[chan4070]

During my time in service we enlisted folks never did PT tests or weapons qualifications with the officers. Always wondered how many tests and weapons quals were pencil whipped.

You know it's funny. At the police department I retired from. The Chief, Deputy Chief and the three Majors did firearms qualifications away from the rest of the agency. They had their own separate range day where NO ONE was allowed to go out there when they were there. Even when I was promoted to Captain, the Chief limited their qualifications to only those five. When I was seconded to Training as the primary rifle instructor for the department, I understood why. It took the Chief and two of the Major's four times to qualify on the state course. The Deputy Chief and the Major over CID were former SWAT so they had no problems. The Chief and the other Major's whoa momma. At one point I asked the training coordinator was it always this bad and he told me that this was a good session.

 

[wtxsmoker]

Just a reminder. One accidental discharge can be the kill shot.

 

[Chowda]

Why Ballistics Gel Works and Caliber Arguments are Dumb - Lucky Gunner Lounge

An explanation about what ballistics gel is and why it's a useful tool when measuring the effectiveness of self-defense ammo.

www.luckygunner.com

I saw this video on another forum and was going to post it here if it wasn't already.

 

[P938365]

Why Ballistics Gel Works and Caliber Arguments are Dumb - Lucky Gunner Lounge

An explanation about what ballistics gel is and why it's a useful tool when measuring the effectiveness of self-defense ammo.

www.luckygunner.com

So, the gist of the article is that there is so little difference between the permanent tissue damage that different handgun rounds do that no 9mm or greater handgun round is substantively better than another. What that tells me is that even though a .45 ACP isn't substantively more traumatic than a 9mm, it is still better by a smidgen, even if that difference is hardly measurable. .45 ACP still wins!

 

[Lexie__M]

So, the gist of the article is that there is so little difference between the permanent tissue damage that different handgun rounds do that no 9mm or greater handgun round is substantively better than another. What that tells me is that even though a .45 ACP isn't substantively more traumatic than a 9mm, it is still better by a smidgen, even if that difference is hardly measurable. .45 ACP still wins!

The only real thing left is: PLACEMENT is everything.

 

[Chowda]

The only real thing left is: PLACEMENT is everything.

That, and a quality bullet that penetrates enough.

 

[TXGRunner]

So, the gist of the article is that there is so little difference between the permanent tissue damage that different handgun rounds do that no 9mm or greater handgun round is substantively better than another.
[snip]

I really like this video, referred to it earlier, and have frequently posted it anytime a religious war over cartridges breaks out.

As they point out, gel is more like a yardstick or measuring tape: an arbitrary, but agreed upon, common baseline we can all agree on to compare apples to apples. It is "calibrated to human tissue," but doesn't account for the various density differences of bone, lung, and muscle. A big takeaway is the difference between handgun cartridges is negligible compared to the difference between any handgun and a rifle. So, they say, emphasis should be placed on what one can shoot well.

Most knowledgeable shooters will repeat the mantra: shot placement is king. That dovetails nicely with where they suggest emphasis should be placed. If a shooter is significantly more likely to get solid hits with a 380ACP than the 10mm, than they are better off with the 380ACP. That doesn't mean the 380 is "just as powerful" as 10mm, or just as effective, but does mean for that shooter, 380 will likely be more effective. A shooter who can shoot a 10mm as well as they shoot a 380, is probably better off with 10mm.

As a metric, gel is very useful. As a diagnostic for expansion, gel is essential. Like any device though, gel has limitations. Even though numerous countries have minimum energy requirements for taking game, gel does not directly account for energy. Both high and low velocity projectiles can be engineered to penetrate the FBI standard 12"-18" in gel, but the energy they impart to the target is substantially different. The Federal expert's answer as to what happens to the "excess" energy is speculative and only refers to permanent damage, not shock to the system. While they say they've seen a correlation between the gel test penetration and performance on the street, absent a comprehensive analysis of lethal force encounters, those are anecdotes tending toward confirmation bias.

