9MM confusion/ penetration/ barriers

[AZ Hawkeye]

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.

Lol, no.

You're putting too much stock into numbers. There are far too many variables, and they can't be predicted ahead of time.

However, when I see a the results from the testing of 9mm hollow point bullet developed by Winchester in the 80's/90's, and I know what the "goals" of said bullet were/are, (namely 12"-18" penetration and consistent expansion) I can make a reasonable inference as to whether or not that bullet was reliable or not.

The bullet performed as advertised in the 27 cases presented to us; therefore, I can infer that it will perform reliably more often than not.

 

[THplanes]

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.

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.

I'm simply pointing out that the claim that light and fast always comes out on top in M&S is a straw man argument. I have not read their later works so I don't know what their later results were. I have MacPherson's book on order. I think I'll read it before I attempt to criticize it.

 

[481]

Lol, no.

You're putting too much stock into numbers. There are far too many variables, and they can't be predicted ahead of time.

However, when I see a the results from the testing of 9mm hollow point bullet developed by Winchester in the 80's/90's, and I know what the "goals" of said bullet were/are, (namely 12"-18" penetration and consistent expansion) I can make a reasonable inference as to whether or not that bullet was reliable or not.

The bullet performed as advertised in the 27 cases presented to us; therefore, I can infer that it will perform reliably more often than not.

I am not sure I see the point that you are trying to make.

In your first sentence you claim that numbers are unimportant and then you cite numbers (a statistical study based upon numerical data) as the basis for your inference.

Which is it? Are numbers important or are they not?

 

[481]

I'm simply pointing out that the claim that light and fast always comes out on top in M&S is a straw man argument.

Well, it is not quite that simple. One example proves nothing either way in such a large data set especially when considering trends. There is no such thing as perfect agreement in statistical studies.

I have not read their later works so I don't know what their later results were. I have MacPherson's book on order. I think I'll read it before I attempt to criticize it.

That would be a very wise course of action.

 

[918v]

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

I agree, but consider Wolberg only had two years worth of shootings to work with and San Diego PD averages 15 shootings a year. How large do you think the total population was? I dunno, but it wasn't 50.

 

[Fastcast]

What a bunch of drama....Do you gentlemen sleep at night?

Try the KISS (keep it simple stupid) concept, if you're really that concerned about enough penetration through barriers and fatties.

FMJ.....designed for barriers and fatties.

 

[rich642z]

All this hype and bull on a 9mm bullet is not how but,placement and before that,Practice on where incase you have to use your ccw weapon for sd. I carry a LC9 and I trust it just like my .357 mag revolvers. I would have used a .357 to defend against that attacker or one time shot from my .500 Smith 2 inch Emergency bear gun. Yes it would have splattered the attacker and may have gone father so,take to mind what caliber is the best to use. but,a .357 one or 2 shots placed right would have done sufficent.

 

[ohwell]

I believe the one stop shot winners come from light and fast, The slow and heavy stuff is for extended gun battles shooting thru Al Capones or some gangsters windshield or doors in extended gun battles.

 

[HK Jake]

I believe the one stop shot winners come from light and fast, The slow and heavy stuff is for extended gun battles shooting thru Al Capones or some gangsters windshield or doors in extended gun battles.

Why?

 

[Apocalypse-Now]

^^because he's another marshal&sanow believer LMAO

 

[mshootnit]

shot my dads 92 fs with cheap a@@ ball ammo at a telephone can and it wouldn't go through at all just dented it. I could do as much damage with a dull punch and 2lb hammer.
Must be some good ammo out there I havent tried.

 

[ohwell]

^^because he's another marshal&sanow believer LMAO

Not Really but if there is any truth to the 125 grain 357 being the number one manstopper I would say it might follow suite in other calibers as well. As a rule the medium to light for caliber bullets have more energy than the heavies. In all reality you can argue all you want about bullet weight but the true deciding factor is how well the bullet itself is designed. Does it expand consistently as advertised, does it produce a good stretch cavity? Weight is secondary to a well designed bullet.

 

[481]

I agree,....

Well, frickin' finally...I wish that I didn't have to go through all that just to agree to this point, since we actually agree on virtually everything else.

With an average of 14 shootings per year, the fluctuations possible in that number alone (especially if they were "high" years) as well as the probable likelihood that most of the shootings involved more than one round being fired, the sample population could have very easily been well over 50 (rounds) for such a period. (two years)

Dang, I've conducted felony interrogations that ran with greater ease than what I've had to go through here with you.

 

[THplanes]

Well, it is not quite that simple. One example proves nothing either way in such a large data set especially when considering trends. There is no such thing as perfect agreement in statistical studies.

It's 2 examples and it does prove something. When someone makes a claim that something is true without exception, showing there are exceptions falsifies the claim. You are correct in that is does not address trends.

Another common claim is that M&S simply made up data to support a preconceived idea that light and fast is always better. If that's the case why did they include data that showed exactly the opposite.

 

[481]

It's 2 examples and it does prove something. When someone makes a claim that something is true without exception, showing there are exceptions falsifies the claim. You are correct in that is does not address trends.

OK, two examples and it is not my claim. It is the claim (the categorical trend mentioned above) of those who've debunked M&S.

I never used the words "true without exception" and was speaking to the categorical trends represented in M&S's claims. Your attribution to me of language that I didn't employ is an inaccurate portrayal of what I said and I'd really appreciate it if you could find it in yourself to refrain from putting words in my mouth. Not harshing you here, just asking for a little consideration before you assign to me words that I never used.

Another common claim is that M&S simply made up data to support a preconceived idea that light and fast is always better. If that's the case why did they include data that showed exactly the opposite.

Given the unsophisticated analytical methodology employed by M&S, I am not surprised by something like that.

Sanow was caught in such (mis)conduct a number of times when departmental personnel (from various departments) whom he claimed he had contacted and obtained "data" from had no idea who the guy was when contacted by those investigating the source and validity of the M&S offerings.

The claims of data and statistical tampering are clearly supported by those who've debunked the statistical work put forth by M&S that supports the trend (light & fast is the "best") claimed. I remain inclined to accept them (the various highly educated folks who've done the analyses) at their respective word and see little to be gained from repeating their efforts.

If you believe otherwise, I would be happy to see the results of your analytical audit refuting the findings of those who've already examined the offerings of M&S and found them to be spurious.

From your statements above, you appear to hold the opinion that those who've debunked M&S, and those who accept those findings, are in error. Have you done anything in the way of a procedural analysis/audit that can substantiate that position?

 

[918v]

With an average of 14 shootings per year, the fluctuations possible in that number alone (especially if they were "high" years) as well as the probable likelihood that most of the shootings involved more than one round being fired, the sample population could have very easily been well over 50 (rounds) for such a period.

But it's not the total number of rounds fired that is important, but the number of rounds that struck the torso. San Diego PD shot 150 perps in the following 11 years, killed 81. The total number of rounds fired in the preceeding two years that struck the torso and killed the perp cannot be even close to 50, even with the possible fluctuations.

ETA,

You are assuming cops shoot like Brian Enos. They don't.

 

[481]

But it's not the total number of rounds fired that is important, but the number of rounds that struck the torso. San Diego PD shot 150 perps in the following 11 years, killed 81. The total number of rounds fired in the preceeding two years that struck the torso and killed the perp cannot be even close to 50, even with the possible fluctuations.

Without knowing the number of rounds that actually hit the torso and failed to meet the criteria that is still quite a stretch.

ETA,

You are assuming cops shoot like Brian Enos. They don't.

Retired from that very profession myself, I know better than that and never made such an assumption.

 

[Apocalypse-Now]

you guys are going to take up all thehighroads' allowable memory space LOL

 

[AZ Hawkeye]

you guys are going to take up all thehighroads' allowable memory space LOL

I'm really glad I stepped away from this one, haha!

 

[THplanes]

It is fun watching you crawfish out things you have said.

OK, two examples and it is not my claim. It is the claim (the categorical trend mentioned above) of those who've debunked M&S.

I never used the words "true without exception" and was speaking to the categorical trends represented in M&S's claims. Your attribution to me of language that I didn't employ is an inaccurate portrayal of what I said and I'd really appreciate it if you could find it in yourself to refrain from putting words in my mouth. Not harshing you here, just asking for a little consideration before you assign to me words that I never used.

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

MacPherson makes a claim in the bold section above. It is the equivalent of true without exception. You cited it so it's reasonable to believe you support it. Further more, you don't bring in the claim that it's about a trend until I show that the categorical claim is wrong.

Sanow was caught in such (mis)conduct a number of times when departmental personnel (from various departments) whom he claimed he had contacted and obtained "data" from had no idea who the guy was when contacted by those investigating the source and validity of the M&S offerings.

Yep, he made the mistake of outing his sources. His sources didn't have permission to give out the info, so they denied it.

The claims of data and statistical tampering are clearly supported by those who've debunked the statistical work put forth by M&S that supports the trend (light & fast is the "best") claimed. I remain inclined to accept them (the various highly educated folks who've done the analyses) at their respective word and see little to be gained from repeating their efforts.

