9mm Defense rounds #2

9mmforMe said:

I'd like to see as many 9mm tests you feel like posting, 481, if thats not asking too much, you seem to be doing your homework quite well.

Click to expand...

I have just a couple more.

Here is a water test with the WinchesterUSA 9mm 147 gr JHP where it shed its jacket:




The Schwartz model analysis for this test:

WinchesterUSA 9mm 147 gr. JHP v. four layers of 2 ounce cotton fabric

Recovered Projectile Data:
Average Recovered Diameter: 0.515 inch (1.453x caliber)
Retained Mass: 122.4 grains (lead core only)
Impact Velocity: 978.3 feet per second

Predicted Performance:
Penetration Depth (S) = 36.586 centimeters (14.404 inches)
Permanent Wound Cavity Mass (MPC) = 41.887 grams (1.478 ounces)


Had this bullet retained its jacket, its predicted penetration would have been 17.299 inches with a permanent wound cavity mass (permanently crushed tissue, that is) of 1.774 ounces.

481, thanks much for posting that info.

9mmforMe said:

I'd like to see as many 9mm tests you feel like posting, 481, if thats not asking too much, you seem to be doing your homework quite well.

Click to expand...

And finally...here is the water test for the Federal 9mm 147 gr Tactical Hydra-Shok JHP:







The Schwartz model analysis for this test:

WinchesterUSA 9mm 147 gr. JHP v. four layers of 2 ounce cotton fabric

Recovered Projectile Data:
Average Recovered Diameter: 0.506 inch (1.428x caliber)
Retained Mass: 143.3 grains
Impact Velocity: 1030 feet per second

Predicted Performance:
Penetration Depth (S) = 46.060 centimeters (18.134 inches)
Permanent Wound Cavity Mass (MPC) = 50.908 grams (1.796 ounces)

KMB said:

481, thanks much for posting that info.

Click to expand...

You bet.

What do people think of TNOUTDOORS9 Sim test media?

It seems to me that he took known depths for bullet penetration and depth in ordnance gel and then mixed the Sim test media until the bullets were penetrating and expanding to those already known marks.

From what I can see his results are generally in line with other tests w/calibrated ordnance gelatin.

Both models (in QAS and BP) can be, and have been, used to predict successfully and accurately the ballistic performance of bullets in ordnance gelatin using water as a test medium.

According to the QAS website, that specific model was developed using data from over 700 gelatin tests and is as accurate as one could expect-

Click to expand...

One of my favorite Yogi Berra quotes is
"In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice they ain't"

The actual gel tests I've seen have the RA9T load out expanding the RA9B with the RA9B having more penatration.

The Hydra Shoks have always been the most accurate for me. I've gotten my tightest groups using Hydra-Shok, just something about that cartridge or bullet design or whatever - they're spot on.

But when I look at recovered Ranger - RA9T and I look at the recovered Hydra-Shoks, I like the Rangers better

Plus I just like that the RA9T consistently penetrates to 14" through different barriers and consistently expands to around .66"

mavracer said:

One of my favorite Yogi Berra quotes is
"In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice they ain't"

Click to expand...

Trite platitudes are very entertaining, but rarely prove anything.

As I said earlier, I have absolutely no desire to debate the proven physics of these models. Clearly, these models have been assembled by those knowledgeable in the field (e.g.: Schwartz and MacPherson) and appear to have been vetted by other independent sources, one example being taken from here-

http://quantitativeammunitionselection.com/endorsements_-_faq

referring specifically to the model in Quantitative Ammunition Selection, to wit;

"I believe this model to be viable, logically deduced, and no more complicated than it should be for its intended purpose. It offers the armed professional a method of acquiring vital information about the performance of his/her own self-defense ammunition, shot from his/her own handgun, without the expense and complications of full-scale laboratory tests."
-Mr. Thomas Johansson, Development Engineer
CBJ Tech AB, Kungsbacka, Sweden

Click to expand...

Please do not take this as picking on you (because that is certainly not my intention- I am simply expressing from whom and where I prefer to draw my information), but I'll have to defer to the professional opinions of those educated individuals who have the experience in the field that makes them qualified to render knowledgeable evaluations of these models over the opinions of those who lack any demonstrable qualification(s) to comment on such matters.

mavracer said:

The actual gel tests I've seen have the RA9T load out expanding the RA9B with the RA9B having more penatration.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you'll see fit to share those examples here as I am sure that others (including me) would like to see them.

In my 32 years working for the government (and that's as far as I go)we were issued several different rounds as the years went by, but in the last 4 years before retiring we were issued Speer 147grn. And I have seen personally what that round will do. In 3 different shootings all 3 men died and the end results from that 147 grn bullet was very impressive. I do not carry a 9mm now that I'm retired as I favor the .45 but I would stand behind the 147 if I were carrying the 9mm. Just my $0.02 worth...

