| Author |
 Topic  |
|
hkguy
Junior Member
USA
426 Posts |
 Posted - 04/03/2010 : 13:24:46
|
| what i am failing to understand how a geo metro an f-150, concrete have to do with ballistics. i understand that a substantially heavier object will tend to do more. damage, that is not what i was remarking on. i was merely remarking on the idea that heavier is not always necessary. a 124g 9mm will put a bg just wearing a tee shirt down just the same as a 240g .45. now change the situation to a bg wearing a jean jacket, yeah i would prefer a heavier bullet when i am more likely to encounter a thicker barrier. so for you guys that carry on the heavy end of whats available, i respect your choice, for me 100g powerballs and 124g golden sabers will do just fine for michigan summer carry. during the winter i will be switching over to 147g bullets. just my 2 cents |
Ruger 10/22
Browning Buckmark
H&K P30
Mossberg 835
Kahr K9
S&W 642-2 |
 |
|
|
fishfinder
Senior Member
USA
1541 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2010 : 13:44:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by hkguy
what i am failing to understand how a geo metro an f-150, concrete have to do with ballistics. i understand that a substantially heavier object will tend to do more. damage, that is not what i was remarking on. i was merely remarking on the idea that heavier is not always necessary. a 124g 9mm will put a bg just wearing a tee shirt down just the same as a 240g .45. now change the situation to a bg wearing a jean jacket, yeah i would prefer a heavier bullet when i am more likely to encounter a thicker barrier. so for you guys that carry on the heavy end of whats available, i respect your choice, for me 100g powerballs and 124g golden sabers will do just fine for michigan summer carry. during the winter i will be switching over to 147g bullets. just my 2 cents
That's fine if you can control the defensive situation you will be in. Do you want to take the chance that your 100g powerball will go through leather, radius, ulner, leather, leather, sternum, and then have enough left to penetrate an internal organ? I am not willing to take that chance with my families life. |
...though I be the lone survivor.
RLTW!
True manhood is about love and kindness. It’s about responsibility and honor, about working hard and raising your children the best way you know how, with love, respect and discipline
"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
Charles Austin Beard
US historian (1874 - 1948)
"Thou shalt not be a victim. Thou shalt not be a perpetrator. Above all, thou shalt not be a bystander."- Holocaust Museum, DC
|
|
|
|
Nathan
Big Sky Guy
USA
15811 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2010 : 14:44:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by hkguy
i was merely remarking on the idea that heavier is not always necessary. a 124g 9mm will put a bg just wearing a tee shirt down just the same as a 240g .45.
i can assure you this is not the case. to make my point i will use documented US history.
from CarryGuide.com:
"
CALIBER/BALLISTIC SCIENCE
This has to be the most heavily debated topic of any given gun related forum. Starting as "9mm vs. .45" during WW2, with many new caliber choices the caliber wars continue to rage. Some believe in big bullets...some believe in lighter, faster bullets with higher simple energy numbers...some believe in shot placement....all are equally mistaken. The potential effectiveness of any bullet in a defensive shooting is always an issue of probabilities that factor in caliber, weight, velocity, shot placement, (resulting in penetration and expansion), and even the physical condition (drugs, rage, size, etc.) of the threat you are attempting to neutralize. You will hear of threats dropping immediately from a .25 ACP and you will hear of threats that continued to fight despite a solid .44 Magnum hit but these are rare exceptions and should never be considered representative in any way of overall stopping power potential. They are nothing beyond extremely rare incidents that have minimal impact on the overall averages used to calculate overall stopping power potential.
If you remove the human element (your ability to shoot, for example) and limit your comparison to bullet performance its hard to argue with "bigger is better". Despite lower simple energy numbers, bigger and particularly heavier bullets carry more stopping power potential and this is clearly substantiated in history.
Around the turn of the century (1900) the US army replaced the M1873 peacemaker .45 Long Colt revolver with a much lighter and faster .38 Long Colt (in a double action revolver). In 1902 during the American-Philippine war the US Army was sent into battle in the Philippines against the Moros Tribesmen where for the first time they faced enemy soldiers on heavy opiate based drugs of that era. US soldiers emptied their .38 Long Colts into the advancing tribesmen who continued to advance most often spearing and even beheading the US soldier before falling dead from their gunshot wounds. It quickly became obvious that the lighter .38 Long Colt was not up to the job of stopping the Moros Tribesmen. The Army replaced the newly issued .38 Long Colts with the recently retired M1873 Peacemaker .45 Long Colt that was put back into service.
