9mm defence cartridges


PDA






Treefrog23
November 16, 2012, 05:46 PM
I hope this is on the correct forum. If not please direct me.

What is the best 9mm defense round? I've heard Hornaday is good.
TF

If you enjoyed reading about "9mm defence cartridges" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Skribs
November 16, 2012, 05:59 PM
You're going to get a lot of debate on the subject. Hornady tends to make light, fast, bullets that have less penetration than you might want. The two that I'd consider very high quality, personally, are Speer Gold Dot and Winchester PDX.

What you really want is a quality JHP that will penetrate at least 12" in ballistics gel and will cycle reliably in your firearm.

RetiredUSNChief
November 16, 2012, 06:16 PM
Skribs is right..."best" is somewhat subjective.

An optimal round under one set of conditions may not be the optimal round under another. Take clothing, for example. Layers of clothing can seriously hamper the ability of a hollowpoint to expand as expected. So some hollowpoints may not perform quite as well, say, in the winter months as they would in the summer months because the bad guy may be layered with clothing against the cold.

Accurate shot placement remains the number one concern any shooter should have. If you can't hit your target, it doesn't matter what kind of ammunition you have.

Penetration is the number two concern. No wonder bullet will amount to a hill of beans if it cannot penetrate.

Solid point or hollowpoint, you've GOT to have penetration.


My personal preference in my 9mm are the Gold Dot 115 gr hollowpoints. They cycle reliably in my pistol, they have the same mass and velocity as the 115 gr ammunition I shoot for target practice, and they hit the target in the same place that my target ammunition hits.

I have never done any personal testing to see how they penetrate compared to my target ammunition, but they do expand reliably when hitting anything with fluid in it. Even if they don't expand, they should penetrate in a similar fashion as my target ammunition.


I wouldn't focus on "best". That's a never ending quest, in my opinion. You should focus on "reliable" and "accurate" first and foremost. After that, choose one that has shown reliable penetration and expansion characteristics under reasonable conditions. And you can test this yourself, or search the internet for plenty of people who have tested various rounds.

Good luck!

Skribs
November 16, 2012, 06:30 PM
My personal preference in my 9mm are the Gold Dot 115 gr hollowpoints.

And right here is another reason why it's so subjective. He and I both like gold dots. I like 147 grain. We can argue back and forth all day just on which weight to use, let alone which bullet construction.

We both mentioned gold dot, and I mentioned PDX, but there are a lot of good options out there.

19-3Ben
November 16, 2012, 06:30 PM
I wouldn't focus on "best". That's a never ending quest, in my opinion. You should focus on "reliable" and "accurate" first and foremost.

Exactly. ANY modern purpose built defense load from a major company is likely going to be good.
Speer has the Gold Dot, Federal has the HST, Winchester has PDX, Hornady has several including the Critical Defense/Duty like, XTP and TAP. There are plenty more as well. This is not a complete list.

Heck even some of the older loads like Federals 9BLPE and Hydra Shock, and Remington's Golden Saber have a lot going for them. But really defensive ammo has made a big jump in quality in the last 10 years so you might as well take advantage of it with a modern load.

Pick a few loads, shoot them in your gun(s) and see which cycle reliably and shoot accurately.

aguywithagun
November 16, 2012, 07:38 PM
I'm looking to stock up on 9mm jhp ammo for my M&P 9. Are there any that are better or worse suited to that gun specifically, and where can I buy them in bulk for a reasonable price?

thanks.

19-3Ben
November 16, 2012, 07:50 PM
Are there any that are better or worse suited to that gun specifically, and where can I buy them in bulk for a reasonable price?

Every gun is slightly different, even within a specific make and model. My M&P9 shoots well with Speer Gold Dot so I load 124gr. Gold Dots, but that's also the only premium SD ammo I have shot through it. I would be shocked if it didn't shoot all premium ammo well.

Look at some of the makers I listed above, and see what deals you can find.
Looking at one of my favorite ammo suppliers, AmmoToGo (http://www.ammunitiontogo.com/), if you are looking to buy in bulk you can buy stuff like Speer Gold Dot or Federal HST in 500rnd orders for about 3 bills. The old standby, the Federal 9BPLE is about $200 for 500 rounds. It's outclassed by today's bonded ammo, but it's far from useless. I actually just bought a box to just stock up and have a little more defensive ammo on hand "just in case."

primalmu
November 16, 2012, 08:03 PM
The best self-defense round is the one that stops an attacker.

That said, you really need to find the best round for your gun and intended use. I'd suggest picking up a few boxes of different self-defense rounds and find out which one you and your gun shoot best.

jdmb03
November 16, 2012, 09:17 PM
I use Federal HST 124gr.

56hawk
November 16, 2012, 09:38 PM
I use Federal HST 124gr.

Ditto. I did a lot of research before I bought ammo the last time, and Federal HSTs were at the top of just about every study.

jc57
November 16, 2012, 10:51 PM
Federal HST 124gr +P is what I have. Speer Gold Dots and Winchester Ranger T series are also good.

aguywithagun: You may be a little late to the stock-up rodeo. There's been a run on bullets recently and some of the readily available stock has dried up. If you wait a while it will settle down and you should be able to find your bulk deals again.

I usually buy from www.sgammo.com. Good pricing and usually good availability, but like I said, their stocks are reduced right now so you might not find what you want in 9mm.

RBid
November 16, 2012, 11:17 PM
My preference is Speer Gold Dot 9mm 147gr. This round penetrates very well. I live in Oregon, so that is a big value point for me. It's also a soft-shooting load.

aguywithagun
November 16, 2012, 11:18 PM
i'm new to shooting and i only have a single box of SD ammo, but as 19-3Ben mentioned it is in fact Gold Dot 124gr; specifically Speer Gold Dot 9mm Luger+P 124gr GDHP short barrel hollow point. not sure what all that means, but i did put 4 rounds through my gun just to make sure it ran, and fresh out of the box the gun ate it np.

C0untZer0
November 17, 2012, 12:02 AM
I really like the Winchester 147gr Ranger "T" RA9T

http://www.winchester.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/flash-SWFs/law_bullit.swf

If I had a big beefy 9mm the Underwood +P+ loading of the Speer Gold Dot looks awfully good too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMiI8VcPQ3c

Steel Talon
November 17, 2012, 12:51 AM
For the 9mm I've always carried old school Federal Hydra Shok cause I bought a case years back in their hay day lol.

2zulu1
November 17, 2012, 01:16 AM
Hi-Power is loaded with 124gr HSTs while the G17, when it's out of the safe, is loaded with 127gr +P+.

Skribs
November 17, 2012, 01:42 AM
The best self-defense round is the one that stops an attacker.

I really don't like these cryptic answers to hardware questions. "The best gun is the one you have on you." "Shot placement matters more than ______".

If I walked into a hardware store and asked what tools I need to build a birdhouse, and I was told "the best tool is one that builds a birdhouse" or "the best tool is the one you have in your toolchest", I'd find a new store.

481
November 17, 2012, 01:47 AM
Regardless of caliber, I prefer a "heavy for caliber" JHP- HSTs, PDX1s, Ranger "T"s, Gold Dots, and XTPs being among my most favored.

1SOW
November 17, 2012, 01:55 AM
I prefer 124gr Speer Gold Dots.