They further claim that velocity is not a concern in bullet expansion. Their assertion velocity is irrelevant is overstated. Just look at any 380 ACP test, done to FBI standards, and a majority of 380 ammo fails to expand in shorter barrel handguns. I suspect he would rephrase that to explain he meant they can make a bullet that will reliably expand at typical velocities. Fair enough; then why do so many 380 defensive rounds fail to expand?

In another video, Chris Baker acknowledges there are factors not captured in gel tests, but the results of the gel tests are serving their purpose. I think that is true.

Where 20 years ago, I would've accepted the FBI's paradigm and standards as gospel, not so much any more. Manufacturers engineer and market according to FBI standards. The FBI is obsessed with penetration because in the Miami shootout the eventually fatal shot failed to penetrate the heart of a perp who kept shooting for another 90 seconds or more. However, even the FBI struggled with going to 10mm, weakened 10mm, then 40S&W, weakened 40S&W, and finally back to 9mm to keep qualification scores at an acceptable level. There is a logic there considering the emphasis should be placed on what one can shoot well. Not surprisingly, the FBI now argues "with improvements in bullet technology" 9mm is "just as effective" as ___[fill in the blank]. I think that's an over-simplification partially driven by confirmation bias, and not accurate for many people in some situations.

There is alternative data and an alternative analysis provided by Evan Marshall and Edwin Sanow in their books on "stopping power" (3 different titles). If their data is correct, higher velocity and higher energy improve effectiveness. The marginal improvement does not compensate for poor placement, so again, emphasis should be on what one can shoot well. However, for those who can shoot faster, higher energy cartridges well, there is an advantage and it is borne out in data from actual gun fights on the street.

I sometimes carry 380ACP. If somebody carries 9mm and they shoot it well, good for them. I prefer to carry 38 Super or 357 Sig because I shoot them well and they travel faster, generating more energy. I don't shoot 10mm well, so I don't carry 10mm, but I would if I could.

 

[P938365]

The only real thing left is: PLACEMENT is everything.

And that goes for about anything anyone might shoot.

That, and a quality bullet that penetrates enough.

That is a nice thing about bigger bullets, though. In FMJ, they do the trick almost as well as small hollowpoint rounds.

 

[P938365]

I really like this video, referred to it earlier, and have frequently posted it anytime a religious war over cartridges breaks out.

As they point out, gel is more like a yardstick or measuring tape: an arbitrary, but agreed upon, common baseline we can all agree on to compare apples to apples. It is "calibrated to human tissue," but doesn't account for the various density differences of bone, lung, and muscle. A big takeaway is the difference between handgun cartridges is negligible compared to the difference between any handgun and a rifle. So, they say, emphasis should be placed on what one can shoot well.

Most knowledgeable shooters will repeat the mantra: shot placement is king. That dovetails nicely with where they suggest emphasis should be placed. If a shooter is significantly more likely to get solid hits with a 380ACP than the 10mm, than they are better off with the 380ACP. That doesn't mean the 380 is "just as powerful" as 10mm, or just as effective, but does mean for that shooter, 380 will likely be more effective. A shooter who can shoot a 10mm as well as they shoot a 380, is probably better off with 10mm.

As a metric, gel is very useful. As a diagnostic for expansion, gel is essential. Like any device though, gel has limitations. Even though numerous countries have minimum energy requirements for taking game, gel does not directly account for energy. Both high and low velocity projectiles can be engineered to penetrate the FBI standard 12"-18" in gel, but the energy they impart to the target is substantially different. The Federal expert's answer as to what happens to the "excess" energy is speculative and only refers to permanent damage, not shock to the system. While they say they've seen a correlation between the gel test penetration and performance on the street, absent a comprehensive analysis of lethal force encounters, those are anecdotes tending toward confirmation bias.

They further claim that velocity is not a concern in bullet expansion. Their assertion velocity is irrelevant is overstated. Just look at any 380 ACP test, done to FBI standards, and a majority of 380 ammo fails to expand in shorter barrel handguns. I suspect he would rephrase that to explain he meant they can make a bullet that will reliably expand at typical velocities. Fair enough; then why do so many 380 defensive rounds fail to expand?

In another video, Chris Baker acknowledges there are factors not captured in gel tests, but the results of the gel tests are serving their purpose. I think that is true.

