Light & Fast or Heavy & Slow?

Which school of thought do you subscribe to and why?

voted L and F ... but I guess it depends on what caliber and platform I'm carrying.

I guess my question really is ... do you subscribe to the Light & Fast findings of Marshall & Sanow (http://www.powernet.net/~eich1/sp.html) or the Heavy & Slow theories of Dr. Fackler (http://www.firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/ammodata.htm).

What, no heavy, big and fast? :D I assume we're talking defensive loads.

I'm actually one of the many compromise folks. Strike a balence. But I want to make sure I have enough penetration. So, all things being equal heavy and slow will get me more consistant penetration than light and fast.

Now for target shooting I prefer light and fast because of the flatter tajectory and lighter recoil.

My view has been extensively stated in the thread that I'm willing to bet spawned this poll ;)

Medium and medium.

Too high velocity tends to cause overexpansion, while too low causes unreliable expansion and inefficient tissue crushing. Too heavy a bullet limits the velocity you can put on it without blowing up your gun, and too light a bullet will underpenetrate.

... My view has been extensively stated in the thread that I'm willing to bet spawned this poll ... Uh, I must have missed that. :o Actually, I was reading Marshall & Sanow's Light & Fast findings (http://www.powernet.net/~eich1/sp.html) and Dr. Fackler's Heavy & Slow theories (http://www.firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/ammodata.htm) and found myself agreeing with both of them :rolleyes: even though the two positions were in disagreement with each other and that's when I figured that it would be a good idea to find out what others thought and why?

I guess my question really is ... do you subscribe to the Light & Fast findings of Marshall & Sanow or the Heavy & Slow theories of Dr. Fackler. Amusing that you refer to Marshall and Sanow's stuff as "findings," yet you refer to Fackler's work as "theories."

Anyone that has taken a critical look at Marshall and Sanow's work should be VERY skeptical (to put it nicely), since they have NEVER provided their data for analysis and peer review. There is essentially no way of showing that they didn't just create everything in their own minds.

However, Fackler actually has extensive experience and training in wound ballistics, and contrary to some claims, actually has studied real world effects of high velocity projectiles on humans. To call Fackler's work simply a "heavy and slow theory," is an oversimplification.

Pays for anyone interested in this to do some serious research.

Hmmm... :D Let's go for heavy, wide, and moderately fast. A 12 gauge slug fits nicely, and will work very well. :scrutiny: OTHER... :neener:

Tom

I like blood to flow from TWO holes, 1 going in and 1 coming out, makes living things REAL DEAD, REAL QUICK so I voted heavy and slow. I also shoot heavy and slow, carry heavy and slow, and reload heavy and slow.

* Don't care

Bullet weight is towards the bottom of my list of priorities in a handgun.

I tend to use whatever bullet weight the cartridge/gun was designed for or split the difference (for example, if I used a .40S&W I'd probably pick 165 grain).

... Amusing that you refer to Marshall and Sanow's stuff as "findings," yet you refer to Fackler's work as "theories." ... I picked the words that I used very carefully and what you said was the reasons why I picked the words that I did ;)

I like blood to flow from TWO holes, 1 going in and 1 coming out

I do believe you're loosing all the shock impact. I would prefer that the bullet not exit. The target retains all the energy.

Big and slow.

Well, I routinely carry a 357 magnum, so I go light and fast, 125 grain JHP.
If I were carrying a 9mm, I go light and fast, 115 grain JHP +P, although the 124 and 135 grain loadings look very promising.
If I were to carry a 40 S&W I think I would opt for 155 to 165 grain loads, these seem to have a good reputation.
In 45 ACP I would, without hesitation, pick a 230 grain load.

watch the front sight and the rest will take care of itself. I'm quite comfortable with either my Browning High Power 9mm or my Kimber SST Compact in 45 acp

45 acp...nuff said ! :evil:

I voted OTHER because my preference is for "tried and true."

The only response I can give is "Yes." ;)

10mm = fast AND heavy!

Fackler's theory is actually "shut down the central nervous system through direct damage, or indirect damage via blood loss," and does not state "heavy and slow" at all. It just states that bullets must penetrate at least 12.5" in order to have a good chance to crush a hole through a vital bloodbearing structure or CNS structure from most shooting angles.

"Heavy and slow" is what Marshall and Sanow say Fackler's theories are, for the sole purpose of misleading people into believing Fackler's theories are no more scientific than theirs, and so they can call Fackler's theories "outdated," just like 230 grain .45 ACP hardball is "outdated."

Shot Placement.

I pick a gun that fits ME, in a platform that allow quick accurate hits. I then test loads for reliablity , POA/ POI.

The gun tells me what it shoots best.

Shot placement is good, missing because the rd won't feed/ extract, or go where pointed is bad.

200gr and playing tag with going supersonic is my sweet spot!

And, no - I'm not looking for a date. . .

:evil:

Trisha

I want it all. I want a heavy-for-caliber bullet that will penetrate deeply and expand reliably after defeating barriers. In the meantime, I'll settle for what I can get. There are some good loadings in the Golden Saber, Gold Dot, and Ranger SXT lines...

I use both. My 357 mags have extremely high velocity, and my 45 acp loads are pretty standard. My 45 Colt is standard velocities, but my 40 is light and fast.

Trisha and Tamara -

This is a gun forum - you ain't supposed to make a post that makes sense- your supposed to make posts to keep the argument heated. :uhoh: :p :D

Big, deep holes. It's that simple. Fast and heavy if possible, slow if I must.

230-gr in .45ACP

It's all about shot placement and penetration . Just look at the trench run on the Death Star! ;)

There is more gain with mass than with velocity.

