Water test: Two .45ACP JHPs evaluated


PDA






481
December 1, 2012, 06:38 PM
Since 9mmforMe's thread was locked down due to circumstances beyound our control and before I was able to post the two .45ACP tests in water that I promised him, I figured that I'd take the opportunity to do so now that I've got some spare time.

Here is the first one...

http://i1227.photobucket.com/albums/ee436/Officer481/100_2481.jpg

http://i1227.photobucket.com/albums/ee436/Officer481/100_2487.jpg

http://i1227.photobucket.com/albums/ee436/Officer481/100_2525.jpg


Here is the Schwartz bullet penetration model analysis for the test:

WinchesterUSA .45ACP 230 gr. JHP (USA45JHP) v. four layers of 2 ounce cotton fabric

Recovered Projectile Data:
Average Recovered Diameter: 0.735 inch (1.63x caliber)
Retained Mass: 229.2 grains
Impact Velocity: 865 feet per second

Predicted Performance:
Penetration Depth (S) = 28.34 cm (11.16 inches)
Permanent Wound Cavity Mass (MPC) = 66.09 grams (2.33 ounces)

If you enjoyed reading about "Water test: Two .45ACP JHPs evaluated" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
481
December 1, 2012, 06:46 PM
Here is the second (and last) test...

http://i1227.photobucket.com/albums/ee436/Officer481/100_3375.jpg

http://i1227.photobucket.com/albums/ee436/Officer481/100_3374.jpg



Here is the Schwartz bullet penetration model analysis for the test:

Hornady .45ACP 230 gr. XTP +P JHP (# 9096) v. four layers of 2 ounce cotton fabric

Recovered Projectile Data:
Average Recovered Diameter: 0.595 inch (1.32x caliber)
Retained Mass: 229.6 grains
Impact Velocity: 917 feet per second

Predicted Performance:
Penetration Depth (S) = 47.60 cm (18.74 inches)
Permanent Wound Cavity Mass (MPC) = 72.75 grams (2.57 ounces)

9mmforMe
December 2, 2012, 12:14 AM
Very cool man...thanks for the post.

nathan
December 2, 2012, 02:01 AM
My 1911s are all loaded with the WWB 230 gr JHP . I think i got a box of 50 for $ 22 back then.

9mmforMe
December 2, 2012, 09:01 AM
Wow, how old is that stuff?

481
December 2, 2012, 12:24 PM
Very cool man...thanks for the post.

Sure. No problem. :)

The Lone Haranguer
December 2, 2012, 01:18 PM
You can certainly compare loads to each other that way, but humans, while they may be "ugly bags of mostly water," aren't all water. :)

481
December 2, 2012, 01:55 PM
You can certainly compare loads to each other that way, but humans, while they may be "ugly bags of mostly water," aren't all water. :)

Ah, I remember that episode. My "inner-nerd" comes through again. :D

Yeah, the water is simply a consistent medium that gives an "apples to apples" comparison between/amongst two or more bullets. The bullet penetration models (by Schwartz and MacPherson) that I use offer a valuable perspective since penetration depth in water differs from that it gelatin- mainly because of water's inability to support a shear force- which means that a model is needed to determine an equivalent penetration and wound cavity volume/mass in gelatin.

Lone Star
December 2, 2012, 06:32 PM
For what it's worth, the man who used to edit, "Handgun Digest" said that bullets recoverd from animals looked a lot like those that he'd shot into water.

CDW4ME
December 2, 2012, 09:18 PM
Were those bullets shot into gallon jugs filled with water?

481
December 2, 2012, 09:26 PM
Were those bullets shot into gallon jugs filled with water?

No.

All test rounds were fired into a long row of the cheapest 1 gallon ziplock closure type freezer storage bags that I could find -the thinner the better.

I don't use hard plastic containers for testing since they may have an influence (albeit minor) on the performance of the test bullet.

481
December 2, 2012, 09:29 PM
For what it's worth, the man who used to edit, "Handgun Digest" said that bullets recoverd from animals looked a lot like those that he'd shot into water.

I've heard that before, though I can't say where. Maybe that's where I came across it.

2zulu1
December 4, 2012, 04:12 PM
I have a lot of respect for the XTP design, a nice blend of penetration and crush cavity volume.

One of the most destructive bullets I've ever tested is:

http://i1103.photobucket.com/albums/g474/aztrekker511/45auto230RA45TPcowrib017.jpg

Complete with the Ranger star;

http://i1103.photobucket.com/albums/g474/aztrekker511/45auto230RA45TPcowrib018.jpg

Anytime you see expansion like this, penetration in the 12"-14" range combined with crush cavities in excess of 2.5ozs, you have a fight stopper. Given good shot distribution, a triple/four tap will end the fight in short order.

