witchhunter
Member
Sorry, I'm late to this thread, but it looks like my opinion was duly stated in post number 11 by Retired USNAVYCHEIF. If a .22 is all you got, make em count son....
When Does a .380 Beat a 9mm? Good article
- Thread starter george burns
- Start date
- Status
Gun Master
Member
When Does a .380 Beat a 9mm ?
It seems we continue to stray from the OP's original question.
Now the discusion has become what the best balistics tests are, what substances to use, and how to measure them.
I'm afraid I too am partially guilty in this misdirection.
As an afterthought, the use of swine tissue as a simulation for human composition, has it's convincing appeal. If I were to accept this concept, many women might say they were correct in their statement that, "Men are all pigs".
It seems we continue to stray from the OP's original question.
Now the discusion has become what the best balistics tests are, what substances to use, and how to measure them.
I'm afraid I too am partially guilty in this misdirection.
As an afterthought, the use of swine tissue as a simulation for human composition, has it's convincing appeal. If I were to accept this concept, many women might say they were correct in their statement that, "Men are all pigs".
Last edited:
Walt Sherrill
Member
Gun Master said:
This is a GUN discussion, and we're talking about ballistics. You're not supposed to interject rational comments about the real world!!
Yeah, we have strayed -- but part of that was due to questions about how to best measure caliber performance. Both FBI Ballistic Gelatin and real-world results (ala Marshal & Sanow or Ellifritz) all seemed to have flaws -- and I suspect we've all learned gracious plenty on those topics, now. (We didn't, thankfully, go into why the M&S results have been largely discounted after a period of being considered THE BEST ANSWER. Brief answer: methodology.)
.
Last edited:
The OP says:
The OP references Grant Cunningham's article and Cunningham references Ellifritz. If Cunningham hadn't used Ellifritz, then we would simply be having a conversation about the manageability of different sized guns and calibers and the efficacy of putting more, .380 bullets in an assailant than 9mm bullets can be put in an assailant from a similar sized 9mm handgun in the same amount of time.
But Cunningham did use Ellifritz to bolster his claim, and that opens up the can of worms.
Posted by C0untZer0:
Cunningham did refer to Ellifritz' data to address that question. He could have elected instead to go into a lengthy discussion of the FBI testing protocol and the reasons for the FBI penetration standards, but he did not.
But not bringing the Ellifritz data into the discussion would not have made the question of terminal ballistics go away.
I really do not agree with that. The question of whether the .380 is adequate in terms of terminal ballistics is relevant to the article.
Cunningham did refer to Ellifritz' data to address that question. He could have elected instead to go into a lengthy discussion of the FBI testing protocol and the reasons for the FBI penetration standards, but he did not.
But not bringing the Ellifritz data into the discussion would not have made the question of terminal ballistics go away.
Gun Master
Member
OP's Original Question & Continuing Discussion
Well, guess what ? I agree with "all 3" of the above postings, overall and with some minor reservations. This is even though they do not always make the same conclusions on the same subjects. Confused ? Me too.
Let the disscusion continue.
Well, guess what ? I agree with "all 3" of the above postings, overall and with some minor reservations. This is even though they do not always make the same conclusions on the same subjects. Confused ? Me too.
Let the disscusion continue.
I think some of us are looking for a definitive answer to a question that encompasses so many variables (some that CANNOT be answered) as to be virtually impossible. There are unsolvable problems that require some guesswork and this is one of them.
We have gelatin tests for penetration.
We have Ellifritz for some "real world" shooting results.
We have Cunningham.
We have some very knowledgeable people on THR.
We have the internet (and it has to be true if it's on the internet).
What we don't have is research that can conclusively say that this particular bullet, fired from this particular firearm, using this particular powder, will do X when passing through the 5th rib bone of a 235 pound man that is in a bad mood, has high blood pressure, diabetes and had a couple of beers prior to the shooting.
Here is what I say about athletes and it holds true in bullets. Bigger is Better (all things being equal and they NEVER are). A 6'5" man will make a better football player than a 5'6" man, all things being equal. Same speed, same quickness, same desire, same intelligence, same strength. A bigger bullet that hits the exact same person in the exact same place going the exact same speed, blah blah blah.......
