Kleanbore said:
Last item first: I do not see anything ambiguous at all about a study that recommends a minimum threshold for penetration. Add in some ammunition test results and you have something to go on.
Regarding "real world results", if you are referring to ammunition effectiveness in stopping violent attackers, I would have thought that my explanation above, combined with what Special Agent Patrick said about it, would be enough to dissuade anyone from continuing the fruitless search for that grail.
You think the search will be fruitless, but I'm less sure of that than you. What I'm looking for isn't really available, today, but I think it could be, over time. I also think some of the things you write seem wholly reasonable you, you've taken shortcuts to get there that aren't always visible to those of us reading your arguments. And I don't really think I'm asking too much. You may be right, but I'm unconvinced of THAT point.
I would argue that real world results are more than just knowing what is required to stop an opponent (based on the FBI Study and Fackler's research). Those two men
tell us what must be done, but they do't give us much advice on the best way to do it. I appreciate that they didn't set out to do that, but there's a GAP here that we ought to try filling. I think some help could be provided.
Knowing what has worked in the real world with regard to specific weapons and rounds, and what an (unknown to you) new round might do is also important information. The Ellifritz data is a step in THAT direction -- and some surprising conclusions can be reached. Perhaps we should be skeptical until more data is available? If you're buying a gun, understanding how real-world results might change if you decide to buy an shorter barrel might be useful. And if the gun is very light (ala Rohrbaugh R9 and so painful to use that practice is likely to be avoided, THAT is something the buyer should know, too. BIGGER IS BETTER, but practice is critical -- and some folks simply don't practice with their guns of choice.
I carried a Kel-Tec P-11 for several years, and shot it frequently at the range. It wasn't my only weapon -- I spent many hours at the range and in competition with other guns, but the P-11 was the only gun I carried. I decided to try it at one of our local IDPA matches. I was stunned with my first string of fire! My first two or three shots were far wide of the mark. That darned long trigger, which I usually adjust to quickly at the range, instantly caused me problem. After the first two or three shots, I did very well with the gun in the match. Suprisingly well, actually. It wasn't a gun problem.
But... I got to thinking, in that particular case, that first string could have been a real-life crisis, and I simply didn't perform well with that gun. Had the P-11 been the only gun I shot, I doubt I would have had a problem. I traded it for a nice older .22 rifle. Still have the rifle.
The P-11 trigger was a factor that I had not considered a problem, and while I had shot the gun a lot, and had always heard complaints bout the long and heavy P-11 trigger was, it had never seemed to be a problem at the range. I never considered what effect that trigger might have if lethal force was being used without warning. That's an aspect of real world results I would have liked to have understood better.
Kleanbore said:
Compromises? They all probably boil down to the selection of the size and weight of the firearm, as they affect ease of concealment and all-day carry, shootability, ammunition ballistics, and magazine capacity, and maybe reliability, if one takes into account the mass of the pistol.
The options are limitless, and many involve personal things . Which firearm fits the shooter's hand? Which firearm can the shooter use most effectively (in terms of speed of drawing and firing, and of speed of shooting rapidly with combat accuracy)? What can the shooter reasonably conceal, or carry all day?
All of the variables you mention – size/weight of the weapon, ease of concealment, shootability, ammunition ballistics, capacity and, maybe, reliability make up a potentially overwhelming array of variables – and I would really argue that in saying “they all probably boil down to” that list you've done nothing to clarify matters for anyone who hasn't walked in your shoes. You've clearly gone a few steps farther down that road when making decisions for yourself as did Mr. Cunningham, cited earlier. You've internalized a number of points, and have probably forgotten some of the details about how you got where you are in your thinking and weapons use. Not everyone has taken that same path, seen the same data, or come to the same conclusions.
I think there might be ways of getting folks who need it, at least some better information when they need it. I think we can make a number of important judgments based on easily measured data, with the key penetration/expansion factors kept in mind. I'd try to measure some characteristics of the gun, and then try to assess what those characteristics mean in real-world performance and real-world shooting experiences. In doing this, I'd try to work with weapons that are reasonably accurate and reliable. There are many that meet that criteria; I wouldn't bother with some of the very inexpensive pistols.
Here some things I'd like to see more completely/thoroughly assessed and catalogued:
1 – Total (measured or calculated) Recoil, (not FELT recoil)
Using commercially available loads, compare their recoil force through various barrel lengths – and frame weights (using, perhaps 3.5”,. 4”, 4.5” and 5”” and ultralite to heavy frames.) If interest is great enough, the tests could also include smaller barrels and lighter guns, like the P3AT, R9, LC9, LCP, etc. I'd want to use examples of common commercial ammo -- factory, ball, (ball, jacketed, and HP, including premium SD ammo. Just get the stats and record them. how those states are experienced. Some of this is simply calculations based on available data.
This is not RECOIL as it is experienced, but it is part of that process. (I've got a Glock 38 that shoots .45 AP rounds that seem to be twins of .45 ACP round fired in my SIG P220 SM. The Glock seems much gentler. I don't know why the difference, but there is a felt difference -- even though the Glock is LIGHTER than the SIG. Recoil is sometimes more than just statistics.
Calculated recoil isn't the only way to assess recoil, but it's a starting point. Step 1 and 2 or 1 and 3 could be done simultaneously.
2 -Measuring ROUND performance based on loads and barrel length.
Using the same rounds and criteria as in Step 1, measure both penetration and expansion through FBI Ballistic Gelatin. You could do tests 1 and 2 at the same time.
Do it again, measuring penetration and expansion
through FBI Ballistic Gelatin covered in layers of fabric, to assess how clothing affects loads and bullet types. (I think these test segments would be especially interesting with some of the smaller caliber rounds.)
I've seen this done for one or two loads, but never more extensively for different calibers, loads, and barrel lengths. (In studying the effect of barrel length on velocity, I've noticed that there are "sweet spots" with different calibers and barrel lengths. For most .45 1911s, the improvement of velocity over barrel length jump noticeably when moving from 4" to 5" barrels, but the rate of increase drops beyond that. There may be similar effects in other combs, and velocity has to have some effect on penetration (and perhaps, expansion.)
3 – Create a Grip Simulator or look for a practical way to measure the transfer of recoil energy (as identified in Step 1) from the weapon to the hand/arm, or develop a way of simulating that recoil for a potential buyer.
Using a grip simulator might take us down several different paths, but what I'm trying to evaluate here is some aspect of FELT RECOIL.
1) if it can be done, use sensors attached to the gun's grip while in a Ransom Rest (or similar) device to measure the forces occuring in Step 1. (That may not give us a good indication of
felt , but it may give us different results than the calculations in Step 1 might suggest.)
2) create a grip simulator that matches the shape and size of a given gun's grip, and attach a device to the grip (perhaps an air-driven piston) that can pound it with the same force identified in Step 1. Being able to
safely mimmick (or simulate) the experience of firing he gun would be a valuable tool for any shooter about to buy a new weapon. The calculations cited in Step 1 may be enough, but a real-world test drive would be even better.
If I could have known some of these variable, understood why they were important, or had a chance to safety experience recoil over the past 15-20 years, I might have bought fewer guns and wasted a lot less money. Just making informed choices about the weapons I've bought would have been great. I think others might see some advantage in this sort of testing and evaluation, too.
Just seeing data for Steps 1 and 2 would be a big step in the right direction to help us make good buying decisions, and while there would be expense involved, a lot of different folks could contribute to the data base and keep the costs more manageable.