The Lone Haranguer
December 4, 2012, 06:43 PM
All test rounds were fired into a long row of the cheapest 1 gallon ziplock closure type freezer storage bags that I could find -the thinner the better.

How many bags, on the average, did the bullet penetrate before coming to rest?

481
December 4, 2012, 08:38 PM
How many bags, on the average, did the bullet penetrate before coming to rest?

TLH,

It all depends on the round being tested.

In the case of two tests above, my records indicate that the Hornady .45ACP 230 gr. XTP +P JHP ended up in the 8th bag and the WinchesterUSA .45ACP 230 gr. JHP ended up in the 5th bag. I've also tested one FMJ, a 9mm 124 gr. FMJ, that punched through 12 bags and almost 80 inches of water. It's all relative.

In most cases, JHPs that expand during testing rarely make it past the 9th or 10th bag (the width of the bags -six to seven inches- varies quite a bit depending upon how they are set up) and those that do, do so because of mitigated expansion (for all sorts of reasons).

hentown
December 5, 2012, 11:51 AM
Friend of mine in Atlanta was attacked by three jugs of water just the other day. He caught two of them lined up and finished them off with one bullet. The third jug ran and got shot in the back.

481
December 5, 2012, 01:39 PM
TLH,

One point that I neglected to make and would like to clarify is, that in the end, how far the bullet goes in water is irrelevant since the only parameters necessary for the Schwartz bullet penetration model prediction is the bullet's average expanded diameter, recovered mass, and its velocity at impact.

Taken from the website-
Based upon a modified fluid dynamics equation that correlates highly (r = +0.94) to more than 700 points of manufacturer- and laboratory-test data, the quantitative model allows the use of water to generate terminal ballistic test results equivalent to those obtained in calibrated ten percent ordnance gelatin. Within a confidence interval of 95%, the quantitative model predicts the terminal penetration depth of projectiles in calibrated ordnance gelatin with a margin of error of one centimeter.

Using a projectile's average recovered diameter, weight, and impact velocity to predict its penetration depth and the mass of permanently damaged tissue within the permanent wound cavity, the quantitative model produces a tangible measure of any projectile's terminal performance, permitting the direct comparison of all types of self-defense ammunition.

The model produces results equivalent to those obtained in tests employing calibrated ten percent ordnance gelatin as a tissue simulant without the associated technical and logistic difficulties.


http://www.quantitativeammunitionselection.com/the_book

2zulu1
December 5, 2012, 01:51 PM
^^^^^^^^

Book would make for nice Christmas gifts. Good information. :)

3twelves
December 5, 2012, 05:57 PM
I like the Ranger T's in .40, got a box of Win. PDX1 for the SA 1911 but they won't feed. :(

CZ57
December 6, 2012, 12:53 AM
In the case of two tests above, my records indicate that the Hornady .45ACP 230 gr. XTP +P JHP ended up in the 8th bag and the WinchesterUSA .45ACP 230 gr. JHP ended up in the 5th bag.

But yet in the real world you could expect gelatin results to be the opposite with the slower load expanding less and penetrating deeper than the faster load expanding more and penetrating less.

Schwartz believes he has an accurate model where you can shoot into water and formulate the expected behavior in gelatin. MacPherson believes that you can expect a bullet to perform in a human as it does in gelatin. Sounds to me like someone really believes that shooting into water will predict bullet behavior in a human, they just don't want to say it out loud, and then just don't actually try it in water. Maybe that's why Schwartz has a grand total of one professional endorsement and that by a fellow engineer.

Like Mel Brooks said in Space Balls: "may the Schwartz be with you!" ;)

JShirley
December 6, 2012, 08:12 AM
Members can have different ideas, but they will be expressed politely.

John

481
December 6, 2012, 11:16 AM
But yet in the real world you could expect gelatin results to be the opposite with the slower load expanding less and penetrating deeper than the faster load expanding more and penetrating less.

Until a bullet actually hits a test medium and behaves as it will, it is not possible to say how the bullet will expand with any degree of certainty.

