|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 27, 2012, 10:51 PM | #101 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
Does this assume unobtainium has the same physical properties as lead, minus mass?
|
September 27, 2012, 10:52 PM | #102 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
AB, a 180JHP .44 Magnum at the extreme high end of the velocity band wil have much more energy than a 255gr HC at 1300fps.
It will also come apart immediately upon impacting something tough, such as, say the cartilage around a boar's shoulder. Pushing the round to the point where it can't effectively penetrate is entirely possible if energy beomes the overriding concern. That doesn't require hip boots or galoshes, just an understanding that there is no "either / or" answer to the OP's question, unless one answers "velocity" in the context of tailoring velocity with platform and bullet to optimize energy, accuracy, and penetration. Velocity can be optimized for all three effects. Energy can't. |
September 27, 2012, 11:02 PM | #103 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 11, 2004
Location: Redwood City, Ca.
Posts: 4,114
|
marine6680
There may be confusion over whether we are talking about "stopping" an aggressor and the damage a bullet does once it reaches it's target. It should be clear to all, and I think it is, that the only thing one can count on at handgun velocities to stop something is a well placed shot to a vital area (rifle velocities too but let's not get off track). The damage done beyond the central wound track from from a 10mm round at 1300 fps, may or may not be of significance but it is secondary. When you say... Quote:
At rifle velocities that damage is greater than at handgun velocities. This is one result of the greater energy transferred (and other factors). This is how we got on this particular aspect of the discussion in the first place. tipoc |
|
September 27, 2012, 11:20 PM | #104 | |||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,985
|
Quote:
It is inaccurate to say that temporary stretch cavity does not/can not cause permanent damage in tissue because it can be documented that it actually can and does cause permanent damage under the proper circumstances. Quote:
Quote:
The sad fact is that when we talk about incapacitation we're talking about nothing BUT unreliability. At this time, there is nothing you can carry in a practical fashion that will provide reliable incapacitation. The short story of handgun incapacitation is that it can't be reliably achieved "with the speed needed in a defense situation" unless the central nervous system is significantly damaged. And there is no handgun/bullet combination that can guarantee that since that's primarily dependent on where the bullet goes (is aimed).
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|||
September 28, 2012, 07:49 PM | #105 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,466
|
Quote:
|
|
September 28, 2012, 08:39 PM | #106 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
Quote:
__________________
QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION |
|
September 28, 2012, 09:12 PM | #107 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2002
Location: MO
Posts: 5,457
|
Quote:
__________________
People were smarter before the Internet, or imbeciles were harder to notice. |
|
September 28, 2012, 11:03 PM | #108 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
|
Muzzle Energy
If it were only muzzle velocity, all of the atomic bullets (aka atomic & subatomic particles with measurable mass), moving at over 100,000 miles per SECOND would have killed us all eons ago.
Conversely a 20 ton steam roller moving at 5 feet per second has significant kinetic / "muzzle energy" but near 0 muzzle velocity, but has enough energy to inflict significant damage.
__________________
Cave illos in guns et backhoes |
September 30, 2012, 04:39 AM | #109 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 1,934
|
Most of these discussions, hinge on single bullets, striking this, or that.
Firing one, or two rounds, then evaluate? If it ever was, to my mind, a factor, is nonsensical. SHOOT HIM A LOT! Comes to mind. So other factors come in to play, amount of rounds carried in a given pistol, is significant. As is the recoil of a given bullet, moving the muzzle off target, so many imponderables! After action reports, as to time of day, clothing worn, mind set, you could go on and on. Only things you, the pistol carrier, can control count. Calibre, bullet type and weight, amount in a given pistol, even sights, and trigger release weight, all need to be taken into consideration. Even such factors as keeping away from certain areas of a City, how you carry your self defense pistol (re rapid deployment) holsters, mode of dress. Lady Luck is in there somewhere also! Managers, and various, and sundry supervisors like to say things like "The big picture" And it is, a big picture. |
September 30, 2012, 07:15 PM | #110 |
Junior Member
Join Date: June 14, 2008
Posts: 11
|
Placement is KING and Penetration is QUEEN everything else is Angles dancing on pin heads!
|
September 30, 2012, 08:14 PM | #111 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Do the Angles dance with Saxons, or on their own?
|
September 30, 2012, 09:22 PM | #112 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,466
|
Quote:
Seriously -- I know of forums (and participate in one) where major thread drift is expected and is viewed humourously, but I thought THIS forum was supposed to be about trying to answer questions. When a question specifically cites exactly TWO factors, how is it helpful to bring in "answers" that don't even mention the factors cited in the question? |
|
October 1, 2012, 05:20 PM | #113 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 1,934
|
Well AB, we can pin our noses to the thread, and follow blindly, or slip in something we (the individual) feel will be interesting, to some of us.
