View Single Post
Old July 6, 2012, 10:33 PM   #148
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,326
Quote:
Which Is why I chose the load I did. I already tried full power .44 mag loads and the recoil (not the comfort level) was excessive.
The load you chose is a light .44Mag which has velocity that exceeds even a .44Special +P. It doesn't make sense for you to argue against the value of +P and more velocity in .38Spl and then reveal that you don't trust .44Spl enough to use it for home defense--that you feel have to use something with more velocity and pressure than the .44Spl to get the job done.
Quote:
There are no warnings in a .44 magnum manual about NOT using +P ammo
That's not relevant--your repeated claim has been that +P/additional velocity offers no benefit. If that's true, why aren't you using standard pressure .44Spl in your home defense gun instead of light .44Mag rounds? Clearly you must believe that the additional velocity/energy compared to the standard pressure .44Spl is buying you something or you wouldn't use it.
Quote:
And I would bet money most people DON'T know the actual bullet diameters that were posted.
That's neither here nor there. They aren't trying to make authoritative statements about what's more effective or less effective with respect to terminal performance. It's reasonable to expect someone who's making such statements to have a handle on the most basic aspects of terminal performance and, conversely, it's reasonable to expect that someone who doesn't have a handle on those aspects isn't at all likely to be helpful when it comes to the more complex aspects of the topic.
Quote:
So why would I know what is and isn't available?
You stated that those bullet designs made +P obsolete. The fact is that ALL of the bullet designs you listed are sold in +P loadings. Not only do those bullet designs NOT make +P obsolete, they are actually USED in +P ammunition.

The point isn't what you know about what's available, the point is that the evidence that you provided that supposedly proves that +P is obsolete actually proves that +P is alive and well and that the bullets that supposedly make it obsolete are actually considered, by the manufacturers/designers of the bullets, to be useful in +P loadings as evidenced by their decision to load and sell those bullets in +P loadings.
Quote:
Well Professor Einstein, people who use things like muzzle energy, FPS and other mathematical numbers to judge the effectiveness of a bullet are going to be extremely disappointed.
It's true that people who think a topic as complex as terminal ballistics can be boiled down to a few simple numbers will be disappointed. That's true whether a person puts their hope in energy, momentum OR diameter as the single parameter that tells the whole story.

However, it's also true that understanding the scientifically proven quantities relating to the science of motion and ballistics will provide valuable insight into the basics of terminal ballistics. Muzzle energy, velocity, and "other mathematical numbers" and quantities related to terminal ballistics and the science of projectile motion certainly don't tell the whole story, but they are a good place to START.
Quote:
Example: Would you consider a weapon that produces 1323 Ft Lbs of energy and zips along at 3100FPS as having impressive lethality?? Be careful before answering, it's a trick question.
It's not a trick question at all, it's simply a question where insufficient information has been provided to give an accurate answer. The answer is that depending on a number of assumptions and other variables, such a weapon certainly has the potential to be "impressively lethal".
Quote:
As has already been said and established, bullet design has superseded the need for high velocity to achieve reliable (to a pont) expansion.
Saying a thing, even saying it repeatedly does not make it true.

You say that it is established, but you have not provided any evidence indicating that bullet design has superceded the need for +P velocities to achieve reliable expansion. In fact, as I've pointed out, the bullet designs you listed as supposedly making +P velocities unnecessary are provided loaded to +P velocities precisely because the designers/manufactures know that those velocities provide more reliable expansion and better penetration.
Quote:
...bullet design is of PARAMOUNT importance. Everything else takes a back seat.
The most perfectly designed bullet can't do anything at all without the proper velocity, energy and momentum. The idea that you can put all your eggs in one basket simply isn't borne out by the facts. The most perfectly designed .380ACP bullet, for example, can't both expand and still pass the full FBI penetration testing because it doesn't have sufficient momentum and energy.

It takes a balance.
Quote:
All that high pressure ammo is doing is promoting excess and premature wear on your guns. That's WHY they include those warnings in the instruction manuals about using +P and +P+ ammo. If the manual has a warning, one should read and obey it.
As I've said several times, I'm not a huge fan of +P ammunition, and although I haven't said it on this thread, I'm also a huge fan of reading manuals and abiding by them. However, neither of those facts is any evidence at all that +P or +P+ does nothing but "promote excess and premature wear on guns". If that were true, no one would make it or buy it.

People are willing to put up with the risk of excess wear precisely because extra velocity provides measurable improvement in performance--both in terms of penetration and expansion--assuming proper bullet design.
Quote:
The only reason they scored the .357 Magnum so high is because there were more shootings with it than any other caliber AT THE TIME.
That's completely false.

For one thing it is not true that the M&S figures included more shootings involving the .357Mag than any other calibers. In fact, the M&S figures included nearly TWICE the number of .38Spl shootings as .357Magnum shootings.

Second, if the number of shootings related to the final M&S scoring then 9mm and the .357Mag should have come out virtually identical since they had very similar numbers of figures included in the data set (about 1450). Of course they weren't scored the same at all.

The entire idea that the scoring had anything to do with how many shootings represented a particular caliber in the data set is bogus. The scoring was done by calculating a percentage of the total shootings in a general category that met the M&S criteria.

How many shootings it was involved with had no bearing on the scoring. Percentages are not based on how many total data points are in a general category, they are based on the ratio of a particular data set to the total number of data points that contain the particular data set.

I'm not going to defend the M&S numbers, but it's totally false to state that the reason the .357Mag was scored so high is that it showed up more often in the shootings than other calibers.

This is an example of why you're getting rather "lively" responses. It appears that a good portion of what you're posting here you're either making up as you go along or you're repeating things that you've heard but never fact-checked.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04999 seconds with 7 queries