I reload the Gold Dot bullets "when I can find any". The bullet shape is not conical. It's traditional ogive allow it to be loaded at a long length and still feed smoothly in short-chamber pistols like XD and CZ; so it will run reliably in any pistol.

As said above, there are a number of good 9mm SD bullets out there.

9mmforMe
November 17, 2012, 04:02 AM
I too like the heavier rounds, and in my 9 its been Winchester 147gr Personal Defense in the White box. I think that the newer ammo most likely does have better designs, but I like to consider price for product and from what I've read, the bigger companies do update their budget line as well as make the newer facy stuff. I was looking at a box of WWB 147 PD from a few years ago and then some that I picked up a few weeks ago and the nose cavity is markedly different, so someone is doing something. I have yet to field test these, but they function well in my gun and are accurate. Big selling point is that Walmart has them for about 25 bucks for 50 rounds...a good deal to be sure.

smalls
November 17, 2012, 04:09 AM
1.Find what's commonly available in your area.

2.Go pick up a few boxes of the most common

3.Go try each in your gun.

4.Of those that run 100% in your gun, do research on penetration/expansion.

5.Buy the cheapest that meet your satisfaction in the penetration/expansion department.

71Commander
November 17, 2012, 06:30 AM
If I bought factory defense ammo, I would buy Federal for the simple reason that their primer is the softest and less likely to have a FTF because of a bad primer.

That being said, I have bought some Corbon PDX ammo and taken them apart, changed the primer to Federal and put them back together.:p

Hit_Factor
November 17, 2012, 06:45 AM
I have bought some Corbon PDX ammo and taken them apart, changed the primer to Federal and put them back together.:p

Brian, that solves all of my problems. I also carry Corbon, but Federal offerings are considered for the primer alone. I'm going to give that a try after deer season.

NG VI
November 17, 2012, 09:35 AM
I really don't like these cryptic answers to hardware questions. "The best gun is the one you have on you." "Shot placement matters more than ______".

If I walked into a hardware store and asked what tools I need to build a birdhouse, and I was told "the best tool is one that builds a birdhouse" or "the best tool is the one you have in your toolchest", I'd find a new store.

Feel exactly the same way.

The person is asking our input on the nuts and bolts of ammunition selection, not how to shoot someone or where to land shots or anything philosophical.

MIL-DOT
November 17, 2012, 09:46 AM
Exactly. ANY modern purpose built defense load from a major company is likely going to be good.
Speer has the Gold Dot, Federal has the HST, Winchester has PDX, Hornady has several including the Critical Defense/Duty like, XTP and TAP. There are plenty more as well. This is not a complete list.

Heck even some of the older loads like Federals 9BLPE and Hydra Shock, and Remington's Golden Saber have a lot going for them. But really defensive ammo has made a big jump in quality in the last 10 years so you might as well take advantage of it with a modern load.

Pick a few loads, shoot them in your gun(s) and see which cycle reliably and shoot accurately.


Took the words right out of my mouth, this perfectly sums up what I was going to post. I have several,(gold dots,HST's,etc.)but I really like the Golden Sabres simply because they're the most economical (usually by a good margin).

MTMilitiaman
November 17, 2012, 10:02 AM
I'm with those that say it doesn't matter that much as long as it is reliable in your firearm. I don't even think accuracy is a huge deal. Pretty much any of them are going to shoot as accurate as you can, and if you can put your hand over the group at any reasonable handgun range, say 25 yards and under, that is plenty of accuracy.

I prefer penetration over expansion and tend to favor moderate to heavy for caliber bullets to this end. But the bottom line is that all modern JHP from the old Win Silvertips and Federal Hydrashocks on to the more modern PDX and HST loads from the same companies, respectively, as well as the aforementioned Gold Dots and whatever, are all designed to perform to FBI specs in their tests. So it is no surprise that most of them perform pretty similarly. Pick one that is reliable and shoots to the same point of aim as your practice ammo and rest comfortably at night.

MTMilitiaman
November 17, 2012, 10:08 AM
Oops. Double tap.

RBid
November 17, 2012, 11:20 AM
Hydra shocks are an old design. I recommend against using them. I've seen a few tests where they didn't expand, at all. There are too many other options to put money into this round.

aguywithagun
November 17, 2012, 11:32 AM
9mmforMe -- I checked the walmart site and don't recall seeing any 9mm hollow points. Is that something that I can only find in the brick and mortar store?

Treefrog23
November 17, 2012, 12:07 PM
Thank you all for your input. From consensus opinion it appears whatever your gun will handle, whihc makes perfect sense. Example: I have a Ruger SR22 that will not work with anything other than CCI, so I was able to eliminate a number of brands. From you input, I'll just do the same with my 9mm's.
Thank you for your help.
TF

easyg
November 17, 2012, 01:07 PM
In standard pressure rounds I like the 115g Winchester Silvertips.

For +P rounds I like either 124g Speer Gold Dots or 124g Winchester PDX1 rounds.

I think that if you want a heavier round than 124g then you would probably be better served with a .40 or .45 caliber pistol.

aguywithagun
November 17, 2012, 01:36 PM
i use CCI in my m&p22. mini mags for target shooting but i also have some speer gold dot hp 22lr velocitor. are speer and cci the same company?

CZ57
November 17, 2012, 08:00 PM
Most of the better 124 gr. +P loads will meet minimum depth of penetration requirements. For that reason I would use the 124 gr. +P that will provide as much energy as possible to go with the necessary penetration. The SPEER 124 gr. +P Gold Dot is one of the best but there are some very good loads being made by firms like Underwood and DoubleTap. The real question is are you up to practicing enough to master the slightly higher recoil you'll get from one of these loads. For a very thorough explanation of wound ballistics I'd suggest you read up on it at: http://www.btgresearch.org/wb.htm ;)

conw
November 17, 2012, 08:06 PM
I really don't like these cryptic answers to hardware questions. "The best gun is the one you have on you." "Shot placement matters more than ______".

If I walked into a hardware store and asked what tools I need to build a birdhouse, and I was told "the best tool is one that builds a birdhouse" or "the best tool is the one you have in your toolchest", I'd find a new store.



Hah. So true.

coolluke01
November 17, 2012, 08:27 PM
It does depend on the gun you are shooting. And more on the size than anything. +P in a short barrel is pointless. Lost of muzzle flash and not a big gain in velocity. I shoot 147 gr Ranger T's in my G26.
If you are shooting a gun with a longer barrel then the light and fast could be better.

The Ranger T's preform very well. You will get the penetration needed and they have very wicked sharp petals! These things will do serious damage!

Look for tests of each ammo in a barrel about the size of the gun you will be shooting them from. 12"-14" of penetration is the goal. Read the posts on the does energy count thread. Don't get hung up on energy of the bullet. This is not a very good way to judge the effectiveness of a round. There are far better numbers to look at when researching rounds. Penetration is the main thing to look for. Expansion takes a back seat to penetration IMO. Expansion will allow you to have a slightly better chance of hitting something vital. In the case of a bullet with petals, they will work around and cause bleeding when the subject moves but this won't help much in the short term.

Shot placement is key. There is no magic bullet and one stop shots are not realistic. 80% of handgun wounds are survived! We shoot to stop the threat and that means shots to center mass until it stops. Only a hit on the central nervous system and the brain can cause a guaranteed immediate stop. Spend more money on range ammo than SD ammo!