Winchester's own site has the RA9T penetrating 14.5" and expanding to .66" with the 4 layer denim "test" while they show the RA9B penetrating 16.5" and only expanding .59" in the same test. The relationship of deeper penetration and less expansion of the RA9B when compared to the RA9T is also evident in the bare gel and heavy cloth tests.



http://www.winchester.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/flash-SWFs/law_bullit.swf

I like Gold Dots and Federal HST. If not for their QC going to sh.it, I would select Ranger as well.

147gr is good, especially in shorter barrels. The 124 +P Gold Dot is great too, and is my favorite.

9mmforMe said:

Just out of curiosity, did you happen to test any 115gr RN FMJ? I'm wondering about penetration depths considering there are quite a few folks, who have expressed in this forum, that they use FMJ for defensive purposes.

Click to expand...

It funny that you ask, but yeah, I have tested one (you'll see why in just a moment ) 9mm FMJ in water- a Federal 124 gr. FMJ at a chronographed 1143 fps from my G17.

Knowing that it would probably blow through a lot of water, I set up about 120 inches of water column (that is 18 one gallon freezer bags full of water set "width-wise" along the length and past the end of the water box) primarily for the sake of seeing just how far it would go.

As might be expected, it didn't deform at all (it miked at a perfect 0.353" +/- 0.001" all the way around and 0.604" +/- 0.001" long) and I recovered it ~77½ inches down the length of the box. Nothing spectacular occurred- just a dozen half-emptied bags of water. Kind of a waste...

Neither model, Schwartz's nor MacPherson's, requires that non-expanding designs (FMJRNs, FMJFPs, SWCs, etc) be test-fired since it is presumed that they will not deform significantly in water- in order to use the model(s), just use their nominal bore diameters (0.354" for the 9mm, 0.451" for the .45ACP- you get the idea) to get their predicted penetration depths and mass within the perm. wound cavity.

For a 9mm 115 gr FMJRN at 1155 fps (typical factory specs)-

-the Schwartz bullet penetration model says that it'll penetrate to a depth of 26.3 inches and permanently crush 1.073 ounces of soft tissue over that distance

-the MacPherson bullet penetration model says that it'll penetrate to a depth of 28.1 inches and permanently crush 1.152 ounces of soft tissue over that distance



ETA: For those who like to use FMJs in the .45ACP...

For a 230 gr FMJRN @ 835 fps

-the Schwartz bullet penetration model says that it'll penetrate to a depth of 25.1 inches and permanently crush 1.661 ounces of soft tissue over that distance

-the MacPherson bullet penetration model says that it'll penetrate to a depth of 29.5 inches and permanently crush 1.964 ounces of soft tissue over that distance

There are so many arguments about bullet effectiveness like energy dump, expansion, penetration, momentum and on and on and just like politics there advocates for each and every argument, so I have long ago decided that the best argument is what I can see in a gelatin block and the rest are just theories and speculation.

I agree. The first meaningful (to me) information that I've seen is the work done by BTG Research that explains what the effect of kinetic energy actually means in wound ballistics. http://www.btgresearch.org/wb.htm

Did anyone notice, on the Winchester site, the .357 Sig didn't perform as well as the 9mm?

I never felt a strong need for a .357 Sig, and now, I want one even less.


The old Cor Bon 200 grain flying ashtray at 1050 fps was a fantastic load. Oh, wait. That's a .45 load.

Jaymo said:

Did anyone notice, on the Winchester site, the .357 Sig didn't perform as well as the 9mm?

I never felt a strong need for a .357 Sig, and now, I want one even less.

The old Cor Bon 200 grain flying ashtray at 1050 fps was a fantastic load. Oh, wait. That's a .45 load.

Click to expand...

Yes, the performance of that .357 Sig load is a bit underwhelming compared to some of the other offerings- the .357 Sig is definitely meant to appeal to agencies/individuals who favor the rather singular dimension of KE as a means of evaluating the performance of a bullet in addition to chasing the highly unreliable and extremely minute effects that many attribute to KE. Not surprisingly, such misguided notions focus on trivial effects that simply do not matter in the real world- the most reliable mechanisms for achieving immediate incapacitation remain severe blood loss and disruption of the CNS.