BIG, Heavy (230 grain), and Slow as found in Federal Hydra-Shok's
for the .45 ACP.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

I would like to find a 357 caliber Flat nose with an ogive curve instead of a SWC and have it in 147 gr with a gas check which would make it about 150grs, then push it about 1300fps

Deep penetration. Big holes. Broken bones. Gotta be heavy and slow. Give me a .45-70 over a .223 any day (on anything larger than a coyote. I'll reconsider if its a sniper's headshot on medium-sized game).

There is more gain with mass than with velocity. :scrutiny:

How do you figure? Both mass and velocity give equal gains in momentum, but velocity give much greater gains in energy

I tend to gravitate towards heavy (for the caliber) and slow (or medium).

357: 180gr@1250fps
38special: 158gr@850fps
9mm: 147gr@1000ish (I think it's actually in the 990s)

I deviate with my 32acp. That one is 60gr@1000fps, but I am tinkering around with 85gr bullets.

Chris

10mm = fast AND heavy!

You beat me to it.

10mm = fast AND heavy!

Me Too! (uh, Three!)

How about: (relatively) heavy & fast ...

:scrutiny:

At least among "service" cartridges meant to be fired from autoloaders of reasonable size and weight, this third alternative arrived in the mid-1980s in the form of the 10mm AUTO.

And from Norma to Double Tap, it's still here. ;)

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-12/73942/agtman_sw1006v2.jpg

:cool:

trapperjohn, how do momentum or energy releated to effectivness in a handgun round? Want the answers? See Cosmoline's ongoing thread for tons of good links and information :) Larger factors are retained velocity, penetration, and displacement. Give me as big as possible, as fast as possible as heavy as possible in that order :D

Both I currently shoot .45ACP and prefer 200gr or 230gr +P defensive loads
But for the wife, I’m going to get her started shooting, I’m going with 9mm and probably 2 boxes(regular cap mags) of 115gr or 124gr Golden Saber’s. Without Shot Placement the target can survive a hit by a .50 rifle. Tag the thoracic Triangle or the CNS quick & often and the target is going down not that I’m going to be carrying a revolver loaded with .22 shorts any time soon.

Niether...I like my bullets fat and heavy...like me.

Because I've seen them work with my own eyes. - JM.

If I wake up after a long night of listening to 50 cent and am feeling especially gangsta, I'll carry my G19. :cool:

But if I maybe watched a cowboy flick (or "The Way of the Gun") the night before then its my 1911.

Of course if I wake up feeling lazy, and have no dangerous places to visit, its my P-32 :D

In all seriousness, either will do the job if you're proficient. I tailor my CCW piece more to the weather. During the summer, when the Texas uniform is shorts and a t-shirt then its the Glock (or my Bersa Thunder).

If its "winter" (I use that term loosely - right now its 76 here on Galveston), and bad guys might be more layered up, then its my 1911 (which is easier to conceal anyway under a jacket).

In a perfect world, fast and heavy; in the real world, fast and light.

I picked the words that I used very carefully and what you said was the reasons why I picked the words that I did Ahh, so you tricked me into making your case for you. How very sly. :)

Fackler's theory is actually "shut down the central nervous system through direct damage, or indirect damage via blood loss," and does not state "heavy and slow" at all. It just states that bullets must penetrate at least 12.5" in order to have a good chance to crush a hole through a vital bloodbearing structure or CNS structure from most shooting angles.

"Heavy and slow" is what Marshall and Sanow say Fackler's theories are, for the sole purpose of misleading people into believing Fackler's theories are no more scientific than theirs, and so they can call Fackler's theories "outdated," just like 230 grain .45 ACP hardball is "outdated." http://glocktalk.com/images/smilies/goodpost.gif

Medium to heavy weight & fast....


...and ACCURATELY PLACED. :D

I prefer 155-165gr @ about 1200+ fps from my .40sw pistols. I guess this would be medium/medium?

i chose light and fast. as in 147gr 9mm hydro-shocks.

i can control 18+1 9mm's better than i can control 8+1 .45's.

but that's me. :D

trapperjohn

Mass is a constant in the energy equation for a projectile, it loses no mass (theoretically) on its way to the target. Velocity is decreasing from the moment the projectile clears the barrel. Any value (energy in this case) which increases as the square of a variable (velocity) decreases as the square root of the variable. This is true when fired in any medium, sort of an "easy come-easy go" situation.

other. middle ground. .41mag w/220s. this will do bad things up front and blow out a backbone. MO, as i have not done this, but, it sounds about right. any deer hunter will tell you that a one shot stop is seldom accomplished. whitetail deer are about the size of humans and can go a distance when well hit. regardless of caliber, as someone else said, shoot them to the ground. this sounds like good advice.

If I had my druthers......Heavy and Slow. A .44mag revolver with hard cast bullets could stop a bear!.

I have no interest in starting a flame war BUT... IIRC Fackler and the IWBA at one time published a news letter/journal of there findings? And also did they or did they not stop due to lack of support? Also, Didn't the IWBA Disband?
My distaste as it were for fackler and the like is based mainly on the fact that any time this subject comes up they take it personaly instead of from an objective POV and automaticly try to discredit anyone who disagrees with them. That said I do find both sides to have interesting findings.

Oh yea, For the record I carry an H&K P7M8 or USPc 9mm.

And yes I run 115 gr +P+ in all of my 9mm pistols. Not because of M&S but because of what agencies have carried it at one time or another.

ISP, Boarder Patrol, and U.S. Secret Service

Have a nice weekend