9mm defence cartridges

[C0untZer0]

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]

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.

Drat! Foiled again!

Classic.


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.

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.

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

 

[CZ57]

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]

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

 

[481]

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?

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!

Hysterical!

 

[Jaymo]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?