9MM confusion/ penetration/ barriers


PDA






tackleberry45
June 6, 2011, 12:55 PM
So in keeping with strong conversation about the supposed issue of 9mm being the entry level in terms of stopping power I put some theory to the test.

- CZ75B
- Winchester PDX1 124+p

vs.

1973 Chrysler

The 9mm, the round that is supposed to have penetration issues, had NO problem going through windows, doors, or tires on this old battle tank car of all metal. I will be posting pics soon. So much for the pentration against barriers issue.

If you enjoyed reading about "9MM confusion/ penetration/ barriers" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
REAPER4206969
June 6, 2011, 12:59 PM
9mm is not know for this problem, .45 is.

PRM
June 6, 2011, 01:10 PM
You just experienced the real world VS Hollywood myth.

We teach a couple of Officer Survival Schools each year and one of the exercises we do is have junk cars hauled to the range to demonstrate what is cover and show penetration.

1. We start by having officers sit in the front seat and engage targets shooting through the windshield (safety goggles and hearing protection mandatory). There is no deflection of the round traveling through a windshield with duty caliber ammunition (.38 Special, .357 Magnum, 9mm, 45 ACP, and .40.)

2. Next, we have targets placed inside the vehicle(s) and as the officer(s) approach (normal unknown risk traffic stop), the command gun is given. The officers engage through the side glass, body metal,through the rear glass and trunk. Most rounds zip right through the glass, metal and seats and strike the target. Exceptions are a few structural components or obstructions in the trunk.

3. Last, we shoot through the doors at targets. Same results.


The only thing in a vehicle that will reliably stop a round are the metal wheels and engine block.

withdrawn34
June 7, 2011, 12:34 AM
True, but one also needs to consider how much energy is expended by going through various vehicle panels/upholstery/components/etc. Does the round still have enough energy by the time it strikes the target? A piece of cardboard will show a hole even with a weak hit.

HK Jake
June 7, 2011, 12:56 AM
The 9mm, the round that is supposed to have penetration issues, had NO problem going through windows, doors, or tires on this old battle tank car of all metal. I will be posting pics soon. So much for the pentration against barriers issue.

That's not actually the point, at all.

Just about every common handgun caliber will penetrate through doors, glass, walls, etc. The issue is what happens to the bullet after it penetrates the barriers; does it keep its shape? Does it suffer jacket/core separation? Does it penetrate to 12 inches? Does it plug up and act like a FMJ?

These are the issues that most 9mm loads have, and it's one of the reasons why .40 S&W is still so successful to this day in LE circles; the 180gr .40 S&W penetrates barriers and retains enough energy to still penetrate deeply into a person and expand uniformly just as well or better than any other common handgun caliber/weight.

Do modern 9mm loads perform through barriers? Sure, sometimes it does. Does .40 S&W do it better? Most of the time, yes.

PRM
June 7, 2011, 06:42 PM
The issue is what happens to the bullet after it penetrates the barriers; does it keep its shape? Does it suffer jacket/core separation? Does it penetrate to 12 inches? Does it plug up and act like a FMJ?

The issue is what do you choose for cover. Yep ~ the round is going to be degraded some by whatever it passes through, but I personally don't want something penetrating my body 10 inches, 8 inches, 6 inches, 4 inches...miss-shaped, FMJ or whatever. The metal skin on most cars is pretty thin stuff.

Blue68f100
June 7, 2011, 07:46 PM
10+ years ago we did not have the modern ammo for the 9mm. Mostly all that was available was std ball ammo. Now with modern ammo it does not give up as much to the other rounds but it does give up some. But for HD you have to be very aware of over penetration. HD and Law enforcement have different requirements. Most LE require the ammo to meet the FBI spec. Not necessary for HD.

psyshack
June 7, 2011, 08:15 PM
A 9mm will kill folks that are shot while in a car.

918v
June 7, 2011, 08:38 PM
The issue is what do you choose for cover. Yep ~ the round is going to be degraded some by whatever it passes through, but I personally don't want something penetrating my body 10 inches, 8 inches, 6 inches, 4 inches...miss-shaped, FMJ or whatever. The metal skin on most cars is pretty thin stuff.

The issue is what the round does in the intended target. You don't want to issue a round that only penetrates 4" of human after traveling through a windshield. While you may think this is adequate to stop YOU, it is totally inadequate for self defense in most cases.

PRM
June 7, 2011, 10:01 PM
You don't want to issue a round that only penetrates 4" of human after traveling through a windshield. While you may think this is adequate to stop YOU, it is totally inadequate for self defense in most cases.

Never said anything about what is adequate to stop someone ~ if I was going to debate that, we would be talking rifles. Never said anything about issuing rounds. I said cars are poor cover. Commonly used handgun rounds will penetrate them easily, and I personally don't want to be penetrated to any depth.

Nushif
June 8, 2011, 01:51 PM
My biggest problem in the case of a shooting like that would be how I would defend my case, if I had the guy in cover and instead of getting out of there ... I continued shooting.

918v
June 8, 2011, 05:44 PM
A guy who takes cover after having just shot at you continues to pose an immediate threat to your life.

Shadow 7D
June 8, 2011, 10:25 PM
Go read the Box-O-Truths
Buick-o-Truth
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/thebuickotruth.htm

Very GOOD read

skeuthan
June 9, 2011, 12:20 AM
Unless you are an L.E.O. or live in your car, don't use the Win PDX for defense. The Win "Ranger-T and Federal "HST" are the best protection rounds that I have tested to date. If for some reason you require a bonded bullet then PLEASE, by all means buy the Speer "Gold Dot". Not only do they offer the best expansion and weight retention of the bonded rounds, they are only apx. $5 more per box than the PDX. I'm quite certain that the F.B.I. selected the PDX more because of price and availibility than tactictal performance. I even heard a "Rumor" that Winchester developed the PDX line in order to procure the VERY lucrative government contracts..

eam3clm@att.net
June 10, 2011, 10:48 AM
As PMR posted the body panels only provide concealment not cover, except behind the engine block. Also keep in mind that if you were to shoot at a moving car, the car will continue to move if you hit the driver. If he is dead the car is not being controlled and could hit someone. We are trained not to shoot at moving vehicle for this reason and it is our departments policy not to shoot at moving vehicle in self defence situations unless you have exhausted all other means of escape (someone trying to run me over). If you are involved in an altercation with a subject who is actively using a gun and has the forthought to use cover as well in the assault on you, you might want to get the h-ll out of there or at least find your own cover.

REAPER4206969
June 10, 2011, 11:31 AM
I'm quite certain that the F.B.I. selected the PDX more because of price and availibility than tactictal performance.

The FBI went from GoldDots to the PDX1.

I even heard a "Rumor" that Winchester developed the PDX line in order to procure the VERY lucrative government contracts..

Of course they did. What's the problem?

Ben86
June 10, 2011, 11:50 AM
Cool, but what does that have to do with stopping power? In other words what does that have to do with stopping a human from functioning in a quick manner?.22 LR can penetrate cars, that doesn't mean it has good stopping power.

Don't worry though, 9mm has plenty of stopping power. I do consider it a baseline, but a comfortable one. Especially with 124 grain +P.

AZ Hawkeye
June 11, 2011, 12:35 AM
Cool, but what does that have to do with stopping power? In other words what does that have to do with stopping a human from functioning in a quick manner?.22 LR can penetrate cars, that doesn't mean it has good stopping power.

Don't worry though, 9mm has plenty of stopping power. I do consider it a baseline, but a comfortable one. Especially with 124 grain +P.
...There is no such thing as "stopping power," especially when discussing handgun calibers.

You want stopping power? .50 BMG has over 12,000 ft-lbs KE; THAT is stopping power!

JAV8000
June 11, 2011, 06:15 PM
I have full faith that my G17 loaded out with 18 DoubleTap 147 gr. 9mm+P gold dot JHPs moving at 1150 fps will get the job done. This is entry level .357 performance with a reliably expanding bonded core bullet.....18 times over. Modern, as in just the past few years, bullet and poweder technology has moved the 9mm from a so-so level defensive round to one capable of standing with any of the "big boys".

NMGonzo
June 11, 2011, 06:21 PM
I don't know ... I carry mine and I am not going to be shooting anyone sitting in no car.

KimberUltra
June 12, 2011, 12:54 AM
A bullet is a bullet. If it penetrates 3 inches or 100 inches 9 times out of ten it'll be lethal or make a BG stop. 7 bullets that penetrate 3 inches is no walk in the park even for big bastards.

Apocalypse-Now
June 12, 2011, 01:18 AM
no surprise here. still looking forward to the pics though, those are always entertaining lol :)

gofastman
June 12, 2011, 10:53 AM
If it penetrates 3 inches or 100 inches 9 times out of ten it'll be lethal or make a BG stop

Simply 100% untrue

REAPER4206969
June 12, 2011, 04:11 PM
Three inches is not generally lethal. Three inches on a fatty is not even at the muscle yet.

You need 12" minimum, preferably 15" to insure lethality at all angles.

The next time you're at Wal-Mart, look around and you'll see why 18" has recently became desirable. Pretty soon we'll be carrying hard cast solids...

AZ Hawkeye
June 12, 2011, 05:50 PM
I don't know ... I carry mine and I am not going to be shooting anyone sitting in no car.
And how do you know you won't be shooting out your own window at a potential carjacker with a gun?

AZ Hawkeye
June 12, 2011, 06:00 PM
Three inches is not generally lethal. Three inches on a fatty is not even at the muscle yet.

You need 12" minimum, preferably 15" to insure lethality at all angles.

The next time you're at Wal-Mart, look around and you'll see why 18" has recently became desirable. Pretty soon we'll be carrying hard cast solids...
Agreed. There are set requirements for penetration (12" to 18") for a reason.

Why you ask? Well, if you happen to run into a BG who is 6'7 and weighs 270 lbs, you are going to need all of that penetration to get through the fatty tissue into the vital organs.

BG's aren't four foot tall paper targets at a square range; sure, they can be 5'10, 165 lbs, but they can also be 6'7, 270 lbs! You simply can't know.

Apocalypse-Now
June 12, 2011, 06:13 PM
the FBI didn't set 12-18 inches as ideal because they anticipated their agents being assaulted by fat people.


they did it for several reasons, some of which are most of the time attackers have their arms up (often clutching a weapon), and the bullet must penetrate their limbs before striking the abdomen.

another reason is, RARELY do bullets hit the heart or other vitals at a perfect straight angle, or the shortest route.

shooting someone from the sides, through their arms/shoulders etc. or into the abdomen at the chest at an angle requires good penetration. :)

REAPER4206969
June 12, 2011, 06:15 PM
That is the reason for the 12" minimum.

