9MM confusion/ penetration/ barriers

[918v]

Please don't spread falsehoods.

Stop exaggerating.

 

[481]

Yes it is.

Show me one study with more shootings involving a single projectile such as this.

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.


It would demonstrate nothing of its "reliability" (a term that you introduced in post 116 and have yet to define) whatever that might be.

Your analogy is flawed.

 

[918v]

Your standard is unrealistic.

 

[481]

Stop exaggerating.

Start basing your conclusions upon applicable material.

 

[481]

Your standard is unrealistic.

No, my standard is statistically and scientifically based.

Throw it out and all that you have left is baseless conjecture and supposition.

 

[918v]

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.

 

[481]

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.

Incorrect.

The scientific model and the discipline of statistics says that Wolberg's study is inapplicable to demonstrating the round's "reliability" (you still have yet to define that terminology introduced by you in post 116 by the way) whatever that may be.

Until you can provide a definition of "reliability" as used by you in post 116, your argument of "applicability" is a meaningless one.

What do you mean by reliability?

Does it have units of measure? (%, watts, degrees Kelvin, Farads, calories, kilograms?)

What aspect of ballistic behavior does it measure or express?

Until you define the type of data being applied, no one can provide you with another study that addresses whatever it is that you are claiming.

 

[THplanes]

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.

 

[481]

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.

TH-

Since I did not introduce the term "reliability" into the discussion (see 918v's post #116), it would be hard for me to say just what it means, since I'd have to guess what 918v was/is thinking. I've have requested a definition of that term from him.

Clairvoyance, I am fresh outta.

 

[THplanes]

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.

Didn't their first book rate the 230+p hydra-shok and the 165 golden saber round top their respective calibers.

 

[MikeNice]

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.

In my state I have no duty to retreat in my home. I use a handgun in my home because it is something my wife can pick up and use when I'm not there.

I have shown multiple times that there are cases I have first hand knowledge off where barriers were a concern. Working with a police department I have learned of several others. A barrier does not equal a charge in all cases.

 

[481]

Didn't their first book rate the 230+p hydra-shok and the 165 golden saber round top their respective calibers.

TH-

It might have.

I haven't seen fit to spend my money on any of the M&S books. The data is widely available for free on the 'net and from what I remember of it (haven't looked at it in a very long time), MacPherson's (and everyone else's) analyses appear to be correct from a cursory examination of the data.

I can say that I have the neither the time nor the desire to replicate their (those debunking the M&S books) efforts and am willing to accept the conclusions of those learned men (Roberts, Fackler, MacPherson et. al.) who've taken the time to statistically evaluate the material.

If you've the time, background and desire to pursue it, I'd love to see the results of such an effort even if they contradict the efforts of the other reseachers.

Looking forward to it.

 

[918v]

What aspect of ballistic behavior does it measure or express?

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.

 

[AZ Hawkeye]

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.

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.

Is 13" of penetration and expansion above 0.5" not to be considered reliable, especially when repeated 27 times with similar results?

 

[Apocalypse-Now]

i'm running out of popcorn on this one

 

[KodiakBeer]

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.

Yes, both the 115 grain and the 147 grain. So, did you have a point to make?

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.

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.

 

[918v]

From your post #81:

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.

 

[918v]

Is 13" of penetration and expansion above 0.5" not to be considered reliable, especially when repeated 27 times with similar results?

Not according to the statisticians. Boy I'm glad they were muzzled when we were developing the atomic bomb.

 

[918v]

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.

You are not going with "data", but some person's interpretation of that data. I am showing you real results from real people who were shot with real guns and real bullets. They did not overpenetrate or underpenetrate. On the contrary, they behaved just like we wanted them to.

 

[481]

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.

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.

If the entire available population was only 28 shootings in which only one bullet was fired and rendered recoverable, then your assertion that all Winchester 147 gr. JHPs expanded to more than 0.50" and penetrated to a depth of 13 inches in humans is a valid claim.

On the other hand, if there were more bullets than the 28 that you would have to assume were the total available population in order to support your claim, then your claim fails to be a valid one since you are saying that all (that's 100% of the Winchester 147 gr JHPs) behave the way you say they do.

For example, if there was an actual rate of 1.5 bullets fired per encounter ( a conservative estimate to be sure) and there were 6 additional shootings that were not used since they didn't result in recoverable rounds (failures to expand that resulted in bullets exiting the target), then you end up with a total population of n=51 rounds (of which only 28 were used) resulting in the fact that only 55% of the bullets behaved in the way that you say they did and should.

Since Wolberg provides no information detailing the total available population that the sample population of n=28 was drawn from, there is no way to know that the sample population was the total available population of rounds fired and therefore your assertion (above) remains flawed.

Do you know the size of the total available population from which Wolberg drew his study's sample population?

 

[AZ Hawkeye]

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.

Actually, there are no modern 115gr hollow points with the exception being the Barnes TAC-XP all copper bullet.

Winchester, Federal nor Speer has updated a 115gr design since the early to mid 90s.

 

[481]

Not according to the statisticians. Boy I'm glad they were muzzled when we were developing the atomic bomb.

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.

 

[AZ Hawkeye]

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.

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.

 

[481]

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.

So, do you "channel" Einstein regularly or did you know him personally?

He might've preferred imagination, but he was constrained to using numbers because that is what comprises the field.

 

[KingMedicine]

Its a number battle!