.45 Hardball

[papaone]

Happyguy

You are right. Some people will debate any and every thing. I knew what a "torso" hit was in jr high. Maybe this will help: A torso hit is when a bullet hits the "torso." If this is too difficult to understand, then...???

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
----------------------------------------------
If you are going to examine end effects, you have to examine end effects using procedures which screen them from others as much as possible.
----------------------------------------------

No, you can more efficiently work it the other way around -- in other words, when you start seeing particular combinations popping up, THEN you have warrant to disassemble the combinations to find the key elements to lead to success.

If, for example, you find people with .22 automatics are more likely to win than people with .454 Casuls, that, in itself, is important.

You can then start developing hypotheses and querying the data to test them.

A good example of this is hunting dangerous game -- people learned big calibers are better pretty quickly. Things like double or single barrel, hunter skill, and so on didn't mask that fact.

 

[MrAcheson]

No, you can more efficiently work it the other way around -- in other words, when you start seeing particular combinations popping up, THEN you have warrant to disassemble the combinations to find the key elements to lead to success.

Yes but you aren't looking at end effects at that point. M&S data is targeted to specific munition effectiveness. Your technique will show interesting trends, but its a higher order analysis. Its correlation without causation. Its not enough to know that a gun "wins" because you need to know why and whether that reason is still applicable to you. Perhaps that gun wins because it is used by a highly skilled subset of the population for instance. That will take a lot more work and much closer examination of tactics, weapons, munitions, etc. I think you realise this.

The reason M&S screen their data so much is to mitigate these other variables as much as possible so their data is more broadly applicable. M&S data is equally valid (or invalid depending on what you think of it) for all shooters. Brand X JHP is more effective than Brand Y, all other things being equal. Your data will just be an examination of general trends that is not sufficient for making personal choices without more rigorous examinations of the causes of those trends.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
-----------------------------------------
Yes but you aren't looking at end effects at that point. M&S data is targeted to specific munition effectiveness. Your technique will show interesting trends, but its a higher order analysis. Its correlation without causation.
-------------------------------------------

Exactly!

But it DOES answer the critical question -- "What do the winners use?"

The Marshall and Sanow data does NOT answer that question -- when we're told the .357, 125-grain load produces "95% one shot stops" we don't KNOW if people with .357s have a good chance of winning. We only know IF they get a "torso hit" the bad guy will be stopped. It's possible that MOST people armed with .357s don't get any hits at all.

More likely, there might be some systems with lower "one shot stops" that get a significantly higher percentage of hits, and are therefore more effective.

Now, when I find the winning and losing combinations, it would be helpful to do more in-depth analysis to find out WHY one system is so successful, and another fails. But to do that analysis WITHOUT knowing which is which is pointless.

 

[MrAcheson]

But it DOES answer the critical question -- "What do the winners use?"

Sort of, but it doesn't tell you why they won. It is also doesn't tell you how to win with a given weapon. Its a very reactionary approach because it only tells you what people do now not the best thing to do.

we don't KNOW if people with .357s have a good chance of winning. We only know IF they get a "torso hit" the bad guy will be stopped.

But the torso is the typical handgun aimpoint and what people train for so screening out everything but that is sensible. Furthermore the goal of a shooting is the cessation of hostilities (a stop), so an OSS number will give you that. Stopping is winning for all intents and purposes.

But to do that analysis WITHOUT knowing which is which is pointless.

No you can go the other way too. If you know bullet performance you can use that to drive tactics and weapons choice. You can use that as a building block to model up to the next level of fidelity.

Anyway we've really gone down a rabbit trail since this has nothing to do with .45 hardball.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

...it'll drill a 0.45" hole...

