View Single Post
Old January 2, 2013, 04:35 PM   #33
Senior Member
Join Date: August 7, 2012
Location: Northern California
Posts: 447
Originally Posted by 481
" ... Using the Schwartz terminal ballistic model ...
It should be noted that this method has not been verified by (or even submitted to, last I heard) a single peer-reviewed journal of physics or metrology. Schwartz' book is self-published, and therefore doesn't have the authoritative weight of something reviewed and edited by a publisher of scientific works.

It may be 100% accurate, or it may be just the latest in a long line of "fad physics" testing methods, which later turn out to be hokkum dressed up in numbers. I make no claim one way or the other, just to be clear. Schwartz' qualifications seem pretty consistent with at least having a clue, so it's a perspective worth consideration.

Even so, unproven methodologies should be viewed as "interesting perspectives" until such time as their claims have independent verification from qualified, disinterested parties.

Originally Posted by 481
"... Rather than attempt an exhaustive comparison of all calibers and their respective bullet weights, I simply went with the 9mm and .45ACP FMJs that most of us typically find on the shelves in the big box stores.

If anyone wants a specific weight of a non-expanding design bullet put through the ringer (a penetration depth vs permanent crush mass chart), I'd be happy to do so ...
I'd find it interesting to see a comparison between typical ball rounds used by the military ... NATO spec 124gr. 9mm @ ~1300fps vs. milspec 230gr .45ACP @ ~850fps

Last edited by zombietactics; January 2, 2013 at 05:01 PM.
zombietactics is offline  
Page generated in 0.04025 seconds with 7 queries