Handgun Caliber Selection Insight
- Thread starter HoboCoastie
- Start date
- Status
Loosedhorse
member
As this condition is exactly the one in which we would use a gun in SD, perhaps it is the best scenario from which to gather data that would be applicable to us?
It is decided that "it's not worth looking at" because the variability makes it near impossible for one round to be better than another. The thousands of shootings that happen each year have shown us this. The thousands of hospital GSW admissions have shown us this. The science behind human anatomy and physiology has shown us this. The question is answered. Working better on paper is not the same as working better in reality. Why is that so hard to cope with?
And really, being honest, how many hunters have you actually spoken with about caliber, ammunition, etc.? Of course, on a gun board, people are going to discuss their firearms more. Of course they will have a pet round. I see that, even though I don't ever visit the hunting forum. Do they have massive 10+ page arguments about why the .270 is a terrible deer round, but the .308 is all that and a bag of chips? I'm asking, since I don't go there much.
What I've seen off the internet is not so. People have their pet caliber, for whatever reason (it was Dad's old rifle passed down, or it was bought on a recommendation from a friend, or it was a good price...). One hunter may have excellent results with their .308, and another with a .30-30 or .243. When asked, most will say it really doesn't matter, as long as it's above .xxx caliber (depending on the animal, for humane reasons). If I asked a strict .30-06 hunter about getting myself a .243 for deer, he would say it is a fine round that will easily do the job. Outside the internet, I've never seen anyone argue the merits of a Remington Core-Lokt vs. a Winchester Ballistic Silvertip for hunting. I have seen a lot of people buy substitute rounds for their rifle in a pinch, or change do to cost. Doesn't seem so "die-hard" to me...
I don't frequent hunting boards, but I can't even begin to count the amount of hunters I know. That is where I get my info from.
LH, I agree. But like I said, I'm pretty sure its not the officers picking the ammo or examining the wound - that's two other people. It's two different people still who are making the admin decisions and filing the report. A lot of hands in the pot, and the goal of the administrator is PR/HR, the goal of supply is cost, the goal of the officer is to stop the threat, the goal of IA is to determine if force was needed, and oh it's not until you get to the analysis folks, who have no control over ANY of the variables (including caliber selection) to do an observational study.
Hunters, on the other hand, can at least do a pseudo experiment by using one load, and then changing to another.
That's how I would have worded it.
357, all of the hunters I've talked to about hunting have gotten into what caliber they use and why they use it. They are also handloaders who try and find the perfect bullet for the job.
Hunters, on the other hand, can at least do a pseudo experiment by using one load, and then changing to another.
That's how I would have worded it.
357, all of the hunters I've talked to about hunting have gotten into what caliber they use and why they use it. They are also handloaders who try and find the perfect bullet for the job.
481
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,418
357,
I could not have said it better.
Those who dismiss testing in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin (either through sheer ignorance or an unwillingness to accept it because it is "new") do so at their own risk.
Calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin is a proven and well correlated (http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler_Articles/winchester_9mm.pdf) homogenous test analog that reduces all of the variables (well, at least the physiological ones) so that a projectile's mechanical performance can be observed and evaluated in a valid, reproducible manner and is the reason that ammunition manufacturers and researchers use it. Since we cannot just go out and shoot hundreds of thousands of people in the name of research, this homogenous test analog is the best thing that we have -faults and all.
Numerous products are tested against conditions and environments that they will never see if only to determine the point at which they will ultimately fail to perform and most are comfortable with that. When people get all "wrapped around the axle" over a projectile being fired into calibrated ordnance gelatin and the data that it produces, well...that always gets a chuckle out of me.
Last edited:
Loosedhorse
member
Truly amazing, isn't it? No data to look at, and you know what it shows?
I suspect (and no, I don't know--remember, they won't let us look at any street data) that there are failures-to-stop using FBI-level ammo frequently, right now. Of course, as long as officers are using good tactics (including putting multiple accurate shots into the threat), the effect of such failures are negated. No headlines.
FBI/Miami was a failure of planning, tactics, preparation, and materiel. It may have also been an ammo "failure". But the magnitude of that one bullet's consequences would have been greatly diminished if that "perfect shot" had been followed by 4 or 5 similarly placed .223 rounds. As would happen today.
Because of better tactics, if there are continuing ammo street failures now, we are unlikely to hear about them. BUT WE WILL HEAR PLENTY if a round has a gelatin failure.
That's where our attention is now. And in a profound way, it is silly.
Gosh knows if street results can't possibly prove which bullet is better at stopping a deadly attack, then gelatin has no hope of telling us that. We have decided we don't need to test the hypothesis that gel penetration means street effectiveness. Strange days, indeed.
LH, I don't think anyone is trying to say gel pen = street effectiveness. However, it is easier to run experiments on bullets in a gel setting, where the only variable that gets changed is the bullet's properties.
I majored in psychology, and you basically have two types of studies: experimental and observational. The gello blocks are similar to experimental studies, where you have to assign variables and judge along them. However, they may or may not provide real world data, because the test subjects are biased by the study.
Real world shootings are observational studies. You don't have a control group and a test group, you can merely observe what happens and analyze the data after the fact.
There are people who try to take the gello and make it more realistic, like brassfetcher with the bone plate tests or Mythbusters when they do a full-on pig guts, gello, and fake bone statue. Those require more materials, however, and people go to plain gello blocks for simplicity and cost.
I majored in psychology, and you basically have two types of studies: experimental and observational. The gello blocks are similar to experimental studies, where you have to assign variables and judge along them. However, they may or may not provide real world data, because the test subjects are biased by the study.
Real world shootings are observational studies. You don't have a control group and a test group, you can merely observe what happens and analyze the data after the fact.
There are people who try to take the gello and make it more realistic, like brassfetcher with the bone plate tests or Mythbusters when they do a full-on pig guts, gello, and fake bone statue. Those require more materials, however, and people go to plain gello blocks for simplicity and cost.
Loosedhorse
member
As you know, there are also two other types of studies: those that look at what your actually interested in (like effectiveness and safety of cancer drug in a human cancer victim), and those that look at a proxy for what your interested in (like effectiveness of a cancer drug in a Petri dish). Trouble is, the Petri dish is a very limited approximation of a human being. Kinda like a block of gelatin is a very limited approximation of a human attacker.
The gel craze is analgous to a whole bunch of folks testing things in a Petri dish, and claiming to have these amzing new drugs. Then you find out that they're actually using these drugs on human patients, hundreds every year across the US, and so you ask: "And how are they performing?"
They look back at you, shocked: "Why would we collect data of the drugs' actual use? Each patient is different, their cancers are at different stages, different grades...why, we'd never find out anything by looking at that data! And it would be really hard collecting and looking at it--it gives me a headache just thinking about it!
No, sir: the Petri dish is the only road to Truth! You see, we can adjust one variable at a time. Get it? That's what makes it so much better than patient data."
Very, very Twilight Zone.
But that's what's happening.
LH, that isn't how drug testing works.
First they do it in a petri dish because if you just mix random chemicals and put them in a human, you're searching for a lawsuit. (That, and it's simpler, faster, more cost effective, and you DO control more of the variables).
After you get good results in the petri dish, you set up a double-blind study, where neither those administering the drugs to the patients nor the patients know whether or not they're getting a placebo or the real drug. If you'll notice when you see the ads on TV, they don't say "in four out of every five petri dishes..." they say "in four out of every five patients."
A better example is Mythbusters. First, they build a scale model to test, in which they only test some of the conditions of the myth. By the end of the episode, they have a grand experiment that will test all of the conditions.
In this scenario, it's not like we can set up a study where we do stuff in gel blocks, and then say "okay, I need 20 volunteers to hold a weaver stance and get shot. 10 will be shot with FMJs, 10 will get shot with JHPs."
