View Single Post
Old January 2, 2013, 04:35 PM   #33
zombietactics
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 7, 2012
Location: Northern California
Posts: 336
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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 0.04593 seconds with 7 queries