If you believe otherwise, I would be happy to see the results of your analytical audit refuting the findings of those who've already examined the offerings of M&S and found them to be spurious.

From your statements above, you appear to hold the opinion that those who've debunked M&S, and those who accept those findings, are in error. Have you done anything in the way of a procedural analysis/audit that can substantiate that position?

I see no point in doing a statistical analysis of something that claims no scientific rigor. M&S are well aware that their method tends to self select individuals that are susceptible to a one shot stop. It also most likely selects for non barrier shots as well. It's not meant to infer the numbers are quantitative. They are simply meant to provide a rough approximation of how each load compares to the others.

Courtney makes a similar mistake in using M&S data. He fits his equation to correlate with M&S. He also fails to properly control for psychological stops. As a result he overestimates the effectiveness, if any, of BPW.

 

[481]

It is fun watching you crawfish out things you have said.

Your abrupt seizure upon such minutae suggests that your feelings were hurt when I asked you to not put the words, "true without exception" (that I never used anywhere) in my mouth.

Maybe you had your feelings hurt elsewhere.

Maybe you feel as if you have something to prove.

Your unnecessarily confrontational behavior proves nothing.

I see no point in doing a statistical analysis of something that claims no scientific rigor. M&S are well aware that their method tends to self select individuals that are susceptible to a one shot stop. It also most likely selects for non barrier shots as well. It's not meant to infer the numbers are quantitative. They are simply meant to provide a rough approximation of how each load compares to the others.

Courtney makes a similar mistake in using M&S data. He fits his equation to correlate with M&S. He also fails to properly control for psychological stops. As a result he overestimates the effectiveness, if any, of BPW.

Talk about "crawfishing". First you are for 'em, then you are against 'em.

Pick a side, any side. Stick with it.

Don't vacillate, it makes you look petty.

 

[skeuthan]

Other Variables

This conversation thread has been entertaining at the very least. So many ammo junkies (like myself) who all have legitimate, informed points to make. Wo hat surprises me is that nobody has even mentioned what I would consider one of the most important variables... barrel length of the gun itself.

If you are shooting 147 gr. JHP through a 4"-5" barrel you will get your desired result, even better if its a +P round. Most people I know don't cc a pistol that large.
If the same round is fired from a 3" or shorter barrel the velocity will decrease by a signifigant amount and if that round is required to penetrate a barrier, the velocity could be decreased so much that the hollow point might not expand at all once it enters human tissue (remember that JHP's must enter soft tissue at a certain velocity to properly expand, especially in .45 ACP).

My personal rule is the shorter my barrel, the lighter the round I will carry in it. Just one example, ammunition designed purposely for CCW like Hornady Critical Defense, Cor-Bon DPX, etc... all feature very light loads under the pretense they will be loaded in somebody's concealed carry pistol or revolver; most of the time having a barrel under 4"...

 

[george d dennis]

i will second the memory space

 

[MikeNice]

Skeuthan that is actually a very good point. We tend to forget that the results we see in many of the test are from "service" weapons. Pistols with 4" barells will definitely have different results than a 2.8" barell in a micro compact gun.

Looking at some old test on Golden Loki the Kel Tec P-11 was able to push 147gr Winchester Super X rounds to a speed of 889fp/s and achieve full expansion. The bullet was able to penetrate between 14.5" and 16.1." Would it hae done that through a barrier? I don't know.

The Federal Personal Defense 135gr round also achieved decent speed and penetration while expanding reliably. However, in a sub 3" barell I would opt for a 124gr+P, or Federal Tactical Bonded 135gr+P. The extra velocity would be of some service when punching through a barrier. However, deflection and bullet damage would still effect performance.

With a 3" - 4" barell a 147gr+P would be my choice.


Everything about using a handgun is a compromise. We all have to find the compromise we can live with and move on.

 

[918v]

I'd also like to point out that 147gr loads are far more forgiving on the gun. LASD Berettas last near forever cuz all they shoot is 147's for duty and 115's for qual. At least they did back in the late 90's when I worked there. Back in 1995 they had at least one that had over 50K rounds through it, an original 92F that hadn't cracked yet.

124+P beats the crap out of guns. My curre nt employer switched to 124+P a couple of years ago and I could immediately see the additional wear in the form of frame peening. Alot of guns started breaking and we finally got approval to buy brands other than S&W.

147's have less muzzle flash at night. They are more quiet. They are more accurate. My favorite 147 is the Ranger Talon.