First they do it in a petri dish because if you just mix random chemicals and put them in a human, you're searching for a lawsuit. (That, and it's simpler, faster, more cost effective, and you DO control more of the variables).
After you get good results in the petri dish, you set up a double-blind study, where neither those administering the drugs to the patients nor the patients know whether or not they're getting a placebo or the real drug. If you'll notice when you see the ads on TV, they don't say "in four out of every five petri dishes..." they say "in four out of every five patients."
A better example is Mythbusters. First, they build a scale model to test, in which they only test some of the conditions of the myth. By the end of the episode, they have a grand experiment that will test all of the conditions.
In this scenario, it's not like we can set up a study where we do stuff in gel blocks, and then say "okay, I need 20 volunteers to hold a weaver stance and get shot. 10 will be shot with FMJs, 10 will get shot with JHPs."
481
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,418
The folks on the TV show "Ultimate Warrior" seem to have the most elaborate take on this sort of thing. They use gelatin torsos complete with an integrated skeleton and organs for their tests. I am not sure that the dressed up gelatin torsos offer that much more than plain blocks (it gets away from the simplicity of using plain blocks, which is a purely mechanical evaluation), but it sure provides an excellent perspective against which to observe ballistic performance.
What's really interesting to me is that the bullets that they recover from these tests also resemble to a remarkable degree the bullets that they recover from plain 10x10x16 gelatin blocks (whenever they happen to use those).
Loosedhorse
member
Of course not. Because cancer drug testers have more sense than current bullet testers. That was kinda my point?
Actually, no you don't. You do animal studies (if you have an animal model). Then, Phase 0 human pharmacodynamics studies. Then, you set up Phase I safety studies. Controls are typically not used until Phase II (and occasionally, not then). Large double-blind, randomized control studies are Phase III. And after approval, the manufacturers are REQUIRED to keep track of adverse events, and often to conduct post-market studies.
Unlike bullet manufacturers, who are required to pour gel, and market.
Hospitals have Cancer Boards, that (among other duties) keep track of the effectiveness and the bad outcomes in their treatment protocols.
If PDs have Bullet Boards, I am unaware of it.
Of course, the difference is understandable: cancer drug testing and clinical use involve matters of human life and death...
Unlike bullet development and use?
:banghead:
If you say so!
It's probably because in the cities with the most crime, the politics is the most anti-gun. If the cops have a bullet board they'll be viewed as revelling in the shootouts by the politicians.
My point was, medicine is about healing. So first you want to test to see if it will have an effect on the thing you're trying to heal, and then you test it to see if it works in the real world without negative side effects. People want to get into drug trials so they can get the benefits before the drug is officially released, and people in general view it as a good thing to make sure medicine is as good as it is going to be.
Bullets, while still about life and death, are more about causing injury and death. Yes, stopping a threat prevents injury and death, but the two are entirely different in what the study is trying to find out, and it what types of testing are available.
With drug testing, you can set up an experiment on live humans. Yes, there are a lot of other factors, but there are a lot less factors than are involved in a shooting, and you can seek out test subjects without people thinking you're a bloodthirsty mad scientist. A controlled environment such as a hospital is a much better place to test something than out on the street, and in the drug tests on humans (or animals, or whatever) you have the doctors going in with the mindset of evaluating the performance.
I'm not discrediting street statistics for shootings. But they have to be understood for what they are - random occurrences in which the data is compiled afterward.
Loosedhorse
member
Bullets are about using lethal force on human lethal force attackers. In order to preserve innocent human life. The bullets have to be delivered in a targeted manner to be effective. If they don't work well, then the defender's (or LEO's) life is put at additional risk.
Cancer treatment is about killing cells that are threatening to kill the patient; but by using a treatment that doesn't also lead to the harm or killing of the patient.
It is about targeted destruction in order to preserve innocent life. But if the drug doesn't work right... If you can't see the relationship to bullets, then I'm not sure I can help.
Sounds exactly like post-market studies and adverse reaction surveillance.
Loosedhorse
member
Yet.
Great. You HAD to give an enterprising lawyer a new idea...
