1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

9mm defence cartridges

Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by Treefrog23, Nov 16, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. primalmu

    primalmu Well-Known Member

    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.

    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.
  2. 481

    481 Well-Known Member

    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.

    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;

    "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.
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2012
  3. Sauer Grapes

    Sauer Grapes Well-Known Member

    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.
  4. CZ57

    CZ57 member

    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. ;)
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2012
  5. 481

    481 Well-Known Member

    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.

    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.

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

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

    Yeah, please, do that. :cool:
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2012
  6. CZ57

    CZ57 member

    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:
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2012
  7. HankB

    HankB Well-Known Member

    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.)
  8. C0untZer0

    C0untZer0 Well-Known Member

    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 ?
  9. 2zulu1

    2zulu1 Well-Known Member

    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;


    Through the 4x4, steel and bone;


    And it expanded;



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


    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;


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


    Recovered bullet weight was only 83.7grs, given the bullet's asymmetrical expansion, it tumbled.
  10. CZ57

    CZ57 member

    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:
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2012
  11. C0untZer0

    C0untZer0 Well-Known Member

    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"
  12. 481

    481 Well-Known Member

    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-


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

    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.

    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-

    -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. ;)
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2012
  13. CZ57

    CZ57 member

    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?

    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. ;)

    Last edited: Nov 18, 2012
  14. Jaymo

    Jaymo Well-Known Member

    I like Corbon 115 grain and Gold Dot 115 and 124 grain.
  15. 481

    481 Well-Known Member

    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".

    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.

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

    -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.

    Despite your insinuation, the statistical analysis still stands unrefuted.

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

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

    Optimally accurate?

    Whoooeeee! :p

    Hysterical! :D
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2012
  16. Jaymo

    Jaymo Well-Known Member

    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?
  17. 481

    481 Well-Known Member

    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. ;)
  18. Jaymo

    Jaymo Well-Known Member

    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.
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2012
  19. 481

    481 Well-Known Member

    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-

    -with a straight face. :scrutiny:

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

    That seems to be what we are being asked to believe. ;)
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2012
  20. Jaymo

    Jaymo Well-Known Member

    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.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page