Fatties caused the increase to 15"-18".

Apocalypse-Now
June 12, 2011, 06:17 PM
^^LMAO they did not! get outa here :D

REAPER4206969
June 12, 2011, 06:19 PM
They totally did.

Fatties ruin everything.

Apocalypse-Now
June 12, 2011, 06:20 PM
maybe they'll ban together and sue mcdonalds again lol

KodiakBeer
June 12, 2011, 06:24 PM
Human anatomy in medical school: Heart/lungs 2 inches below surface.

http://www.newsperuvian.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/anatomy-and-physiology-7.jpg




Human anatomy in shooting class:

http://www.pinktentacle.com/images/anatomy_godzilla.jpg

REAPER4206969
June 12, 2011, 06:29 PM
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS5fnnkBUJL0jYs2UrEacrf4xqWEw51AFv8kU0YNFZA5kBz1IWGvA

This is a very common shape of men nowadays. Imagine being attacked by this guy and having to shoot through his belly at an angle, such as if you are on the ground and he's standing over you. That is a lot of bullet stopping fat, then muscle, then bone, then strong organs like the heart for your bullet to penetrate.

918v
June 12, 2011, 06:43 PM
Shooting pregnant males is unethical.

AZ Hawkeye
June 12, 2011, 06:52 PM
Agreed. There are set requirements for penetration (12" to 18") for a reason.

Why you ask? Well, if you happen to run into a BG who is 6'7 and weighs 270 lbs, you are going to need all of that penetration to get through the fatty tissue into the vital organs.

BG's aren't four foot tall paper targets at a square range; sure, they can be 5'10, 165 lbs, but they can also be 6'7, 270 lbs! You simply can't know.
Nowhere in this post did I claim the FBI set the standards in response to having to shoot "fat people." I never came close to saying that.

This what I said: "There are set requirements for penetration (12" to 18") for a reason."

I then explained that penetration is your friend if you have to shoot through fatty tissue.

You guys are reading way too much into this.

AZ Hawkeye
June 12, 2011, 06:54 PM
Human anatomy in medical school: Heart/lungs 2 inches below surface.

http://www.newsperuvian.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/anatomy-and-physiology-7.jpg


This is great and all if the BG lines square up with you and you don't have to shoot through his arm/shoulder and a wall or a car door or auto glass, etc., etc.

Who said you won't be lying under the BG, or he's not taking shots at you whilst hiding behind a low wall?

KodiakBeer
June 12, 2011, 06:55 PM
Imagine being attacked by this guy and having to shoot through his belly at an angle, such as if you are on the ground and he's standing over you.

I think I'd shoot him in the chest before allowing him to knock me down and stand over me, failing that I'd shoot him in forehead. But really, since I could outrun anybody with that shape, I doubt the necessity of shooting at all.

Human beings are not bullet proof. Their organs are just below the surface. Shoot them until they fall down or turn away and then stop shooting them.

AZ Hawkeye
June 12, 2011, 06:58 PM
I think I'd shoot him in the chest before allowing him to knock me down and stand over me, failing that I'd shoot him in forehead. But really, since I could outrun anybody with that shape, I doubt the necessity of shooting at all.

Human beings are not bullet proof. Their organs are just below the surface. Shoot them until they fall down or turn away and then stop shooting them.
You assume that he's not hiding and takes you by surprise by tackling you or trapping you in an alley because you tried to hide in the wrong place (or insert self defense scenario here)

Anything can happen...

(Did you hear about the cop who shot a man in COM seventeen times with .40 S&W before the man finally succumbed to his wounds?)

KodiakBeer
June 12, 2011, 06:58 PM
This is great and all if the BG lines square up with you and you don't have to shoot through his arm/shoulder and a wall or a car door or auto glass, etc., etc.

Shooting people through walls and car doors is called murder, not self defense. If your bullet is deflected by an arm or shoulder, keep shooting. People need to worry more about their shooting skills than their choice of bullet. Technology won't trump poor shooting.

AZ Hawkeye
June 12, 2011, 07:01 PM
Shooting people through walls and car doors is called murder, not self defense. If your bullet is deflected by an arm or shoulder, keep shooting. People need to worry more about their shooting skills than their choice of bullet. Technology won't trump poor shooting.
Lol... No, it's not.

Example: You are in your house, and a BG has broken in. He begins shooting at you with a rifle/handgun/shotgun etc., through the door to your room. You wouldn't return fire?

Example: A man with a gun is rapidly approaching your car in an attempt to carjack you. To shoot him, you either have to shoot through the door or the glass of your window...

918v
June 12, 2011, 07:01 PM
Shooting people through walls and car doors is called murder, not self defense.

Really? So any assailant shooting from behind cover cannot be fired upon?

KodiakBeer
June 12, 2011, 07:02 PM
(Did you hear about the cop who shot a man in COM seventeen times with .40 S&W before the man finally succumbed to his wounds?)

That is pretty much what one would expect. It's only in Hollywood that bullets are an instantly fatal poison that immediately shuts down a human being like turning off a light switch.

Handguns are pathetic weapons. If they weren't, people would be out doing their elk hunting with .40's. Aim and keep shooting until the threat falls down or runs away. He may or may not expire after doing so.

KodiakBeer
June 12, 2011, 07:03 PM
Example: You are in your house, and a BG has broken in. He begins shooting at you with a rifle/handgun/shotgun etc., through the door to your room. You wouldn't return fire?

Yeah, that happens all the time...

918v
June 12, 2011, 07:14 PM
No, you're right, assailants always present themselves from a frontal shot and even point to their vitals.

REAPER4206969
June 12, 2011, 07:45 PM
You really think someone is just going to stand there and let you shoot at them?

Shooting into, out of and through automobiles is common. As well as assailants using concealment such as walls, doors, furniture, Etc.

I sure hope you never get jury duty.

AZ Hawkeye
June 12, 2011, 07:57 PM
Yeah, that happens all the time...
Yeah, and self defense situations happen all the time...

Apocalypse-Now
June 12, 2011, 09:40 PM
This is a very common shape of men nowadays

yep, that's pretty much the standard physique in MI--the fattest state in the country :eek:

THplanes
June 12, 2011, 10:33 PM
Shooting into, out of and through automobiles is common. As well as assailants using concealment such as walls, doors, furniture, Etc.

.


I see this line of thinking all the time. I may just have selective memory problems, but I don't recall reading about that many non LEO shootings involving a barrier. Most seem to involve a home break in and direct shots at the bad guy. Sometimes they will shoot through the front door. That's the primary type of barrier shooting I read about. While I'm sure they exist, I don't recall reading about many incidents where non LEOs shoot through car parts. At most it's through the side window and that's not much of a barrier.

KimberUltra
June 13, 2011, 12:02 AM
I'm not disagreeing that the guy may be fat or just andre the giant. I carry a 9mm or a 45. You guys act that only a hit on a vital organ hurts. A single shot to a big ole fat gut is going to make someone think twice. And if it doesn't I have 6 more right behind it. I use top of the line ammo as well but holy crap, ammo a penetrates 10 inches and ammo b penetrates 11. I don't see that becoming a subject worth beating to death.

918v
June 13, 2011, 12:05 AM
I may just have selective memory problems, but I don't recall reading about that many non LEO shootings involving a barrier. Most seem to involve a home break in and direct shots at the bad guy. Sometimes they will shoot through the front door. That's the primary type of barrier shooting I read about. While I'm sure they exist, I don't recall reading about many incidents where non LEOs shoot through car parts. At most it's through the side window and that's not much of a barrier.

Are all civilian shootings that well documented?

MikeNice
June 13, 2011, 12:42 AM
Shooting through a barrier does not equal murder.

I remember seeing a video of a home invasion. The invader actually ducked behind the bar in the kitchen. The home owner fired his first shot. The hit was non fatal and the robber tried to find cover. He blind fired over the counter several times. The home owner returned fire through the cabinent under the bar.

The invader ended up dead after taking five shots. First he tried to crawl away. He made it to the front porch and passed out. He died while the ambulance was enroute.

It was completely justified.

Shadow 7D
June 13, 2011, 01:48 AM
from reading this thread I have learned that I need to carry a Sub-Compact 155MM howitzer and have it loaded with HE for the first shot and then a dutch load of HEAT/AP...

Really folks, they put those extra rounds in the mag for a reason, if only one shot worked every time, we would all be carrying a single shot gun...

THplanes
June 13, 2011, 02:15 AM
Are all civilian shootings that well documented?

No, that's why I qualified it with what I recall reading about. I'm sure there are many I've never read any info on. MikeNice provided a counter example and it's one I've never read anything about.

MikeNice
June 13, 2011, 02:38 AM
No, that's why I qualified it with what I recall reading about. I'm sure there are many I've never read any info on. MikeNice provided a counter example and it's one I've never read anything about.
I saw the video because it was evidence in a case a friend was working. He was going over a bunch of stuff off the clock.

There are thousands of cases that never make the paper or YouTube. I don't think that means shooting through a barrier is a high probability thing. I just think it can be justified and the cost of a good bullet that will do it isn't that much.

A 147gr 9mm or a 180gr .40S&W will do it. Usually a box will only cost a dollar or two more than the lighter weight bullet at most.

I always tell people the chance you'll need it is slim. The cost of being prepared is even slimmer.

Apocalypse-Now
June 13, 2011, 02:40 AM
You really think someone is just going to stand there and let you shoot at them?

the bad guys don't run out in front of your gun, like in Rambo II? :eek:

Ben86
June 13, 2011, 07:38 AM
yep, that's pretty much the standard physique in MI--the fattest state in the country

I thought MS had that honor. That good'ol southern fried cookin will put some weight on you if you are not careful.

Fat still doesn't accumulate much around the solar plexus or skull, even if they are damned near preggers. I don't see a mans fat being a big problem if shot placement is correct. Intermediate barriers are much more of an issue, though an unlikely one for the most part. It's one of the reasons I stick with bonded jhps only.

Shooting people through walls and car doors is called murder, not self defense.

Come on Kodiak, you know that's not always true. If a bad guy takes cover after he shoots at you, you aren't expected to just run away and hope he doesn't shoot you in the back.

918v
June 13, 2011, 11:53 AM
No, that's why I qualified it with what I recall reading about. I'm sure there are many I've never read any info on. MikeNice provided a counter example and it's one I've never read anything about.



How many have you read about?

My point is there are tens of thousands of civilian self-defense shootings each year and we do not have access to the details of any of them.

KodiakBeer
June 13, 2011, 03:42 PM
I read about self defense shootings all the time and watch CCTV vids of them on Youtube. The typical situation is there if you care to look at them. Dreaming up unusual scenarios is just counter-productive.