Schwartz believes he has an accurate model where you can shoot into water and formulate the expected behavior in gelatin. MacPherson believes that you can expect a bullet to perform in a human as it does in gelatin. Sounds to me like someone really believes that shooting into water will predict bullet behavior in a human, they just don't want to say it out loud, and then just don't actually try it in water. Maybe that's why Schwartz has a grand total of one professional endorsement and that by a fellow engineer.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion. ;)

However, I am afraid that I'll have to defer to the research and greater qualifications and expertise demonstrated by Schwartz and MacPherson as opposed to accepting blindly an unsupported anonymous opinion as the basis for refutation of their respective research and models.

Both models, and the physics underlying them, appear to have been thoroughly vetted by professionals knowledgeable in the field and both models rely upon valid scientific methodology to establish themselves.

Whether one wishes to accept it or not, the fact is, both water and calibrated ten percent ordnance gelatin are accepted as being proven soft tissue simulants and bullets recovered from both mediums look very much like those taken from soft tissue- not to mention the volumes of independent research that support that fact.

utbrowningman
December 6, 2012, 02:53 PM
I think both would hurt a great deal.

481
December 6, 2012, 04:15 PM
I think both would hurt a great deal.

I doubt that you'll find anyone willing to dispute that. :D

CZ57
December 6, 2012, 06:15 PM
Until a bullet actually hits a test medium and behaves as it will, it is not possible to say how the bullet will expand with any degree of certainty.

I agree, but your statement seems to be self contradiction since you preach the Schwartz modeling theory where he believes he can accurately predict how a bullet will behave in gelatin after shooting said bullet into water.

However, I am afraid that I'll have to defer to the research and greater qualifications and expertise demonstrated by Schwartz and MacPherson as opposed to accepting blindly an unsupported anonymous opinion as refutation of their respective resaearch and models. Both models, and the physics underlying them, appear to have been thoroughly vetted by professionals knowledgeable in the field and they both rely upon valid scientific methodology establish themselves.

Feel free to defer and as for "unsupported anonymous opinion" I'll remind you that Schwartz has a grand total of one endorsement from a Swedish engineer according to the site you post the link for. MacPherson's opinions are largely based on gel tests and theory or from autopsies where the number of shots fired to kill the assailant go unspecified yet he uses mathematical analysis from a single round fired into gelatin to predict its effectiveness on human beings.

I think you fail to recognize that this is not a game. Defense shooting is serious business and accepting unproven theory then preaching it as gospel could sway a new or inexperienced shooter into making a decision that could get them hurt, or worse, killed. Selecting a load based on penetration and expansion after passing through four layers of denim into ballistic gelatin can be useful as long as the shooter realizes that real world and unforeseen events can drastically change from a test result. Like I've said before, shoot a bullet with high enough velocity to make it expand upon impacting water and it will almost always look impressive, but we have an engineer trying to make a science of it, with only one other engineer prepared to endorse or vet it. AS for MacPherson, I'd like to see the list of names of doctors and scientists prepared to vet his work not named Martin Fackler or one of his disciples like the dentist doc Roberts. ;)

481
December 6, 2012, 07:53 PM
I agree, but your statement seems to be self contradiction since you preach the Schwartz modeling theory where he believes he can accurately predict how a bullet will behave in gelatin after shooting said bullet into water.

Your incomplete description of the process involved suggests that you've never read the book, so it is quite difficult to take your opinion as being informed commentary on the matter.

In fact, Schwartz's use of over 700 data taken from laboratory and manufacturer gelatin tests is used to correlate the model to a very high degree (r = .94, 1.00 is "perfect") against that body of data and it does so with a margin of error of just one centimeter-

Taken from the website-

Based upon a modified fluid dynamics equation that correlates highly (r = +0.94) to more than 700 points of manufacturer- and laboratory-test data, the quantitative model allows the use of water to generate terminal ballistic test results equivalent to those obtained in calibrated ten percent ordnance gelatin. Within a confidence interval of 95%, the quantitative model predicts the terminal penetration depth of projectiles in calibrated ordnance gelatin with a margin of error of one centimeter.


Feel free to defer and as for "unsupported anonymous opinion"...

I will.

...I'll remind you that Schwartz has a grand total of one endorsement from a Swedish engineer according to the site you post the link for.

Great.

Exactly how many endorsements attesting to your authority in the field of terminal ballistics do you have? :confused:

MacPherson's opinions are largely based on gel tests and theory or from autopsies where the number of shots fired to kill the assailant go unspecified yet he uses mathematical analysis from a single round fired into gelatin to predict its effectiveness on human beings.

Of course MacPherson studied autopsy results and conducted tests in gelatin to substantiate his predictive model and Schwartz seems to have taken the same approach. After all, their respective models are meant to model those mediums so it only makes sense that they'd conduct research using those mediums.

