What are the best ballistics test(s)

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Balog

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2003
Messages
1,955
Location
Directly below date registered
I've heard a lot of (oft contradictory) accounts of the penetration and terminal effects of various calibers/bullet types. It's quite difficult to know what is the truth. The only info I really trust is what's in the USMC MOUT manual, and that's only helpful if I'm trying to figure out how long it would take to blow a hole through a cinderblock wall with an M2HB. ;) I'd like to do some independent testing, but I canna afford either a bunch of ammo or the ballistic gelatin/goats/pigs/wooden and brick walls/car doors/engine blocks/Kevlar vests/rifle plates/plate steel/all the other test media I'm interested in. And that would just cover penetration and structural damage. It wouldn't help determine what would be the best round to stop a fight with.

I suppose the best way to determine that would be to examine, in detail, the results of as many real life shootings in as many circumstances as possible. This presents several problems, however. The biggest I could see is that the test subjects (the people shot) are so inconsistent. Examples of a 9mm failing to incapacitate a sickly 105 lb woman who was shot through the heart but instantly killing a 305lb man on PCP who was shot through the brain stem are of little real value in making a realistic determination because of all the differing variables.

So, what say you THR? Any reliable studies? All the ones I've looked at are either apocryphal or use massively flawed methodology. Any cheap tests I could do beyond the old milk jug/newspaper or phone book standards?
 
What a can of worms! There are shelves full of books on this subject with wildly varying conclusions, all based on tests and data. There is no end to this debate.
 
I agree with that damneddirtyape. The first thing to know though is that penetration and terminal effects are two different things and one is not a measure of the other.

Here is a good specific article to start with at www.firearmstactical.com. It's long and involved though so grab a seat. I really enjoyed it and learned from it and to me it doesn't really get more clearcut than this article when it comes to wound factors and how bullets act upon the intended target.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm

Also, even though they've had a recent falling out, I appreciate and generally accept the conclusions of both Martin Fackler and Gary K. Roberts. They've both been involved in extensive and scientific ballistics testing and terminal wound research and identified trends and consistencies. I think you are right about the "street results" type studies and you pointed out just an inkling of the many inherent problems of studies such as the Marshall and Sanow stats.

brad cook
 
Travis: I'm not looking to end the debate per se. I'm just curious as to what is out there, and our members opinions of it.

DigMe: I thought Fackler's study used flawed methodology? Or is that Marshall and Sanow I'm thinking of? :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top