My thoughts are that in your home, it would be unwise to depend on a handgun. You're in your home and concealment isn't an issue. Why handicap yourself with a handgun? Get a real gun; a shotgun or carbine.

On the street, you're pretty much limited to a handgun. You're a citizen, not a cop or SWAT team member so choosing some heavy-for-caliber, slow round for "penetration" is a bad choice. If your assailant ducks behind a barrier - run away! If you stay and keep shooting through the barrier you're going to have to articulate the threat to a DA. Good luck on that.

THplanes
June 13, 2011, 09:52 PM
How many have you read about?

Enough to allow me to form an opinion about about my needs.

My point is there are tens of thousands of civilian self-defense shootings each year and we do not have access to the details of any of them.

Do you have a cite for the tens of thousands of civilian self-defense shootings each year. Many of them are reported with enough detail to form an opinion on the situation. You are of course free to disagree and ignore what ever information is available

Fishslayer
June 13, 2011, 10:12 PM
Not a whole lot of Chryslers park in my living room. PDX1 in 230gr .45ACP and 125gr .38+P sleep in the bedside companions. ;)

918v
June 14, 2011, 12:00 AM
There aren't enough published civilian self defense shootings to allow anyone to opine that shooting through barriers is ill advised.

AZ Hawkeye
June 14, 2011, 12:04 AM
I read about self defense shootings all the time and watch CCTV vids of them on Youtube. The typical situation is there if you care to look at them. Dreaming up unusual scenarios is just counter-productive.

My thoughts are that in your home, it would be unwise to depend on a handgun. You're in your home and concealment isn't an issue. Why handicap yourself with a handgun? Get a real gun; a shotgun or carbine.

On the street, you're pretty much limited to a handgun. You're a citizen, not a cop or SWAT team member so choosing some heavy-for-caliber, slow round for "penetration" is a bad choice. If your assailant ducks behind a barrier - run away! If you stay and keep shooting through the barrier you're going to have to articulate the threat to a DA. Good luck on that.
A failure to plan is a plan to fail...

You assume a self defense situation will always be on your terms. I like to be prepared as best I can for ANY possible scenario, not just your so-called "common" ones.

MikeNice
June 14, 2011, 01:05 AM
A post I put up else where that illustrates why a person might have to worry about penetrating barriers.

Then there was a self defense situation that happened to a friend of mine. His girlfriend's ex-fiance was the jealous type. He threatened to kill my friend at least a dozen times. He was actually borderline stalking my friend. Then one day as my friend was leaving to walk his dog the threat became serious.

The ex pulled in to his drive way, threw open his truck door, and standing behind the door pulled a gun. My friend fired five shots through the door and two through the window. All seven shots penetrated the barriers. Four bullets struck their intended target. One was across the street in a tree and one was found in the driver's seat head rest. The seventh bullet was never recovered.

It was a clear case of self defense and it involved needing to shoot through barriers to hit the target.


That could just as easily be the guy you acidentally cut off in traffic while arguing with your spouse or child. It could be the guy you had to fire, or give a bad review, at work. My wife was an operations manager. There were many nights I had to drive to her job and walk her to the car because of threats and attempted assaults.

The unexpected does happen. Preparing for only the "common" scenarios I felt pretty secure carrying a five shot snub nose. Then three escaped convicts come wandering in the direction of my neighborhood. Not a "common" occurence by any stretch. Also one that my five shot snub nose probably wasn't ready to handle. Luckily they passed by following the railroad tracks less than 1,000 feet from my house.

lwknight
June 14, 2011, 01:24 AM
This has been a fun read so far. I just want to add that most people who are sane or average and somewhat normal do not want to be shot even with a BB gun. And if said persons are shot with with even a BB gun will stop doing what they were doing to get them shot as to not be shot again.

Most people that need shooting are not sane or reasonable ( drugs or whatever ) and will not stop till they are so full of holes that they can no longer function.

THplanes
June 14, 2011, 01:29 AM
double post

THplanes
June 14, 2011, 01:33 AM
A failure to plan is a plan to fail...

You assume a self defense situation will always be on your terms. I like to be prepared as best I can for ANY possible scenario, not just your so-called "common" ones.

So I can assume you wear a ballistic vest with hard plates and some sort of head protection. How do you ccw the carbine or do you carry a full rifle? I suppose a trench coat would do it.

Self defense is always a compromise. Where you draw the line is up to you. The same goes for everyone else.

MikeNice
June 14, 2011, 02:07 AM
Self defense is always a compromise. Where you draw the line is up to you. The same goes for everyone else.

That is true. However, why should you short change yourself if the extra preparedness cost you nothing. A box of Federal HST 147gr HPs cost the same as a box of 124gr Hps. There is no extra cost for preparing. Then if you get caught in one of those fluke moments you are ready.

Body armor and such requires an extra investment of money. It also takes a physical toll on the person. Upgrading to a heavier (or bonded) bullet does neither of those things.

AZ Hawkeye
June 14, 2011, 02:10 AM
So I can assume you wear a ballistic vest with hard plates and some sort of head protection. How do you ccw the carbine or do you carry a full rifle? I suppose a trench coat would do it.

Self defense is always a compromise. Where you draw the line is up to you. The same goes for everyone else.
Assumptions are the mothers of all...

No, I do not wear a ballistic vest with hard plates or head protection. I'm simply stating the fallacy that is slower, heavier bullets that penetrate are somehow inferior to their lighter, faster counterparts.

It's very easy to be prepared for more situations by carrying a heavier bullet versus a lighter bullet. You read way too far in to this.

And to be honest, it's very easy to conceal carry a folding stock AK in a bag; many Suarez(ites) do it on a regular basis.

AZ Hawkeye
June 14, 2011, 02:12 AM
That is true. However, why should you short change yourself if the extra preparedness cost you nothing. A box of Federal HST 147gr HPs cost the same as a box of 124gr Hps. There is no extra cost for preparing. Then if you get caught in one of those fluke moments you are ready.

Body armor and such requires an extra investment of money. It also takes a physical toll on the person. Upgrading to a heavier (or bonded) bullet does neither of those things.

Are you sure we aren't the same person? Haha.

AZ Hawkeye
June 14, 2011, 02:17 AM
Double post.

Sam Cade
June 14, 2011, 02:30 AM
My point is there are tens of thousands of civilian self-defense shootings each year and we do not have access to the details of any of them.

Hardly tens of thousands. Legal intervention includes all justified shootings, by LEO and private citizens.

2007, United States
Legal Intervention Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages

Total Number of Deaths:351


613 accidental deaths btw.

THplanes
June 14, 2011, 04:02 AM
That is true. However, why should you short change yourself if the extra preparedness cost you nothing. A box of Federal HST 147gr HPs cost the same as a box of 124gr Hps. There is no extra cost for preparing. Then if you get caught in one of those fluke moments you are ready.

Body armor and such requires an extra investment of money. It also takes a physical toll on the person. Upgrading to a heavier (or bonded) bullet does neither of those things.

I have no problem with the heavy HST bullets. They penetrate well and are top of the line when it comes to expansion. I would disagree that moving to a bonded bullet does not give up anything. They do give up expansion for more penetration. The gold dot is the only bonded bullet I like. Something like the PDX1 gives up too much expansion in order to achieve the penetration the FBI wants. The FBI is involved in a high percentage shootings that involve an auto. So it may be the best choice for them. I don't believe my probability of being in such a shootout is high enough to give up the extra expansion of the HST. It's not like the HST will not penetrate barriers, it just does not do it as well as PDX1.

MikeNice
June 14, 2011, 04:02 AM
Sam that is only the number of deaths. It is estimated that between 71% and 75% of all people that are shot survive.

So, looking at the total number of firearm related deaths every year... At the very least using your numbers at least 1,000 people are shot in defensive situations. Not tens of thousands but still more than the average person is going to read about.

Sam Cade
June 14, 2011, 01:02 PM
Not tens of thousands but still more than the average person is going to read about.

Exactly. The last data I saw put total intentional firearms injuries at 50,000 or so.

Interesting data points:
Gunshot wounds to the head have a 30% survivability rate....mostly due to shots to the jaw/lower face

ForumSurfer
June 14, 2011, 01:17 PM
My thoughts are that in your home, it would be unwise to depend on a handgun. You're in your home and concealment isn't an issue. Why handicap yourself with a handgun? Get a real gun; a shotgun or carbine.

So I should carry my carbine around with me room to room throughout the day? What about those home invasion scenarios that are not so unrealistic anymore? If trouble comes barging into the door in a hurry (as home invasions often go), you may not have time to grab that carbine in another room. My primary defense at all times is my handgun, unless there is a rifle in hand or over my shoulder in a sling. I carry all the time so it is always on me or just beside me.

KodiakBeer
June 14, 2011, 02:14 PM
That is true. However, why should you short change yourself if the extra preparedness cost you nothing. A box of Federal HST 147gr HPs cost the same as a box of 124gr Hps.

Perhaps because the best stopper in data from actual shootings is a 115 grain +P+ at 91%, while the best 147 grain bullet is down at 80%? So, you're actually limiting the lethality of your 9mm in planning for the rare scenario.

http://www.handloads.com/misc/stoppingpower.asp?Caliber=17&Weight=115

REAPER4206969
June 14, 2011, 03:44 PM
Now you're quoting Marshal and Sanow?

KodiakBeer
June 14, 2011, 03:51 PM
Now you're quoting Marshal and Sanow?

Why wouldn't I?

There's a reason police agencies dropped the 147 grain loads, and you can read a study on it here: http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=138913

Panzercat
June 14, 2011, 04:22 PM
A bullet is a bullet. If it penetrates 3 inches or 100 inches 9 times out of ten it'll be lethal or make a BG stop. 7 bullets that penetrate 3 inches is no walk in the park even for big bastards.
I'm not worried about lethality, I'm worried about the time it takes to become lethal. There's a world of difference and because of that, a bullet is not just a bullet.

Apocalypse-Now
June 14, 2011, 04:22 PM
Why wouldn't I?

There's a reason police agencies dropped the 147 grain loads, and you can read a study on it here:

google dr. martin fackler & dr. gary roberts.

stop reading marshal and sanow, and an article that was posted back in 1992.

KodiakBeer
June 14, 2011, 04:34 PM
stop reading marshal and sanow, and an article that was posted back in 1992.

It was not an "article", it was a US Department of Justice study based on 5 years of 9mm 147 grain police shootings. The 147 grain loads were found to be poor stoppers that over-penetrated in flesh and under-penetrated in bone and vehicles.