I have found Ranger T's for .50c each. This is much cheaper than some "premium" SD rounds. Don't fall for the hype and go with what is proven to work.

primalmu
November 17, 2012, 08:29 PM
Geez guys, looks like you all didn't read my whole post. I said that to emphasize that you need to find a round that your gun likes and that you are accurate with. I don't care how effective XYZ brand ammo is if your gun jams or you can't hit anything with it.

coolluke01
November 17, 2012, 08:38 PM
I don't care how effective XYZ brand ammo is if your gun jams or you can't hit anything with it.
I would never carry and trust my life to a gun that will only shoot some brands of quality ammo. Also ammo is not an excuse for missing.

Any recommendation I would give on ammo would be assuming that you would be shooting them from a gun that has a good reputation and will shoot most any ammo.

Okiegunner
November 17, 2012, 08:39 PM
For myself...

Hornady Critical Defense, 115gr FTX, or , Federal HST JHP.

CZ57
November 17, 2012, 08:49 PM
It does depend on the gun you are shooting. And more on the size than anything. +P in a short barrel is pointless. Lost of muzzle flash and not a big gain in velocity. I shoot 147 gr Ranger T's in my G26.
If you are shooting a gun with a longer barrel then the light and fast could be better.

Flash is overblown since the majority of the manufacturers use powders that are treated for it. Fast and light would be 115 gr. +P or +P+. 124 gr. is the standard 9mm bullet weight. You may lose some velocity in a short barrel with 124 gr. +P but 147s for the most part are already subsonic and will also lose velocity. The one thing of note to take away from the "Does Energy Matter" thread was the link to BTG Research. Two PHd physicists with the latest research that debunks some commonly held beliefs such as a heavier bullet always being a better choice and mistakenly based on the "penetration only" theorums.

The one shot stop data has in fact been proven to be pretty conclusive according to BTG who debunk its debunkers like Fackler, Roberts and MacPherson. Shot placement is still the key and you shoot until the threat is stopped. I don't know of anyone who recommends otherwise.
http://www.btgresearch.org/wb.htm ;)

wrc
November 17, 2012, 09:27 PM
I prefer Federal because I have the most rounds of their LE/SD ammo through my equipment.

I am most comfortable with the 135gr +P "Tactical Bonded" (LE9T5), but I also use the 124gr +P "HST" (P9HST3).

I have good secondhand accounts of most Winchester Ranger-T offerings.

If you're using quality ammunition, you're usually in a good place. The most important thing is to make sure that your chosen ammunition feeds correctly and hits where you want it to. Some guns don't work well with some ammunition, and you need to check beforehand.

primalmu
November 17, 2012, 09:34 PM
I would never carry and trust my life to a gun that will only shoot some brands of quality ammo.

Well, that's certainly an admirable way to go about things (I myself carry a G26 for that reason), but its certainly not any basis to criticize my comments. After all, there will always be someone that wants to carry a cheap 1911 or some other handgun that may not be as reliable as other brands.

Also ammo is not an excuse for missing.

Unless someone is trying to shoot +P+ ammo but can't effectively shoot with the higher power cartridge. That's akin to saying caliber doesn't matter.

481
November 17, 2012, 09:51 PM
Flash is overblown since the majority of the manufacturers use powders that are treated for it. Fast and light would be 115 gr. +P or +P+. 124 gr. is the standard 9mm bullet weight. You may lose some velocity in a short barrel with 124 gr. +P but 147s for the most part are already subsonic and will also lose velocity. The one thing of note to take away from the "Does Energy Matter" thread was the link to BTG Research. Two PHd physicists with the latest research that debunks some commonly held beliefs such as a heavier bullet always being a better choice and mistakenly based on the "penetration only" theorums.

Given Courtney's fixation upon unreliable and minute phenomena, it is hard to imagine that there is much worth "taking away" from the link to BTG Research in the "Does Energy Matter" thread. Even if the phenomena occurred with greater relaibility, its miniscule effect, if it can be discerned at all, is of little real-world consequence.

The one shot stop data has in fact been proven to be pretty conclusive according to BTG who debunk its debunkers like Fackler, Roberts and MacPherson. Shot placement is still the key and you shoot until the threat is stopped. I don't know of anyone who recommends otherwise.
http://www.btgresearch.org/wb.htm ;)

Courtney's attempt to "debunk the debunkers" is a singular failure in that it never addresses the well-documented statistical analyses conducted by Fackler, van Maanan, and MacPherson.

Instead, Courtney's "review" on the subject does nothing more than make excuses and implore the reader to deny the findings of the statistical analyses of Marshall & Sanow's work without ever showing where the math underlying the statistical analyses was in error.

One of the most laughable excuses made in support of Marshall & Sanow's work occurs on page 14 of Courtney's "review", to wit;

However, the suggestion that M&S used uncalibrated gelatin does not nullify their results. It suggests only that their gelatin measurements might not be optimally accurate.

"Optimally accurate"? Aw, c'mon...:scrutiny:

"Uncalibrated" means that the gelatin was not with the standards specified for its use- the results are unrepeatable and the underlying premise of such a claim is that somehow "sloppy research" is valid research. That Courtney resorts to such contrived (yes, "made up") arguments suggests a level of discomfort and dishonesty, not only with his readers, but with himself.

Such "excuses", no matter how they are couched, are not proof that the statistical analyses were incorrect. Rather, his behavior suggests that Courtney has nothing to support his position except excuses and appeals to emotion.

Sauer Grapes
November 17, 2012, 10:14 PM
I read a couple test that ranked the Remington 115 and 124's right near the top for penatration and expansion.
They function perfect in both my carry guns, so that's what I use.

CZ57
November 17, 2012, 10:40 PM
Courtney's attempt to "debunk the debunkers" is a singular failure in that it never addresses the well-documented statistical analyses conducted by Fackler, van Maanan, and MacPherson.

Instead, Courtney's "review" on the subject does nothing more than make excuses and implore the reader to deny the findings of the statistical analyses of Marshall & Sanow's work without ever showing where the math underlying the statistical analyses was in error.

Courtney clearly states the flaws in the reasoning of Fackler and others. His theories however are not grounded in any attempt to debunk Fackler. It also shows that Fackler ignored sound research conducted previous to his own like Sorenson and a number of others. Not to mention the 3 ammunition failures experienced by the FBI based on Facklers research.

I think you might want to correct what you said in haste in the second paragraph. Courtney points out the flaws of Fackler claiming things like the OSS data as well as the Strasbourg goat tests were hoaxes. Fackler states the goat tests were hoaxes because the researchers remained anonymous (for obvious reasons) and pointed to an FBI review board that concurred with him yet they all remained nameless. Typical of Fackler and his bandwagon approach to statistical evidence.

Anyone interested should go to the BTG research site and draw your own conclusions. http://www.btgresearch.org/wb.htm I think you'll find the evidence more compelling than that of a self serving physician, a dentist or an engineer. Like I said both Courtneys hold a PHd in physics from MIT and provide mathematical evidence with probability of error for all of their work as well as the probability of error with the M&S OSS data. ;)

481
November 17, 2012, 11:07 PM
Courtney clearly states the flaws in the reasoning of Fackler and others. His theories however are not grounded in any attempt to debunk Fackler. It also shows that Fackler ignored sound research conducted previous to his own like Sorenson and a number of others. Not to mention the 3 ammunition failures experienced by the FBI based on Facklers research.