If it's FMJ-RN it won't. IIRC, diameter of the permanent cavity, presuming the bullet maintains point forward orientation as it penetrates, averages approximately 69% of its diameter -- about .310 inches.*

If it's FMJ-TC or FMJ-FP, the maximum diameter of the permanent cavity will be approximately the same diameter as the flat nose meplat. A flat nose bullet, presuming it maintains point forward orientation as it penetrates, will penetrate deeper than an FMJ-RN bullet of the same caliber. The reason? The flat nose propels soft tissues radially away from the bullet, whereas soft tissues "flow" around the more streamlined contours of a round nose bullet. Hence the round nose bullet encounters greater resistance to penetration than the flat nose bullet because the round nose bullet has greater direct contact with soft tissues.

*Edited to correct misinformation (69% instead of 60%, and .310" instead of .270").

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
-----------------------------------------
But the torso is the typical handgun aimpoint and what people train for so screening out everything but that is sensible.
-------------------------------------------

The problem is, we KNOW some systems are harder to control and hit with than others, so what people TRAIN for is no grounds for ASSSUMING they accomplish it.

Look at it this way, suppose there were only two guns -- the 155mm howitzer and the .25 automatic. Let's suppose half the police departments or CCW carriers choose one, and half the other. And suppose we have a thousand encounters with each.

The people with the .25 automatics WIN 50% of the encounters, but NEVER get a "one shot stop."

The people with the 155 howitzers lose almost all of their encounters, but in ONE case someone manages to get his howitzer unlimbered and get off a shot -- and gets a "one shot stop."

If we follow the Marshall and Sanow approach, we'd all be towing 155 mm howitzers!

 

[dandean316]

Ricochets?

This may be changing the subject a bit, but what about MISSES?

Here's a scenario: I'm out walking and a dog starts running at me to attack. I pull out my .45 and shoot down, aiming at the dog, but miss and hit the blacktop street.

Wouldn't a 230 gr roundnose have a better chance of ricocheting than a 185 gr (or whatever) hollowpoint? I would assume the hollowpoints once they hit the blacktop would breakup and expand more with fewer ricochets and in that case safer for misses.

Anyone have real world experience with this? Is there anyway to test this safely?

 

[papaone]

Question ??

It is obvious that many of you really know good info in this discussion. My assumption is that you keep up to date in this area. So my question to you is, "Is the data given by Marshall and Sanow valid or invalid?

Thanks for your helpful responses.
Demal

 

[MrAcheson]

"Is the data given by Marshall and Sanow valid or invalid?"

I don't think OSS numbers are particularly meaningful for the reason Vern illustrates above. So what if its a two shot stopper, if you have the two shots and the time to make them? And M&S only look at shootings where one shot was fired. This artificially inflates the numbers because if the guy doesn't stop, wouldn't you keep shooting? On the other hand many of the procedures to build their data set aren't really that bad.

As for validity, its very debateable. People have tried to replicate M&S numbers and failed. People have made cross comparisons between M&S literature and found numbers hard to explain. A particular .380 is awful in one book and good in the next with not enough new data to create the shift in stopping power.

I don't think its useful as a measure of a particular rounds effectiveness. I would put my trust in gelatin data first even though its not perfect either.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

And at least one detailed analysis of MS indicates (and quite accrurately -- I duplicated it using MS published figures) there are some MINUS shootings -- that is, for current data to be valid, earlier shootings had to NOT have happened, or been magicked away.

And, of course, the whole MS database has never been released to other researchers -- which is a requirement in scientific fields, since it is essential for peer review.

 

[MrAcheson]

And, of course, the whole MS database has never been released to other researchers -- which is a requirement in scientific fields, since it is essential for peer review.

I knew this would come up, but it is total BS. No professional researcher ever releases his raw data for free if he can help it. Sometimes whomever paid for the study contractually requires you to release it, but in general you hold on to it like it was made of gold. This is because it is made of gold, since you spent good money to collect that data. You release your methodology for free and if the other guy has the money he can recreate your database. This is how it works in the real world. Anyone who says different is kidding you about his research credentials.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
-----------------------------------------
I knew this would come up, but it is total BS. No professional researcher ever releases his raw data for free if he can help it.
-----------------------------------------

That is NOT true. The standard for science is peer review, and it is routine for editorial committees and other agencies to request copies of the data base before publishing a scientific article in any quality science journal.