Given a choice between studies based on gelatin vs studies based on real-world data, I'm going with the real world. I don't think the 147 grainers are poor choices, it's just that in the real world the hot 115 grain hollow points have a much better track record. I want any edge I can get.

The link, again: http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=138913

BullfrogKen
June 14, 2011, 04:55 PM
That Marshall and Sanow book doesn't withstand academic rigor.


But it does make for nice internet banter.

Strykervet
June 14, 2011, 05:29 PM
True, but one also needs to consider how much energy is expended by going through various vehicle panels/upholstery/components/etc. Does the round still have enough energy by the time it strikes the target? A piece of cardboard will show a hole even with a weak hit.
So true. A bullet has so much kinetic energy, and it loses it over time after it exits the barrel. It loses more if it hits something along the way. A bullet with more kinetic energy AND greater cross sectional density in a somewhat weighty bullet will penetrate more than one without these attributes. It is all in the numbers. Using Newtonitan physics, it isn't that hard to show the difference between the 9mm and .45, for instance.

In easy lay terms, say a 4" .357 mag is fired at a car (door, window, take your pick). What comes out the other side is, for all practical purposes, a .38+P or 9mm. You lost that KE when it hit the intervening material.

No wonder that a large, slow bullet with poor cross sectional density is a poor performer when called upon to penetrate intermediate media like sheet metal, walls, and glass. I've heard of .44mag not penetrating car doors at close range. They guy was firing very heavy slow loads (240+? 300?). It would go in one side, but he was shocked (I was too) that it didn't penetrate. He shot it with a 9mm, and it went in one side and out the other.

Another issue is bullet construction. At very high KE, like with an M4, the bullet can and will disitigrate in a spectacular fashion when it hits hard materials. Believe it or not, it is a crapshoot as to whether the M855 ball will penetrate a cinderblock! It will go in one side, but not the other. It takes multiple rounds to break one down.

Lots of variables in a gunshot. VERY dynamical system, which makes it so hard to say for sure what works well and what doesn't.

Personally, I think the 10mm is the ideal weapon, followed by .357 magnum. You can load heavy and slow, or light and fast, all without losing the superior cross sectional density to other comparable loads.

Apocalypse-Now
June 14, 2011, 07:02 PM
That Marshall and Sanow book doesn't withstand academic rigor.

i don't know if we'll be able to convince kodiak of this lol

KodiakBeer
June 14, 2011, 07:12 PM
That Marshall and Sanow book doesn't withstand academic rigor.

Yet, the department of justice study also based on actual police shootings came to the same conclusion. After twenty years of back and forth between the jello studies and the real world data studies, I've going with the actual shooting data.

No matter how (or who) compiles the data, it always comes back to fast hollowpoints trumping slow hollowpoints. I live in the real world and I'm going with the real world results.

918v
June 14, 2011, 07:57 PM
It was not an "article", it was a US Department of Justice study based on 5 years of 9mm 147 grain police shootings. The 147 grain loads were found to be poor stoppers that over-penetrated in flesh and under-penetrated in bone and vehicles.

That's a 20 year old study. It has no merit today.

AZ Hawkeye
June 14, 2011, 08:01 PM
That's a 20 year old study. It has no merit today.
Agreed.

You can't base results of shootings based on "ancient" hollow point designs. Technology has changed a bit in the last 20 years, and it wasn't limited to computers, cell phones, etc...

MikeNice
June 14, 2011, 08:40 PM
Perhaps because the best stopper in data from actual shootings is a 115 grain +P+ at 91%, while the best 147 grain bullet is down at 80%? So, you're actually limiting the lethality of your 9mm in planning for the rare scenario.

http://www.handloads.com/misc/stoppingpower.asp?Caliber=17&Weight=115
Go check out the actual test data from ATK. They test their bullets against other police issued bullets, in front of the officers. Then they publish the results for review. The Federal HST 147gr bullet will go through a car winshield with little deflection and still hit harder than a .380.

It is a good bullet. If you get the +P version it is even better.

KodiakBeer
June 14, 2011, 10:02 PM
They test their bullets against other police issued bullets, in front of the officers. Then they publish the results for review. The Federal HST 147gr bullet will go through a car winshield with little deflection and still hit harder than a .380.

But, I don't care what bullets work through car windshields. I'm not a cop. If I shoot somebody through their windshield I'll be facing a murder charge. Despite that, even in police shootings the faster HP's work better than the slower heavier HP's. That's why police agencies dropped the 147 grain loads.

I want whatever bullet makes bad guys fall down the quickest. There are no new "miracle" bullets. You have fast light hollowpoints and you have heavier slower hollowpoints. Hollowpoints in both categories are better now than in the past - you have a greater chance that the bullet will actually expand.

You can stuff a 220 grain slug in your .308, but that doesn't make it a better deer killer than the traditional 150 grain. And a 147 grain bullet in a 9mm isn't a better man killer.

Velocity counts.

Apocalypse-Now
June 14, 2011, 10:04 PM
told ya we couldn't convince him lol :)

918v
June 14, 2011, 10:21 PM
Some folks fall victim to social darwinism when they opt not to shoot through a windshield.

AZ Hawkeye
June 14, 2011, 10:47 PM
But, I don't care what bullets work through car windshields. I'm not a cop. If I shoot somebody through their windshield I'll be facing a murder charge. Despite that, even in police shootings the faster HP's work better than the slower heavier HP's. That's why police agencies dropped the 147 grain loads.

Proof, please. (There are many LEA's currently equipped with 147gr or 147gr +P HST).

Velocity doesn't mean jack; if it did, EVERY law enforcement agency at all levels would be switching their 9x19mm's and .40 S&W's to .357 SIG's regardless of the increased cost.

The truth is the vast majority of American law enforcement agencies are equipped with .40 S&W.

The truth is major increases in velocity in handgun calibers increase the chances of bullet jacket/core separation and/or over-expansion and underpenetration in human tissue.

murf
June 15, 2011, 12:44 AM
proof please.

murf

AZ Hawkeye
June 15, 2011, 12:45 AM
proof please.

murf

Dig in.

https://sites.google.com/site/worldinventory/
http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=91

KodiakBeer
June 15, 2011, 02:57 AM
Velocity doesn't mean jack; if it did, EVERY law enforcement agency at all levels would be switching their 9x19mm's and .40 S&W's to .357 SIG's regardless of the increased cost.

Or, ammo companies could just download all those rounds to 50% of the current velocity and they'd have the perfect defense load. Is that what you meant?

AZ Hawkeye
June 15, 2011, 03:12 AM
Or, ammo companies could just download all those rounds to 50% of the current velocity and they'd have the perfect defense load. Is that what you meant?
Why would that make any sense?

MikeNice
June 15, 2011, 05:18 AM
But, I don't care what bullets work through car windshields.

So, are you saying, some how a bullet that can shed nearly half of it's KE through a windshield, still expand to .53+", and still penetrate more than 8" will suddenly preform worse when only hitting fabric and flesh?

If the round performs that well after losing half of it's energy why would it be any less lethal than 124gr? Really think this out.

A smaller faster bullet has less cross sectional density. So, that extra speed is only offering a minimal advantage in flesh at best. A 147gr bullet will do the job just as well as a 124gr+P or 115gr+p+ with much less wear on the gun and the shooter. Plus, it offers the advantage of better barrier penetration.

With modern technology hollow points open at a much lower velocity. Now if you are using an XTP bullet, or a "Silver Tip", I would stay away from 147gr. With modern designs such as the HST, Winchester T, and Gold Dot a 147gr round should achieve sufficient velocity for proper expansion and penetration.

MikeNice
June 15, 2011, 05:20 AM
Why would that make any sense?

He is trying to say that 147gr loads are half the speed of the 115gr+p+. So, we must think downloading the speed of a bullet makes it better.

THplanes
June 15, 2011, 05:31 AM
He is trying to say that 147gr loads are half the speed of the 115gr+p+. So, we must think downloading the speed of a bullet makes it better.

No he's not. He's making fun of this statement from AZ Hawkeye:

Velocity doesn't mean jack

An obvious overstatement or we would be just as well off with a .380 loaded with 147 gr bullets.

AZ Hawkeye
June 15, 2011, 05:39 AM
He is trying to say that 147gr loads are half the speed of the 115gr+p+. So, we must think downloading the speed of a bullet makes it better.
That was my belief as well, however, the way he said it made me feel he believes that I want ALL bullets to be downgraded by 50% max velocity.

It stems from a misunderstanding of what sectional density actually is, and the belief that hydrostatic shock is possible, when it's plainly just a phenomenon. (There is a reason it is only a theory, and it will always be just a theory due to the inability to replicate the "effects" in any capacity. We call that "anecdotal" evidence because it does not stand up to scrutiny from actual scientists).

From http://www.scopedin.com/articles/editorials/the-fascinating-topic-of-hydrostatic-shock/:

It must also be noted that many arguments in favor of hydrostatic shock (or against the arguments of its detractors) are simply intellectually dishonest. Dr. Martin Fackler, a Vietnam-era trauma surgeon and wound ballistics researcher, once observed that a lithotripter (a medical device used to crush kidney stones with sonic pressure waves) produces no damage to soft tissues, despite the fact that a lithotripter produces far more energy than a typical handgun bullet.4 In an attempt to discredit Dr. Fackler’s argument, one writer cited three studies that demonstrated tissue damage resulting from lithotripter usage.5 What he didn’t say was that such damage was far from immediate, and completely irrelevant to any discussion of terminal ballistics.

I'm trying to find an article which claims the Sacramento Police Department has a 99% stoppage rating using Federal HST in 147gr. If someone can direct me to it, I'd be greatly obliged. (If you are unfamiliar with the 147gr HST, it travels at a whopping 1004 fps with 329 ft-lbs KE).

AZ Hawkeye
June 15, 2011, 05:43 AM
No he's not. He's making fun of this statement from AZ Hawkeye:



An obvious overstatement or we would be just as well off with a .380 loaded with 147 gr bullets.
Sorry, I'll be perfectly scientific from now on...

What I mean is this... There is no measurable difference in terms of the wound cavity between a 9mm bullet fired at 1200 fps, and a 9mm bullet fired at 1000 fps, with one exception: the temporary cavity will be microscopically larger.

The bullet with greater sectional density will always, always, always have greater potential for expansion and penetration, no matter the speed. <--- This is what I'm getting across.

918v
June 15, 2011, 11:42 AM
Here is an actual scientific study conducted at the same time as KodiakBeer's offering. It only talks about one bullet: the ancient Winchester 147gr JHP which is currently offered in the WWB line. Please note the ancient 147gr JHP performs pretty well, expanding to .6" and penetrating 13 inches on average.