Courtney fails in that he leaves untouched the mathematical underlayment of the statisical analyses. The math is irrefutable, unless of course, one considers the odds of the M&S "study" arising from untampered data to be one in 3.46 trillion to be good odds.

I think you might want to correct what you said in haste in the second paragraph. Courtney points out the flaws of Fackler claiming things like the OSS data as well as the Strasbourg goat tests were hoaxes. Fackler states the goat tests were hoaxes because the researchers remained anonymous (for obvious reasons) and pointed to an FBI review board that concurred with him yet they all remained nameless. Typical of Fackler and his bandwagon approach to statistical evidence.

Nope, no need for that. Courtney can't sustain his claim that the OSS data (obviously manipulated and therefore a hoax) is legitimate, unless of course, again, one finds the odds of the M&S "study" arising from untampered data to be one in 3.46 trillion to be good odds. Same goes for proving that the Strasburg tests were not fabricated. Courtney's word, which is all he has, given his disingenuous record of justifying M&S's sloppy research (as described above), is simply not worth the breath drawn to utter it.


However, the suggestion that M&S used uncalibrated gelatin does not nullify their results. It suggests only that their gelatin measurements might not be optimally accurate.

"Optimally accurate".... Hysterical. :D

One wonders if Courtney could keep a straight face while typing that.

Anyone interested should go to the BTG research site and draw your own conclusions. http://www.btgresearch.org/wb.htm I think you'll find the evidence more compelling than that of a self serving physician, a dentist or an engineer. Like I said both Courtneys hold a PHd in physics from MIT and provide mathematical evidence with probability of error for all of their work as well as the probability of error with the M&S OSS data. ;)

Yeah, please, do that. :cool:

CZ57
November 17, 2012, 11:42 PM
Courtney fails in that he leaves untouched the mathematical underlayment of the statisical analyses. The math is irrefutable, unless of course, one considers the odds of the M&S "study" arising from untampered data to be one in 3.46 trillion to be good odds.

One in 3.46 trillion??? Who states that utterly ridiculous nonsense??? You took an overdose of the Kool-Aide. One in 3.46 trillion odds sounds like the work of some kind of mutant mad scientist. I also find you and those you subscribe to be uniquely unqualified to dispute the findings of a doctor of physics just as Fackler, Roberts and MacPherson ignored the findings of other researchers that preceded them. Roberts and MacPherson's sole purpose in research is little more than an attempt to reinforce Fackler. You have a problem because Courtney's findings find the flaw in everything you subscribe to. The issue of the FBI making 3 mistakes in ammunition based on Facklers research is undeniable with a probability of error at 0 and Fackler has been attacking M&S ever since. Somehow he feels that that is the way to bring more credibility to his own failed concepts. Your undeniable bias is best ignored. By all means tell us who these people are who can state the odds at one in 3.46 trillion. What a crock of unscientific BS. :rolleyes:

HankB
November 17, 2012, 11:54 PM
I would be comfortable with any "premium" 115 - 124 grain JHP from the major manufacturers - Speer, Winchester, Remington, Federal, and now Hornady - that ran well in my gun.

I use +P or (preferably) +P+ in guns that will handle them.

I think the big ammo makers have all gotten their act together in their premium lines, and I really don't think brands make any real difference any more.

(I stay away from the "boutique" ammo makers because I'm not entirely convinced their QC is up to snuff . . . but that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. YMMV.)

C0untZer0
November 18, 2012, 12:17 AM
I would never carry and trust my life to a gun that will only shoot some brands of quality ammo.

If I have a Rohrbaugh that doesn't like Tula, Wolf or American Eagle but cycles 147gr Winchester Ranger T flawlessly - why wouldn't I load it with Winchester RA9T and trust my life to it ?

2zulu1
November 18, 2012, 12:30 AM
At one time, when I thought energy mattered in terminal performance, I didn't pay much attention to the 9mm. A few years ago I began testing the 9mm and did a number of tests using the 147gr Gold Dot.

For those who carry the 9mm and are curious about performance through intermediate barriers, the results of this test will put a smile on your face. :)

L-R, redwood 4x4, steel washing machine lid, very hard cow rib bone;

http://i1103.photobucket.com/albums/g474/aztrekker511/Furniture147GD-4x4-lid-rib005.jpg

Through the 4x4, steel and bone;

http://i1103.photobucket.com/albums/g474/aztrekker511/Furniture147GD-4x4-lid-rib008.jpg

And it expanded;

http://i1103.photobucket.com/albums/g474/aztrekker511/Furniture147GD-4x4-lid-rib016.jpg

http://i1103.photobucket.com/albums/g474/aztrekker511/Furniture147GD-4x4-lid-rib012.jpg

Still retained enough velocity to blow up one of the green bottles. Bullet was recovered after putting a "dent" in a back up 4x4;

http://i1103.photobucket.com/albums/g474/aztrekker511/Furniture147GD-4x4-lid-rib017.jpg

For a comparison, and I'm not saying one is a better defensive round than the other, I came across some Remington 125gr SJHPs, chronographs 1627fps from my 686P/6" (1457fps Dan Wesson/4"), with over 700 ft/lbs of energy, for those misguided souls who believe in such things.

A simple bone test;

http://i1103.photobucket.com/albums/g474/aztrekker511/2012-11-16_16-11-22_123.jpg

As much as I like the 357mag, this ammunition performed rather dismally;

http://i1103.photobucket.com/albums/g474/aztrekker511/2012-11-16_16-17-55_107.jpg

Recovered bullet weight was only 83.7grs, given the bullet's asymmetrical expansion, it tumbled.

CZ57
November 18, 2012, 01:24 AM
The Remington 125 gr. SJHP with its soft exposed lead nose. Now that's real scientific and enlightening. LOL Talk about your misguided souls. :rolleyes:

C0untZer0
November 18, 2012, 09:41 AM
I want something that penetrates to 14" in bare gel, heavy clothing and the IWBA 4 denim test.

I don't want bullets zinging out the back of an assailant traveling to who knows where and hittting God knows who... But when I think about a bullet only penetrating 12", I think there are a lot of guys out there who are 26" to 29" across the shoulder. If I had to do a cross shot, would a bullet that only penetrates 12" in tests, penetrate through outer clothing, a bicep, another layer of outer clothing, another layer of outer clothing, and still penetrate deeply enough to disrupt vital tissue ?

I feel better about a bullet that penetrates 14" in the FBI & IWBA tests than a bullet that only penetrate 12" in those tests.

That's why I like the 147gr Winchester Ranger "T" Series - RA9T.

I think that Underwood Gold Dot has some fantastic expansion, and penetrating 12¾" in the denim test is OK... I just feel better having something that is going to penetrate to 14"

481
November 18, 2012, 11:19 AM
One in 3.46 trillion??? Who states that utterly ridiculous nonsense??? You took an overdose of the Kool-Aide. One in 3.46 trillion odds sounds like the work of some kind of mutant mad scientist.

Ah, it's the time-worn, "You drank the Kool-Aide" defense. :cuss:

Drat! Foiled again!

Classic. :D


Table 1 found about 1/3 of the way down the page of the link below has the numerical summation of the statistical analysis-

http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-statistical-analysis.htm

At the bottom of that table, you can see for yourself, the rather slim probability that the M&S data was NOT manipulated:

Combined probability of both increases = (7.565E-8)(4.29E-6)
= 3.246E-13
=.0000000000003246

I also find you and those you subscribe to be uniquely unqualified to dispute the findings of a doctor of physics just as Fackler, Roberts and MacPherson ignored the findings of other researchers that preceded them. Roberts and MacPherson's sole purpose in research is little more than an attempt to reinforce Fackler.