Great. You HAD to give an enterprising lawyer a new idea...
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
Just a quick point, tests in 10% ballistic gelatin were not designed nor are they intended to show what will happen to a bullet in a shooting. Those who argue against gelatin testing by advancing arguments like...
Are arguing against a straw man of their own creation. They either misunderstand the purpose of testing in gel blocks or they deliberately misrepresent the purpose of ballistic gelatin testing. Testing in gelatin cannot take the place of following and recording the results of actual shootings. It is not meant to.
What testing in gelatin does do is show how a bullet performs in a close approximation of mammalian flesh. How deep a bullet penetrates, how it deforms, or not, the size of the permanent and temporary wound cavaties, and more. It allows for the use of various barriers and for testing and calibrating the results. This allows manufacturers, wherever they are in the globe, a uniform standard and allows them to design better bullets and tailor them for specific functions. These are some of the more important functions of 10% ballistic gelatin.
However they show only what they show...how a bullet performs in a block of gelatin. They were never intended to show more than that. They cannot. The big step forward is that they do show that. Gelatin tests do not show and cannot show what any bullet will do in a gun fight or while hunting. There are too many variables for that. The testing does not pretend to show more than that. What is does show has helped greatly in building better bullets for both self defense and hunting.
There is no "craze" for gel testing except in the minds of those who believe that it shows more than it does. The arguments LH puts forward fall into that trap by misunderstanding what gelatin tests show and are supposed to show.
tipoc
Are arguing against a straw man of their own creation. They either misunderstand the purpose of testing in gel blocks or they deliberately misrepresent the purpose of ballistic gelatin testing. Testing in gelatin cannot take the place of following and recording the results of actual shootings. It is not meant to.
What testing in gelatin does do is show how a bullet performs in a close approximation of mammalian flesh. How deep a bullet penetrates, how it deforms, or not, the size of the permanent and temporary wound cavaties, and more. It allows for the use of various barriers and for testing and calibrating the results. This allows manufacturers, wherever they are in the globe, a uniform standard and allows them to design better bullets and tailor them for specific functions. These are some of the more important functions of 10% ballistic gelatin.
However they show only what they show...how a bullet performs in a block of gelatin. They were never intended to show more than that. They cannot. The big step forward is that they do show that. Gelatin tests do not show and cannot show what any bullet will do in a gun fight or while hunting. There are too many variables for that. The testing does not pretend to show more than that. What is does show has helped greatly in building better bullets for both self defense and hunting.
There is no "craze" for gel testing except in the minds of those who believe that it shows more than it does. The arguments LH puts forward fall into that trap by misunderstanding what gelatin tests show and are supposed to show.
tipoc
Loosedhorse
member
You are either being ridiculous, or haven't followed the thread, I think.
To recap for those just joining: What I am interested in (and I would have presumed a few others are interested in) is selecting (as in: Handgun Cailber Selection Insight) calibers (and loads) that aid me in stopping a deadly attack. Therefore, as such rounds are currently being used in stopping attacks, I might be interested in knowing how they performed.
But no: no such data is available, and even if it were available, reviewing it would (I am asked to believe) be worthless!
So: I am supposed to use gelatin results to select calibers and loads for use in SD and police shootings, even while I must (apparently, according to you) simultaneously accept the fact that the loads' gel results are completely unpredictive of their performance in such shootings...
Interesting: can't use actual shooting results to predict the usefulness of loads in a gunfight; can't use gelatin to predict the usefulness of a load in a gunfight;
Inescapable conclusion: use gelatin results to select loads for use in a gunfight!
Last edited:
LH, neither is a very good set of data to come to an empirical conclusion, but both do offer insight. I just think anecdotes give less insight because of the sheer amount of variables that can't be controlled in a real world shooting. Gello you are looking at a very controlled scenario and a potential for a lot more rounds downrange.
I honestly think that (barring a severe human rights violation on the part of the tester) the only way we can really different calibers is computer simulation.