That's why I carry a pocket 9mm.
We have gelatin tests for penetration.
We have Ellifritz for some "real world" shooting results.
We have Cunningham.
We have some very knowledgeable people on THR.
We have the internet (and it has to be true if it's on the internet).
What we don't have is research that can conclusively say that this particular bullet, fired from this particular firearm, using this particular powder, will do X when passing through the 5th rib bone of a 235 pound man that is in a bad mood, has high blood pressure, diabetes and had a couple of beers prior to the shooting.
Here is what I say about athletes and it holds true in bullets. Bigger is Better (all things being equal and they NEVER are). A 6'5" man will make a better football player than a 5'6" man, all things being equal. Same speed, same quickness, same desire, same intelligence, same strength. A bigger bullet that hits the exact same person in the exact same place going the exact same speed, blah blah blah.......
That's why I carry a pocket 9mm.
Walt Sherrill
Member
Shawn Dodson said:
A lot of the rounds being discussed nowadays weren't available 30 years ago, and handgun ammunition performance has apparently changed fairly significantly. Whether this new generation of handgun ammo performs in the same manner through the gel (a corollary for human tissue) as the older rounds did has NOT been established based on thousands of examples and actual shootings.
You're comments may be generally correct -- it's not clear -- but your criticism is hyperbolic at best. Quoting Fackler and others from 20-25 years ago doesn't provide proof of a 30 year trail of evidence supporting your claim.
Shawn Dodson said:
If the Strasborg Tests have been discredited, scientifically or statistically, the evidence of that fact isn't easily found. I'll happily not cite it again and join you in debunking its validity if I see it mentioned, if you can show me that evidence. Have you actually read Fackler's critique, or is all of this based on second- and third-hand references? That's all I can find... people who heard about its debunking. Some cites show the title of the Fackler paper, but you can't access it there or elsewhere. (When I have found some OTHER Fackler studies, access required big dollars or that you access it through an academic research database or system. I didn't have the money or the access.)
(Fackler has written several papers addressing the invalid nature of the Marshall & Sanow studies. I've read some of that -- and he's just one of several "authorities" that took M&S to task for shoddy work. Some of those critiques can be found on line.)
As best I can tell the Strasborg Tests were undertaken in 1991, and Fackler's comments were made in 1994. If the 1991 and 1994 dates are correct, that's only 20 or 23 years, and it's silly to claim 30 years of disproof -- unless you can find older, more complete evidence and a lot of subsequent support. One paper isn't really sufficient, but finding a copy would be helpful.
I would note, too, that the Strasborg Tests were cited in my response as an example of a different type of testing (and one which which some found wanting -- with reasons cited). Nothing in that study was cited as evidence to support a particular argument; the study itself seems primarily focused on how rounds damaged lung tissue. It did nothing to support or attack the Ellifritz study's validity and also really didn't address the use of FBI Ballistic Gelatin. As was the case with my reference to the other type of proxies for human bodies used in the "Deadliest Warriors" TV show, my reference to the Strasborg Test was intended to say that other approaches could also be used.
You're clearly making the role of the Strasborg Tests in this discussion to be much more impotant and relevant than anyone else did. And some of the other materials you offered as proof were obviously NOT based on thousands of actual shootings, etc. (If that data were available in a database somewhere, it would be an awesome database -- but it's validity, like the Ellifritz Study -- would automatically be suspect in this type of forum.)
Last edited:
481
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,418
Unless someone were personally present for the alleged Strausborg Tests, I'd be more than a little reluctant to base my own decision-making on the "results". In one sense, it might be fair to say the purported, but unsubstantiated, goat testing is kind of like the MJ12 or Roswell papers for UFO enthusiasts. True believers abound, though.
That's my take on it, too. The fact that only one copy of the report ever appeared, combined with the fact that none of data -just the averages- are presented make me leery of it. It also smells faintly of confirmation bias- the results seem to be too good to be true- since it is touted by many who buy into the energy-dump myth.