Where 20 years ago, I would've accepted the FBI's paradigm and standards as gospel, not so much any more. Manufacturers engineer and market according to FBI standards. The FBI is obsessed with penetration because in the Miami shootout the eventually fatal shot failed to penetrate the heart of a perp who kept shooting for another 90 seconds or more. However, even the FBI struggled with going to 10mm, weakened 10mm, then 40S&W, weakened 40S&W, and finally back to 9mm to keep qualification scores at an acceptable level. There is a logic there considering the emphasis should be placed on what one can shoot well. Not surprisingly, the FBI now argues "with improvements in bullet technology" 9mm is "just as effective" as ___[fill in the blank]. I think that's an over-simplification partially driven by confirmation bias, and not accurate for many people in some situations.

There is alternative data and an alternative analysis provided by Evan Marshall and Edwin Sanow in their books on "stopping power" (3 different titles). If their data is correct, higher velocity and higher energy improve effectiveness. The marginal improvement does not compensate for poor placement, so again, emphasis should be on what one can shoot well. However, for those who can shoot faster, higher energy cartridges well, there is an advantage and it is borne out in data from actual gun fights on the street.

I sometimes carry 380ACP. If somebody carries 9mm and they shoot it well, good for them. I prefer to carry 38 Super or 357 Sig because I shoot them well and they travel faster, generating more energy. I don't shoot 10mm well, so I don't carry 10mm, but I would if I could.

The new projectiles made of what's called polymerized copper, where copper dust is explosively formed into projectiles that look like Phillip's-head screwdriver tips to some extent, are breathing some new life into the effectiveness of the .380. Those projectiles are lighter and faster than their conventional lead and copper counterparts, and adding velocity goes a lot further toward increasing kinetic energy than adding mass. That only makes sense given that velocity is squared in the kinetic energy equation before being multiplied with mass. The new bullet design concept is a good one because it provides fluid effects that normally only an expanded hollowpoint projectile would provide, but it does that without compromising penetration.

And speaking of hollowpoints, expansion, penetration and velocity, that's the conundrum with .380 and smaller rounds. To design a projectile that expands reliably from them, the penetration suffers because the rounds are already light and slow, so once a hypothetically reliable projectile in one of those calibers expands, it isn't going much farther into the tissue. In those calibers, it's just better to go with non-expanding projectiles. Granted, even Gold Dots don't reliably expand in those smaller calibers, so they behave like FMJs in the end, but there's no point shelling out the cash for fancier ammo that won't perform any differently.

 

[Lexie__M]

The new projectiles made of what's called polymerized copper, where copper dust is explosively formed into projectiles that look like Phillip's-head screwdriver tips to some extent, are breathing some new life into the effectiveness of the .380. Those projectiles are lighter and faster than their conventional lead and copper counterparts, and adding velocity goes a lot further toward increasing kinetic energy than adding mass. That only makes sense given that velocity is squared in the kinetic energy equation before being multiplied with mass. The new bullet design concept is a good one because it provides fluid effects that normally only an expanded hollowpoint projectile would provide, but it does that without compromising penetration.

And speaking of hollowpoints, expansion, penetration and velocity, that's the conundrum with .380 and smaller rounds. To design a projectile that expands reliably from them, the penetration suffers because the rounds are already light and slow, so once a hypothetically reliable projectile in one of those calibers expands, it isn't going much farther into the tissue. In those calibers, it's just better to go with non-expanding projectiles. Granted, even Gold Dots don't reliably expand in those smaller calibers, so they behave like FMJs in the end, but there's no point shelling out the cash for fancier ammo that won't perform any differently.

Are you referring to this type of ammo:

 

[Devereaux]

The new projectiles made of what's called polymerized copper, where copper dust is explosively formed into projectiles that look like Phillip's-head screwdriver tips to some extent, are breathing some new life into the effectiveness of the .380. Those projectiles are lighter and faster than their conventional lead and copper counterparts, and adding velocity goes a lot further toward increasing kinetic energy than adding mass. That only makes sense given that velocity is squared in the kinetic energy equation before being multiplied with mass. The new bullet design concept is a good one because it provides fluid effects that normally only an expanded hollowpoint projectile would provide, but it does that without compromising penetration.