I honestly think that (barring a severe human rights violation on the part of the tester) the only way we can really different calibers is computer simulation.
Loosedhorse
member
Intriguing; novel. How would this be an improvement over gel?
481
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,418
That's an interesting thought.
The RII computer analysis of the 1970s is widely regarded as a failure, but I wonder what today's supercomputers could contribute if the right programming was available.
LH, I don't know what page I said it on, but if you got a programmer who used the following as consultants:
A physician, who could give an accurate description of the human body.
A physicist, who could help him with exactly what is going to happen regarding energy transfer through various mediums.
A ballistics expert, who could help him with factors that affect internal and external ballistics.
A "tactical" expert, who can help with suggesting various stances the target might attack from (i.e. a baseball bat, a knife, a gun, a boxing stance) and suggested angles of attack.
Okay, maybe a couple of programmers working on this project. Then have them create a simulated human body and simulated gun, and shoot hundreds of thousands of times, covering...
-Attacking from different angles of attack and different points of aim from different ranges
-Different number of shots fired
-Different physiques encountered
-Different ammo type, to include caliber and load
-Allow the computer to perform RNG (random number generation) on multiple hits using the exact same variables
I know it would only be computer simulated, which comes with its own inaccuracies, but it would be a way to get hundreds of thousands of rounds tested without wasting ballistics gel, bullets, or human lives. Also, once the program is written, it would allow different loads to be tested with ease.
A physician, who could give an accurate description of the human body.
A physicist, who could help him with exactly what is going to happen regarding energy transfer through various mediums.
A ballistics expert, who could help him with factors that affect internal and external ballistics.
A "tactical" expert, who can help with suggesting various stances the target might attack from (i.e. a baseball bat, a knife, a gun, a boxing stance) and suggested angles of attack.
Okay, maybe a couple of programmers working on this project. Then have them create a simulated human body and simulated gun, and shoot hundreds of thousands of times, covering...
-Attacking from different angles of attack and different points of aim from different ranges
-Different number of shots fired
-Different physiques encountered
-Different ammo type, to include caliber and load
-Allow the computer to perform RNG (random number generation) on multiple hits using the exact same variables
I know it would only be computer simulated, which comes with its own inaccuracies, but it would be a way to get hundreds of thousands of rounds tested without wasting ballistics gel, bullets, or human lives. Also, once the program is written, it would allow different loads to be tested with ease.
Yawn. It's NOT rocket science. It's a projectile, in a narrow box, that has been sold to LEO to turn lead to gold.
The information you want is out there, you just can't get to it. I had a friend that worked @ Lockheed, in Santa Cruz. His job? Take pictures of bullets penetrating barriers, with the worlds fastest camera at the time. 5 million frames per second, or something absurd like that.
These days, a guy with a cell phone camera and a gello block can nearly do the same.
Hunters know what works, and, given a reasonable margin for error, you can apply that to the size human likely to attack you.
Another great source of evidence are the reports made to the bullet, cartridge, and gunmakers by the users of their guns. I bet you Glock could tell you tons about how his guns, and his caliber selections work in really life, for LEO. Beretta, Detonics, Colt, and the guys that develop this stuff, like Linebaugh, Huntington, Bowen, etc. They have their guys who use their rounds, report how they worked, and then they can either change or stay with what they have. Also, some of these guys have been hunting, like Linebaugh and Huntington, since they were little frogs in their mother's dreams. They already have a mind filled with experience, and, they use that to design what we need.
The information you want is out there, you just can't get to it. I had a friend that worked @ Lockheed, in Santa Cruz. His job? Take pictures of bullets penetrating barriers, with the worlds fastest camera at the time. 5 million frames per second, or something absurd like that.
These days, a guy with a cell phone camera and a gello block can nearly do the same.
Hunters know what works, and, given a reasonable margin for error, you can apply that to the size human likely to attack you.