Just as it had in the previous century, the .45 Long Colt proved itself by dropping the Moros Tribesmen most often with a single shot (yes, a single torso hit from the .45 Long Colt proved superior to 5 and 6 shots from the .38 Long Colt!). This is documented US history and there is no disputing it. The .45 Long Colt played a crucial role in winning the war, and this directly lead to the development of the .45 Automatic Colt Pistol (.45 ACP) which served our troops equally well through two world and many smaller wars.
In and of itself with all else being equal (shot placement, etc.) hitting a threat with a 230 grain .45 caliber slug is not the same thing as hitting that same threat in the same place with a 115 grain .355" slug despite its considerably higher velocity. With typical handgun velocities at typical defensive handgun ranges bigger simply is better."
...the moros tribesmen werent even wearing t-shirts. |
 
"In the foolishness of my heart, I thought that the truth would be a defense." - Harold Fish |
|
|
|
LandonJ
Basher Of Trolls
USA
5722 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2010 : 15:37:55
|
Why would you compromise yourself in the summer but in the winter carry the heavy stuff? Just doesn't make sense to me.
The vehicle comparison makes perfect sense if you think about it. Both vehicles are projectiles and both will do damage, but which one is going to penetrate the barrier deeper?
By the way, it's 230 gr, not 240 as you have posted twice. |
"You are only out-gunned if you miss." -Jeff Cooper |
|
|
|
hkguy
Junior Member
USA
426 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2010 : 10:26:16
|
first off, my apologies for the mix up on .45 weights. i still need clarification in what concrete you are talking about, sidewalk concrete or industrial.. make a big difference in what both vehicles will do.
@nathan,
thanks for the story that clears up some misconceptions, but i still have questions to weight and bullet design.
@fishfinder,
i guess ill just have to save up and buy a pig shank and raid goodwill and do some "realistic" testing using several different rounds from several different makers. and if i find my self in a situation where i have to use my weapon i will be reacting the same as i practice, two the chest and one to the head. |
Ruger 10/22
Browning Buckmark
H&K P30
Mossberg 835
Kahr K9
S&W 642-2 |
|
|
|
Nathan
Big Sky Guy
USA
15811 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2010 : 11:00:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by hkguy
i still have questions to weight and bullet design.
feel free to ask away. |
"In the foolishness of my heart, I thought that the truth would be a defense." - Harold Fish |
|
|
|
Joshua
Advanced Member
2877 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2010 : 12:10:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by LandonJ
By the way, it's 230 gr, not 240 as you have posted twice.
Right, but I kind of like the idea of a 250gr +P.  |
 |
|
|
|
Nathan
Big Sky Guy
USA
15811 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2010 : 13:04:14
|
hkguy,
CLICK HERE for an excellent video that in addition being a 1911 history video it also shows perfect examples of the ballistics that make the difference. in fact, everybody should right click that links and "save target as" and download it and then view it (not enough bandwidth to stream it live to multiple viewers). |
"In the foolishness of my heart, I thought that the truth would be a defense." - Harold Fish |
|
|
|
RickC
Good American
USA
2302 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2010 : 03:03:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Joshua
quote:
Originally posted by LandonJ
By the way, it's 230 gr, not 240 as you have posted twice.
Right, but I kind of like the idea of a 250gr +P.
We don't need no stinking 250 gr., GI now offers a 350 grain bullet for the 50GI round |
Rick
"I carry a gun, 'cause a Cop is to heavy"
-Anonymous- |
|
|
|
deadguy
I see dead people
2361 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2010 : 04:16:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nathan
quote:
Originally posted by Joshua
You're making me feel bad for not having them!
dont feel bad buddy. one day you too will be man enough for a 10mm.
  
It never ends |
  |
|
|
|
Joshua
Advanced Member
2877 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2010 : 18:43:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by RickC
quote:
Originally posted by Joshua
quote:
Originally posted by LandonJ
By the way, it's 230 gr, not 240 as you have posted twice.
Right, but I kind of like the idea of a 250gr +P.
