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. CZ57

    CZ57 member

    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.

    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. ;)
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2012
  2. CZ57

    CZ57 member

    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?
  3. 481

    481 Well-Known Member

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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-

    -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.
  4. 9mmforMe

    9mmforMe Well-Known Member


    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.
  5. Jaymo

    Jaymo Well-Known Member

    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.
  6. 2zulu1

    2zulu1 Well-Known Member

    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. :)


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

    RBid Well-Known Member

    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.
  8. CZ57

    CZ57 member

    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. ;)
  9. CZ57

    CZ57 member

    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 ;)
  10. CZ57

    CZ57 member

    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.
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2012
  11. Jaymo

    Jaymo Well-Known Member

    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.
  12. RBid

    RBid Well-Known Member


    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.
  13. CZ57

    CZ57 member

    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. ;)
  14. RBid

    RBid Well-Known Member

    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.
  15. 481

    481 Well-Known Member

    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.

    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.

    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 then go on in the same breath to say this:

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

    Tomac Well-Known Member

    All handguns are relatively poor "stoppers" regardless of caliber or bullet used. Shot placement and sufficient penetration are paramount, all else is secondary.
    With that being said, I carry 147gr bonded as I find it has a little more kick but less snap out of my S&W M&P 9c's which makes for faster followup shots.
  17. C0untZer0

    C0untZer0 Well-Known Member

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

    C0untZer0 Well-Known Member

    I've heard that the FBI issues the Winchester 147gr PDX to the agents using 9mm.

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

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

    Well - it's still 147gr
  19. 481

    481 Well-Known Member

    According to Winchester, the RA9B which uses the same bullet as the 147 gr PDX1 expands to 0.58" and penetrates to a depth of 15.8" after the FBI "heavy clothing" barrier.
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2012
  20. CZ57

    CZ57 member

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

    You mean the one you hope nobody will click on? What about that permanent link in your sig line? Wah, Wah, Wah! ;)
    Go away, you're becoming tiresome and repetitive. ;)
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2012
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page