 

[Al Thompson]

Gold? IIRC, M&S didn't pay anyone for the data. The math errors alone makes the study very suspect.

 

[Swamprabbit]

Frankly, I have doubts about the M&S stuff. Real world encounters don't always give the shooter a clean shot. The M&S study weeded out shots through obstructions or anything other than a clean/clear shot to the torso. I would think that any ammo/gun would have to be judged by how it worked in ALL situations.

Take hunting for example, there have been several times where I had to take a less than ideal shot. There will always be a weed, some grass, or maybe even a small tree branches (maybe you don't even see it) covering part of the target's kill zone. It does little good to use the cartridge with the best "one-shot-stop" record when it won't penetrate these obstacles without deflection or premature fragmentation.

Just my $0.02

 

[MrAcheson]

That is NOT true. The standard for science is peer review, and it is routine for editorial committees and other agencies to request copies of the data base before publishing a scientific article in any quality science journal.

Do you do professional research? I have. I'm published in several peer reviewed works. What you are suggesting is not routine. Someone's claims have to pretty out there for you to demand their raw data. Most peer review is a face validity check of their methodology and results. Typically if you want to see someone's raw data set, you need to pay them money for it because they spent money to build it. Editorial committees are made up of your peers, but your competing peers. That makes turning over your raw data to them unappealling because they can turn around and mine your data for their research. You don't want to give your competitors a leg up like that.

Gold? IIRC, M&S didn't pay anyone for the data. The math errors alone makes the study very suspect.

You think they work for free? They collected it (or say they did) from lots of different sources like police records, etc. Most of these records are public, but they aren't necessarily free (processing fees etc). After that, someone has to look through all those forms and build a data set from it. This is their job, they did not do it for free like an enthusiast might.

I agree about the math errors. Unless they started throwing out old data, it is pretty hard to justify.

 

[jc2]

Gold? IIRC, M&S didn't pay anyone for the data.

They have admitted a great deal (probably most) of their "data" is illegally (criminally) obtained. It's been my experience that criminals are untrustworthy. The fact that a large portion of their "data" was stolen is one of their justifications for not allowing a peer review like any repsonsible professional would (at least if they expected to have any professional--much less "definitive"--standing). So, even if S&M obtained their "data" in good faith (which is doubtful), it must remain suspect (regardless of the faulty analysis and math errors).

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------
Do you do professional research? I have. I'm published in several peer reviewed works. What you are suggesting is not routine
--------------------------------------------------

Yes. In fact, I developed the computer-based training system used by IRS researchers.

In some cases, where the data is publicly available, a cite may be sufficient -- since anyone can get the data. But I have found that routinely -- especially in cases where the research is unique, reputable publishers want to see the data.

Quote:
---------------------------------------------------------
The M&S study weeded out shots through obstructions or anything other than a clean/clear shot to the torso. I would think that any ammo/gun would have to be judged by how it worked in ALL situations.
----------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely. And the measure of how an ammo/gun system works in ALL situations is stops/encounters.

 

[happyguy]

In an attempt to get this thread back to the original subject I offer the following for your general consumption.

There used to be a ballistic gelatin test on Shawn Dodson's web site that I thought was a pretty good argument in favor of .45 acp FMJ (that's probably why it isn't there anymore ).

He fired a .45 acp Federal Hydrashock through some pork ribs and into some ballistic gelatin. The intent was to demonstrate the effect of having a bullet pass through an intermediate barrier such as a forearm before striking the torso. As I recall the Hydrashock only got eight or nine inches of penetration in the gelatin after going through the ribs.

True this simulates a less than ideal scenario, but it is by no means a worst case scenario.

The problem is that FMJ, like glocks and standard 1911's, are just plain and boring. JHP's on the other hand are hot and sexy, even if they aren't all they're cracked up to be.

As far as stops/encounters, that is another way of looking at the data, and I have to say that it has some appeal. And if we keep looking at it from different perspectives for long enough perhaps we'll eventually be able to draw some meaningful conclusions.