We don't need no stinking 250 gr., GI now offers a 350 grain bullet for the 50GI round
Oh great, one more thing on the "I absolutely cannot afford it but I have to have it someday" list. |
|
|
|
|
Bandolero
Starting Member
5 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2010 : 14:27:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nathan
Preface: One of the most versatile handgun calibers of all time is the .357 Magnum. Although the 125 grain load is an excellent performer, the 158 grain load makes it even more effective.
Back in the early 1980s the stat that floated around for .357 Magnums was 95% one shot stop. I like those odds. |
|
|
|
Nathan
Big Sky Guy
USA
15811 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2010 : 21:20:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bandolero
Back in the early 1980s
a lot has changed since the early 80s.
quote:
.357 Magnums was 95% one shot stop.
the "one shot stop" crap compiled by M&S has been discredited so many times over that its a joke.
quote:
I like those odds.
so did trooper coates who died because his 5 shots of 125 grain .357 magnum didnt penetrate his obese attacker enough to stop him. the bad guys .22 did penetrate trooper coates deep enough to reach vitals. trooper coates is dead. the bad guy is alive and well in prison. the 158 grain .357 magnum does penetrate deeper than the 125 grain. this is proven and can be replicated as many times as you want to try it for yourself. |
"In the foolishness of my heart, I thought that the truth would be a defense." - Harold Fish |
|
|
|
Punch
Junior Member
USA
449 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2010 : 23:03:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nathan
quote:
Originally posted by Bandolero
Back in the early 1980s
a lot has changed since the early 80s.
quote:
.357 Magnums was 95% one shot stop.
the "one shot stop" crap compiled by M&S has been discredited so many times over that its a joke.
quote:
I like those odds.
so did trooper coates who died because his 5 shots of 125 grain .357 magnum didnt penetrate his obese attacker enough to stop him. the bad guys .22 did penetrate trooper coates deep enough to reach vitals. trooper coates is dead. the bad guy is alive and well in prison. the 158 grain .357 magnum does penetrate deeper than the 125 grain. this is proven and can be replicated as many times as you want to try it for yourself.
This is why I cannot take some of the advice on this site seriously. The M-S data has NEVER been discredited by anyone who has used it as Marshall and Sanow intended. What has been discredited is the FBI data, and even its sister agency, the Border Patrol, that gets into more gunfights in a year than the FBI does in five, does not use the FBI's penetration criteria.
Trooper Coates (may he rest in peace) was "going heavy". He was using 145 grain Silvertips, NOT 125 grain JHPs. The Silvertip penetrates 14.2 inches in Jello, well beyond the FBI "minimum". I am more obese than the man Trooper Coates shot (350#), and my chest measures 15 inches from sternum to back. There is NOTHING vital in my chest that could not be reached with the load Trooper Coates was using. It is not a bad round, it has a M-S stopping rate of 87%. However, it does not have the 96% rate of the 125 grain projectile. Neither one are "guaranteed" to stop a target, even by the M-S data. In the interest of being honest, why do you insist upon using a nearly 20 year old shooting and the data from a deep penetrating round that failed in order to discredit a round that has a stopping rate 10 percentage points higher, even if it only penetrates 11 inches? And what about the .22 fired from a VERY short barreled weapon? The slug went through Trooper Coates' armpit and into his heart. This shot only needs 2-4 inches of penetration. Your whole argument is BS because penetration had NOTHING to do with Trooper Coates' killing. SHOT PLACEMENT had everything to do with it. The 145 grain Silvertips did not hit anything vital in their 14 or so inches of penetration, but the .22 did.
What part of 96% do people not understand? That means for every 100 people you shoot with the round, four will fail. In the case of the load used by Trooper Coates, more than one in ten will fail. None of us who use the M-S data as an input to our defensive strategy consider ANY handgun round a guaranteed stopper. Those of us who have read all of Marshall's books would have been warned REPEATEDLY not to trust ANY round as a guaranteed stopper. How has that EVER been discredited?
Have you found a round that is 100% effective? No. Because such a round does not exist (and is admitted in the opening words of Marshall's FIRST book, which is still the case today). Also, because penetration alone will not stop a person. So, when you say that a 158 grain round will penetrate further EVERY TIME, so what? It still does not kill any better than the 125, and there is NO data out there that PROVES otherwise. Perhaps if we are attacked by large blocks of Jello with automatic cutoff switches at 12 inches, then your data will be good. But in the real world, it just does not work that way.