That's we have to take "studies" with a grain of salt. Many people conducting these studies have a vested interest in something related to money. Government contracts are lucrative.

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler_Articles/winchester_9mm.pdf

918v
June 15, 2011, 12:02 PM
What I mean is this... There is no measurable difference in terms of the wound cavity between a 9mm bullet fired at 1200 fps, and a 9mm bullet fired at 1000 fps

What I would like to see is a study conducted on gellatin blocks placed in an apparatus consisting of an indicator that measures the expansion of the block as the bullet passes through it. I'd bet there is a measurable difference in the temporary stretch which does produce additional trauma. Whether this additional trauma is significant is a topic for yet another study, though.

KodiakBeer
June 15, 2011, 03:32 PM
All police shootings are documented. Various entities have looked at that real world data using different criteria, ie; "stopping" power, lethality, etc, and came to very similar conclusions. One can nit-pick the individual studies, but taken as a whole one thing is clear - gelatin doesn't mimic human flesh very well because none of the "winners" in the gelatin tests show up at the top of the real world data.

MikeNice
June 15, 2011, 04:13 PM
Kodiak, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department used 147gr Ranger SXT rounds and then went to the 147gr Ranger-T round.

A small quote from Shawn Dodson's website,

"Sir, the information provided by Mr. xxxxx regarding poor performance of the 147gr 9mm is incorrect. This Department uses the Winchester [147gr] SXT and the performance of this bullet is outstanding."

-Bruce Harris, Training Bureau, Weapons Training, Biscailuz Center Range, Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (e-mail to Shawn Dodson, January 2001)
(I removed the name above to remove distraction from the topic.)

Obviously the 147gr 9mm has been serving police well since at least the last generation of hollow point design. Do you think that the LA Sheriff's Department would trust a round that didn't work. That is one of the most violent places in America. Cops were getting shot at and returning fire every week in the late 1990's. They would be in a position to tell us who the real world "winners" are.

Any of the three major weights will do fine in flesh when loaded appropriately. However, if you want that extra peace of mind 147gr is the way to go. I want to know that if a perp hides behind my couch I can get him. I want to know that if he is trying to force his way through my bedroom door, I can get him. If the bad guy tries using an open car door for concealment I want to know, I can get him.

Lighter weight bullets will deform, deflect, and lose too much kenetic energy in those scenarios. All of the above are real world scenarios that I have seen the paper work on. I know they occured and I know the defensive shooters were never tried in court. So for real world comfort 147gr is the way to go in my opinion. If you can find it, 147gr+p Federal HST would be even better.

KodiakBeer
June 15, 2011, 04:34 PM
Well, if a perp is in my home he'll be facing something much more lethal than a 9mm.

Most of us aren't cops. What a cop needs for a tactical tool doesn't necessarily equate to what a citizen needs. The 147 grain 9mm is and always has been a compromise for police. Most agencies have dropped it entirely, but those still using it are doing so because so many police shootings involve a vehicle stop. That's a cop thing, not a citizen thing.

If you shoot somebody hiding behind a barrier you are very likely going to be charged. If they hide, it's your opportunity to leave.

A perp not hiding behind a barrier - somebody advancing on you with a weapon - needs the most lethal round you can carry. The most lethal handgun rounds are the 125 grain .357 HP's, and the 230 grain .45acp HP's. When you step down to 9mm, the hotter 115 grainers are at the top of the heap.

I just think you're planning for the 1% scenario (an assailant advances on you holding up a car door for cover...?). The 99% scenario is that the assailant isn't behind cover. And in that case, the faster rounds have a significantly better track record.

481
June 15, 2011, 04:50 PM
Here is an actual scientific study conducted at the same time as KodiakBeer's offering. It only talks about one bullet: the ancient Winchester 147gr JHP which is currently offered in the WWB line. Please note the ancient 147gr JHP performs pretty well, expanding to .6" and penetrating 13 inches on average.

That's we have to take "studies" with a grain of salt. Many people conducting these studies have a vested interest in something related to money. Government contracts are lucrative.

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler_Articles/winchester_9mm.pdf
The sole purpose of E. Wolberg's study (referenced above) was meant to establish a correlation between the terminal expansion of bullets recovered from the human anatomy and those recovered from calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin in order to validate the use of the latter as an appropriate test analog.

Any other conclusions as to this particular round's (the Winchester 147 gr. JHP) terminal performance is going to be suspect simply because the study above was not designed or conducted to measure that specific parameter.

481
June 15, 2011, 05:07 PM
Kodiak, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department used 147gr Ranger SXT rounds and then went to the 147gr Ranger-T round.

A small quote from Shawn Dodson's website,


(I removed the name above to remove distraction from the topic.)

Obviously the 147gr 9mm has been serving police well since at least the last generation of hollow point design. Do you think that the LA Sheriff's Department would trust a round that didn't work. That is one of the most violent places in America. Cops were getting shot at and returning fire every week in the late 1990's. They would be in a position to tell us who the real world "winners" are.

Any of the three major weights will do fine in flesh when loaded appropriately. However, if you want that extra peace of mind 147gr is the way to go. I want to know that if a perp hides behind my couch I can get him. I want to know that if he is trying to force his way through my bedroom door, I can get him. If the bad guy tries using an open car door for concealment I want to know, I can get him.

Lighter weight bullets will deform, deflect, and lose too much kenetic energy in those scenarios. All of the above are real world scenarios that I have seen the paper work on. I know they occured and I know the defensive shooters were never tried in court. So for real world comfort 147gr is the way to go in my opinion. If you can find it, 147gr+p Federal HST would be even better.

Good post.

The Department from which I retired issued the Federal 9mm 147 gr. HydraShok JHP (P9HS2G) until shortly before I retired. We used that load for almost 13 years, never had a problem with its performance. (including our SWAT team entries)

As our service sidearms began to wear we were forced to replace them and only went to another caliber and cartridge arrangement simply because we were offered a deal that we just couldn't pass up on the same platform (SIG P226) in .40S&W and (tons of) ammo (RA40T) at an equally attractive price.

This also permitted us to not have to issue new leather gear and conduct the transitional training that would accompany it.

Sadly, economics drives such decisions more than anything else especially these days with diminished tax revenues being what they are.

AZ Hawkeye
June 15, 2011, 06:00 PM
Well, if a perp is in my home he'll be facing something much more lethal than a 9mm.

Most of us aren't cops. What a cop needs for a tactical tool doesn't necessarily equate to what a citizen needs. The 147 grain 9mm is and always has been a compromise for police. Most agencies have dropped it entirely, but those still using it are doing so because so many police shootings involve a vehicle stop. That's a cop thing, not a citizen thing.

If you shoot somebody hiding behind a barrier you are very likely going to be charged. If they hide, it's your opportunity to leave.

A perp not hiding behind a barrier - somebody advancing on you with a weapon - needs the most lethal round you can carry. The most lethal handgun rounds are the 125 grain .357 HP's, and the 230 grain .45acp HP's. When you step down to 9mm, the hotter 115 grainers are at the top of the heap.

I just think you're planning for the 1% scenario (an assailant advances on you holding up a car door for cover...?). The 99% scenario is that the assailant isn't behind cover. And in that case, the faster rounds have a significantly better track record.
When you said "much more lethal," I expected you to say you have an AR, AK or shotgun, not another crappy handgun caliber. Hell, you can't even expect to stop a person with one shot with a .44 Magnum, let alone the far inferior .357 Magnum and .45 ACP.

The most lethal handgun rounds are the 125 grain .357 HP's, and the 230 grain .45acp HP's. When you step down to 9mm, the hotter 115 grainers are at the top of the heap.

False. False. And false.

The most lethal handgun calibers are .454 Casull and .500 S&W; both of these rounds are able to drop a bear with one well placed shot.

I'm still waiting for proof.

KodiakBeer
June 15, 2011, 06:11 PM
When you said "much more lethal," I expected you to say you have an AR, AK or shotgun, not another crappy handgun caliber.

I do. I would never consider a handgun as a primary defense weapon in the home.

The most lethal handgun calibers are .454 Casull and .500 S&W; both of these rounds are able to drop a bear with one well placed shot.

I'm still waiting for proof.

I've provided the studies. You choose to ignore them. If you want to carry a .500 as a concealment weapon, be my guest. If you want to carry a handgun as a bear defense weapon, also be my guest.

AZ Hawkeye
June 15, 2011, 06:28 PM
You've provided a single twenty year old "study" which has been proven academically dishonest. :scrutiny:

KodiakBeer
June 15, 2011, 06:30 PM
You've provided a single twenty year old "study" which has been proven academically dishonest.

I've provided two studies. One by Marshal/Sanow and one by the US Department of Justice. You have provided ZERO proof that either study is "dishonest".

Apocalypse-Now
June 15, 2011, 06:41 PM
kodiak,


you still haven't googled dr. fackler or dr. roberts, have you? lol


the reason i ask, is that they prove all the info you're referencing to be faulty.

BullfrogKen
June 15, 2011, 07:18 PM
The Marshal/Sanow doesn't stand up under ANY academic rigor.


It's about as scientific as an article from Guns and Ammo.


Shall I go into all the ways? Or are we about done that book?

george d dennis
June 15, 2011, 07:35 PM
all this about ammo. most of us are not going to shoot through car doors
or windshields in are life time. it seems its always a argument about what
caliber is best or ammo is best. and the arguments will keep going on and on.
whatever my firearms shoot best with, thats the ammo i want. i myself wouldnt
even want to be shot with a bb gun. where up to page five already.

918v
June 15, 2011, 08:22 PM
481,

Wolberg studied 27 cadavers. In those cadavers, the Winchester 147 JHP penetrated 13" on average and expanded to .6" Please don't imply that one cannot conclude the Win 147 JHP is a reliable round just because the purpose of the study was not to test for reliability. That is just ridiculous.

KodiakBeer
June 15, 2011, 08:37 PM
The Marshal/Sanow doesn't stand up under ANY academic rigor.


Because Fackler says so? Oddly, when the DoJ conducted their own study with similar data (ACTUAL shootings) they got the same results as Marshal. It seems like all of Fackler's conclusions fall apart when the targets are no longer Jello because when real people get shot they don't react like Jello.

When you go to a 147 grain bullet, you are adding a little over half the weight of a .22 slug to the standard 124 grain 9mm (23 grains). Or, 32 grains to a 115 grain slug - still less than the weight of a .22. Not much...
Yet, to do that you are reducing the velocity by 250 to 350 feet per second. You are reducing the velocity by about 25% to 35% to gain a weight advantage of 32 grains (at most).

In the real world, this trade-off doesn't work. It may look great in Gelatin, but in the real world lighter slugs give all the penetration required and are far more effective. There are 30 years of ACTUAL shootings of ACTUAL people by police agencies to validate that.