Regards,
Happyguy

 

[cratz2]

I learned everything I needed to know in kindergarten.

Three rounds of 45ACP out of a 4" to 5" barrel landing in the center of mass is very often going to have desirable results whether the projectiles penetrate completely through or not, whether the projectiles are expanding HPs or not and whether you chose the 'awsome always deadly Rangers' or the 'lowly, rarely expanding HydraShoks' as HPs.

Someone made a reference to what the gun rags say about ball ammo... gun rag writers are probably more inundated with the alleged pros and cons to various HPs that the rest of us... How boring is it to recommend 'ball is best' over the latest greatest HP that has been shown to expand up to twice the diameter in this one special kind of gelatin?

Regardless of how they manipulate the data, one shot stops don't make sense from a purely logical point of view simply because across the country, most officers aren't trained to shot once into the center of mass then immediately reholster their weapon and never draw it again. If someone is doing something which prompts a LEO to use his weapon, it would stand to reason that very often, they are going to shoot at least once more than is probably absolutely, positively neccessary. And that is a good thing. In Marshalls defense, this makes it difficult, if not impossible to report anything resembling comparable numbers. I still say that the numbers are 13.781% more effective than nothing at all, but can still lead to largely misleading percentages.

A few words of advice: If you want to be as prepared as possible, try spending half as much time drawing and shooting on a range as you do arguing over if Marshall's number crunching is better than Facklers predictions and learn to place the bullet as accurately as possible. And if the need arises, three shots in the upper half of the torso are much more likely to stop the bad guy very quickly than ANY one shot from ANY handgun.

Just my two cents.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

There used to be a ballistic gelatin test on Shawn Dodson's web site that I thought was a pretty good argument in favor of .45 acp FMJ (that's probably why it isn't there anymore ).

It's still there. It's the 'Magsafe Inadequate' article.

...better than Facklers predictions...

I don't know where you got this idea. Fackler has all along claimed that gelatin testing provides "a reasonable indication" of terminal performance and wounding potential. I'm unaware he's ever claimed that gelatin tests can "predict" in-service performance.

 

[YammyMonkey]

This is just RE an earlier point that wasn't addressed:

The reason you find a lot of bullets "just under" the exit layer of skin (back if the bullet entered from the front, for example) is that human skin is incredibly elastic. We generally don't see it because it's directly over muscle and bone and hard to get a grip on a small area and pull with enough force to simulate a bullet. If you'd like a visual of how elastic our skin is try looking for some of those ya-hoos that put hooks through their backs and hang themselves off them You'll see a LOT of stretch.

Now, the reason a round penetrates the entry layer of skin so easily is because it has a rather solid backing. Try taking a balloon or rubber glove, place it on a hard surface and take a knife and see how much pressure is required to puncture it with the tip. Now take another piece, have someone hold it out without a backing and do the same. Takes more pressure and you see the stretch. Now imagine that instead of using a sharp knife point we're talking about a rather blunt object such as a bullet and then you'll undertand why so many rounds are found "just under" that last layer of skin.

 

[Chuck Jennings]

Regardless of how they manipulate the data, one shot stops don't make sense from a purely logical point of view simply because across the country, most officers aren't trained to shot once into the center of mass then immediately reholster their weapon and never draw it again. If someone is doing something which prompts a LEO to use his weapon, it would stand to reason that very often, they are going to shoot at least once more than is probably absolutely, positively neccessary.

Absolutely. Anyone worth shooting, is worth shooting a few times.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
-------------------------------------------
And if the need arises, three shots in the upper half of the torso are much more likely to stop the bad guy very quickly than ANY one shot from ANY handgun.
-------------------------------------------

Amen.

Now, if we only had a study that gave us a clue WHICH gun and cartrige combination was most likely to let you get off three fast, effective shots.

 

[p35]

So, if your weapon shoots it reliably, why not use a 230 grain HP? I figure it's the same size chunk of lead, and if it expands that's a bonus.