I truly doubt that you have any standing to find anyone "unqualified", let alone highly educated researchers like Dr Fackler, Dr Roberts, Mr Schwartz, Mr Wolberg, and Mr MacPherson, etc, who've demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the field and the processes necessary for analyzing the phenomena therein far in excess of anything you've ever demonstrated.

You have a problem because Courtney's findings find the flaw in everything you subscribe to. The issue of the FBI making 3 mistakes in ammunition based on Facklers research is undeniable with a probability of error at 0 and Fackler has been attacking M&S ever since. Somehow he feels that that is the way to bring more credibility to his own failed concepts. Your undeniable bias is best ignored. By all means tell us who these people are who can state the odds at one in 3.46 trillion. What a crock of unscientific BS. :rolleyes:

All that you need in order to review the numbers that I've quoted is available in the link above, unless of course, you can substantiate that you possess the credentials and the gravitas to declare it all, by mere fiat, "a crock of unscientific BS". ;)

It is difficult to take seriously the opinion of anyone willing to accept Courtney's rationalizing of Marshall & Sanow's "sloppy" research as somehow being scientifically valid-

However, the suggestion that M&S used uncalibrated gelatin does not nullify their results. It suggests only that their gelatin measurements might not be optimally accurate.

-when those excuses are made (by Courtney, who has never one to let the facts get in the way) with the full knowledge and awareness that Marshall & Sanow not only "cooked" their data, but also usurped the requirement that their "tests" be subject to the experimental controls and rigor necessary to render their "tests" valid, reliable, and repeatable. :scrutiny:

A willingness to ignore such glaring methodological and procedural discrepansies speaks volumes to the motives of those who are willing to do so. ;)

CZ57
November 18, 2012, 02:21 PM
I truly doubt that you have any standing to find anyone "unqualified", let alone highly educated researchers like Dr Fackler, Dr Roberts, Mr Schwartz, Mr Wolberg, and Mr MacPherson, etc, who've demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the field and the processes necessary for analyzing the phenomena therein far in excess of anything you've ever demonstrated.

Demonstrated to YOU. Someone trying to make an argument against a PHd in physics. Dr. Courtney is far more qualified to discuss ballistics than Fackler & friends. MacPherson's assertion that the odds in favor of M&S' data being one in 3.46 trillion is laughable. Some of his notions are discussed and dispelled by Courtney for what they are. Like I said, all anyone needs to do is go to the site and read the data for themselves. You are doing nothing more than trying to create a bias before they ever get there. You are a part of the bandwagon fallacy mentioned by Courtney. And as for your statement about "highly educated researchers", how do they begin to compare with two PHds in physics?


-when those excuses are made (by Courtney, who has never one to let the facts get in the way) with the full knowledge and awareness that Marshall & Sanow not only "cooked" their data, but also usurped the requirement that their "tests" be subject to the experimental controls and rigor necessary to render their "tests" valid, reliable, and repeatable.


Fackler with a review of "peers" lambasted M&S, then Fackler whined about M&S not sharing data with him. Big surprise there. And while Fackler's panel of "peers" all remained nameless Fackler denounced Strasbourg because the researchers remained anonymous. Very hypocritical wouldn't you say? Or maybe you wouldn't as it appears that Courtney offends your sensabilities. Courtney provides completely logical reasons why M&S chose not to share data with Fackler & friends. Why don't you just stop the misinformation campaign and let the readers judge for themselves.

As far as facts, anyone familiar with the Miami Shootout and the events that followed are well aware that Fackler led the FBI down the rosy path of three ammunuition failures with his misguided theory that penetration is everything and in all three cases, bullets penetrated very deeply with little or no expansion and were subsequently dropped by the FBI. But I'm sure that MacPherson could cook up a formula that the odds against Fackler being incorrect are one in 3.46 trillion. ;)

http://www.btgresearch.org/wb.htm

Jaymo
November 18, 2012, 02:56 PM
I like Corbon 115 grain and Gold Dot 115 and 124 grain.

481
November 18, 2012, 03:06 PM
You are doing nothing more than trying to create a bias before they ever get there.

Quite the contrary. I want them to read the review and see for themselves the breach of ethics that Courtney is so willing to engage in for the sake of furthering the procedurally compromised Marshall & Sanow "experiments".

And as for your statement about "highly educated researchers", how do they begin to compare with two PHds in physics?

Again with asking me to do your research for you? :scrutiny:

You seem to default to asking easily researched and located material whenever you are pressed- all of these folks' backgrounds are easily researched and their collective abilities far outweigh what Courtney has ever done (chase after unreliable, insignificant effects).

"Lazy" is not an argument.

Fackler with a review of "peers" lambasted M&S, then Fackler whined about M&S not sharing data with him. Big surprise there. And while Fackler's panel of "peers" all remained nameless Fackler denounced Strasbourg because the researchers remained anonymous. Very hypocritical wouldn't you say? Or maybe you wouldn't as it appears that Courtney offends your sensabilities. Courtney provides completely logical reasons why M&S chose not to share data with Fackler & friends. Why don't you just stop the misinformation campaign and let the readers judge for themselves.

Using Courtney's words as he wrote them (on page 14 of the review under discussion)-

However, the suggestion that M&S used uncalibrated gelatin does not nullify their results. It suggests only that their gelatin measurements might not be optimally accurate.

-can hardly be called misinformation. Courtney's willingness to ignore Marshall & Sanow's serious breach of methodology and procedural protocols represents a compromised ethical position- especially after it becomes clear that Courtney was well aware of the damning statistical analyses when he gave Marshal & Sanow a "pass" on their sloppy execution of procedure in a review that was clearly meant to rebutt the data tampering issues that had been raised by van Maanen et al.

As far as facts, anyone familiar with the Miami Shootout and the events that followed are well aware that Fackler led the FBI down the rosy path of three ammunuition failures with his misguided theory that penetration is everything and in all three cases, bullets penetrated very deeply with little or no expansion and were subsequently dropped by the FBI. But I'm sure that MacPherson could cook up a formula that the odds against Fackler being incorrect are one in 3.46 trillion. ;)

Despite your insinuation, the statistical analysis still stands unrefuted.

http://www.btgresearch.org/wb.htm

Keep posting that link. I am all for everyone reading Courtney's review in which he makes the laughable (and ethically questionable) claim-

However, the suggestion that M&S used uncalibrated gelatin does not nullify their results. It suggests only that their gelatin measurements might not be optimally accurate.

- found on page 14 of this document- http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701268.pdf

Optimally accurate?

Whoooeeee! :p

Hysterical! :D

Jaymo
November 18, 2012, 03:12 PM
Are we talking about the same Marshall and Sanow who screwed the pooch, by including CNS shots for small bore pistol rounds and then excluded them for large bore rounds?
They killed their own credibility about 20 years ago.

And now, we're supposed to believe them? Now that they've used a medium that does NOT approximate human tissue?

How is this a good idea? I'm confused.

And 147 grain subsonic 9mm ammo has been a miserable failure. The ammo makers tried to "make the 9mm think it's a .45", to quote a G&A writer from the early 90s.