918v
June 15, 2011, 09:05 PM
I've provided two studies. One by Marshal/Sanow and one by the US Department of Justice. You have provided ZERO proof that either study is "dishonest".


It does not matter whether either or both studies are dishonest. They are outdated. Today's ammo is night and day better that 1991 vintage stuff.

918v
June 15, 2011, 09:10 PM
Yet, to do that you are reducing the velocity by 250 to 350 feet per second. You are reducing the velocity by about 25% to 35% to gain a weight advantage of 32 grains (at most).

So what? Why is velocity so important to you?

BullfrogKen
June 15, 2011, 09:13 PM
The Marshal/Sanow doesn't stand up under ANY academic rigor.

Because Fackler says so?


No . . .


Because ANY student that passed a statistics 101 class would say so. They would point out the error right away. Probably at the end of their mid-term exam.


The biggest, but not their only, error in their study is correlation does not equal causation.


Their book begins, and ends, with the premise that is does. It rests on it.




I would think that someone who quotes Ayn Rand in his sig line would know better about forming a logical argument upon a correlation = causation premise.

918v
June 15, 2011, 09:19 PM
In the real world, this trade-off doesn't work. It may look great in Gelatin, but in the real world lighter slugs give all the penetration required and are far more effective. There are 30 years of ACTUAL shootings of ACTUAL people by police agencies to validate that.

Except Wolberg's study invalidates your argument.

Apocalypse-Now
June 15, 2011, 09:20 PM
Because Fackler says so? Oddly, when the DoJ conducted their own study with similar data (ACTUAL shootings) they got the same results as Marshal. It seems like all of Fackler's conclusions fall apart when the targets are no longer Jello because when real people get shot they don't react like Jello.

you didn't read any of fackler's or robert's autopsy reports, did you LOL. both dr. roberts and dr. fackler have written reports (many years ago) to the DOJ explaining their flawed statical theories concerning "one shot stop percentages". As a result, the DOJ (as well as most other LE depts), no longer use flawed data like this when determining duty loads.

keep googling :)

481
June 15, 2011, 09:27 PM
481,

Wolberg studied 27 cadavers. In those cadavers, the Winchester 147 JHP penetrated 13" on average and expanded to .6" Please don't imply that one cannot conclude the Win 147 JHP is a reliable round just because the purpose of the study was not to test for reliability. That is just ridiculous.
No, it is not ridiculous.

Wolberg's study was not designed to conclude anything about the efficacy of the Winchester 147 gr. JHP; it was designed to correlate the terminal performance of a specific round between a specific test media and human flesh and nothing more.

While I agree that the round in question can be an effective performer for a design of its age and technical rearage, it is intellectually dishonest to claim that the study proves some sort of reliability when in fact it never approaches even the remotest analysis of any aspect of the round's capablities. Hell, I like "heavy-for-caliber" rounds and even the Winchester 147 gr. JHP has a place in my ammo inventory, but any claim to its "reliability" (?????) is simply not supported by Wolberg's study.


Further, statistical analysis of the 28 shootings (not 27 as you claim) examined by Wolberg, reveals that the average of the recovered diameters of the rounds was 0.541" with an average penetration depth of 13.18 inches and an average retained weight of 139.1 grains.

Please don't spread falsehoods.

481
June 15, 2011, 09:48 PM
No . . .


Because ANY student that passed a statistics 101 class would say so. They would point out the error right away. Probably at the end of their mid-term exam.


The biggest, but not their only, error in their study is correlation does not equal causation.


Their book begins, and ends, with the premise that is does. It rests on it.




I would think that someone who quotes Ayn Rand in his sig line would know better about forming a logical argument upon a correlation = causation premise.
Well said.

Duncan MacPherson addresses (pages 18-22) in his book, "Bullet Penetration", the high improbability (about one in one trillion) of M&S's results coming out as they did (regardless of caliber, the lightest, fastest bullets always ended up at the top of the ranking and many times in the same order) in a manner understandable by even the most "lay" reader.

In the end, it is clear that M&S tampered with their data especially given the obvious permutative rigidity across the categorical rankings.

M&S are frauds.

918v
June 15, 2011, 09:55 PM
No, it is not ridiculous.

Yes it is.

Show me one study with more shootings involving a single projectile such as this.

918v
June 15, 2011, 09:58 PM
Please don't spread falsehoods.

Stop exaggerating.

481
June 15, 2011, 10:07 PM
Yes it is.

Show me one study with more shootings involving a single projectile such as this.
Showing you another study that uses more of a single type of ammunition to correlate terminal performance in human tissue and calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin would only demonstrate that someone used more of a single type of ammunition to correlate terminal performance in human tissue and calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin.


It would demonstrate nothing of its "reliability" (a term that you introduced in post 116 and have yet to define) whatever that might be.

Your analogy is flawed.

918v
June 15, 2011, 10:10 PM
Your standard is unrealistic.

481
June 15, 2011, 10:11 PM
Stop exaggerating.
Start basing your conclusions upon applicable material.

481
June 15, 2011, 10:13 PM
Your standard is unrealistic.
No, my standard is statistically and scientifically based.

Throw it out and all that you have left is baseless conjecture and supposition.

918v
June 15, 2011, 10:20 PM
I am basing my conclusion on applicable material. You are the only one saying it is inapplicable. By your standard, if Wolberg analyzed one billion shootings and the slug performed similarly to the 28 mentioned above, it would not show the round is reliable just because of the different PURPOSE.

I am free to infer. You do not have a better source of data. That's the bottom line.

481
June 15, 2011, 10:47 PM
I am basing my conclusion on applicable material. You are the only one saying it is inapplicable. By your standard, if Wolberg analyzed one billion shootings and the slug performed similarly to the 28 mentioned above, it would not show the round is reliable just because of the different PURPOSE.

I am free to infer. You do not have a better source of data. That's the bottom line.
Incorrect.

The scientific model and the discipline of statistics says that Wolberg's study is inapplicable to demonstrating the round's "reliability" (you still have yet to define that terminology introduced by you in post 116 by the way) whatever that may be.

Until you can provide a definition of "reliability" as used by you in post 116, your argument of "applicability" is a meaningless one.

What do you mean by reliability?

Does it have units of measure? (%, watts, degrees Kelvin, Farads, calories, kilograms?)

What aspect of ballistic behavior does it measure or express?

Until you define the type of data being applied, no one can provide you with another study that addresses whatever it is that you are claiming.

THplanes
June 15, 2011, 10:48 PM
918v and 481

You two really need to define reliable in this context. You're cross talking over each other because you have a different definition of what reliable means in this context.

481
June 15, 2011, 10:53 PM
918v and 481

You two really need to define reliable in this context. You're cross talking over each other because you have a different definition of what reliable means in this context.
TH-

Since I did not introduce the term "reliability" into the discussion (see 918v's post #116), it would be hard for me to say just what it means, since I'd have to guess what 918v was/is thinking. I've have requested a definition of that term from him.

Clairvoyance, I am fresh outta.

THplanes
June 15, 2011, 10:58 PM
Well said.

Duncan MacPherson addresses (pages 18-22) in his book, "Bullet Penetration", the high improbability (about one in one trillion) of M&S's results coming out as they did (regardless of caliber, the lightest, fastest bullets always ended up at the top of the ranking and many times in the same order) in a manner understandable by even the most "lay" reader.

In the end, it is clear that M&S tampered with their data especially given the obvious permutative rigidity across the categorical rankings.

M&S are frauds.

Didn't their first book rate the 230+p hydra-shok and the 165 golden saber round top their respective calibers.

MikeNice
June 15, 2011, 11:10 PM
If you shoot somebody hiding behind a barrier you are very likely going to be charged. If they hide, it's your opportunity to leave.


In my state I have no duty to retreat in my home. I use a handgun in my home because it is something my wife can pick up and use when I'm not there.

I have shown multiple times that there are cases I have first hand knowledge off where barriers were a concern. Working with a police department I have learned of several others. A barrier does not equal a charge in all cases.

481
June 15, 2011, 11:15 PM
Didn't their first book rate the 230+p hydra-shok and the 165 golden saber round top their respective calibers.

TH-

It might have.

I haven't seen fit to spend my money on any of the M&S books. The data is widely available for free on the 'net and from what I remember of it (haven't looked at it in a very long time), MacPherson's (and everyone else's) analyses appear to be correct from a cursory examination of the data.

I can say that I have the neither the time nor the desire to replicate their (those debunking the M&S books) efforts and am willing to accept the conclusions of those learned men (Roberts, Fackler, MacPherson et. al.) who've taken the time to statistically evaluate the material.

If you've the time, background and desire to pursue it, I'd love to see the results of such an effort even if they contradict the efforts of the other reseachers.

Looking forward to it.

918v
June 15, 2011, 11:56 PM
What aspect of ballistic behavior does it measure or express?



It shows that Win 147gr JHP tends to

1. expand to more than .5" in live humans
2. penetrate an average of 13" in live humans

and therefore is reliable in terms of doing what it was designed to do, i.e. expand more than a FMJ, penetrate less than a FMJ, but penetrate deep enough to reach vital organs from any angle.

I cited it to contadict KodiakBeer's allegations that 147's are no good because they fail to expand and overpenetrate people in actual shootings per his sources.

AZ Hawkeye
June 16, 2011, 12:13 AM
It shows that Win 147gr JHP tends to

1. expand to more than .5" in live humans
2. penetrate an average of 13" in live humans

and therefore is reliable in terms of doing what it was designed to do, i.e. expand more than a FMJ, penetrate less than a FMJ, but penetrate deep enough to reach vital organs from any angle.

I cited it to contadict KodiakBeer's allegations that 147's are no good because they fail to expand and overpenetrate people in actual shootings per his sources.
Considering the age of the study and the use of dated bullet technology, I'd consider the results posted above surprising, in that they show a perfectly reliable bullet.

Is 13" of penetration and expansion above 0.5" not to be considered reliable, especially when repeated 27 times with similar results?

Apocalypse-Now
June 16, 2011, 12:14 AM
i'm running out of popcorn on this one :eek:

KodiakBeer
June 16, 2011, 12:23 AM
It does not matter whether either or both studies are dishonest. They are outdated. Today's ammo is night and day better that 1991 vintage stuff.

Yes, both the 115 grain and the 147 grain. So, did you have a point to make?

I cited it to contadict KodiakBeer's allegations that 147's are no good because they fail to expand and overpenetrate people in actual shootings per his sources.

I made no such allegation, so I'd appreciate it you'd stop making up statements. I care very little how much any standard caliber handgun round penetrates. They all penetrate enough.