I think you fail to recognize that this is not a game.

Now, now...no need to make this personal. Again.

Defense shooting is serious business and accepting unproven theory then preaching it as gospel could sway a new or inexperienced shooter into making a decision that could get them hurt, or worse, killed.

Neither Schwartz's nor MacPherson's models are unproven or unsubstantiated. In fact, both model's are based upon, and correlate highly and accurately with, a cummulative set of more than 1100 data between the two models. I have seen no preaching here, except for unsubstantiated claims that suggest no actual/direct knowledge of the material being discussed.

Selecting a load based on penetration and expansion after passing through four layers of denim into ballistic gelatin can be useful as long as the shooter realizes that real world and unforeseen events can drastically change from a test result. Like I've said before, shoot a bullet with high enough velocity to make it expand upon impacting water and it will almost always look impressive, but we have an engineer trying to make a science of it, with only one other engineer prepared to endorse or vet it.

The scientific methodology is presented clearly in both books should you care to read them, but it is hard to take seriously any critique of these books by anyone who has not actually read either book.

AS for MacPherson, I'd like to see the list of names of doctors and scientists prepared to vet his work not named Martin Fackler or one of his disciples like the dentist doc Roberts. ;)

There are other names and if you are truly interested in finding that out, I am sure that you are more than capable of locating that information with a little searching on the 'net.

Ad hominem attacks upon those researchers (specifically MacPherson, Roberts, Fackler) by labeling them as "disciples" or intentionally understating their real credentials (obviously Roberts is more than just a dentist) is just rudeness for rudeness' sake and doesn't make a very convincing or substantial argument for refuting their work.

CZ57
December 6, 2012, 08:39 PM
You are a master of cliches. Ad hominem attacks? rudeness? I call Roberts what he is, which is a dentist. Schwartz and MacPherson what they are, engineers. None of them have degrees in ballistics nor are they physicists. They are all disciples of Martin Fackler. Is disciple an offensive term for someone who teaches a philosophy that differs little from their mentors?

I've read enough statements posted here and elsewhere and have read articles from Martin Fackler back to when he led the FBI to 3 ammunition failures in the late 80s. I wouldn't waste ten cents on the works from all of them.

Your comments are little more than an attempt to justify your flawed beliefs in these works which leads me to believe that you are actually a fairly new shooter that became infatuated with these books early on in your experience because of fancy terms and mathematical equations. They apply some principles of physics while failing to address one of Newtons most famous dictums: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" In this case the action is a bullet accelerating and developing its max kinetic energy within 4 or 5" of barrel. The equal and opposite reaction is that bullet coming to a stop within 12" or less and shedding that kinetic energy. None of your guys seem to know where that energy goes except to say that it takes energy to make a bullet to perform as it should.

Dr. Courtney of BTG Research on the other hand gives a completely logical explanation of what KE actually does to the human body and uses sophisticated laboratory testing tools as well as works that preceeded his to prove it as well as the most reliable testing medium of all, animals like whitetail that approximate the size of the average human being as well as pigs. Not to mention more recent autopsies that in 33 cases confirm his findings. And when it comes to vetting and endorsements, his come from physicians and physicists. ;)

www.btgresearch.org

481
December 6, 2012, 08:55 PM
You are a master of cliches. Ad hominem attacks? rudeness? I call Roberts what he is, which is a dentist. Schwartz and MacPherson what they are, engineers. None of them have degrees in ballistics nor are they physicists. They are all disciples of Martin Fackler. Is disciple an offensive term for someone who teaches a philosophy that differs little from their mentors?

I've read enough statements posted here and elsewhere and have read articles from Martin Fackler back to when he led the FBI to 3 ammunition failures in the late 80s. I wouldn't waste ten cents on the works from all of them.

Your comments are little more than an attempt to justify your flawed beliefs in these works which leads me to believe that you are actually a fairly new shooter that became infatuated with these books early on in your experience because of fancy terms and mathematical equations. They apply some principles of physics while failing to address one of Newtons most famous dictums: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" In this case the action is a bullet accelerating and developing its max kinetic energy within 4 or 5" of barrel. The equal and opposite reaction is that bullet coming to a stop within 12" or less and shedding that kinetic energy. None of your guys seem to know where that energy goes except to say that it takes energy to make a bullet to perform as it should.

Your argument attempting to refute these researchers' work lacks one important thing- your professional standing to make authoritative claims regarding the discipline of terminal ballistics.

Barring the production of any such credentials, it is difficult to take seriously the "say so" of an anonymous, uncredentialed source who admits having no direct knowledge of the material against which his allegations are made.

