Please don't spread falsehoods.
Stop exaggerating.
Please don't spread falsehoods.
Showing you another study that uses more of a single type of ammunition to correlate terminal performance in human tissue and calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin would only demonstrate that someone used more of a single type of ammunition to correlate terminal performance in human tissue and calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin.Yes it is.
Show me one study with more shootings involving a single projectile such as this.
Start basing your conclusions upon applicable material.Stop exaggerating.
No, my standard is statistically and scientifically based.Your standard is unrealistic.
Incorrect.I am basing my conclusion on applicable material. You are the only one saying it is inapplicable. By your standard, if Wolberg analyzed one billion shootings and the slug performed similarly to the 28 mentioned above, it would not show the round is reliable just because of the different PURPOSE.
I am free to infer. You do not have a better source of data. That's the bottom line.
TH-918v and 481
You two really need to define reliable in this context. You're cross talking over each other because you have a different definition of what reliable means in this context.
Well said.
Duncan MacPherson addresses (pages 18-22) in his book, "Bullet Penetration", the high improbability (about one in one trillion) of M&S's results coming out as they did (regardless of caliber, the lightest, fastest bullets always ended up at the top of the ranking and many times in the same order) in a manner understandable by even the most "lay" reader.
In the end, it is clear that M&S tampered with their data especially given the obvious permutative rigidity across the categorical rankings.
M&S are frauds.
If you shoot somebody hiding behind a barrier you are very likely going to be charged. If they hide, it's your opportunity to leave.
THplanes: said:Didn't their first book rate the 230+p hydra-shok and the 165 golden saber round top their respective calibers.
What aspect of ballistic behavior does it measure or express?
Considering the age of the study and the use of dated bullet technology, I'd consider the results posted above surprising, in that they show a perfectly reliable bullet.It shows that Win 147gr JHP tends to
1. expand to more than .5" in live humans
2. penetrate an average of 13" in live humans
and therefore is reliable in terms of doing what it was designed to do, i.e. expand more than a FMJ, penetrate less than a FMJ, but penetrate deep enough to reach vital organs from any angle.
I cited it to contadict KodiakBeer's allegations that 147's are no good because they fail to expand and overpenetrate people in actual shootings per his sources.
It does not matter whether either or both studies are dishonest. They are outdated. Today's ammo is night and day better that 1991 vintage stuff.
I cited it to contadict KodiakBeer's allegations that 147's are no good because they fail to expand and overpenetrate people in actual shootings per his sources.
It was not an "article", it was a US Department of Justice study based on 5 years of 9mm 147 grain police shootings. The 147 grain loads were found to be poor stoppers that over-penetrated in flesh and under-penetrated in bone and vehicles.
Given a choice between studies based on gelatin vs studies based on real-world data, I'm going with the real world. I don't think the 147 grainers are poor choices, it's just that in the real world the hot 115 grain hollow points have a much better track record. I want any edge I can get.
Is 13" of penetration and expansion above 0.5" not to be considered reliable, especially when repeated 27 times with similar results?
What's important is what happens when live humans get shot. The only source for such data is police shootings and every study using that data has reached similar conclusions. I'm going to go with the real world data rather than the theoretical data based on shooting of jello molds.
Your assertion (quoted above) assumes that the available population from which the sample population (n) was drawn consisted only of bullets that expanded and were recovered and is therefore flawed in that you have no way of proving what percentage of the test rounds actually expanded.It shows that Win 147gr JHP tends to
1. expand to more than .5" in live humans
2. penetrate an average of 13" in live humans
and therefore is reliable in terms of doing what it was designed to do, i.e. expand more than a FMJ, penetrate less than a FMJ, but penetrate deep enough to reach vital organs from any angle.
I cited it to contadict KodiakBeer's allegations that 147's are no good because they fail to expand and overpenetrate people in actual shootings per his sources.
Actually, there are no modern 115gr hollow points with the exception being the Barnes TAC-XP all copper bullet.Yes, both the 115 grain and the 147 grain. So, did you have a point to make?
I made no such allegation, so I'd appreciate it you'd stop making up statements. I care very little how much any standard caliber handgun round penetrates. They all penetrate enough.
What's important is what happens when live humans get shot. The only source for such data is police shootings and every study using that data has reached similar conclusions. I'm going to go with the real world data rather than the theoretical data based on shooting of jello molds.
Not according to the statisticians. Boy I'm glad they were muzzled when we were developing the atomic bomb.
I think Einstein would disagree with you. He never was much of a fan of numbers, preferring imagination to knowledge every step of the way.Without the understanding made possible by the discipline of statistics and probability, nuclear weapons would've never been possible.
Statistics and probablity is one of the most important underlying foundations of the field of nuclear physics which is the field that gave those very weapons.
So, do you "channel" Einstein regularly or did you know him personally?I think Einstein would disagree with you. He never was much of a fan of numbers, preferring imagination to knowledge every step of the way.