And speaking of hollowpoints, expansion, penetration and velocity, that's the conundrum with .380 and smaller rounds. To design a projectile that expands reliably from them, the penetration suffers because the rounds are already light and slow, so once a hypothetically reliable projectile in one of those calibers expands, it isn't going much farther into the tissue. In those calibers, it's just better to go with non-expanding projectiles. Granted, even Gold Dots don't reliably expand in those smaller calibers, so they behave like FMJs in the end, but there's no point shelling out the cash for fancier ammo that won't perform any differently.

5.7X28.

 

[P938365]

Are you referring to this type of ammo:

View attachment 532853

Yep. And also this stuff:

 

[P938365]

5.7X28...

...and 7.62x25.

 

[chan4070]

As a metric, gel is very useful. As a diagnostic for expansion, gel is essential. Like any device though, gel has limitations. Even though numerous countries have minimum energy requirements for taking game, gel does not directly account for energy. Both high and low velocity projectiles can be engineered to penetrate the FBI standard 12"-18" in gel, but the energy they impart to the target is substantially different. The Federal expert's answer as to what happens to the "excess" energy is speculative and only refers to permanent damage, not shock to the system. While they say they've seen a correlation between the gel test penetration and performance on the street, absent a comprehensive analysis of lethal force encounters, those are anecdotes tending toward confirmation bias.

It always amazes me when the supposed experts who preach that 9mm is just as good as everything else always discounts the energy that is released by other cartridges. I remember posing a question to Chris at Lucky Gunner when he was ragging on the .357SIG. I asked in a comment what happens to the energy that is released by the round when it hits the intended target? Does that shock wave just go away? What does it do to the tissue that it hits? I fully understand that the permanent wound from the round is vitally important however I still have difficulty in wrapping my mind around the concept of all of that energy meaning nothing when the round is fired into the intended target. I still have yet to believe that a heart and/or lungs being hit by that energy is no big deal.

 

[Chowda]

It always amazes me when the supposed experts who preach that 9mm is just as good as everything else always discounts the energy that is released by other cartridges. I remember posing a question to Chris at Lucky Gunner when he was ragging on the .357SIG. I asked in a comment what happens to the energy that is released by the round when it hits the intended target? Does that shock wave just go away? What does it do to the tissue that it hits? I fully understand that the permanent wound from the round is vitally important however I still have difficulty in wrapping my mind around the concept of all of that energy meaning nothing when the round is fired into the intended target. I still have yet to believe that a heart and/or lungs being hit by that energy is no big deal.

Those folks that are in the bullet building business have done more scientific and field research than I ever have or ever will.

They work hand in hand with military, forensic scientists and law enforcement to design the best bullets possible for the people on the ground. I'm sure that question has crossed their minds.

In the video he explained that unless a round is hitting 2200 ft/sec it's not doing a lot of damage as the flesh kind of self heals by falling back into place after the bullet passes.

 

[Easy Rhino]

 

[TXGRunner]

[snip]
I fully understand that the permanent wound from the round is vitally important however I still have difficulty in wrapping my mind around the concept of all of that energy meaning nothing when the round is fired into the intended target.
[snip]

Agreed, and in his video on the 357 Sig, he even allows something is not being captured in their testing. Well, if all one looks for is penetration, and most bullets are designed to achieve FBI standards, regardless of energy, then all they will see is penetration is the same regardless of power. They are starting with the conclusion and then developed tests to to prove what they already decided.

To be clear, I am not saying they're wrong about what they do say -- they aren't -- it's what they fail to test or say with which I have an issue. Anybody who's been hit by a soccer ball hard and had the wind knocked out of them knows even that small amount of energy, with no permanent damage whatsoever, understands energy applied to the torso can be devastating: causing disorientation, loss of breath, loss of equilibrium, loss of sight, temporary disruption of blood flow. ...and those are just soccer balls.

I am not suggesting there is such a thing as a bullet that will literally knock a determined attacker hyped on jungle juice down. What I am saying is that such hits increase psychological stops and sometimes physiologically disrupt the attacker for several seconds. It is a marginal advantage. If a shooter's hit probability drops with the more potent cartridge, than the tradeoff is a losing proposition and they should stick to what they can shoot well.

 

[Robert70]

Agreed, and in his video on the 357 Sig, he even allows something is not being captured in their testing. Well, if all one looks for is penetration, and most bullets are designed to achieve FBI standards, regardless of energy, then all they will see is penetration is the same regardless of power. They are starting with the conclusion and then developed tests to to prove what they already decided.

To be clear, I am not saying they're wrong about what they do say -- they aren't -- it's what they fail to test or say with which I have an issue. Anybody who's been hit by a soccer ball hard and had the wind knocked out of them knows even that small amount of energy, with no permanent damage whatsoever, understands energy applied to the torso can be devastating: causing disorientation, loss of breath, loss of equilibrium, loss of sight, temporary disruption of blood flow. ...and those are just soccer balls.

I am not suggesting there is such a thing as a bullet that will literally knock a determined attacker hyped on jungle juice down. What I am saying is that such hits increase psychological stops and sometimes physiologically disrupt the attacker for several seconds. It is a marginal advantage. If a shooter's hit probability drops with the more potent cartridge, than the tradeoff is a losing proposition and they should stick to what they can shoot well.

I don't know, But a 12ga 00buck or a 1 1/8oz slug, either with a MV of 1450fps+ WILL knock em down! If it doesn't? Then they ain't human. But the 'Coup DeGrass' is if they go down & even try to get back up to continue? REPEAT The Above!! Don't 'Play' with crazy/demented/evil, End IT!

 

[TXGRunner]

Those folks that are in the bullet building business have done more scientific and field research than I ever have or ever will.
[snip]

If we learned anything over the last three years, we've learned blindly trusting an appeal to authority is foolish. Scientists, engineers, and authorities are just as prone to bias, corruption, and self-promotion as any other human being. Worse, because of their prestige, position, and arrogance, they are in a position to profit from abusing the trust.

They are not a different species like the Vulcan Mr. Spock, incapable of lying or deceit or avarice.

Right now, there is "scientist" in Waco making absurd claims and throwing out numbers he couldn't possible know and which he can't substantiate. Somehow, questioning him, is attacking science when he is the one who has discarded the scientific method to make up numbers to support a political argument.

There's no question Federal, Hornady, Nosler, et. al have tremendous experience and knowledge. They also happen to be in the business of selling bullets, mostly to the government. That's the same government that decided penetration is the Holy Grail of handgun combat, after having unsuccessfully tried 5 other approaches in sequence (9mm > 10mm > weakened 10mm > 40S&W > weakened 40S&W), but finally retreated to 9mm because they wanted to maintain qualification scores (I guess more training wasn't an option). I am sure no bureaucracy ever tried to justify their decision after the fact, nor did a manufacturer ever echo a customer's claims to continue to doing business.

My confidence in the FBI is not what it once was, and that starts with the exhaustive studies on wounds written in the mid-1970s in cooperation with doctors and other experts, but then discarded wholesale after the shootout in Miami in 1986.

Then we have the Marshall & Sanow data of over 5000 real-world shoots showing what we would expect, faster, higher energy projectiles are marginally more effective. That's very similar to the big conclusion of the experts Chris Baker interviewed, but arrives at their conclusion differently and does disagree in minor technical points, such as their claim "velocity is irrelevant."

Also, Federal "velocity is irrelevant" Ammo is the company that produces the slowest 40S&W JHP of any major manufacturer, their 10mm 180gr JHP is actually slower by ~40fps than their 180gr 40S&W JHP, and their 115 gr 38 Super is almost 100 fps slower than the Winchester Silvertip 125 gr 38 Super. If my ammo was demonstrably slower than the competition, I might have an interest in making the same argument.

 

[Gibbs]

Question was "
How many rounds does it take to stop a Drug filled person?
Answer is simple. One. And it can even be a .22 LR. Shoot him in the forehead and he will stop. Pain don't enter into the equation when there is significant nerve damage. Yes, you can shoot him in the spine, but sometimes, even a direct hit, center mass, the bullet might veer to left or right and miss the spine. Head shots are absolute.

Former Deputy and been shooting for around 60 years.