So, exactly how many endorsements attesting to your authority in the field of terminal ballistics do you have?

Dr. Courtney of BTG Research on the other hand gives a completely logical explanation of what KE actually does to the human body and uses sophisticated laboratory testing tools as well as works that preceeded his to prove it as well as the most reliable testing medium of all, animals like whitetail that approximate the size of the average human being as well as pigs. Not to mention more recent autopsies that in 33 cases confirm his findings.

Taking his theory as "proven" simply for the sake of argument, Courtney's own research is the best evidence that the minor effect he is studying is trivial and insignificant. He has admitted that it (bpw) occurs unreliably and produces microscopic tears in minute blood vessels that are unlikely to result in any meaningful amount of blood loss- even over extended timeframes.

And when it comes to vetting and endorsements, his come from physicians and physicists. ;)

How does one discard out of hand the research of physicians (Fackler, Roberts) without proof of wrong-doing in one case and then hold up as valid the opinions of other physicians simply because they are physicians in another case?

That's a very disingenuous argument.

9mmforMe
December 6, 2012, 11:40 PM
CZ,
We know where you stand, thanks for your input. And repeating yourself over and over again will not make your "science" more valid. I for one would appreciate it if you not get this thread closed due to your personal attacks, not very high road at all and quite tiresome to be sure.

481
December 6, 2012, 11:42 PM
OK, it is time to bring this thread back on topic.

Has anyone else done a water test with their ammo of choice? I'd sure like to see pictures and hear about other's test results.

CZ57
December 6, 2012, 11:45 PM
So, exactly how many endorsements attesting to your authority in the field of terminal ballistics do you have?

Haven't written any books on the subject so I have nothing to sell. Don't think I need any endorsements. Professionally as I designer I did achieve a degree of recognition for hydraulic design principles in irrigation as well as winning a national design competition and was featured in a national publication in 1989. I also hold certifications from the NFPA for life safety system design as well as a certification in sound system design from the BOSE corporation. On many occasions I'm the guy who does design work for engineering firms. I have a longtime interest in ballistics and have been shooting handguns for over 33 years. Rifles even longer and over 26 years of experience as a self taught handloader.

And since there is no degree in Ballistics, you can choose who you find more credible. An Army physician whose field experience had nothing to do with wounds from JHP bullets, a dentist whose only qualification is in a related healthcare field with limited medical training, an aerospace engineer who doesn't even list physics as a minor and another engineer of the same caliber where their degree requirements could have been as little as six semester hours in physics. Or, on the other hand you can consider the work of two physicists with PHds from MIT who took the pioneering work in their field and expanded upon it.

Taking his theory as "proven" simply for the sake of argument, Courtney's own research is the best evidence that the minor effect he is studying is trivial and insignificant. He has admitted that it (bpw) occurs unreliably and produces microscopic tears in minute blood vessels that are unlikely to result in any meaningful amount of blood loss- even over extended timeframes.

Boy, I don't know what you're reading but 500 Ft/Lbs of KE from a JHP to the thoracic cavity resulting in a Ballsitic Pressure Wave, BPW, that can exert 1000 PSI of Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, is anything but a "minor effect" and in many cases has shown instantaneous incapacitation. As far as blood loss, he has indicated that it is a pretty poor consideration allowing an assailant plenty of time to bullets into your body before he expires.

Like I said: May the Schwartz be with you! ;)

481
December 6, 2012, 11:55 PM
Haven't written any books on the subject so I have nothing to sell. Don't think I need any endorsements. Professionally as I designer I did achieve a degree of recognition for hydraulic design principles in irrigation as well as winning a national design competition and was featured in a national publication in 1989. I also hold certifications from the NFPA for life safety system design as well as a certification in sound system design from the BOSE corporation. On many occasions I'm the guy who does design work for engineering firms. I have a longtime interest in ballistics and have been shooting handguns for over 33 years. Rifles even longer and over 26 years of experience as a self taught handloader.

And since there is no degree in Ballistics, you can choose who you find more credible. An Army physician whose field experience had nothing to do with wounds from JHP bullets, a dentist whose only qualification is in a related healthcare field with limited medical training, an aerospace engineer who doesn't even list physics as a minor and another engineer of the same caliber where their degree requirements could have been as little as six semester hours in physics. Or, on the other hand you can consider the work of two physicists with PHds from MIT who took the pioneering work in their field and expanded upon it.

Boy, I don't know what you're reading but 500 Ft/Lbs of KE from a JHP to the thoracic cavity resulting in a Ballsitic Pressure Wave, BPW, that can exert 1000 PSI of Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, is anything but a "minor effect" and in many cases has shown instantaneous incapacitation. As far as blood loss, he has indicated that it is a pretty poor consideration allowing an assailant plenty of time to bullets into your body before he expires.

Like I said: May the Schwartz be with you! ;)

OK, so you are a irrigation designer. I'll stick with those who have the credentials to speak to the issues of terminal ballistic testing and the models mentioned above. Thank you for your input.

You've been asked by another member to cease with the unnecessary repitition and I'll ask the same of you- your post is way OT and everyone gets that you don't like water tests.

Let's permit this thread to return to it's due course.

CZ57
December 6, 2012, 11:59 PM
CZ,
We know where you stand, thanks for your input. And repeating yourself over and over again will not make your "science" more valid. I for one would appreciate it if you not get this thread closed due to your personal attacks, not very high road at all and quite tiresome to be sure.

Well since 481 seemingly started this thread in your behalf you're entitled to your opinion. But in the case of the last two threads that were locked, that action was taken after posts from 481 and 2zulu1 whom you seem to have no problem with or their personal attacks. ;)

481
December 7, 2012, 12:04 AM
CZ57,

Is it too much to ask that we please get this thread back on topic?

If you have a problem with this thread perhaps it is best to let a Mod know.

9mmforMe
December 7, 2012, 12:08 AM
CZ, this type of derailment will get this thread locked quickly so this will be my last post directed your way. All I have to say is Goodnight to you.

Id be very interersted to see others' experiments as well and pics if possible...for the .45 or any caliber for that matter.

CZ57
December 7, 2012, 12:16 AM
Feel free to proceed on with your show and tell thread! I'm done. ;)

9mmforMe
December 7, 2012, 12:41 AM
481,

Do you have any other tests you are thinking of performing anytime soon?

481
December 7, 2012, 12:50 AM
481,

Do you have any other tests you are thinking of performing anytime soon?

Yes.

If/When conditions permit, I plan on testing the Federal 12 gauge Barnes Sabot copper slug.

Been kind of itchin' to see what it'll do since it is my shotgun HD load. It'll be through a few layers of clothing and I'll post the results here when I have them.

Gonna try to do it this weekend.

9mmforMe
December 7, 2012, 01:07 AM
Sounds good, will like to see how that slug performs.

marine 97-03
December 7, 2012, 03:20 AM
Been wanting to do some test myself .... now I just might.....interesting. :)

hentown
December 7, 2012, 08:01 AM
Now, now, children. Sure doesn't take much to flush the control freaks out of the woodwork! :cool:

481
December 7, 2012, 11:28 AM
Been wanting to do some test myself .... now I just might.....interesting. :)

What caliber(s) do you plan on testing?

2zulu1
December 7, 2012, 02:23 PM
Yes.

If/When conditions permit, I plan on testing the Federal 12 gauge Barnes Sabot copper slug.

Been kind of itchin' to see what it'll do since it is my shotgun HD load. It'll be through a few layers of clothing and I'll post the results here when I have them.

Gonna try to do it this weekend.
Looking forward to the test and reading your results. :)

2zulu1
December 7, 2012, 03:18 PM
Haven't written any books on the subject so I have nothing to sell. Don't think I need any endorsements. Professionally as I designer I did achieve a degree of recognition for hydraulic design principles in irrigation as well as winning a national design competition and was featured in a national publication in 1989. I also hold certifications from the NFPA for life safety system design as well as a certification in sound system design from the BOSE corporation. On many occasions I'm the guy who does design work for engineering firms. I have a longtime interest in ballistics and have been shooting handguns for over 33 years. Rifles even longer and over 26 years of experience as a self taught handloader.

And since there is no degree in Ballistics, you can choose who you find more credible. An Army physician whose field experience had nothing to do with wounds from JHP bullets, a dentist whose only qualification is in a related healthcare field with limited medical training, an aerospace engineer who doesn't even list physics as a minor and another engineer of the same caliber where their degree requirements could have been as little as six semester hours in physics. Or, on the other hand you can consider the work of two physicists with PHds from MIT who took the pioneering work in their field and expanded upon it.



Boy, I don't know what you're reading but 500 Ft/Lbs of KE from a JHP to the thoracic cavity resulting in a Ballsitic Pressure Wave, BPW, that can exert 1000 PSI of Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, is anything but a "minor effect" and in many cases has shown instantaneous incapacitation. As far as blood loss, he has indicated that it is a pretty poor consideration allowing an assailant plenty of time to bullets into your body before he expires.

