw 0.09 11.8%
.45acp > 9mm 0.11 14.5%
.40sw > 9mm 0.02 3.0%

So, taking every possible shot from Sacremento data, the 9mm performed more poorly overall comepared to aggregate data, which is my I wanted to use a large data set AND attempted to exclude extreme shot outcomes. Example: The top 180gr .40sw penetrators tend to WELL outperform any 9mm best penetrators when both expand beyond .65", and if the 180gr .40sw underexpands to only 9mm expansion it has significantly more penetration. You can't get around the physics of it.

The data does not always support 9mm as favorably because, well, actual testing tends to not support 9mm as favorably compared to a heavier bullet/caliber. I've presented the data and have attempted to be objective.

Macintosh#1
08-10-2008, 13:07
Meaningless.

http://stevespages.com/page8f.htm

Macintosh#1
08-10-2008, 13:12
No it isn't. Higher penetration numbers assume a higher velocity which often causes poor expansion and is a danger to bystanders. Whoever said you can "manuever" to avoid that.... Get real. Try explaining that to a jury.
One thing I do like about heavier bullets btw is that they are more likely to be able to crush or go through bone to reach vital organs. Higher velocity rounds often skip when hitting bone. They may go somewhere useful in the body after that or they may not.


This does not take precedence over penetration however....it's just better to have more when you can.

Macintosh#1
08-10-2008, 13:16
The Sacramento "data" was sponsored by ammo vendors and mainly involved barrier testing and gel. Yawn.
Average is not an outcome to be expected it is a statistical norm which is not at all the same thing.

This is the Sacremento data: http://le.atk.com/pdf/SacramentoCountyWBW.pdf. Looking at

Macintosh#1
08-10-2008, 13:19
Every study has shown that the expanded bullet having sharp edges is pretty insignifcant in real life. That includes morgue studies.It looks cool but thats about it. The idea you hear that Dr's will cut themselves on the bullet is also silly. Bullets quite often fragment into sharp pieces anyway in the human body.

The Ranger T-series and Golden Saber are the only two rounds that are designed to use the jacket as a wounding mechanism,
They are sharp.

glock20c10mm
08-10-2008, 14:22
Every study has shown that the expanded bullet having sharp edges is pretty insignifcant in real life. That includes morgue studies.It looks cool but thats about it. The idea you hear that Dr's will cut themselves on the bullet is also silly. Bullets quite often fragment into sharp pieces anyway in the human body.
You don't say? Hmmm, guess that doesn't make the Koolaid Kingdom, oh, I mean the IWBA, look all that brainy, now does it.:shocked::rofl::whistling: :drink::upeyes:

Jeff82
08-10-2008, 14:41
You don't say? Hmmm, guess that doesn't make the Koolaid Kingdom, oh, I mean the IWBA, look all that brainy, now does it.:shocked::rofl::whistling: :drink::upeyes:

If you've got info that can debunk the IWBA please bring it on. I'd be very interested in seeing it. Until then...

(They must've pooped on 10mm somewhere in there I guess.)

glock20c10mm
08-10-2008, 15:07
If you've got info that can debunk the IWBA please bring it on. I'd be very interested in seeing it. Until then...

(They must've pooped on 10mm somewhere in there I guess.)
Yea, it's in Macintosh#1's post. Why do you think I quoted him?:dunno:

Jeff82
08-10-2008, 15:21
Yea, it's in Macintosh#1's post. Why do you think I quoted him?:dunno:

I'm having trouble following you. You mean "Stevespages"? Where he calls it "meaningless"? Or the ATK Sac County link? (Which I read a long time ago but don't recall anything about damage by sharp edges... )

I'd rather you just say what ref you're using as I don't have time to chase down rabbit holes.


Thanks.

glock20c10mm
08-10-2008, 16:29
I'm having trouble following you. You mean "Stevespages"? Where he calls it "meaningless"? Or the ATK Sac County link? (Which I read a long time ago but don't recall anything about damage by sharp edges... )

I'd rather you just say what ref you're using as I don't have time to chase down rabbit holes.


Thanks.
I was specifically speaking of Macintosh#1, where he said about expanding bullets having sharp edges, and that it's more hype than anything in helping wounding characteristics of a bullet having sharp edges after expansion. The IWBA says it's an important factor to consider. I made more out of than there was. My apologies.

When it comes to the IWBA/Dr. Fackler and the others before it went belly up, they helped us understand a great deal of info that was not common public knowledge before they showed up on the scene. I applaud them for that. BUT, they weren't always right either. Even now Dr. Gary Roberts/Shawn Dodson/Ron(Glock17JHP) choose to be ignorant (they refuse to look at the data with an open mind) in terms of Dr. Courtney's theory on Ballistic Pressure Wave which is clearly all but proven (only a few strings continue to hang, like as far as the specific mechansim BPW uses to get to the brain).

MOHAA Player
08-10-2008, 17:33
What??! No, 10mm?:supergrin:

First thing that I noticed also:wavey:

glock20c10mm
08-10-2008, 17:55
First thing that I noticed also:wavey:
357SIG only has a single reference. But, if that was all that could be referenced, then I guess it was.

cole
08-10-2008, 22:35
...
Average is not an outcome to be expected it is a statistical norm which is not at all the same thing.

????

Check the definitions of:
- Mean
- Median
- Mode

An average outcome is the outcome to be expected more than 50% or more of the time. If you get 10" of penetration 10x, 11" 10x, 12" 10x, 13" 10x and 14" 10x in 50 shots, you should expect at least 12" because you can expect to be correct 60% of the time. If you expect 13" you'd be correct 40% of the time. 14" and it's 20%.

If for another load it's: 10" x0, 11" x5, 12" x15, 13" x20 and 14" x10 this is a better performing load. And, 10" x0, 11" x0, 12" x 15, 13" x 15 and 14" x20 you have an even better load. Higher average. Simple concept.

That's the value of average. I think we have a different concept of statistics, and all outcomes can be quantified statistically. Of course people tend to dismiss outcomes they don't like and readily embrace those they do.

Augusto
03-03-2009, 09:00
I did some tests with 9mm Magtech SCHP 92.6 gr and Magtech Gold 115 gr on soap bars:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Si0LS3cktJI

_The_Shadow
03-03-2009, 11:11
For years the 45acp(ancient cap pistol) with slow and heavy bullets was the knock'em dead round!<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
FWIW, The wasted time and effort the FBI put into all the data and came away with the 10mm being the best all around cartridge with 180 grain bullets, that went out the window when they thought they could improve on it by down loading it to 980 fps. Push the 180gr. to 1300 fps or the 200gr. 1200 fps and see what is possible. <o:p></o:p>


Maybe they need to reconsider the 10mm with some bullet designs which are constructed to perform at these velocities! The energy dump into the intended target will be greater and over penetration not a problem!<o:p></o:p>

cole
11-30-2009, 12:35
Most recent (3) new ATK tests' data added. Enjoy. :thumbsup:

cowboy1964
02-06-2010, 23:59
Makes a strong case for the Forty....9mm looks like a poor choice if a one shot stop is required versus some of it's competition from the forty and forty five-

No such thing as a "one shot stop" unless you hit the brain or upper spinal column.