Funny, how people will lambast .38 +p rounds, yet praise the semiauto version (9mm 147gr).
If slow moving, small bore ammo is so bad in a .38, why would it be great in a 9?

481
November 18, 2012, 03:13 PM
Are we talking about the same Marshall and Sanow who screwed the pooch, by including CNS shots for small bore pistol rounds and then excluded them for large bore rounds?
They killed their own credibility about 20 years ago.

Yes, sir, the very same.

Now they've got Courtney jumping to their defense by giving them a "pass" for failing to exercise proper control of their "experiments" after he knew that they cooked their data.

Birds of a feather. ;)

Jaymo
November 18, 2012, 03:25 PM
I called BS on M&S, when I first read their "results".
Claiming a .32 ACP HP was better than a .45 ball was laughable.
Claiming a 9mm HP was better than a .45 HP was almost as bad.
Perhaps CZ57 isn't familiar with the fact that M&S INCLUDED CNS shootings in their data for .40 and smaller (or .smaller than .40, I forget which, doesn't matter. Fraud is fraud) yet they EXCLUDED CNS shootings for larger bores.
CNS shots are guaranteed one-shot-stops.
If you include them for one, you have to include them for all.
Even then, they skew the results.
CNS shots have to be excluded for all calibers.
A .177 pellet to the brain stem has the same effect on stopping as a 9mm or .45 boolit to the brain stem.
They both unplug the brain from the body.

So, Fackler- a ballistician- is unqualified, yet M&S-cops/ex-cops-are somehow uniquely qualified?



My favorite SD rounds are .44 Spl, .45 ACP, .45 Colt, and .357 Mag.
That said, I've carried a 9mm with 115 CorBon and 115 and 124 Gold Dot as much as any other caliber.
My current carry autos are a Taurus PT111 9mm and a Ruger SR9.

I still think we're a long way away from having a perfect handgun round for SD.
I also don't believe anyone has come up with the perfect, definitive research method for determining how a particular round will affect a human, in terms of stopping power.

481
November 18, 2012, 03:37 PM
I called BS on M&S, when I first read their "results".

As have many.

Now comes Courtney telling us that we should accept as valid Marshall & Sanow's gelatin tests conducted without any controls- even though "the results are not optimally accurate". It is enough to make anyone's "BS meter" peg.

One wonders how Courtney can say this-

However, the suggestion that M&S used uncalibrated gelatin does not nullify their results. It suggests only that their gelatin measurements might not be optimally accurate.

-with a straight face. :scrutiny:

Such unethical behavior is as unbelievable an example of "crony-ism" as I've ever seen.

So, Fackler- a ballistician- is unqualified, yet M&S-cops/ex-cops-are somehow uniquely qualified?

That seems to be what we are being asked to believe. ;)

Jaymo
November 18, 2012, 03:58 PM
I remember when the M&S fanboys referred to anyone who put credence in Fackler's research as "jello junkies".
Now, M&S use uncalibrated gelatin and they're the be-all, end-all of terminal ballistics.

Naive and hypocritical.

Get caught in a lie, tell another lie to get out of it.
Sounds like the political situation here.

CZ57
November 18, 2012, 04:02 PM
481, you're about the last person on this forum I would ask to do any research for me. Especially considering the relative ease in which you become rattled. Do you really want to engage in insults by calling me lazy and inferring that I would need you to research the credentials of Fackler, Roberts and MacPherson. If you weren't so easily rattled you'd be aware that I already listed their credentials. Just for you, I'll recap. Fackler is an MD, Roberts is a dentist and MacPherson is an engineer. None of them trained physicists.

You want to take one sentence out of context and try to build a case on it. Your one sentence defiance is readily dispelled by reading page 14 in its entirety.

Your assertion that the statistical analysis stands "unrefuted" is typical of your indoctrination. If you input incorrect data into a computer you'll get incorrect analysis for your trouble and then the computer will tell you that probability of error is one in 3.46 trillion. You said my statement was insinuation yet it is recorded history that the FBI had 3 known ammunition failures following the guidance of Martin Fackler. Actually 4 but Fackler can't be blamed for the Miami Shootout fiasco.

Keep posting that link. I am all for everyone reading Courtney's review in which he makes the laughable (and ethically questionable) claim-


In fact, you're not for anyone reading it at all or you'd stop the diatribe that is entirely and ethically questionable. Then you are eager to agree with someone making a statement that is totally fallacious because you feel they are now part of your support network.

Hysterical? Yeah, I'd say that's a fairly accurate assessment of your overly emotional responses. ;)

CZ57
November 18, 2012, 04:11 PM
I called BS on M&S, when I first read their "results".
Claiming a .32 ACP HP was better than a .45 ball was laughable.
Claiming a 9mm HP was better than a .45 HP was almost as bad.
Perhaps CZ57 isn't familiar with the fact that M&S INCLUDED CNS shootings in their data for .40 and smaller (or .smaller than .40, I forget which, doesn't matter. Fraud is fraud) yet they EXCLUDED CNS shootings for larger bores.



Before you go insulting people you should reconsider your statement because it is totally inaccurate. There is nothing accurate in anything you said or maybe you'd like to provide a reference for your ridiculous statement?

481
November 18, 2012, 04:53 PM
481, you're about the last person on this forum I would ask to do any research for me. Especially considering the relative ease in which you become rattled. Do you really want to engage in insults by calling me lazy and inferring that I would need you to research the credentials of Fackler, Roberts and MacPherson. If you weren't so easily rattled you'd be aware that I already listed their credentials. Just for you, I'll recap. Fackler is an MD, Roberts is a dentist and MacPherson is an engineer. None of them trained physicists.

If you knew their credentials, why bother asking me how they compare? You can have a fit about it and distract all that you want, but the facts remain the same. Engaging in such distraction as a means of arguing a point is about as intellectually lazy a tactic as I've ever seen.

You want to take one sentence out of context and try to build a case on it. Your one sentence defiance is readily dispelled by reading page 14 in its entirety.

Courtney is responsible for that one sentence and the unethical behavior that he encourages/condones regardless of how many sentences he needed to voice the thought. If you don't like it, that is too bad.

Your assertion that the statistical analysis stands "unrefuted" is typical of your indoctrination. If you input incorrect data into a computer you'll get incorrect analysis for your trouble and then the computer will tell you that probability of error is one in 3.46 trillion. You said my statement was insinuation yet it is recorded history that the FBI had 3 known ammunition failures following the guidance of Martin Fackler. Actually 4 but Fackler can't be blamed for the Miami Shootout fiasco.

You have yet to show any errors in the math or the procedure. Without that, your claim remains unsubstantiated. Just because you say so, doesn't make it so.

In fact, you're not for anyone reading it at all or you'd stop the diatribe that is entirely and ethically questionable. Then you are eager to agree with someone making a statement that is totally fallacious because you feel they are now part of your support network.

Hysterical? Yeah, I'd say that's a fairly accurate assessment of your overly emotional responses. ;)

Your attempt to assign some sort of an emotional undertone to my arguments tells me that you're fresh out of logical arguments.

Fact is, Courtney implores his readers to ignore Marshall & Sanow's failure to adhere to established experimental protocols-

However, the suggestion that M&S used uncalibrated gelatin does not nullify their results. It suggests only that their gelatin measurements might not be optimally accurate.