What's important is what happens when live humans get shot. The only source for such data is police shootings and every study using that data has reached similar conclusions. I'm going to go with the real world data rather than the theoretical data based on shooting of jello molds.

918v
June 16, 2011, 12:40 AM
From your post #81:

It was not an "article", it was a US Department of Justice study based on 5 years of 9mm 147 grain police shootings. The 147 grain loads were found to be poor stoppers that over-penetrated in flesh and under-penetrated in bone and vehicles.

Given a choice between studies based on gelatin vs studies based on real-world data, I'm going with the real world. I don't think the 147 grainers are poor choices, it's just that in the real world the hot 115 grain hollow points have a much better track record. I want any edge I can get.

918v
June 16, 2011, 12:42 AM
Is 13" of penetration and expansion above 0.5" not to be considered reliable, especially when repeated 27 times with similar results?


Not according to the statisticians. Boy I'm glad they were muzzled when we were developing the atomic bomb.

918v
June 16, 2011, 12:51 AM
What's important is what happens when live humans get shot. The only source for such data is police shootings and every study using that data has reached similar conclusions. I'm going to go with the real world data rather than the theoretical data based on shooting of jello molds.


You are not going with "data", but some person's interpretation of that data. I am showing you real results from real people who were shot with real guns and real bullets. They did not overpenetrate or underpenetrate. On the contrary, they behaved just like we wanted them to.

481
June 16, 2011, 12:53 AM
It shows that Win 147gr JHP tends to

1. expand to more than .5" in live humans
2. penetrate an average of 13" in live humans

and therefore is reliable in terms of doing what it was designed to do, i.e. expand more than a FMJ, penetrate less than a FMJ, but penetrate deep enough to reach vital organs from any angle.

I cited it to contadict KodiakBeer's allegations that 147's are no good because they fail to expand and overpenetrate people in actual shootings per his sources.
Your assertion (quoted above) assumes that the available population from which the sample population (n) was drawn consisted only of bullets that expanded and were recovered and is therefore flawed in that you have no way of proving what percentage of the test rounds actually expanded.

If the entire available population was only 28 shootings in which only one bullet was fired and rendered recoverable, then your assertion that all Winchester 147 gr. JHPs expanded to more than 0.50" and penetrated to a depth of 13 inches in humans is a valid claim.

On the other hand, if there were more bullets than the 28 that you would have to assume were the total available population in order to support your claim, then your claim fails to be a valid one since you are saying that all (that's 100% of the Winchester 147 gr JHPs) behave the way you say they do.

For example, if there was an actual rate of 1.5 bullets fired per encounter ( a conservative estimate to be sure) and there were 6 additional shootings that were not used since they didn't result in recoverable rounds (failures to expand that resulted in bullets exiting the target), then you end up with a total population of n=51 rounds (of which only 28 were used) resulting in the fact that only 55% of the bullets behaved in the way that you say they did and should.

Since Wolberg provides no information detailing the total available population that the sample population of n=28 was drawn from, there is no way to know that the sample population was the total available population of rounds fired and therefore your assertion (above) remains flawed.

Do you know the size of the total available population from which Wolberg drew his study's sample population?

AZ Hawkeye
June 16, 2011, 12:57 AM
Yes, both the 115 grain and the 147 grain. So, did you have a point to make?



I made no such allegation, so I'd appreciate it you'd stop making up statements. I care very little how much any standard caliber handgun round penetrates. They all penetrate enough.

What's important is what happens when live humans get shot. The only source for such data is police shootings and every study using that data has reached similar conclusions. I'm going to go with the real world data rather than the theoretical data based on shooting of jello molds.
Actually, there are no modern 115gr hollow points with the exception being the Barnes TAC-XP all copper bullet.

Winchester, Federal nor Speer has updated a 115gr design since the early to mid 90s.

481
June 16, 2011, 01:23 AM
Not according to the statisticians. Boy I'm glad they were muzzled when we were developing the atomic bomb.

Without the understanding made possible by the discipline of statistics and probability, nuclear weapons would've never been possible.

Statistics and probablity is one of the most important underlying foundations of the field of nuclear physics which is the field that gave those very weapons.

AZ Hawkeye
June 16, 2011, 01:44 AM
Without the understanding made possible by the discipline of statistics and probability, nuclear weapons would've never been possible.

Statistics and probablity is one of the most important underlying foundations of the field of nuclear physics which is the field that gave those very weapons.
I think Einstein would disagree with you. He never was much of a fan of numbers, preferring imagination to knowledge every step of the way.

481
June 16, 2011, 01:50 AM
I think Einstein would disagree with you. He never was much of a fan of numbers, preferring imagination to knowledge every step of the way.
So, do you "channel" Einstein regularly or did you know him personally?

He might've preferred imagination, but he was constrained to using numbers because that is what comprises the field.

KingMedicine
June 16, 2011, 01:56 AM
Its a number battle!

AZ Hawkeye
June 16, 2011, 03:19 AM
So, do you "channel" Einstein regularly or did you know him personally?

He might've preferred imagination, but he was constrained to using numbers because that is what comprises the field.
Lol, no.

You're putting too much stock into numbers. There are far too many variables, and they can't be predicted ahead of time.

However, when I see a the results from the testing of 9mm hollow point bullet developed by Winchester in the 80's/90's, and I know what the "goals" of said bullet were/are, (namely 12"-18" penetration and consistent expansion) I can make a reasonable inference as to whether or not that bullet was reliable or not.

The bullet performed as advertised in the 27 cases presented to us; therefore, I can infer that it will perform reliably more often than not.

THplanes
June 16, 2011, 04:21 AM
TH-

It might have.

I haven't seen fit to spend my money on any of the M&S books. The data is widely available for free on the 'net and from what I remember of it (haven't looked at it in a very long time), MacPherson's (and everyone else's) analyses appear to be correct from a cursory examination of the data.

If you've the time, background and desire to pursue it, I'd love to see the results of such an effort even if they contradict the efforts of the other reseachers.

Looking forward to it.

I'm simply pointing out that the claim that light and fast always comes out on top in M&S is a straw man argument. I have not read their later works so I don't know what their later results were. I have MacPherson's book on order. I think I'll read it before I attempt to criticize it.

481
June 16, 2011, 10:12 AM
Lol, no.

You're putting too much stock into numbers. There are far too many variables, and they can't be predicted ahead of time.

However, when I see a the results from the testing of 9mm hollow point bullet developed by Winchester in the 80's/90's, and I know what the "goals" of said bullet were/are, (namely 12"-18" penetration and consistent expansion) I can make a reasonable inference as to whether or not that bullet was reliable or not.

The bullet performed as advertised in the 27 cases presented to us; therefore, I can infer that it will perform reliably more often than not.

I am not sure I see the point that you are trying to make.

In your first sentence you claim that numbers are unimportant and then you cite numbers (a statistical study based upon numerical data) as the basis for your inference.

Which is it? Are numbers important or are they not?

481
June 16, 2011, 10:29 AM
I'm simply pointing out that the claim that light and fast always comes out on top in M&S is a straw man argument.

Well, it is not quite that simple. One example proves nothing either way in such a large data set especially when considering trends. There is no such thing as perfect agreement in statistical studies.

I have not read their later works so I don't know what their later results were. I have MacPherson's book on order. I think I'll read it before I attempt to criticize it.

That would be a very wise course of action. :D

918v
June 16, 2011, 11:36 AM
On the other hand, if there were more bullets than the 28 that you would have to assume were the total available population in order to support your claim

I agree, but consider Wolberg only had two years worth of shootings to work with and San Diego PD averages 15 shootings a year. How large do you think the total population was? I dunno, but it wasn't 50.

Fastcast
June 16, 2011, 12:41 PM
What a bunch of drama....Do you gentlemen sleep at night? ;)

Try the KISS (keep it simple stupid) concept, if you're really that concerned about enough penetration through barriers and fatties.

FMJ.....designed for barriers and fatties. :what:

rich642z
June 16, 2011, 03:40 PM
All this hype and bull on a 9mm bullet is not how but,placement and before that,Practice on where incase you have to use your ccw weapon for sd. I carry a LC9 and I trust it just like my .357 mag revolvers. I would have used a .357 to defend against that attacker or one time shot from my .500 Smith 2 inch Emergency bear gun. Yes it would have splattered the attacker and may have gone father so,take to mind what caliber is the best to use. but,a .357 one or 2 shots placed right would have done sufficent.

ohwell
June 16, 2011, 05:39 PM
I believe the one stop shot winners come from light and fast, The slow and heavy stuff is for extended gun battles shooting thru Al Capones or some gangsters windshield or doors in extended gun battles.

HK Jake
June 16, 2011, 05:44 PM
I believe the one stop shot winners come from light and fast, The slow and heavy stuff is for extended gun battles shooting thru Al Capones or some gangsters windshield or doors in extended gun battles.
Why?

Apocalypse-Now
June 16, 2011, 07:04 PM
^^because he's another marshal&sanow believer LMAO

mshootnit
June 16, 2011, 07:21 PM
shot my dads 92 fs with cheap a@@ ball ammo at a telephone can and it wouldn't go through at all just dented it. I could do as much damage with a dull punch and 2lb hammer.
Must be some good ammo out there I havent tried.

ohwell
June 16, 2011, 07:57 PM
^^because he's another marshal&sanow believer LMAO
Not Really but if there is any truth to the 125 grain 357 being the number one manstopper I would say it might follow suite in other calibers as well. As a rule the medium to light for caliber bullets have more energy than the heavies. In all reality you can argue all you want about bullet weight but the true deciding factor is how well the bullet itself is designed. Does it expand consistently as advertised, does it produce a good stretch cavity? Weight is secondary to a well designed bullet.

481
June 16, 2011, 08:20 PM
I agree,....

Well, frickin' finally...I wish that I didn't have to go through all that just to agree to this point, since we actually agree on virtually everything else.

With an average of 14 shootings per year, the fluctuations possible in that number alone (especially if they were "high" years) as well as the probable likelihood that most of the shootings involved more than one round being fired, the sample population could have very easily been well over 50 (rounds) for such a period. (two years)

Dang, I've conducted felony interrogations that ran with greater ease than what I've had to go through here with you. :D

THplanes
June 16, 2011, 10:05 PM
Well, it is not quite that simple. One example proves nothing either way in such a large data set especially when considering trends. There is no such thing as perfect agreement in statistical studies.


It's 2 examples and it does prove something. When someone makes a claim that something is true without exception, showing there are exceptions falsifies the claim. You are correct in that is does not address trends.

Another common claim is that M&S simply made up data to support a preconceived idea that light and fast is always better. If that's the case why did they include data that showed exactly the opposite.