Posted by Walt Sherrill:
That is a major reason for the trending shift to the 9MM from larger calibers.
The improvements in ammunition do not alter the validity of the penetration testing method. And that validity is accepted by those who need to rely upon the results, and it has been for quite a long time.
Whether penetration testing media will be added to in the future remains to be seen.
True fact.
That is a major reason for the trending shift to the 9MM from larger calibers.
That the new ammunition performs better in the FBI protocol testing (which includes gel and other media) has been demonstrated in extensive testing.
The improvements in ammunition do not alter the validity of the penetration testing method. And that validity is accepted by those who need to rely upon the results, and it has been for quite a long time.
Whether penetration testing media will be added to in the future remains to be seen.
Walt Sherrill
Member
Kleanbore said:
The part you cited WAS poorly stated, and not truly what I meant to say -- I didn't make my point as well as I should have, but your comment above is one of the points we continue to tussle with here.
I've seen a lot of rounds and loads tested by individuals, including many of the newest rounds. I don't know whether all of these testers apply the same rigor and attention to detail when doing their tests. I also don't know whether there is a substantive body of forensic data that shows how these rounds perform when they hit bodies rather than gel. That's why I've mentioned other combinations of media, including, perhaps, plates of bone proxies and maybe other organ proxies. Most of the research results I've seen about wound damage is very old. I wonder if the ways people go about assessing or measuring damage isn't also changing and maybe, improving. If I could be convinced that all rounds that perform similarly in ballistic gel also perform similarly when they encounter the human body (or a better human body proxy), I would be as comfortable as you are with FBI Ballistic Gelatin.
You may be right to be at ease with FBI Ballistic Gel (for, as you say, it's the best we've got). I suspect other ways of evaluating round performance are lurking just out of sight and some of these may be as good or better than what we have today. We're just not there, yet.
Last edited:
JRH6856
Member
Walt Sherrill said:
So you seem to be saying that while ballistics gel was determined to be a good testing medium for ammo 30 years ago, that may not be true today due to changes in bullet design and construction over the years.
Some 30 years ago, it was determined that ballistic gelatin was a good substance for simulating human tissue for comparing terminal bullet performance. Was this determination made by comparing the terminal performance of existing ammo in both medium, or was the determination of suitability made independently of similarities in terminal performance and then used for testing bullet performance?
This is key because if the suitability was determined independently of bullet performance, I would have a lot more confidence in the results produced by modern bullets. OTOH, if terminal performance comparisons were the basis for determining suitability, that suitability should probably be reevaluated using modern ammo.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Lest people become misled on the subject, FBI ballistics test protocol is a lot more than the simple ballistics gel testing that most focus on. Here is a summary:
- Bare gelatin to simulate human tissue with shots fired at 10 feet. Bullets must penetrate 12 inches.
- Heavy clothing test. One cotton tshirt material, one cotton shirt, a 10 ounce down comforter in cambric shell cover, and one layer of 13 ounce cotton denim to simulate winter clothing. Shot is fired at 10 feet
- Steel to simulate the weakest part of a car door. Two sheets of 20 gauge hot rolled, galvanized sheet steel in 6 inch squares that are 3 inches apart. Gel block is 18 inches behind this, covered in light clothing, and shots are fired at 10 feet from the first steel panel.
- Wall board simulating interior wall paneling. Two pieces of gypsum paneling, 6 inches square and 3 1/2 inches apart. Gel block is 18 inches behind this, covered in light clothing, and shots are 10 feet from the first board.
- Plywood to simulate wooden door panel and lumber. One 6 inch square piece of AA Fir plywood. Gel block is 18 inches behind this and covered in light clothing. Shots fired 10 feet from plywood.
- Glass. A 15 inch by 18 inch piece of ASI laminated auto safety glass at a 45 degree horizontal angle with the gun offset by 15 degrees from the side. Gel block is 18 inches behind this and covered in light clothing with shots fired 10 feet from the glass.
- Heavy clothing at 20 yards. Same as earlier, except at 20 yards.