-by endorsing their misconduct after he is aware of their cooked data.

Those gullible enough to accept compromised ethical conduct are free to believe Courtney and I suspect they'll continue to do so even after they've read his exhortation to ignore the obvious breach of conduct that Courtney urges in his review.

9mmforMe
November 18, 2012, 05:26 PM
aguywithagun,

Yeah I think you will have to check the different B&Ms to find those. I will look online too just to have a separate pair of eyes looking for you.

Jaymo
November 18, 2012, 05:36 PM
Their findings were debunked years ago, when their data were analyzed by researchers not affiliated with them (or Fackler, IIRC).
It was well documented at the time.
I don't remember the names of who analyzed it, because I don't go to bed at night worrying about pissing contests.

I'm not insulting them. I'm merely stating what was proven about their research.
Their book was touted as being THE definitive answer to all questions about handgun stopping power.
Trouble was, many of their findings were contrary to reality. They manipulated the facts to come up with results they wanted.

If you choose to believe that they have the market cornered on stopping power, good for you. I'm happy for you. A man's got to believe in something.

I choose not to believe those who, at the least, did a poor job of researching the material, and at the worst, made the evidence fit the crime.
Tells ya what kind of cops they were, huh?

Enjoy your pissing contest. I'm all out of urine. Plus, my GAS factor is at zero.

2zulu1
November 18, 2012, 05:59 PM
Given that one of the posters on this thread has denigrated those who don't agree with his viewpoints, here's an excellent post by Doc Gary Roberts regarding wound ballistics. I expect most of us will agree with what he's written. :)

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=34714

Hopefully we can back to our 9mm ammunition selection. :)

RBid
November 18, 2012, 06:21 PM
147gr standard pressure has been a failure? Please elaborate. When has it failed, and in which ways?

I'm not trying to challenge anyone on this. It just seems contrary to tests I've seen of the Speer 147gr. I recognize and accept that I am not the smartest man in the world. I would like to understand why it is that the 147 is said to have failed.

CZ57
November 18, 2012, 06:38 PM
Jaymo, you recall incorrectly. All of the detractors have an affiliation with Fackler whom many people discount just as readily.

For the record, I don't believe M&S to be the definitive answer either as there is no definitive answer. The accusation that they manipulated the facts to arrive at their own conclusion is purely a Fackler bandwagon theory.

You made statements that you simply can't back up and your GAS tank was empty before you started.


481, I'll tell you what is intellectually lazy, it's when you accept opinions as gospel without studying other views. That's exactly what Fackler did when he totally ignored valuable research that had been conducted with peer review long before his self promotion campaign. Courtney references a number of accepted works that were totally ignored by Fackler.

MacPherson's math is not in question but rather the data he inputted into his computer to arrive at his conclusion. Even still, how much of anything can be said to have a probability of error at one in 3.46 trillion. His errors are pointed out by Courtney on page 14 if you can get past looking for one line rebuttals.

An assertion of misconduct is only coming from you. Even Fackler wasn't stupid enough to be slanderous. Courtney neither implores or exhorts anyone to dismiss statistical errors by M&S. Instead he shows a formula to correct the error of using uncalibrated gel. He doesn't try to roast M&S for simply using what was available to them at the time.

You're the only one here having a "fit" and you seem to be very insecure about anyone here checking out the BTG Research data with your assertion that anyone who would consider it is gullible.

What is gullible is accepting the flying drill bit theory and that wounding is only the result of 86% of recovered bullet diameter and depth of penetration. You bought into that one hook line and sinker. ;)

CZ57
November 18, 2012, 06:59 PM
RBid, I was referring to first generation 147s developed in the late 1980s. Fackler was convinced that they would be the magic bullet. Instead, when used by the FBI and other agencies who followed their lead they failed to expand and excessively over-penetrated to the point that there were some cases where the bullets exited perps and struck innocent bystanders.

The 147s of today are considerably better but they are still subsonic in standard pressure loads. I don't use or advocate them. While they are excellent penetrators as shown in the pics provided by 2Zulu1, the question remains regarding their expansion. The FBI testing protocol is heavily focused on depth of penetration after passing through barriers most civilians don't need to be concerned with. Penetration after passing through 4 layers of denim is the most likely consideration we should be concerned with. Bullets that don't expand properly tend to behave like FMJ and over-penetrate. If you look at gel test pics where 147s are used there is expansion but in most cases it's unimpressive in that temporary stretch cavities tend to be narrow.

My argument lies in the fact that temporary stretch cavities are important to the wounding question. Furthermore, I believe in the pressure wave principles described by Dr. Courtney of BTG Research. http://www.btgresearch.org/wb.htm ;)

CZ57
November 18, 2012, 07:06 PM
Given that one of the posters on this thread has denigrated those who don't agree with his viewpoints


And given that it was your confederate who started the denigration, I'd suggest your motivation is misguided. ;)

The information provided at m4carbine by the ballistic dentist is just more of the same old Fackler doctrine.

Jaymo
November 18, 2012, 07:09 PM
You are right, in that my GAS tank has been empty for a long time. (GAS= Give A "fecal matter")
Apathy can be quite liberating.

Anyway, I like Gold Dot 115 and 124, and CorBon 115.
Don't rightly care what anyone else carries.
Use the round you like, and hopefully, none of us will ever have to find out how well they work.

RBid
November 18, 2012, 07:21 PM
CZ57,

Gotcha. I can certainly understand being wary of older designs in 147gr. So far, every test of the Speer 147gr that I've seen has resulted in .56-.58 expansion. That's a value that I'm good with. I know the Winchester HSTs penetrate less and expand more on average, but the X-Factor for me is the recoil impulse of the Speer 147gr. It's a very soft-shooting round.


Truth be told, what I would really like to see is tests firing through (in order):

- 4 layers of denim
- 3" gel
- bone barrier
- gel block

...or any other way in which media could be stacked in order to approximate shooting through heavy clothing, tissue, and ribs.

CZ57
November 18, 2012, 07:25 PM
RBid, I understand the recoil issue. If the 124 +P generates too much of it for you, I certainly understand your selection of the 147 gr. Gold Dot. ;)

RBid
November 18, 2012, 07:50 PM
It's not a matter of 'too much' in the 124+P. I shoot a lot :) Rather, it's the difference between 'good', and 'this feels like cheating!'

I should acknowledge that I switch to 124gr during the 3-4 warm months Oregon gets each year.

481
November 18, 2012, 08:06 PM
481, I'll tell you what is intellectually lazy, it's when you accept opinions as gospel without studying other views.

And yet, that is exactly what you've done. Obviously, you have no problem following Courtney's advice to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain", but I guess that it is simply easier for some folks to have it their way and not worry about the finer points like validity and adherence to the tenets of the scientific model.

MacPherson's math is not in question but rather the data he inputted into his computer to arrive at his conclusion. Even still, how much of anything can be said to have a probability of error at one in 3.46 trillion. His errors are pointed out by Courtney on page 14 if you can get past looking for one line rebuttals.

An assertion of misconduct is only coming from you. Even Fackler wasn't stupid enough to be slanderous. Courtney neither implores or exhorts anyone to dismiss statistical errors by M&S. Instead he shows a formula to correct the error of using uncalibrated gel. He doesn't try to roast M&S for simply using what was available to them at the time.