The "go heavy" mantra is no more certain than the M-S data. Actual shootings are too complex for simple mantras, and people should not trust their life to only one variable, or those who espouse such a philosophy. |
Those who beat their swords into plows will plow for those who do not. |
|
|
|
DIAMOND
Senior Member
USA
1894 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2010 : 06:44:41
|
Just thought I'd jump in here with some of my thoughts on ballistics gelatin...and correct me if my view is incorrect...
I am assuming that the FBI, as well as other bullet testing agencies and individuals, use ballistics gelatin simply to create a uniform environment by which to measure how a bullet reacts and performs in a common environment.
If you ONLY use REAL data from real shooting incidences, there are too many variables in action (clothing, fat, muscle, bone, organs, etc) to get a solid base for "testing" bullet performance. One bullet may hit only soft tissue...but how dense is that tissue? Muscle is more dense and "stringy" than fat. Did one bullet graze a bone and the other only soft tissue?
My assumption is that they use ballistics gelatin simply as a testing base, and not as a real-world scenario base.
So, with this in mind, here is my point...
12" of ballistics gelatin penetration does NOT equal 12" of human body penetration.
The human body is composed of so many obstacles and variances as I mentioned above (clothing, fat, muscle, bone, organs, etc). Don't measure the depth of the human body and then come to the conclusion that if a bullet gets 12" of penetration in gelatin that it will get 12" of penetration in the human body. It just will not measure out.
If your chosen round obtains 12" of penetration in gel, I will almost guarantee that you will NOT get 12" of penetration in a human body. Even with an unclothed belly shot, there are way to many variables.
Just my .02, or maybe .03  |
Loving God.
Loving People.
Carrying a gun.
Palin for President 2012
 |
|
|
|
aterwilleger
New Member
USA
79 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2010 : 08:48:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by DIAMOND
Just thought I'd jump in here with some of my thoughts on ballistics gelatin...and correct me if my view is incorrect...
I am assuming that the FBI, as well as other bullet testing agencies and individuals, use ballistics gelatin simply to create a uniform environment by which to measure how a bullet reacts and performs in a common environment.
If you ONLY use REAL data from real shooting incidences, there are too many variables in action (clothing, fat, muscle, bone, organs, etc) to get a solid base for "testing" bullet performance. One bullet may hit only soft tissue...but how dense is that tissue? Muscle is more dense and "stringy" than fat. Did one bullet graze a bone and the other only soft tissue?
My assumption is that they use ballistics gelatin simply as a testing base, and not as a real-world scenario base.
So, with this in mind, here is my point...
12" of ballistics gelatin penetration does NOT equal 12" of human body penetration.
The human body is composed of so many obstacles and variances as I mentioned above (clothing, fat, muscle, bone, organs, etc). Don't measure the depth of the human body and then come to the conclusion that if a bullet gets 12" of penetration in gelatin that it will get 12" of penetration in the human body. It just will not measure out.
If your chosen round obtains 12" of penetration in gel, I will almost guarantee that you will NOT get 12" of penetration in a human body. Even with an unclothed belly shot, there are way to many variables.
Just my .02, or maybe .03
very well said i know that it was said earlyier that hunting experance had nothing to do with this but that i dissagree on but my hunting experance is as follows .308 180 graain bulles all ways stops them no matter how bad the shot cheap federal ammo in a havey bullet always works lighter more expersive ammo does not i always go heavey
and to another point they type of concerte the cars are hitting is a mute point it does not matter the results will be the same think about this there is a car going 50mph and a train (heavier but slower ) going 40 which one is going to hurt more. |
|
|
|
Nathan
Big Sky Guy
USA
15811 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2010 : 10:19:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Punch
This is why I cannot take some of the advice on this site seriously.
nobody has asked you or anybody else to take anything here in any way. we put the truth on the table. if you want to let bias, personaly choice, and/or outdated or otherwise incorrect information guide your beliefs theres nothing more we can tell you.
quote:
The M-S data has NEVER been discredited by anyone who has used it as Marshall and Sanow intended.
really?
evan marshal has been discredited by dang near every recognized authority on the subject.