- Auto glass at 20 yards. Same as earlier, except at 20 yards.
In each and every test, the round being tested must penetrate the ballistics gel a minimum of 12 inches. This is not an average, either...if one round fails to penetrate 12 inches at any time, then it fails the testing.
So, as you can see, there is a wee bit more to this than the simple bare gelatin penetrate on testing most people discuss.
- Bare gelatin to simulate human tissue with shots fired at 10 feet. Bullets must penetrate 12 inches.
- Heavy clothing test. One cotton tshirt material, one cotton shirt, a 10 ounce down comforter in cambric shell cover, and one layer of 13 ounce cotton denim to simulate winter clothing. Shot is fired at 10 feet
- Steel to simulate the weakest part of a car door. Two sheets of 20 gauge hot rolled, galvanized sheet steel in 6 inch squares that are 3 inches apart. Gel block is 18 inches behind this, covered in light clothing, and shots are fired at 10 feet from the first steel panel.
- Wall board simulating interior wall paneling. Two pieces of gypsum paneling, 6 inches square and 3 1/2 inches apart. Gel block is 18 inches behind this, covered in light clothing, and shots are 10 feet from the first board.
- Plywood to simulate wooden door panel and lumber. One 6 inch square piece of AA Fir plywood. Gel block is 18 inches behind this and covered in light clothing. Shots fired 10 feet from plywood.
- Glass. A 15 inch by 18 inch piece of ASI laminated auto safety glass at a 45 degree horizontal angle with the gun offset by 15 degrees from the side. Gel block is 18 inches behind this and covered in light clothing with shots fired 10 feet from the glass.
- Heavy clothing at 20 yards. Same as earlier, except at 20 yards.
- Auto glass at 20 yards. Same as earlier, except at 20 yards.
In each and every test, the round being tested must penetrate the ballistics gel a minimum of 12 inches. This is not an average, either...if one round fails to penetrate 12 inches at any time, then it fails the testing.
So, as you can see, there is a wee bit more to this than the simple bare gelatin penetrate on testing most people discuss.
Walt Sherrill
Member
Agreed. That point has been made. But once the round hits the gelatin, it's just a tissue proxy, not a medium that attempts to simulate tissue, bone, blood, organs, etc... What comes before or after the gelatin block does matter, but that can be assessed pretty easily.
I would note that most of the tests I've seen in recent years sometimes includes clothing (or clothing proxies) -- but that's about it. Most of the comparisons you can find really get us back to the basics: how a given round or load penetrates or expands in gelatin, and not how it does in the gelatin after passing through various intermediate barriers, etc. Those intermediate barriers really are separate and apart from how well the gelatin simulates the human body.
Ballistic Gelatin is the best proxy for the human body we've got. It may not always be the best proxy.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
This is true. However, Ballistic Gelatin gives us something that human tissue cannot, and that's consistency/repeatability and standardization. With this consistency and standardization, it becomes easier to make meaningful applications of ballistics performance in other mediums, including the human body.
Terminal ballistics in a living medium will always and forever be a statistical thing because living mediums such as humans are not a homogenous construct and are, in fact, reactionary living creatures.
What the FBI ballistics protocol is all about isn't the specifics of any particular round of ammunition being used on humans...it's about establishing a minimum performance standard under the testing criteria established and using that to essentially say that anything which does not meet those standards is not considered sufficient for the FBI to consider as an adequate round for reliable performance in use against human beings (of the bad guy persuasion).
That's it in a nutshell. It does not say that any particular round cannot be used effectively or will not otherwise be a viable round for any given use, such as self-defense, hunting, or anything else. Only that those performance standards are what is required for the FBI to consider it to be adequate for the job as FBI issue ammunition.
Posted by RetiredUSNChief:
This bears repeating: it's about establishing a minimum performance standard under the testing criteria established and using that to essentially say that anything which does not meet those standards is not considered sufficient.
And since the individuals encountered by law enforcement are the same as those likely to be faced in a self defense encounter, I would generally tend to stick with the FBI test standards for personal use.
Excellent point!
Yes indeed.