It is funny how you whine about insults, yet resort to them so willingly. As for your inability to reconcile the fact that Courtney gives Marshall & Sanow's data manipulation and faulty methodology a pass, that's tough. Perhaps you'll manage to come up with something tomorrow.

You're the only one here having a "fit" and you seem to be very insecure about anyone here checking out the BTG Research data with your assertion that anyone who would consider it is gullible.

What is gullible is accepting the flying drill bit theory and that wounding is only the result of 86% of recovered bullet diameter and depth of penetration. You bought into that one hook line and sinker. ;)

I've encouraged everyone to check out the link you've been posting every chance you get since I believe that they, too, deserve a laugh at the ridiculous rhetoric and unethical conduct suggested by Courtney.

Speaking of "hook, line and sinker", your repetitive posting of the same link suggests a that you, too, have suffered that fate. ;)

How funny that you persist in whining about "denigration"-

And given that it was your confederate who started the denigration, I'd suggest your motivation is misguided. ;)

-and then go on in the same breath to say this:


The information provided at m4carbine by the ballistic dentist is just more of the same old Fackler doctrine.

Such venom. Did Santa beat the holiday rush and fill your stocking with coal?

Tomac
November 18, 2012, 08:44 PM
All handguns are relatively poor "stoppers" regardless of caliber or bullet used. Shot placement and sufficient penetration are paramount, all else is secondary.
With that being said, I carry 147gr bonded as I find it has a little more kick but less snap out of my S&W M&P 9c's which makes for faster followup shots.
Tomac

C0untZer0
November 18, 2012, 08:52 PM
I was reading everything M&S published – before they published their book. I was in college at the time and I remember one article they published where they gave “One Shot Stop” percentages for a few rounds. They also made predictions about the rounds stopping power based on a simple averaging of what they decided were “One Shot Stops” I was taking a statistics class at the time. In the article, Marshall had results for a round that had 12 shootings, another round had 32, some of the other rounds had different sized data sets, but the fact that M&S took a data sample of 12 and put it up against other data samples of 30 – 40 and believed that their comparisons were valid showed me that they didn’t know anything about statistics, and to make predictions without at least using linear regression or ANOVA, seemed incompetent – or at least showed that they were way out of their field of expertise.
There seems to be an argument here that pointing out problems with Fackler’s work adds credibility to M&S – that doesn’t follow logically. There also seems to be an argument that because the Courtney’s are smart people who graduated with hard science degrees from prestigious schools and they haven’t discredited M&S work - then there must be something Marshall & Sanow’s “work”, and their stopping power theories. Well just because someone is accomplished in academia doesn’t mean that they don’t have an axe to grind. The problems with M&S’s methodologies are well documented, their data is seriously skewed.
For the Courtney’s to ignore the problems with M&S’s assertions and methodologies is unprofessional. They point out problems with Fackler’s criticisms of other studies and conveniently ignore the glaring problems with M&S
I can agree with some of what the Courtney’s are saying – yes Fackler’s referencing of Vietnam Era vets may now be irrelevant given that researchers have the tools to look at microscopic damage to nerve tissue whereas they either did not have that technology or they never did those kind of examinations on wounded soldiers during the Vietnam War. OK – so ya, but it still seems like nit picking.

C0untZer0
November 18, 2012, 08:58 PM
I've heard that the FBI issues the Winchester 147gr PDX to the agents using 9mm.

Just off the top of my head - without verifying it, I thought the PDX penetrated between 15"-16"

I just did a little Googling and it looks like the FBI moved away from the 147gr Winchester Q4364 and are using the 147 Speer Gold Dot ?

Well - it's still 147gr

481
November 18, 2012, 09:07 PM
I've heard that the FBI issues the Winchester 147gr PDX to the agents using 9mm.

Just off the top of my head - without verifying it, I thought the PDX penetrated between 15"-16"

I just did a little Googling and it looks like the FBI moved away from the 147gr Winchester Q4364 and are using the 147 Speer Gold Dot ?

Well - it's still 147gr
According to Winchester, the RA9B which uses the same bullet as the 147 gr PDX1 expands to 0.58" and penetrates to a depth of 15.8" after the FBI "heavy clothing" barrier.

CZ57
November 18, 2012, 09:09 PM
No one has done more axe grinding than Fackler. Even after he misguided the FBI through 3 ammunition failures. At least M&S point out the limited numbers in a data set. If they were attempting to mislead they probably wouldn't have mentioned it.

Speaking of "hook, line and sinker", your repetitive posting of the same link suggests a that you, too, have suffered that fate.

You mean the one you hope nobody will click on? What about that permanent link in your sig line? Wah, Wah, Wah! ;)
Go away, you're becoming tiresome and repetitive. ;)

481
November 18, 2012, 09:17 PM
No one has done more axe grinding than Fackler, Even after he misguided the FBI through 3 ammunition failures. At least M&S point out the limited numbers in a data set. If they were attempting to mislead they probably wouldn't have mentioned it.

You mean the one you hope nobody will click on? What about that permanent link in your sig line? Wah, Wah, Wah! ;)

More venom, huh? What a great way to make your point.

Go away, you're becoming tiresome and repetitive. ;)

So much for logical debate- now you're going with insults and demands that I leave.

Who's having a "fit" now?

Now we are seeing the "real" CZ57, aren't we? What took so long?

C0untZer0
November 18, 2012, 09:24 PM
The problems with M&S premise, assertions, and methodologies fall apart without help from Fackler.

So Fackler is an axe-grinder - so what - that doesn't doesn't turn Marshall's pile of statistical maunure into a diamond.

The FBI is still using 147gr rounds for their nines and I don't think it's because they're under Fackler's spell. The FBI has smart people working in the bureau, it’s not like they just put on their big boy pants yesterday when it comes to ballistics and bullet performance.

CZ57
November 18, 2012, 09:42 PM
The problems with M&S premise, assertions, and methodologies fall apart without help from Fackler.

So Fackler is an axe-grinder - so what - that doesn't doesn't turn Marshall's pile of statistical maunure into a diamond.

The FBI is still using 147gr rounds for their nines and I don't think it's because they're under Fackler's spell. The FBI has smart people working in the bureau, it’s not like they just put on their big boy pants yesterday when it comes to ballistics and bullet performance.

Well, I don't know of any agency that M&S have guided through 3 ammo failures, do you? Since the .40 S&W Glock is standard issue for the FBI, how many nines do you think they're actually using? By all means, follow the lead of the FBI. I'll stick with the agency that has more actual gunfighting experience. After retiring their revolvers and going through a transition where the 9mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP were allowed for a few years, the Texas DPS is using a round that tends to agree with Courtney's research and the .357 SIG has not failed them. ;)

CZ57
November 18, 2012, 09:51 PM
More venom, huh? What a great way to make your point.

Funny! I state a FACT and you call it venom.

And asking you to go away was not a demand. It was wishful thinking. ;)

481
November 18, 2012, 09:58 PM
For someone who makes this claim-

For the record, I don't believe M&S to be the definitive answer either as there is no definitive answer.

-you certainly seem to have a personal investment in proving M&S to be legitimate.

For all the whining that you do about axe-grinding-

Well, I don't know of any agency that M&S have guided through 3 ammo failures, do you?

-you sure do your share of it.

Since you seem to find axe-grinding to be the hallmark of a poor argument, can we assume that your perspective applies to your axe-grinding, too?

If you enjoyed reading about "9mm defence cartridges" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!