In fact, Duncan MacPherson offers an informed technical perspective on the fallacy of using KE to evaluate/analyze terminal ballistic performance-

Excerpt from Chapter 2 of Bullet Penetration by Duncan MacPherson:

“. . . every now and then someone wants to analyze or think about a problem involving energy, and when they attempt to do this without really understanding energy or other thermodynamic concepts the result is unfortunate. One such problem is the analysis of any of the various aspects of terminal ballistics; some individuals with inadequate technical training and experience have unwisely and unproductively attempted to use energy concepts in the analysis of bullet impact and penetration in soft tissue. (Many others have simply assumed that energy is the dominant effect in Wound Trauma Incapacitation; this assumption is even more simplistic than the attempt to actually analyze the dynamics problem with energy relationships, and is no more successful).

Any attempt to derive the effect of bullet impact in tissue using energy relationships is ill advised and wrong because the problem cannot be analyzed that way and only someone without the requisite technical background would try. Many individuals who have not had technical training have nonetheless heard of Newton’s laws of motion, but most of them aren’t really familiar with these laws and would be surprised to learn Newton’s laws describe forces and momentum transfer, not energy relationships. The dynamic variable that is conserved in collisions is momentum; kinetic energy is not only not conserved in real collisions, but is transferred into thermal energy in a way that usually cannot be practically modeled. The energy in collisions can be traced, but usually only by solving the dynamics by other means and then determining the energy flow.”

Click to expand...

Duncan MacPherson is an MIT educated aerospace engineer (a "rocket scientist"), who developed new guidance techniques and equations that were used to guide the Mercury astronauts into orbit on the Atlas launch vehicle. These equations were modified under his supervision to control the Gemini launches and later, the Apollo launches. These systems engineering activities were not primarily related to trajectory dynamics, but provided the background in other engineering disciplines that was required to derive the bullet penetration model.

A similar perspective is also offered in Quantitative Ammunition Selection-

Excerpt from Quantitative Ammunition Selection by Charles Schwartz:

While a projectile in motion possesses both momentum and kinetic energy, the penetration of a transient projectile through a homogenous fluid or hydrocolloidal medium constitutes an inelastic collision mandating that it be treated as a momentum transaction. Therefore, a momentum-based analysis of projectile motion is the most equitable approach in constructing a terminal ballistic performance model. Although it may be possible to devise a mathematical model based upon the expenditure of a projectile’s kinetic energy as it traverses a medium, there is nothing to be gained from the pursuit of such an unnecessarily complex approach.

Click to expand...

Duncan MacPherson is an MIT educated engineer as well as a disciple of Martin Fackler who's emphasis is little more than penetration being the answer to the question of handgun stopping power with nothing really new or persuasive on the issue.

Better to look at the research conducted by an MIT educated PHd in physics who can describe exactly what the effects of energy are and not just theorize with nothing more conclusive than gelatin testing. There have been 33 autopsies conducted that conclude that Dr. Courtney is on to something very important to those who will listen. I encourage anyone who can drop their bias for a second and consider the information presented to look at: http://www.btgresearch.org/wb.htm

And as to regards concerning the .357 SIG, it is the caliber used by the Texas DPS and the US Secret Sevice. No other agency has more actual gunfighting experience than the Texas DPS/Rangers. That's a historical fact rather than a biased opinion. Take a look at the results at www.m4carbine.net, it's pretty clear what loads perform and what doesn't and this from a listing advocated by another Fackler disciple, Dentist "Doc" Roberts.

When I carried a Glock 19 daily, I loaded it with Winchester Talon 127gr. JHP +P+. It was accurate, easy to shoot & had an excellent police track record. Good enough for me.

These days if I'm worried about 2 legs, I carry a .32 ACP. If I'm worried about 4 legs I carry a .45 Colt. I don't own a 9mm anymore.

What I carry for animals two legged or 4 legged is the 185 gr. +P Golden Saber in .45 ACP with 534 Ft/Lbs of KE with a momentum of 30 that is considered to be the highest practical momentum for handgun cartridges.

If I were a LE officer mandated to use the 9mm it would be the Ranger 127 gr. +P+ or the SPEER 124 gr. +P Gold Dot. Either load has more momentum and energy than a subsonic standard pressure 147 gr. JHP load.

I don't think MacPherson was or is a "disciple" of Fackler. They were working in two different fields and MacPherson wrote his critique of the American Rifleman article in 1975, in which he crticized the Relative Incapacitation Index (RII)

The Courtney's are re-investigating the concept of hydrostatic shock, with a focus on neurological effects.

OK, cool

God bless em. I hope they add to the total body of knowledge. There is a lot to learn in that field. Even the NFL is learning a lot of new things about concussions and short, intermediate and long term effects of blunt force trauma to the brain and nervous system.

From what I can see, their research makes a case for the existence of hydrostatic shock - but doesn't go the next step in evaluating various handgun rounds for effectiveness. They don't have an experiment that validates their hypothesis so they turn to the flawed M&S assertions which they generously call the OSS data set. And the goat tests.