Like I said: May the Schwartz be with you! ;)
I've had internet "conversations" with Courtney regarding real world experiences.

I was in a situation where I was charged by a pitbull, not enough time to use the EOTech on the M4, but the 64gr Power Point entrance wound was w/i 1.5" of the pibull's spine.

I compared that experience with that of John Taffin's who was hunting large hogs with a 44 Special handgun, Keith (SWC) bullet 950fps.

According to Courtney's research, the BPW from the 64gr PP should have incapacitated the canine, it didn't, but the pitbull cart wheeled to a stop with a busted up shoulder. SWC bullet designs are well down on Courtney's incapacitation list, yet Taffin was able to cleanly take two 500# hogs with a 44 Special. Courtney was unable to explain the performance difference between the three situations.

Pertaining to research credibility, consider this, MacPherson was able to model astronaut re-entry trajectory paths through the earth's atmosphere and predict where the space ships would land. Astronauts enter the earth's atmosphere at too steep an angle and they burn up, too shallow an angle and they skip off. MacPherson has the brains to perform these calculations using nothing more than a slide rule, yet according to you, a person who can predict a splash down location of a space ship after traveling hundreds of thousands of miles, can't model bullet penetration in inches.

Concerning Schwartz, from the back cover of his book, bachelor's degree from Ohio State in psychology with a minor in physics. After graduating from the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center at Glynco, Georgia; he worked for the US Department of Justice. Two of his interests include Dangerous game hunting and astrophysics.

Given these backgrounds, I find both MacPherson and Schwartz to be very credible and it's why I find their books (research) to be sources of reference given my education and experience.

It's a bit of an oxymoron for you to believe you have credibility to post your opinions as you do on this thread and denigrate those who possess experiential knowledge.

CZ57
December 7, 2012, 04:01 PM
Well, I already said I was done and you come behind that statement to challenge me. Regarding your last post I'll simply say this: BS!

Like in most of your posts, there are errors I've found that chap your ass and that's your entire motivation. Example: shooting heavy bone with the Remington SJHP with it's exposed soft lead nose than trying to pass it off as a poor penetrator in terms of it being an effective defense round, which it has been very effective as a manstopper.

If you've had conversations with Courtney via email lets see 'em. I know if I'd had conversations with someone of that stature the emails would have been saved and I'd be glad to share them.

Kinda like your handle, I think you'd have people believe you're something that you obviously are not.

I only posted my credentials because 481 asked for them, maybe not impressive but Schwartz minoring in physics is hardly the same as actually having a PHd now is it? And, as I mentioned he has a grand total of ONE endorsement, with the exception of you and 481 that is. But that doesn't stop you and 481 from trying to denigrate Courtney does it? As far as your education and experience level feel free to post them.

Are you trying to say that MacPherson, as an aerospace engineer calculated the original physics for spacecraft to reenter the earths atmosphere? I believe that had already been done by the German physicists involved with the Mercury space program. ;)

481
December 7, 2012, 05:28 PM
Well, I already said I was done and you come behind that statement to challenge me. Regarding your last post I'll simply say this: BS!

Like in most of your posts, there are errors I've found that chap your ass and that's your entire motivation. Example: shooting heavy bone with the Remington SJHP with it's exposed soft lead nose than trying to pass it off as a poor penetrator in terms of it being an effective defense round, which it has been very effective as a manstopper.

If you've had conversations with Courtney via email lets see 'em. I know if I'd had conversations with someone of that stature the emails would have been saved and I'd be glad to share them.

Kinda like your handle, I think you'd have people believe you're something that you obviously are not.

I only posted my credentials because 481 asked for them, maybe not impressive but Schwartz minoring in physics is hardly the same as actually having a PHd now is it? And, as I mentioned he has a grand total of ONE endorsement, with the exception of you and 481 that is. But that doesn't stop you and 481 from trying to denigrate Courtney does it? As far as your education and experience level feel free to post them.

Are you trying to say that MacPherson, as an aerospace engineer calculated the original physics for spacecraft to reenter the earths atmosphere? I believe that had already been done by the German physicists involved with the Mercury space program. ;)

Once again, everyone knows where you stand and your credentials (an irrigation system designer), and it is all there for them to read, but I (and many others here) have elected to defer to the ballisticians, physicians, and munitions engineers who have expertise in the field of study. Thanks for your input. If you feel that MacPherson's and Schwartz's models are endangering new shooters, I'd encourage you to take those concerns to them. They strike me as fair people and I am sure that they'll give your concerns all of the attention that they deserve. ;)

The constant repetition of yourself over and over and over again in spite of the fact that several members are never going to agree with you clearly serves no other purpose but to get this thread closed which seems to be your intention given your return. Please stop.