Another great source of evidence are the reports made to the bullet, cartridge, and gunmakers by the users of their guns. I bet you Glock could tell you tons about how his guns, and his caliber selections work in really life, for LEO. Beretta, Detonics, Colt, and the guys that develop this stuff, like Linebaugh, Huntington, Bowen, etc. They have their guys who use their rounds, report how they worked, and then they can either change or stay with what they have. Also, some of these guys have been hunting, like Linebaugh and Huntington, since they were little frogs in their mother's dreams. They already have a mind filled with experience, and, they use that to design what we need.
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
There is nothing new about this discussion. It's the same discussion LH and others have been a part of before. The same straw men.
There are some folks who do not get that no one and nothing can predict what a bullet will do with certainty in a gun fight. There is no testing nor computer models nor records (secret or otherwise) kept anywhere that can do that with the 100% guarantee that the round you shoot will do the same. Some folks refuse to accept that.
But most of us struggle along in hunting and self defense by looking at the information that is available and going with that, a good gun, practice and shot placement and that is what works.
tipoc
There are some folks who do not get that no one and nothing can predict what a bullet will do with certainty in a gun fight. There is no testing nor computer models nor records (secret or otherwise) kept anywhere that can do that with the 100% guarantee that the round you shoot will do the same. Some folks refuse to accept that.
But most of us struggle along in hunting and self defense by looking at the information that is available and going with that, a good gun, practice and shot placement and that is what works.
tipoc
Skribs:
Government agencies have a one shoe must fit all approach, resulting in use of the lowest common denominator. As the useage group for the FBI has diversified, so have it's weapons requirements. As the shooting ability of the group has become less capable of practice, recoil tolerance and accuracy, so have the rounds adopted for their use.
The same is true of most LEO's. Aren't many like SFPD that still have a few dinos carrying .41 Magnums.
Sadly, the same has happened to our military. When you get down to it, with a non-HP bullet, a 200 grain Truncated Cone, like JMB proposed originally, at 950 fps, is still the standard against which most SD rounds should be judged. Big Bullet, little recoil, wide, reliable wound path.
As these agencies become more and more PC, the end result is going to be more injured or killed LEO and agents. It also means that they drag the industry down with them. If not for such dynamics, Harold Fish would have been shooting an industry standard carry cartridge, instead the that "dangerous, Hollow point very powerful round."
The good news is the hunting industry is getting more powerful handguns.
Last I heard buffalo and feral pigs are now wearing Kevlar vests, and require at least .475 Linebaugh 420 grain LFN's at 1400 fps to bring them down promptly.
Bears? Heck 30 years ago the Park Service recommended .458, .375 H&H and shotgun slugs, in that order. Now it's a can of bear spray, a taser, and bells. I guess the bears went vegetarian, or they just like seasoning on their meat.
Government agencies have a one shoe must fit all approach, resulting in use of the lowest common denominator. As the useage group for the FBI has diversified, so have it's weapons requirements. As the shooting ability of the group has become less capable of practice, recoil tolerance and accuracy, so have the rounds adopted for their use.
The same is true of most LEO's. Aren't many like SFPD that still have a few dinos carrying .41 Magnums.
Sadly, the same has happened to our military. When you get down to it, with a non-HP bullet, a 200 grain Truncated Cone, like JMB proposed originally, at 950 fps, is still the standard against which most SD rounds should be judged. Big Bullet, little recoil, wide, reliable wound path.
As these agencies become more and more PC, the end result is going to be more injured or killed LEO and agents. It also means that they drag the industry down with them. If not for such dynamics, Harold Fish would have been shooting an industry standard carry cartridge, instead the that "dangerous, Hollow point very powerful round."
The good news is the hunting industry is getting more powerful handguns.
Last I heard buffalo and feral pigs are now wearing Kevlar vests, and require at least .475 Linebaugh 420 grain LFN's at 1400 fps to bring them down promptly.
Bears? Heck 30 years ago the Park Service recommended .458, .375 H&H and shotgun slugs, in that order. Now it's a can of bear spray, a taser, and bells.
I guess the bears went vegetarian, or they just like seasoning on their meat.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