I'm sorry but they don't have enough.

They have a gap between showing evidence of some signs of neurological damage due to a shock wave and actually picking cartridges that are effective and are effective precisely because of the shock wave and not due to the round damaging vital tissue with it's wound channel / permanent crush cavity.

IMO - probably the CLOSEST thing they have to support their ideas is the anecdotal body of knowledge surrounding the Illinois State Police use of the Federal 9BPLE 115gr +P+ load, but that's hardly scientific.

C0untZer0 said:

I don't think MacPherson was or is a "disciple" of Fackler. They were working in two different fields and MacPherson wrote his critique of the American Rifleman article in 1975, in which he crticized the Relative Incapacitation Index (RII)

Click to expand...

I was unaware of that article. Gonna have to look that one up.

C0untZer0 said:

The Courtney's are re-investigating the concept of hydrostatic shock, with a focus on neurological effects.

OK, cool

God bless em. I hope they add to the total body of knowledge. There is a lot to learn in that field. Even the NFL is learning a lot of new things about concussions and short, intermediate and long term effects of blunt force trauma to the brain and nervous system.

From what I can see, their research makes a case for the existence of hydrostatic shock - but doesn't go the next step in evaluating various handgun rounds for effectiveness. They don't have an experiment that validates their hypothesis so they turn to the flawed M&S assertions which they generously call the OSS data set. And the goat tests.

I'm sorry but they don't have enough.

They have a gap between showing evidence of some signs of neurological damage due to a shock wave and actually picking cartridges that are effective and are effective precisely because of the shock wave and not due to the round damaging vital tissue with it's wound channel / permanent crush cavity.

IMO - probably the CLOSEST thing they have to support their ideas is the anecdotal body of knowledge surrounding the Illinois State Police use of the Federal 9BPLE 115gr +P+ load, but that's hardly scientific.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Assuming for the sake of argument that bpw could be reliably produced, its contribution to incapacitation is miniscule at best (microscopic hemorraging in tiny blood vessels) and lacks the systemic magnitude to contribute to the incapacitation of an assailant with the necessary immediacy. Long before someone succumbs to the trivial effects of a few microscopic tears in a few tiny blood vessels, the effects of severe blood loss and structural tissue damage (e.g.: CNS) from the wound (or wounds) itself will have long since done the job.

The difficulty in discriminating the tremendously small (immediate) and long-time scale effects of bpw (and any contribution that they may make aside from the primary mechanisms of severe blood loss and CNS/vital tissue damage) suggests that bpw is of little realistic or significant value over the time scales that are necessary to achieve the immediate incapacitation of an assailant. After all, the desired outcome of firing a gun to save one's life is to bring about the immediate and sudden incapacitation of the person or persons intent on doing you grave physical harm of worse- it is unrealistic to miniscule effects that might have an effect over longer time scales, if they occur, is simply not the best answer.

"bpw" ?

Borland Pascal for Windows?
Board of Public Works?
Basal Pulse Width?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

This is a great discussion, learning a lot. Thanks.

They have a gap between showing evidence of some signs of neurological damage due to a shock wave and actually picking cartridges that are effective and are effective precisely because of the shock wave and not due to the round damaging vital tissue with it's wound channel / permanent crush cavity.

Click to expand...

Count, the same can be said in reverse and has some obvious medical standing.

The difficulty in discriminating the tremendously small (immediate) and long-time scale effects of bpw (and any contribution that they may make aside from the primary mechanisms of severe blood loss and CNS/vital tissue damage) suggests that bpw is of little realistic or significant value over the time scales that are necessary to achieve the immediate incapacitation of an assailant.

Click to expand...

You guys don't seem to be applying simple medical knowledge to your assertions.
Count, the same can be said in reverse and has some obvious medical standing.
The brain and CNS can continue to function the body for 15-30 seconds after a complete cardiac arrest, yet some animals (humans are animals too after all) are imediatly incapcitated from a chest shot even though there is no direct CNS damage.
BPW and the temporary wound channel are both very much capable of being signifigant means of incapcitation.
Fackler was a fool to claim 2000fps was a magic # for TWC to be meaningful, when he should have known dang good and well that 1500 is more than enough for TWC to be meaningful and yet 3000 doesn't guarentee that TWC will be meaningful.
For the record I'm definately not advocating using energy as an important determining factor. Placement, penatration and expansion all take precident but to ignore it or say it's not a factor is IMHO foolish.
BTW Dr. Courtney is a member here and quite enlightning to talk to I believe his work more than establish levels for the amount of energy for BPW to a factor. the search function will bring up several discussions he's been involved in if your inclined to learn.