Back on-topic now.

CZ57
December 7, 2012, 08:21 PM
Thanks for your input. If you feel that MacPherson's and Schwartz's models are endangering new shooters, I'd encourage you to take those concerns to them. They strike me as fair people and I am sure that they'll give your concerns all of the attention that they deserve.

New shooters, like yourself, are my only concern. I only posted the first time to point out the fallacy in your own tests and why the Schwartz modelling system is flawed, yet you continue to put up numbers because you like to calculate them for new shooter approval. I think you have some kind of attention deficiency disorder like your pal Shaka Zulu.

There's a simple solution, stop commenting on my posts or challenging them after I've clearly stated I'm done with a thread and I won't have a need to revisit the thread. 2zulu1 directly confronted me after I had stated I was finished so maybe you should offer some advice to your tag-team partner because outside of a Swedish engineer, nobody but you 3 are endorsing Schwartz and you yourself in testing with water filled baggies proved how flawed this type of thinking is. And as I stated, I do happen to know a thing or two about hydraulics. ;)

481
December 7, 2012, 09:44 PM
New shooters, like yourself, are my only concern. I only posted the first time to point out the fallacy in your own tests and why the Schwartz modelling system is flawed, yet you continue to put up numbers because you like to calculate them for new shooter approval. I think you have some kind of attention deficiency disorder like your pal Shaka Zulu.

There's a simple solution, stop commenting on my posts or challenging them after I've clearly stated I'm done with a thread and I won't have a need to revisit the thread. 2zulu1 directly confronted me after I had stated I was finished so maybe you should offer some advice to your tag-team partner because outside of a Swedish engineer, nobody but you 3 are endorsing Schwartz and you yourself in testing with water filled baggies proved how flawed this type of thinking is. And as I stated, I do happen to know a thing or two about hydraulics. ;)

I am far from a being a "new shooter" and happily take the opinion of highly educated physicians and munitions engineers over that of an anonymous irrigation designer. You have no standing in the field.

So now you have to resort to insulting behavior (alleging that I suffer from some sort of mental disabilty?) to make your point?

Look, I've just reported your post. Your conduct is offensive and I demand an apology- Personal insult is not the way to make a point.

My guess is that the Mods are gonna shut this down thanks to your overbearing behavior and insults. Looks like you'll get what you were after.

CZ57
December 7, 2012, 11:24 PM
I am far from a being a "new shooter" and happily take the opinion of highly educated physicians and munitions engineers over that of an anonymous irrigation designer. You have no standing in the field.

Yet you think you and shaka-zulu are credible in arguing with 2 PHds in physics.

I am an irrigation, fire sprinkler, fire alarm and sound system designer. I design for engineers and architects and in some cases I have to correct the errors of engineers.

You remind me of Pee Wee Herman whom I watched with my daughter when she was was in kindergarten: "I know you are but what am I?"

The mods may shut it down but that is not my aim. As I said earlier, the last two threads that were shut down were after comments from you and Zulu.

Defend your opinions rather than go into attack mode which is the MO of you and zulu. My aim is to protect the newer shooters from your BS.

Your favorite cliche seems to be: "not very high road of you" Shilling for Schwartz is not High Road whatsoever. I've made enough contributions to this forum, particularly in the reloading section, that if calling a spade a spade gets me banned, so be it. I won't allow a couple of Charletons to guide newer shooters down the path of possible misfortune.

481
December 7, 2012, 11:35 PM
Again with the name-calling and accusations?

I am not shilling for anyone. I just happen to find these models (both MacPherson and Schwartz's) to be interesting and so do at least several hundred members who've visitied the thread.

I am not debating two PhDs either- I am debating with a water-sprinkler designer who seems to believe that his opinion overrides those of Dr Fackler (who has endorsed water testing and advocates the use of a Fackler Box), Dr Roberts and numerous other contributors in the field.

Who elected you sole arbiter of what is proper and what ain't?

You have no standing in the field of ballistics. There is nothing left to say.

Owen
December 7, 2012, 11:42 PM
so lets see here. both flavors of Ad hominem attacks. appeal to authority. appeal to accomplishment. straw man. It's like a whole critical thinking exam in here.

If you enjoyed reading about "Water test: Two .45ACP JHPs evaluated" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!