"Evan Marshall has been a bad joke to almost every technically trained person ever since his earliest articles on his "data base" were published.1 Ed Sanow has been part of this act since at least 1992 when Marshall & Sanow's first jointly authored book was published.2 Statistical analyses of this "data base" was the source of the certainty that this Marshall & Sanow "data base" was nonsense. Unfortunately, recognition and understanding of this kind of statistical analysis is not easy for those without technical training, so it has been easy for Marshall & Sanow and their advocates to just ignore this criticism because their target audience doesn't understand it and ignores it."
CLICK HERE for the complete article.
here are several more sources that also discredit marshall:
Fackler, ML: "Marshall - Sanow Can't Beat Long Odds: Wound Wizards Tally Too Good to be True." Soldier of Fortune, January 1994, 64-65.
Roberts, GK; Wolberg, EJ: "Book Review: Handgun Stopping Power: The Definitive Study." AFTE Journal, 1992; 24(4): 383-387.
Fackler, ML: "Book Review: Street Stoppers: The Latest Handgun Stopping Power Street Results." Wound Ballistics Review, 1997; 3(1): 26-31.
MacPherson, D: "Sanow Strikes (Out) Again." Wound Ballistics Review, 1999; 3(1): 32-35.
thats just a handful of sources available with only a few minutes of searching. im certain there is more.
quote:
What has been discredited is the FBI data
substantiate as i have done above.
quote:
even its sister agency, the Border Patrol, that gets into more gunfights in a year than the FBI does in five, does not use the FBI's penetration criteria.
not only does one agencies choice prove nothing, but the border patrol also recently dropped the 155 grain JHP in favor of the 180 grain JHP which is what the FBI has determined to be superior. they are shooting off remaining stock of 155s prior to the transition, but the transition has been implimented.
quote:
Trooper Coates (may he rest in peace) was "going heavy". He was using 145 grain Silvertips, NOT 125 grain JHPs.
you are correct. that said, this quote stuck out:
"Trooper Coates fired four 145 grain Winchester Silvertip .357 Magnum bullets directly into his assailant's heavy abdomen, achieving solid hits with each. These particular bullets penetrate deeper than 125 grain JHPs". - SOURCE.
the 145 penetrates deeper than the 125. the 158 penetrates deeper than both. the 180 penetrates deeper than all 3. this is the entire point in this thread! whats so hard to understand about that?
quote:
it has a M-S stopping rate of 87%.
you might as well say "it looks pretty" because thats about as relevant to real life stopping power potential as anything M&S had to say about it.
quote:
why do you insist upon using a nearly 20 year old shooting and the data from a deep penetrating round that failed in order to discredit a round that has a stopping rate 10 percentage points higher, even if it only penetrates 11 inches?
because you are using a ridiculous and absolutely discredited report (M&S) from the same era (that you are criticizing me for using).
quote:
what about the .22 fired from a VERY short barreled weapon? The slug went through Trooper Coates' armpit and into his heart.
the .22 is a very good penetrator.
quote:
Your whole argument is BS
thats pretty funny coming from someone quoting M&S as credible.
quote:
What part of 96% do people not understand?
an 8 year old can write "96%" and have more credibility than M&S.
quote:
That means for every 100 people you shoot with the round, four will fail.
thats the dumbest thing ive read in here in a long time, and a primary reason why M&S conclusions are a joke. that does not mean 4 will fail! in fact, all 100 could fail. there is nothing dependable and those who rely on M&S conclusions are simply natural selection at work.
i have presented nothing as absolute. you come in here and tell us you dont take us seriously, we're full of BS, all the while relying on M&S to base your assinine argument.
you need to stop reading crap on the internet and get outside and test this  for yourself. its not hard! it is as simple as going to a butcher and buying a hog shoulder (or whole hog, or beef, etc.) and two boxes of bullets. buy your holy graile 125 grain .357 magnum loads and a box of 158 grain .357 magnum loads. fire both into the pork shoulder and document the performance of each load. when youve seen for yourself that our recommendations are based not only on FBI ballistics lab recommendations but also on this exact testing it just may (depending on the level of your prejudice) sink in to you that we've already been there and done this and seen for ourselves.
that takes a little more money and effort than reading on the internet, but it will tell you the whole story. |
"In the foolishness of my heart, I thought that the truth would be a defense." - Harold Fish |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Go Heavy
Topic Locked