481
June 16, 2011, 10:52 PM
It's 2 examples and it does prove something. When someone makes a claim that something is true without exception, showing there are exceptions falsifies the claim. You are correct in that is does not address trends.

OK, two examples and it is not my claim. It is the claim (the categorical trend mentioned above) of those who've debunked M&S.

I never used the words "true without exception" and was speaking to the categorical trends represented in M&S's claims. Your attribution to me of language that I didn't employ is an inaccurate portrayal of what I said and I'd really appreciate it if you could find it in yourself to refrain from putting words in my mouth. Not harshing you here, just asking for a little consideration before you assign to me words that I never used.

Another common claim is that M&S simply made up data to support a preconceived idea that light and fast is always better. If that's the case why did they include data that showed exactly the opposite.

Given the unsophisticated analytical methodology employed by M&S, I am not surprised by something like that.

Sanow was caught in such (mis)conduct a number of times when departmental personnel (from various departments) whom he claimed he had contacted and obtained "data" from had no idea who the guy was when contacted by those investigating the source and validity of the M&S offerings.

The claims of data and statistical tampering are clearly supported by those who've debunked the statistical work put forth by M&S that supports the trend (light & fast is the "best") claimed. I remain inclined to accept them (the various highly educated folks who've done the analyses) at their respective word and see little to be gained from repeating their efforts.

If you believe otherwise, I would be happy to see the results of your analytical audit refuting the findings of those who've already examined the offerings of M&S and found them to be spurious.

From your statements above, you appear to hold the opinion that those who've debunked M&S, and those who accept those findings, are in error. Have you done anything in the way of a procedural analysis/audit that can substantiate that position?

918v
June 16, 2011, 11:57 PM
With an average of 14 shootings per year, the fluctuations possible in that number alone (especially if they were "high" years) as well as the probable likelihood that most of the shootings involved more than one round being fired, the sample population could have very easily been well over 50 (rounds) for such a period.

But it's not the total number of rounds fired that is important, but the number of rounds that struck the torso. San Diego PD shot 150 perps in the following 11 years, killed 81. The total number of rounds fired in the preceeding two years that struck the torso and killed the perp cannot be even close to 50, even with the possible fluctuations.

ETA,

You are assuming cops shoot like Brian Enos. They don't.

481
June 17, 2011, 12:22 AM
But it's not the total number of rounds fired that is important, but the number of rounds that struck the torso. San Diego PD shot 150 perps in the following 11 years, killed 81. The total number of rounds fired in the preceeding two years that struck the torso and killed the perp cannot be even close to 50, even with the possible fluctuations.

Without knowing the number of rounds that actually hit the torso and failed to meet the criteria that is still quite a stretch.


ETA,

You are assuming cops shoot like Brian Enos. They don't.

Retired from that very profession myself, I know better than that and never made such an assumption.

Apocalypse-Now
June 17, 2011, 12:25 AM
you guys are going to take up all thehighroads' allowable memory space LOL :)

AZ Hawkeye
June 17, 2011, 01:06 AM
you guys are going to take up all thehighroads' allowable memory space LOL :)
I'm really glad I stepped away from this one, haha!

THplanes
June 17, 2011, 04:57 AM
It is fun watching you crawfish out things you have said.

OK, two examples and it is not my claim. It is the claim (the categorical trend mentioned above) of those who've debunked M&S.

I never used the words "true without exception" and was speaking to the categorical trends represented in M&S's claims. Your attribution to me of language that I didn't employ is an inaccurate portrayal of what I said and I'd really appreciate it if you could find it in yourself to refrain from putting words in my mouth. Not harshing you here, just asking for a little consideration before you assign to me words that I never used.

Duncan MacPherson addresses (pages 18-22) in his book, "Bullet Penetration", the high improbability (about one in one trillion) of M&S's results coming out as they did (regardless of caliber, the lightest, fastest bullets always ended up at the top of the ranking

MacPherson makes a claim in the bold section above. It is the equivalent of true without exception. You cited it so it's reasonable to believe you support it. Further more, you don't bring in the claim that it's about a trend until I show that the categorical claim is wrong.

Sanow was caught in such (mis)conduct a number of times when departmental personnel (from various departments) whom he claimed he had contacted and obtained "data" from had no idea who the guy was when contacted by those investigating the source and validity of the M&S offerings.

Yep, he made the mistake of outing his sources. His sources didn't have permission to give out the info, so they denied it.

The claims of data and statistical tampering are clearly supported by those who've debunked the statistical work put forth by M&S that supports the trend (light & fast is the "best") claimed. I remain inclined to accept them (the various highly educated folks who've done the analyses) at their respective word and see little to be gained from repeating their efforts.

If you believe otherwise, I would be happy to see the results of your analytical audit refuting the findings of those who've already examined the offerings of M&S and found them to be spurious.

From your statements above, you appear to hold the opinion that those who've debunked M&S, and those who accept those findings, are in error. Have you done anything in the way of a procedural analysis/audit that can substantiate that position?


I see no point in doing a statistical analysis of something that claims no scientific rigor. M&S are well aware that their method tends to self select individuals that are susceptible to a one shot stop. It also most likely selects for non barrier shots as well. It's not meant to infer the numbers are quantitative. They are simply meant to provide a rough approximation of how each load compares to the others.

Courtney makes a similar mistake in using M&S data. He fits his equation to correlate with M&S. He also fails to properly control for psychological stops. As a result he overestimates the effectiveness, if any, of BPW.

481
June 17, 2011, 10:07 AM
It is fun watching you crawfish out things you have said.

Your abrupt seizure upon such minutae suggests that your feelings were hurt when I asked you to not put the words, "true without exception" (that I never used anywhere) in my mouth.

Maybe you had your feelings hurt elsewhere.

Maybe you feel as if you have something to prove.

Your unnecessarily confrontational behavior proves nothing.



I see no point in doing a statistical analysis of something that claims no scientific rigor. M&S are well aware that their method tends to self select individuals that are susceptible to a one shot stop. It also most likely selects for non barrier shots as well. It's not meant to infer the numbers are quantitative. They are simply meant to provide a rough approximation of how each load compares to the others.

Courtney makes a similar mistake in using M&S data. He fits his equation to correlate with M&S. He also fails to properly control for psychological stops. As a result he overestimates the effectiveness, if any, of BPW.

Talk about "crawfishing". First you are for 'em, then you are against 'em.

Pick a side, any side. Stick with it.

Don't vacillate, it makes you look petty.

skeuthan
June 17, 2011, 11:55 AM
This conversation thread has been entertaining at the very least. So many ammo junkies (like myself) who all have legitimate, informed points to make. Wo hat surprises me is that nobody has even mentioned what I would consider one of the most important variables... barrel length of the gun itself.

If you are shooting 147 gr. JHP through a 4"-5" barrel you will get your desired result, even better if its a +P round. Most people I know don't cc a pistol that large.
If the same round is fired from a 3" or shorter barrel the velocity will decrease by a signifigant amount and if that round is required to penetrate a barrier, the velocity could be decreased so much that the hollow point might not expand at all once it enters human tissue (remember that JHP's must enter soft tissue at a certain velocity to properly expand, especially in .45 ACP).

My personal rule is the shorter my barrel, the lighter the round I will carry in it. Just one example, ammunition designed purposely for CCW like Hornady Critical Defense, Cor-Bon DPX, etc... all feature very light loads under the pretense they will be loaded in somebody's concealed carry pistol or revolver; most of the time having a barrel under 4"...

george d dennis
June 17, 2011, 12:22 PM
i will second the memory space

MikeNice
June 17, 2011, 02:53 PM
Skeuthan that is actually a very good point. We tend to forget that the results we see in many of the test are from "service" weapons. Pistols with 4" barells will definitely have different results than a 2.8" barell in a micro compact gun.

Looking at some old test on Golden Loki the Kel Tec P-11 was able to push 147gr Winchester Super X rounds to a speed of 889fp/s and achieve full expansion. The bullet was able to penetrate between 14.5" and 16.1." Would it hae done that through a barrier? I don't know.

The Federal Personal Defense 135gr round also achieved decent speed and penetration while expanding reliably. However, in a sub 3" barell I would opt for a 124gr+P, or Federal Tactical Bonded 135gr+P. The extra velocity would be of some service when punching through a barrier. However, deflection and bullet damage would still effect performance.

With a 3" - 4" barell a 147gr+P would be my choice.


Everything about using a handgun is a compromise. We all have to find the compromise we can live with and move on.

918v
June 17, 2011, 10:44 PM
I'd also like to point out that 147gr loads are far more forgiving on the gun. LASD Berettas last near forever cuz all they shoot is 147's for duty and 115's for qual. At least they did back in the late 90's when I worked there. Back in 1995 they had at least one that had over 50K rounds through it, an original 92F that hadn't cracked yet.

124+P beats the crap out of guns. My curre nt employer switched to 124+P a couple of years ago and I could immediately see the additional wear in the form of frame peening. Alot of guns started breaking and we finally got approval to buy brands other than S&W.

147's have less muzzle flash at night. They are more quiet. They are more accurate. My favorite 147 is the Ranger Talon.

481
June 17, 2011, 11:13 PM
I'd also like to point out that 147gr loads are far more forgiving on the gun. LASD Berettas last near forever cuz all they shoot is 147's for duty and 115's for qual. At least they did back in the late 90's when I worked there. Back in 1995 they had at least one that had over 50K rounds through it, an original 92F that hadn't cracked yet.

124+P beats the crap out of guns. My curre nt employer switched to 124+P a couple of years ago and I could immediately see the additional wear in the form of frame peening. Alot of guns started breaking and we finally got approval to buy brands other than S&W.

147's have less muzzle flash at night. They are more quiet. They are more accurate. My favorite 147 is the Ranger Talon.

The RA9T is a great round.

What brand/make of 124 +P has your current employer gone to?

918v
June 18, 2011, 12:20 AM
We first had Gold Dots, but now use either Golden Sabres or Tanger Talons. It changes from quarter to quarter.

481
June 18, 2011, 12:54 AM
We first had Gold Dots, but now use either Golden Sabres or Tanger Talons. It changes from quarter to quarter.
Thanks.

notasfancy
June 18, 2011, 12:57 AM
No problems for a 9mm to do many things pretty well, like many others. Look for proper ammunition just do not ask for things not reasonable. I mean not just for a 9mm but for any conventional rounds.
I managed to buy a substantial amount of Gratch goodies and have a modified system. The possibilities are endless.
Also .357Sig special purpose is the ticket.

I hope you do not go crazy with some of the non-sense replies.

If you enjoyed reading about "9MM confusion/ penetration/ barriers" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!