Exactly right.
This bears repeating: it's about establishing a minimum performance standard under the testing criteria established and using that to essentially say that anything which does not meet those standards is not considered sufficient.
I would edit that to say "adequate for use by law enforcement".
And since the individuals encountered by law enforcement are the same as those likely to be faced in a self defense encounter, I would generally tend to stick with the FBI test standards for personal use.
The FBI, the Border Patrol, the DEA, and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement all use the ballistic gelatin protocol to test the ammo they use and until something better comes along I'll stick with the gelatin protocol.
Yes,
Also, I beleive that cartridges like the Ranger T and HST and some others, that have been adopted by law enforcement, that penetrate about 14" in gelatin, on frontal shots, punch through most types of clothing, punch through the rib cage and penetrate 12 to 13 inches in real world shootings. I'm just making a general category of ammunition used by many law enforcement agencies currently, I'm not being caliber specific.
In real world use these rounds that penetrate to around 14 inches in the FBI tests and the IWBA 4 denim protocol, penetrate to vital tissue in actual police shootings.
Isn't that what MacPherson and the California Highway Patrol were doing in the late 90s?
If we had real-world failures of law enforcement ammo today wouldn't that necessitate a study of it and a "back to the drawing board" initiative?
My point is that these cartridges which are first tested by law enforcement agencies using FBI tests and IWBA protocols are proven further in real life shootings. Barring deflection from intermediate hard tissue (usually a humerus bone), bullets recovered from autopsies penetrate in the human body about how far they penetrate in gel, and they expand similarly and look pretty much like they look when taken out of a corpse as compared to when they're taken out of ordinance gel.
What higher level of confidence testing is required here?
Now granted that there probably aren't any Law Enforcement agencies out there validating the 380 ACP.
Posted by kokapelli:
The only way in which that distinction would pertain to weapons requirements would pertain to something like having to shoot someone through plate glass windows.
While the duties and objectives of the shooter may differ, the physiologies of the targets do not.
The only way in which that distinction would pertain to weapons requirements would pertain to something like having to shoot someone through plate glass windows.
I've thought about the argument that Police need ammunition that performs through windshields whereas the average citizen doesn't. Maybe a case can be made that by the time you're dealing with a car-jacking your window has already been shattered, but I can see how I personally would want a round that can go through car glass and still go through heavy clothing and still reach vital tissue, and not come out the back of the attacker.
But this:
Doesn't make any sense to me.
The bad guys who run from police don't have different bodies than the bad guys who perpetrate crimes against ordinary citizens.
Their bodies are not significantly different in any measurable way. As far as I know, muggers and rapists committing their crimes don't dress significantly different from muggers and rapists fleeing from police.
I'm not aware of ammunition being categorized into offense ammunition and defensive ammunition. Maybe the closest thing I can think of is the many brands that use the word "Defense" in their names versus ammunition that uses terms like "Duty" and "Law Enforcement" or "LE" But that is really just marketing.
But this:
Doesn't make any sense to me.
The bad guys who run from police don't have different bodies than the bad guys who perpetrate crimes against ordinary citizens.
Their bodies are not significantly different in any measurable way. As far as I know, muggers and rapists committing their crimes don't dress significantly different from muggers and rapists fleeing from police.
I'm not aware of ammunition being categorized into offense ammunition and defensive ammunition. Maybe the closest thing I can think of is the many brands that use the word "Defense" in their names versus ammunition that uses terms like "Duty" and "Law Enforcement" or "LE" But that is really just marketing.
jimbo555
Member
There's on duty and off duty guns. Primary and backup. I know plenty of Le that carry 380's as off duty and backup handguns. Maybe they should carry their duty guns all the time but most don't. I know some that don't carry at all off duty.
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,198
BINGO! We have nearly 30 years of OIS and military data that continue to validate properly prepared and calibrated 10% type 250A ordnance gelatin as a realistic "typical" human soft tissue simulant. Bullets are perfoming in the human body overwhelmingly as they do in ordnance gelatin. The physics of wound ballistics haven't changed with time.
- Status