My self defence ammo test 9 mm and 380

[seeker_two]

My comment about being attacked by a bucket of water was meant to be humorous.

I'm glad....I'd hate to see someone talk about opening fire in response to being attacked by a bucket of water seriously...

 

[tblt]

I cant test on humans can I

 

[sniper7369]

Are shooting into a full five gallon bucket for these tests? I was thinking about doing that with my P-3AT with some Speer Gold Dot loads I'm working up. Just don't want to have a huge mess of water all over the garage if the bullet happens to exit the bottom.

 

[Kind of Blued]

next to shot placement, the best ammo is very important

Don't forget about carrying a gun that reliably launches those fancy bullets.

If anybody ends up testing the new Hornady Critical Defense load, I'd like to see how it performs, in comparison to other "normal" hollowpoints, in expansion after traveling through heavy clothing.

I think that's the whole point of the "filled" hollowpoint, and I'd like to see if it works in exactly similar situations in which standard hollowpoints fail.

 

[kmbrman]

Water Testing

Sniper 7369 I have done some 5 gal. water bucket test on 125 JHP 38 Spec.+P from Win. and Umc. Shooting off a step ladder, straight down into an open 5 gal. bucket resulted in a split bucket on several sides ! This was from a 2" snub, Water went everywhere: just glad I was in the pasture .

 

[jackstinson]

Shooting off a step ladder, straight down into an open 5 gal. bucket resulted in a split bucket on several sides !

You guys needed to watch MythBusters when they blew their test tank apart with a 12ga.
Then they switched to the swimming pool for testing

 

[edSky]

What about shooting something like chickens or pork shoulders. I know it can get expensive, but a small box of self-defense ammunition costs less than a few decent roasters.

I'm being serious here. I was thinking of this a few times, and when I join a private range this spring I'd like to try it.

 

[40jjb]

380

Ur question , What do i think, well let me shoot you with a 380, then you tell me!!!!

 

[john11139]

Has any one read or run any tests on the ammo called DRT. It is made by Dynamics Reseacrh Techonoligies. I guess it has been used and tested by the military but has been sort of "hush, hush" I think it is available from Cheaper Than Dirt. From what I understand it is a composite bullet and when it hits it disinagrates on impact. You dont have to worry about a pass through and hitting some one else. From what I have read it is deadly accurate. Typically I guess it creates a crator 5" wide and 5" deep with instant death. I bet that stuff would make your water bottles explode.

 

[JR47]

Prior to the 1987 FBI Wound Ballistics Workshop most ammunition manufactures tested their ammunition in water tanks. This gave two inaccurate results......penetration and expansion. Human tissue is not 100% water, and shooting into the human body means that a bullet that expands well in water may not expand well in tissue. Hollow points that were designed around the water tank(around 1967-1987) suffered either expansion problems(heavier bullet weights at lower velocities), or weak penetration(light and fast bullet weights). Then of course there was no standardized method to determine adequate levels of penetration. It was for these reasons that we had spectacular ammunition failures such as that of Jerry Dove in 1986 which got him killed. Ballistic gel is MUCH more consistant with tissue and has been an excellent media for testing ammunition and getting similar results to that of real world effects.

Not enough information, and generally biased, at that. Ballistic gelatin is neither flesh, nor a representative of human construction. Instead, it was a readily available medium that allowed the science of the day repeatable results of their favored combination of bullets and velocity. Too much "what if" resulted in tests that favored the adherents of Fackler's purposes.

The single important result was a data-base, flawed as it is, that allowed a comparative analysis against arbitrarily chosen barriers, and evidenced actual penetration and expansion. The arbitrary minimums are just that, arbitrary. Other agencies chose different criteria, and successfully issued other ammunition. Why the dinosaurs regard the fact that a single bullet failed to initiate an immediate stop, not just a lethal stop, against the heart, is beyond any possible reasoning. Even the total destruction of the heart allows for a time of continuing action by the injured. Yet, this is conveniently ignored in this scenario. Upon such biased, and unscientific, facts are the FBI actions based upon. The facts that one agent was literally blinded as a result of a failed tactical stop, BEFORE the first shot was fired. That several other agents lost their primary arms due to that same stop, or that NONE of the agents was actually equipped to fight against rifle-armed opponents, even though they knew of the armaments used by the robbers, has somehow been lost in the mists of time.

This was a monumental failure on the agents part to control the situation. That a single bullet is blamed for all of this, and resulted in the ensuing fiasco, is more a tribute to institutional blame-shifting than scientific research. :banghead: