481
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,418
I agree, but your statement seems to be self contradiction since you preach the Schwartz modeling theory where he believes he can accurately predict how a bullet will behave in gelatin after shooting said bullet into water.
Your incomplete description of the process involved suggests that you've never read the book, so it is quite difficult to take your opinion as being informed commentary on the matter.
In fact, Schwartz's use of over 700 data taken from laboratory and manufacturer gelatin tests is used to correlate the model to a very high degree (r = .94, 1.00 is "perfect") against that body of data and it does so with a margin of error of just one centimeter-
Taken from the website-
Based upon a modified fluid dynamics equation that correlates highly (r = +0.94) to more than 700 points of manufacturer- and laboratory-test data, the quantitative model allows the use of water to generate terminal ballistic test results equivalent to those obtained in calibrated ten percent ordnance gelatin. Within a confidence interval of 95%, the quantitative model predicts the terminal penetration depth of projectiles in calibrated ordnance gelatin with a margin of error of one centimeter.
Feel free to defer and as for "unsupported anonymous opinion"...
I will.
...I'll remind you that Schwartz has a grand total of one endorsement from a Swedish engineer according to the site you post the link for.
Great.
Exactly how many endorsements attesting to your authority in the field of terminal ballistics do you have?
MacPherson's opinions are largely based on gel tests and theory or from autopsies where the number of shots fired to kill the assailant go unspecified yet he uses mathematical analysis from a single round fired into gelatin to predict its effectiveness on human beings.
Of course MacPherson studied autopsy results and conducted tests in gelatin to substantiate his predictive model and Schwartz seems to have taken the same approach. After all, their respective models are meant to model those mediums so it only makes sense that they'd conduct research using those mediums.
I think you fail to recognize that this is not a game.
Now, now...no need to make this personal. Again.
Defense shooting is serious business and accepting unproven theory then preaching it as gospel could sway a new or inexperienced shooter into making a decision that could get them hurt, or worse, killed.
Neither Schwartz's nor MacPherson's models are unproven or unsubstantiated. In fact, both model's are based upon, and correlate highly and accurately with, a cummulative set of more than 1100 data between the two models. I have seen no preaching here, except for unsubstantiated claims that suggest no actual/direct knowledge of the material being discussed.
Selecting a load based on penetration and expansion after passing through four layers of denim into ballistic gelatin can be useful as long as the shooter realizes that real world and unforeseen events can drastically change from a test result. Like I've said before, shoot a bullet with high enough velocity to make it expand upon impacting water and it will almost always look impressive, but we have an engineer trying to make a science of it, with only one other engineer prepared to endorse or vet it.
The scientific methodology is presented clearly in both books should you care to read them, but it is hard to take seriously any critique of these books by anyone who has not actually read either book.
AS for MacPherson, I'd like to see the list of names of doctors and scientists prepared to vet his work not named Martin Fackler or one of his disciples like the dentist doc Roberts.
There are other names and if you are truly interested in finding that out, I am sure that you are more than capable of locating that information with a little searching on the 'net.
Ad hominem attacks upon those researchers (specifically MacPherson, Roberts, Fackler) by labeling them as "disciples" or intentionally understating their real credentials (obviously Roberts is more than just a dentist) is just rudeness for rudeness' sake and doesn't make a very convincing or substantial argument for refuting their work.
Last edited: