quote:

Originally posted by Jerry Liles:
5. More 9mm shootings than .45?

It would be important to know how many engagements with each cartridge and bullet choice there were. Even in LA I suspect a really statistically useful sample will be hard to obtain. I haven't done forensic medicine for over 20 years but way back then, in my limited sample, the .45 seemed to be winning. However there has been an awful lot of improvement in ammunition since then. Any chance your friends will make their data available?

Jerry Liles

quote:

5. More 9mm shootings than .45?

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
Because th improvement in JHPs for all pistol rounds in the last 20 years. There is less and less differants between the effectivness of them.

With proper shot placement all the major defense calibers work about the same.

The best loads in 9mm 357 40 45 work very well.

quote:

Most evidence for effectiveness is anecdotal. It's going to be very hard (immoral and illegal) to do a proper controlled study.

quote:

Originally posted by 0X0:

quote:

Most evidence for effectiveness is anecdotal. It's going to be very hard (immoral and illegal) to do a proper controlled study.

Marshall & Sanow gathered data from shootings and did some pretty specific correlations on "One Shot Stop" statistics.

Google has a lot of links, discussion. I'm betting this discussion gets linked . . .

One criticism of the data is that a lot of police shootings involve more than "one shot."

I know if I'm justified in shooting, I'm taking two shots before even looking to see what happened.

quote:

Sanow Strikes (Out) Again
By Duncan MacPherson

Sanow, E.: "Predicting Stopping Power." Handguns, November 1996

In November 1996 I got an excited call from an engineer I had once worked with but whom I had not seen for over 30 years. This man thought I must be the Duncan MacPherson referred to in the referenced article, wanted to verify this, and was surprised that I didn't know what he was talking about. He read me the quote, which was:

"Army officers Thompson, LaGarde, Chamberlain, and Hatcher could not do it. The NIJ's Dan Frank could not do it. Carroll Peters, Martin Fackler and Duncan MacPherson could not do it. No one at the FBI's Firearms Training Unit could do it."

I told him that I undoubtedly was the one referred to even though there wasn't any single thing that all of these people tried to do and so I didn't know exactly what the "it" was. The magazine was no longer on sale, but he offered to send me a photocopy of the article.

The "it" turned out to be making a model of stopping power using Marshall's "actual shootings" data base together with a "uniform gelatin data base"; the quote given above doesn't make much sense in this context. Thompson and LaGarde never attempted to make any kind of a model of stopping power (although they did implement the well know tests that Hatcher used in his model), and Dr. Fackler has always maintained that stopping power models were irrelevant (and certainly never tried to generate one). I used the term wound trauma incapacitation (WTI) rather than stopping power in Bullet Penetration1 to emphasize the fact that the desired incapacitation is a result of physiological and psychological effects of wound trauma in the person being shot rather than some mystical property of a bullet configuration, mass, or velocity that is unrelated to the wound trauma (an inference all too common in articles appearing in general audience "gun magazines").

The model of stopping power that Sanow enthusiastically endorses in his article is an empirical curve fit of the "actual shooting data" that is contained in the Marshall - Sanow books. This data fit was done by Steve Fuller, who wrote a chapter in the latest of these books. As such, this is not news, but yet another recycling of the same material that doesn't really deserve much comment. On the other hand, there is a problem with letting this go without response. It seems clear that the negative reaction from professionals has influenced Sanow's approach to writing: he is turning up "professionals" of his own in attempt to give his position an aura of scholarship. This is not hard to do because there are incompetent physicians, there are incompetent law enforcement personnel, and there are incompetent engineers; all of whom are available for either money or a chance to get recognition that they will never get from competent colleagues (just look at some "expert" witnesses in court cases to confirm this). The problem is that it is not always easy for even an intelligent individual to detect errors in a discipline outside his training when he knows something is wrong. Since the smoke being blown here is engineering smoke, I am making the effort to point out a few things that are not always obvious to non-engineers.

1) The most important thing to remember is GINGO; an acronym which has been used by engineers for garbage in, garbage out. It is clear that Fuller assumed that the Marshall data is totally valid even though most technical analysts have found the regularity of his data not credible. This issue has been discussed by a number of different technical reviewers and will not be gone over again here except to note that this data fitting by Fuller does nothing to the basic data quality; if the Marshall data is flawed, the flaws are just passed on in Fuller's data fit. Fuller's work is called a data fit here because that is what it is; despite Sanow's use of some mathematical jargon, Fuller's work is the functional equivalent of drawing a line through a bunch of data points. The formula does not "duplicate reality" as Sanow claims; in fact, the formula doesn't duplicate anything, it just models Marshall's data points.

Sanow states that Fuller "does not feel it necessary to understand medical aspects of wound ballistics to predict stopping power". Some people will find this position astounding, but it is compatible with (or equivalent to) the assumption that the Marshall data is flawless. This position is not logically wrong, but it is a technically unsound approach because no data set is flawless. Creating a model of a physical process without a clear understanding of the underlying technical principles involved is one of the very best ways to create a worthless model. Fuller's model has been constructed to fit Marshall's data, but it gives preposterous results for other conditions (discussed below); it is by no means a general model of stopping power. If Sanow is aware of this he does not choose to share it with his readers.

2) The FBI formulations for bullet effectiveness have serious flaws that are well known, but which the Bureau has been unwilling to change; these are described in Bullet Penetration.1 It initially seemed that this combination of deficiency and stubbornness was not serious because these calculations were neither generally available nor used by anyone. This assessment now appears wrong because Sanow appears to be trying to tie the flaws in the FBI formulations for bullet effectiveness to everyone who disagrees with him. Sanow also shows an astonishing lack of understanding of negative numbers (a topic usually taught in grade school) in his criticisms of some of the FBI ratings. A temperature of -10° F is not meaningless, it is 10° F colder than 0° F. Likewise, a negative number for a load in the FBI ratings doesn't mean that you feel better if shot with that load (as Sanow foolishly asserts); a negative rating is just a lower rating than zero. A lot of scales are set to avoid negative numbers, but ordinary temperature scales and FBI ratings are not among them; this may be inconvenient, but it is not an error, not ridiculous, and not even a factor in loads that are conventionally considered adequate.

3) The conclusions on the importance of bullet kinetic energy show why the approach of taking Marshall's data at face value with no application of wound ballistics knowledge or even common sense is such a bad idea. To quote Sanow:

"Energy is the most important factor in determining actual stopping power for a given bullet type. In general, the more energy, the more stopping power. However, Fuller found an upper limit to the amount of energy that results in more stopping power. A reasonable upper limit turned out to be 675 foot-pounds for hollowpoint handgun bullets. Handgun bullets like the .41 Magnum and .44 Magnum with 700 to 1,000 foot-pounds of energy do not produce much more stopping power than the .357 Magnum and .40 S&W with 550 to 600 foot-pounds of energy."

For clarity, it should be emphasized that Fuller didn't find anything that wasn't in the data to begin with; he just did a curve fit, and this result is in Marshall's data. The emphasis on handgun bullets seems to imply that these results are not claimed to hold for rifle cartridges. However, the .44 Magnum can be used in rifles; Remington even quotes ballistics for a 20 inch barrel in their literature. Does .44 Magnum kinetic energy suddenly become important again when a long barrel is used? If so, how does the person being shot know that he has been shot with a rifle (.44 Magnum or otherwise) and respond to this energy increase? If not, why has everyone been deluded for years into thinking that high velocity rifle bullets can be much more effective than handgun bullets in taking game (the equivalent of stopping power)? Knowledge of wound ballistics provides answers to all of these questions; these answers make sense, but are not compatible with Fuller's formulation.

4) Sanow makes jokes about the negative numbers that can be generated in the FBI formulations and states that Fuller's formula is designed to prevent this. This assertion is another claim that is not true. Consider a 2 inch diameter steel sphere having a velocity of 2000 ft/sec; this unconventional bullet weights 8250 grains and has a kinetic energy of 73,000 foot-pounds. This projectile would penetrate about 144 inches of gelatin, and it would be hard to find anyone who would not agree that it would create far more wound trauma than any available small arms load despite the relatively inefficient spherical shape. One would think that such a projectile would get a high stopping power rating, but Fuller's formula shows that this projectile has a stopping power rating of minus 888%! Fuller and Sanow's scale is stopping power percentage, and for this scale (unlike the FBI rating scale) negative numbers really do mean a "negative wound".

At the other extreme, consider a steel BB (air rifle shot) having a velocity of 250 ft/sec; this is typical for spring actuated "BB guns". This projectile will not penetrate unprotected human torso skin, but Fuller's formula gives it a stopping power rating of 3%. In fact, Fuller's formula gives a paper spitball at 10 ft/sec a stopping power rating of 3%!

The natural response to these examples is that Fuller's formula was generated to model conventional handgun bullets and not to be applicable to these unconventional projectiles. This response is valid, but it emphasizes the fact that Fuller's formula does not represent any basic truth (newly discovered or otherwise); this formula merely curve fits Marshall's data set and gives preposterous answers outside of the regime where compliance has been forced. Note that neither the FBI formulations nor Hatcher's stopping power calculation were designed for these unconventional projectiles, yet both of these scales give very reasonable results for them. This is not to argue that the FBI formulations and Hatcher's stopping power calculations are valid (I have described their deficiencies myself in Bullet Penetration), but rather to emphasize that formulations that have some basis in physical principles are less much likely to "blow up" to ridiculous results than a model base solely on a data fit with no meaningful consideration of physical principles.

5) Sanow states that Fuller's formula shows maximum stopping power at a penetration depth of 8.4 inches and provides a table showing that the formula gives reductions in stopping power of 2% and 4% at penetration depths of 14.6 inches and 17.1 inches, respectively (these calculations can be easily verified by using the formula). What Sanow doesn't state is that a penetration of 2.5 inches also produces a 2% reduction in stopping power and a penetration of 0 inches produces a 4% reduction in stopping power. This is not a typo; Fuller's formula shows that a 2.5 inch penetration is just as good as a 14.6 penetration and no penetration at all is just as good as a 17.1 inch penetration! This wonderful new model shows that .45 ACP hardball would have about 10% more stopping power if only its high penetration could be reduced to zero penetration!

Once again, the response can be made that no one cares about zero penetration bullets, so the model need not apply to them. And once again, the real issue is the applications of elementary wound ballistics principles would lead to a zero (or possibly a very small) stopping power rating at zero penetration. This could easily be accomplished in a curve fit, but this new curve fit would no longer match Marshall's data as well as Fuller's formula does. Could it be that the problem is in Marshall's data?

6) Sanow states: "The minimum penetration depth of 12 inches mandated by the FBI is arbitrary at best and totally bogus at worst." and also explicitly points out that the difference between the "optimum" 8.4 inch penetration and a 12.8 inch penetration is only 1% in Fuller's formula.

The first point to be made is that a 1% variation in this theoretical stopping power should be compared against the probability that the bullet will require an unusually large penetration to reach the vital structures well inside the body. This can occur when the bullet must traverse non-critical tissue; e.g., the extended left arm of a right handed assailant aiming his handgun at you, and/or an unusual bullet path angle in the torso, and/or an unusually fat or beefy individual. The probability of needing this extra penetration is a judgment call, but most sensible people believe it is a significant factor and certainly much more important than a very conjectural 1% in theoretical stopping power under ideal conditions. This is the reason the FBI specified the 12 inch minimum penetration even though they (and everybody else in the professional wound ballistics community) are well aware that an 8 inch penetration is usually adequate. Sanow (and others) may make a different judgment on this, but to describe the FBI position as "totally bogus" is both ridiculous and irresponsible.

The second point to be made is that a 1% variation in this theoretical stopping power is well below any reasonable confidence level (i.e., it is too small to be significant) for this kind of data. As such, this 1% difference is a very weak argument for a strong position on penetration depth, and emphasizes the irrationality of the "totally bogus" claim. Fuller, who has some technical experience, should recognize this even if Sanow doesn't.

7) The reference article states:

"Jan Libourel, editor of HANDGUNS was the first to point out that published muzzle velocity and muzzle energy figures are not accurate enough to use in the formula. The Fuller Index is heavily dependent on velocity and energy figures. These must come from a chronograph."

This admission with the emphasis on not by Sanow is very interesting and illuminating. This means that in compiling his data base Marshall went around and chronographed rounds from the same lot as the rounds used in all the shootings (generously assuming that this will give the accuracy Sanow says is required). What? You don't think he did this? Neither do I. Well then, this means that you can construct this data base and model it using Fuller's formula without chronographing the loads involved, but once this is done the Fuller formula results aren't accurate unless the loads are chronographed. Marshall's data base contains all the loads of practical interest (and many that are not), so this means that even the loads that were used in constructing the data base are not correctly modeled by Fuller's formulation unless they are now chronographed!

I think it is hard to think of anything anyone can say which can top this statement by Sanow in pointing out just how unscientific and downright foolish this whole business is. Don't forget; Fuller's formulations just modeled Marshall's data base, which means that any nonsense in Fuller's formula represents nonsense in the data itself. I venture a prediction: Sanow's articles will no longer mention any need to chronograph in order to get good results with the Fuller formulation after he realizes how he has shot himself in the foot with this cited quote. This prediction will fail only if Sanow knows he is convincing only the gullible and has given up any hope of persuading sophisticated readers.

8) Sanow asserts that the Winchester Ranger (formerly Black Talon) "does not achieve its full recovered diameter until nearly eight inches of penetration by design" and assumes expansion linear with penetration to make an argument for relative ineffectiveness of this load. This claim and assumption are completely incompatible with the dynamics of handgun bullet expansion during penetration; as a result the derived statements in the article are not correct. The physics of bullet expansion and penetration is understood and valid even if someone sees (or think they see) something in conflict with this physics. This is just like someone's claim to have seen a unicorn; they didn't, and it doesn't really matter whether they sincerely think they did or are simply lying about it.

Summary

The reader may feel that writing this review was fun, but it wasn't. The good physician is embarrassed when another physician harms a patient through incompetence, the good law enforcement officer embarrassed when another law enforcement officer breaks the law, and the good engineer is embarrassed when another engineer produces unsound analysis by not adequately understanding what he is doing. The examples given illustrate flaws in Fuller's formula, but it is difficult to make a full exposition of just how simplistic and naïve this model is without getting into technical detail not readily comprehensible to non-technical readers (for technicians, flaws include variables and formulations with no physical significance, small differences of large numbers, and unrealistic numbers of significant digits). The bottom line is that this is just another pathetic chapter in a very pathetic story.

quote:

Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow "Data Base": An Evaluation Over Time
By Maarten van Maanen

Introduction

Over ten years ago, several gunwriters started publishing in the popular gun-press numbers and percentages on the actual effectiveness of handgun ammunition. The first really organized tabulation of the "actual performance of bullets on the street" was an article by Evan Marshall in the May 1987 premier issue of Petersen's Handguns purportedly tabulating on the real-life effectiveness of different types of ammunition.1 This article was immediately hailed by many as the final answer to all discussions about bullet effectiveness. The percentages given in this article were accepted at face-value by many readers and were only rarely criticized. In the November 1988 issue, the same magazine published an update2, this time listing both the numbers of cases as well as the number of "one-shot stops". In 1992, a book by Marshall and Ed Sanow was published by Paladin Press3 in which new numbers were listed, followed in 1996 by a second book.4 The Marshall & Sanow writings have received several very critical reviews.5-8 In these reviews it was pointed out that the numbers listed could not be true due to the fact that the data scatter normally found in such field-data was absent. Attempts to explain this effect always left me (and I suspect most other readers without a strong technical background) somewhat unsatisfied. Thinking about a less complex way to consider this issue led me to think about issues associated with the Marshall & Sanow data base, and most importantly, a very simple demonstration that the Marshall & Sanow data is not valid.

Issue 1 -- Data Base Ground Rules

The emphasis on "one-shot stops" and "one hit to the torso" incidents in the Marshall & Sanow books and article has always surprised me. What happened in all those cases wherein the first torso hit did not incapacitate the opponent? Were additional shots fired until the opponent went down? What would you do? Marshall makes a point of the fact that these cases were ignored, but why wasn't such a case included in the not-stopped group rather than simply being ignored completely? Marshall & Sanow consider a shooting with one torso hit, no stop, and subsequent misses a "one-shot stop" failure; but a shooting with one torso hit, no stop, and a subsequent second torso hit a case to be ignored. The most reasonable assignment of multiple hit shootings is as "one-shot stop" failures; the logic of Marshall & Sanow's failure to do this needs explanation, as it seems utterly irrational. This observation was made as early 19929, but no attempt has been made to correct the problem.

Issue 2 -- Evaluating the Shootings

The total of shooting cases given in References 2, 3 and 4 are summarized in Table 1. Reference 2 (1988) shows a total of 3024 cases, Reference 3 (1992) shows a total of 6136 cases, and Reference 4 (1996) shows a total of 20742 cases. So, the number of cases added to the Marshall & Sanow "data base" was 14606 between 1992 and 1996; an average of 10 cases per day 365 days per year. This does not even consider the cases that were analyzed and rejected for inclusion as a result of this analysis. Marshall claims that appropriate cases are "...extremely difficult to obtain. For every fifty shootings that I heard about, I might obtain enough data in ten to include in this study".10 Each day's work must then include not only Marshall & Sanow's claimed careful evaluation of all the necessary details for each of the 10 shootings accepted for the "data base," but also examination of each of 40 other shootings with enough care to judge them unacceptable. I'm not sure how much work it would be to track ten cases a day but just the reading, appropriate evaluation and filing of each individual case could easily make it a full day's work. Experts evaluating shootings for court testimony typically spend much more than one day in analysis of each case.

One must conclude that the care taken in evaluating the shootings that make up the Marshall & Sanow "data" is at best far less than the author's claims in the description of the process. One could easily conclude that time available for evaluating each case inherently makes the integrity of any evaluation process indistinguishable from simply making up the cases outright.

Table 1. Total Number of Source Cases

Caliber Petersen's
Handguns

November
1988
Handgun
Stopping
Power

1992
Street
Stoppers


1996

.22 Long Rifle 3922
.25 ACP 6366
.32 ACP 12 157 206
.380 ACP 124 327 534
.38 Special 1177 1571 3469
9mm Parabellum 328 1230 2347
.357 Magnum 640 1349 1527
.40 S&W 327
10mm 112
.41 Magnum 73 183 218
.44 Special 73 134 197
.44 Magnum 203 242 298
.45 ACP 217 744 1019
.45 Long Colt 123 199 200
Total Cases 3024 6136 20742
Total Increase 3112 14606
Average Per Year 778 3652
Average Per Day 2 10

A Simple Analysis Procedure

The setup of this evaluation is simple and uses the three publications by Marshall & Sanow already mentioned (References 2, 3 and 4). In each of these publications every specific type of ammunition is listed with the total number of "one-shot stops," from which a percentage is calculated. In each following publication the number of cases has increased, giving a new total and percentage. This means that if different totals are given in each publication, the increase in both number and "one-shot stops" can be calculated by simply subtracting. The same can then be done for the third publication. The first data set is the data up to 1988 from Reference 2, the second data set is the data from 1988 to 1992 (the 1992 data from Reference 3 minus the 1988 data from Reference 2), and the third data set is the data from 1992 to 1996 (the 1996 data from Reference 4 minus the 1992 data from Reference 3). Each data set then supplements the previous data sets without any overlapping or double counting of cases, and each data set has its own "one-shot stop" percentages. The sum of all three of these data sets for any caliber and ammunition type will give the total as published in 1996 (Reference 4). These calculations are not difficult and are both easily verified and understood. The data from the three References as well as the calculated data set values are given in Table 2. Types of ammunition which have been listed in only one Reference have been omitted. References 2 and 4 list both the 2 inch barrel .38 Special shootings and the 4 inch barrel .38 Special shootings explicitly for all loads. Reference 3 lists the 2 inch barrel .38 Special shootings and all .38 Special shootings for all loads; the 4 inch barrel loads were obtained by subtraction. With this exception, each and every number of shootings and number of "one-shot stops" in the table is directly quoted from the References. The percentages are computer calculated directly from these numbers to ensure accuracy; some of these percentages shown in the References have small errors.

Note that there are 9407 shootings in various loads and calibers in the above analysis. There are 608 shootings in these same calibers that are omitted because they involve types of ammunition which are listed in only one Reference. There are 10727 shootings in calibers first appearing in Reference 4. These subsets make up the total of 20742 shootings that appear in Reference 4.

Note: Adobe Acrobat Reader required to read Table 2



Click here to download Table 2, Sheet 1

Click here to download Table 2, Sheet 2


Simple Analysis Shows Misrepresentations

One of the striking differences in the Marshall & Sanow publications has always been that most ammunition seems to give better results over time. Since the second and third publications are averaged results over up to three data sets, any increase in percentage must be caused by the added data set, which must have an even higher percentage. This can be easily seen in Table 2. This result in and of itself is not necessarily a problem. A more serious concern is the fact that out of a total of 251 caliber/load combinations, 8 show a 100% stopping power percentage. What cannot be explained is the fact that another 16 caliber/load combinations show either a greater than 100% stopping power percentage or negative numbers. These negative numbers mean that fewer cases are reported in a later Reference, which is in total contradiction to everything that Marshall & Sanow have claimed in developing their "data base." If this "data base" is real, why were cases dropped and what was the criteria for selecting which ones to drop? Even more importantly from the standpoint of integrity, why has no mention of this manipulation of the "data base" ever been mentioned? Any kind of secret reevaluation of the results is a clear-cut violation of any form of doing research because it is one form of "fudging" the data.

Obviously, most of the caliber/load combinations which show a "one-shot stop" percentage of 100% do not seem realistic. The Winchester 9mm 115-grain +P+ load 1988 data shows a 79% rating while the second data set (1992 minus 1988) shows a full 100% effectiveness in 22 cases. Not only does this suggest that the effectiveness of this type of ammo suddenly increased 21%, it has become nothing short of perfect. An even more miraculous jump to perfection can be seen with the .380 ACP Federal 90-grain JHP, which has a sudden jump from 65% to 100% between the second and third data sets and a 41% difference between the first and third data sets. Anyone who has ever tested any of the .380 ACP JHP-types of ammo in gelatin will know how unimpressive the performance of these rounds is. So, if this unimpressive performance is good for 100% one-stop shots, then why are rounds like the .357 Magnum, .45 ACP or .44 Magnum not showing the same results?

But this is not all. Look at the .45 ACP CCI 200-grain JHP ammo. From 74% in 1988, the 1988 to 1992 data set shows 19 stops in 16 cases, a 119% effectiveness. This, of course, is simply impossible. Yet, Table 2 shows there are eight caliber/load combinations in which such impossible greater than 100% ratings have been produced by Marshall & Sanow during one of the data taking intervals.

These greater than 100% stopping percentage or negative numbers (showing mysterious disappearing shootings) are fairly described as misrepresentations because they demonstrate conclusively that the Marshall & Sanow "data base" is not as it has been claimed to be.

Specifically:

Marshall & Sanow have claimed to have continuously collected their "data base" of shootings over time; this makes having fewer shootings in particular caliber and load combinations at later dates impossible, but eight such conditions exist in their "data base."

Marshall & Sanow have eight particular caliber and load combinations that show a completely impossible greater than 100% "one-shot stop" percentages in their "data base."

Conclusion

The simple analysis procedure I have used show a clear basis for claims of unreasonable characteristics in the Marshall & Sanow "data base" in earlier reviews.5-8 However, I believe that demonstrating the misrepresentations by the simple arithmetic method I have used adds an element that was missing in the previous reviews. This simple proof can be followed completely and understood by every reader, including myself and others who lack a strong technical background.

I believe the Marshall & Sanow "data base" is completely discredited by the impossible conditions shown to exist in it.

quote:

Originally posted by Jerry Liles:
5. More 9mm shootings than .45?

It would be important to know how many engagements with each cartridge and bullet choice there were. Even in LA I suspect a really statistically useful sample will be hard to obtain. I haven't done forensic medicine for over 20 years but way back then, in my limited sample, the .45 seemed to be winning. However there has been an awful lot of improvement in ammunition since then. Any chance your friends will make their data available?

Jerry Liles

quote:

Originally posted by 0X0:
Any cursory Google of "Marshall & Sanow will produce most of the "controversy" about their data. Anybody who can "Google" can also likely read the evidence and draw inferences.

I wasn't going to bother with that here.

Any improvement in ballistic performance for a 9mm will yield a LARGER improvement in 45 ACP. I posted that paradigm above.

Personally, I've never been a fan of 9mm. I have a couple, and I carry them. I think they're under-rated. But there's no denying they're lethal -- particularly with today's modern ammo.

quote:

I choose 40/180 grain Fed HSTs at 980 or fps (from a mini glock) as my primary PD weapon/ammo combo. Two mags and I have 18 rounds of concealable firepower of a compromise diameter and weight (both bullet and gun). This HST stuff seems to be very reliable in terms of expansion as well.

quote:

Originally posted by 0X0:

quote:

I choose 40/180 grain Fed HSTs at 980 or fps (from a mini glock) as my primary PD weapon/ammo combo. Two mags and I have 18 rounds of concealable firepower of a compromise diameter and weight (both bullet and gun). This HST stuff seems to be very reliable in terms of expansion as well.

185 gr. Rem. JHP in 45 ACP, 1162 fps in a +P load out of a 5" bbl. Springfield XD. Two, 13 rd. mags. That's half a box of ammo.

I like the 230 gr. Rem. JHP stuff too, in a "generic" 50 rd. box at a reasonable price.

But I'm betting the Federal Hydra Shok in 9mm, 115 gr. JHP is lethal as hell.

And if the 6+1 capacity of the 9mm Kahr won't bail me out, I'm in deeper poop than I should be in the first place.

quote:

Originally posted by Grenadier:
The 9mm vs 45acp debate means totally different things when considering military or civilian use. Enough is being said about the use by law enforcement agencies and citizens where hollowpoints and various softpoint designs are available.

But in the military bullets for handguns are almost entirely of the FMJ design. It is in the military applications that the differences between 9mm and .45 are so apparent. With a bullet that does not expand, it becomes the difference between making a .357 hole or making a .451 hole in the target. A bigger hole is better. There is also a tendency for a 9mm FMJ to over-penetrate and carry energy away from the target instead of expending it all in the target. The 9mm does come out ahead in military use as a very capable submachinegun round. For these reasons, "door kickers" in the military prefer .45acp handguns and 9mm submachineguns.

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:
Hollow points in handguns do not always expand.
Energy transfer is BS. A bullet strike is an inelastic collision and enrgy is transformed into other forms of energy, mostly thermal, sound, etc. Momentun is transfered.
In A lastic coliision where the colliding bodies remain in motion, energy is transfered

quote:

Originally posted by Grenadier:
Energy transfer is BS. A bullet strike is an inelastic collision and energy is transformed into other forms of energy, mostly thermal, sound, etc. Momentum is transferred. -- Little is to be gained by trying to move this discussion to a dissertation of particle physics and thermodynamics. It is simply beyond the scope of what we are talking about and most of us, including myself, are not physicists. A human body struck by a bullet is not a closed thermodynamic system. Anyway, every bullet strike will be different and a theoretical examination with chalkboard and equations is as impractical as trying to explain why a bee is incapable of flight.

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:
All too often folks spread the misinformation of "energy transfer" and the importance of muzzle energy, etc. Some of us -- including jwp, hunt with handguns and can clearly see how well our ballistically inferior handgun rounds (compared to rifles) fare against large game. My point being that someone here may base his/her decision/choice on the false notion that energy dump is a somehow relevent concept when in reality it means the round exhibited poor penetration.

quote:

informal findings on 9mm vs 45acp lethality ratio

quote:

Any improvement in ammo for the 9mm, can also be done for the 45

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:

quote:

Any improvement in ammo for the 9mm, can also be done for the 45

No. Wrong. A 9mm can be loaded to travel at more that 1,400 feet per second. No 45 ACP can be loaded to do that 1,000 feet per second at most.

And at 1,400 feet per second you are more likely to get fragmentation of the bullet in JHP and JSP designs.

And so greater likelihood secondary missiles, such as fragments of jacket material, in the body. It is those that cut blood vessels and organs.

Some old British studies on this eventually arrived at the view that the best pistol bullet would be fast AND heavy.

But that if you could not get both then fast (and light) was better than heavy (and slow).

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:

quote:

Any improvement in ammo for the 9mm, can also be done for the 45

No. Wrong. A 9mm can be loaded to travel at more that 1,400 feet per second. No 45 ACP can be loaded to do that 1,000 feet per second at most.
And at 1,400 feet per second you are more likely to get fragmentation of the bullet in JHP and JSP designs.

And so greater likelihood secondary missiles, such as fragments of jacket material, in the body. It is those that cut blood vessels and organs.

Some old British studies on this eventually arrived at the view that the best pistol bullet would be fast AND heavy.

But that if you could not get both then fast (and light) was better than heavy (and slow).

quote:

So, I'm going to use your logic in a hunting situation. I want to quickly kill a deer at 50yds. At my disposal I have a 22 Hornet loaded with a 36gr "varmint grenade"travailing at over 3000fps that will expand and fragment upon impact. My other choice is my .41magnum loaded with a 250gr hard cast lead travailing at 1250fps. Clearly I should use the .22 Hornet right? Then why is it not allowed in the states to hunt deer with a 22 hornet and the slow .41mag is?

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:
9mm are a good choice for those that like to shoot their target multiple times

quote:

Originally posted by Jerry Liles:
"Why do you carry a .45?" "Because Mr Colt don't make a .46."