The Angels comment was interesting, and true! |
October 1, 2012, 06:04 PM | #114 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,944
|
Quote:
Here's another test. Put on a baseball mitt. Catch a baseball. Next, catch a 22 rimfire fired from a handgun. Same amount of energy. The entire energy of the baseball is absorbed. The 22 will likely pass through your hand, and your hand will absorb a small amount of the 22's energy. Which one did more work? The baseball. It moved your entire hand. Your hand bounced back slowly, absorbing the momentum. The 22 did less work- it moved a small amount of tissue- very quickly- but only a small amount. But it did more damage. The amount of energy is only a small factor in the amount of damage done by a bullet. As others have said, there are other factors that are more important. An even bigger part of the picture is whether the damage is effective in stopping a fight and that mostly comes down to placement. |
|
October 1, 2012, 07:51 PM | #115 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 7, 2012
Location: Northern California
Posts: 447
|
^^^ Stealing this ^^^
|
October 1, 2012, 08:22 PM | #116 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2005
Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam.
Posts: 3,082
|
Quote:
__________________
Retired Law Enforcement U. S. Army Veteran Armorer My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon. |
|
October 1, 2012, 09:57 PM | #117 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
Quote:
Wolberg excluded incomplete/inapplicable data that had no chance of providing the information that he needed by eliminating hits to bony tissues and wound tracks that left the bodies of his subjects. Marshall and Sanow manipulated their outcomes to arrive at a desired conclusion, hence the highly suspect results and falisfied data uncovered in the statisitcal analysis here- Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow "Data Base": An Evaluation Over Time by M. van Maanan
__________________
QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION |
||
October 2, 2012, 10:23 AM | #118 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2005
Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam.
Posts: 3,082
|
Quote:
__________________
Retired Law Enforcement U. S. Army Veteran Armorer My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon. Last edited by Nanuk; October 2, 2012 at 10:29 AM. |
|
October 2, 2012, 11:02 AM | #119 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION Last edited by 481; October 2, 2012 at 11:12 AM. |
||
October 2, 2012, 11:16 AM | #120 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,944
|
481 and Nanuk. Both those studies have flawed methodologies. One of them might be right, but a broken clock is still right twice a day.
|
October 2, 2012, 11:56 AM | #121 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
Quote:
I never said that the Wolberg research article was perfect. Both studies are "flawed", one (M&S) is "contrived". There is a difference. Taken from the link provided above- Quote:
__________________
QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION Last edited by 481; October 2, 2012 at 12:05 PM. |
||
October 2, 2012, 12:42 PM | #122 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2005
Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam.
Posts: 3,082
|
I am not giving relevance to either study. I am saying that I have seen lot of real live people and critters shot with lots of different things and I tend to believe in things that I see.
Not everything can be replicated in a lab. The very proof of the lab is field testing. How do the rounds predicted in the lab to be great really work in real live shootings? Take that VS what DOES a 125 grn 357 mag bullet at 1400 FPS look like in gelatine? Why does it fail the FBI protocol when in fact it works very well on the street? The 357 Sig is used by 10 State police agencies and works very well on real BG's. It is a modern high energy round. What that means to the original question is energy is very important. 481, don't take this wrong, I am very much a proponent of shot placement, I have never stated otherwise. But, for anyone to tell me basically " Are you going to believe me or your lying eye's" speaks of BS. What I have said all along is that none of the people doing these "studies" for coin are above fudging the data to make their point and I pointed that out. If the IWBA was not blowing smoke why then is it gone? Why did the FBI run them off?
__________________
Retired Law Enforcement U. S. Army Veteran Armorer My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon. |
October 2, 2012, 04:00 PM | #123 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As I've posted before, here are the sources debunking M&S that I've cited- Too Good to be True, Wishful Thinking?, The Best Defense by M. Fackler and C.E. Peters Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow "Data Base": An Evaluation Over Time by M. van Maanan Sanow Strikes (Out) Again by D. MacPherson So, where is your citable source(s) that debunks the Wolberg article as being fraudulent here in post #94? Quote:
Quote:
I've shown the three (3) citable sources for my claims re: the M&S study. Where are your sources in support of your claims of data manipulation re: the Wolberg article in post #94 (presented below once again)? Quote:
__________________
QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION Last edited by 481; October 2, 2012 at 04:31 PM. |
||||||
October 2, 2012, 06:02 PM | #124 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2005
Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam.
Posts: 3,082
|
Believe what you want. Your sig kinda says it all. A book about a test protocol to simulate what a bullet will do based on a mathematical formula in a water to equate to media that is used to simulate human tissue with no regard for any other physiological reason people stop fighting. Because that cannot be quantified in a lab.
The most reliable indicator is actual police shootings, but most departments are somewhat tight lipped about this data unless you have an inside source. Which is why I go back to high energy rounds being the most reliable fight stoppers.
__________________
Retired Law Enforcement U. S. Army Veteran Armorer My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon. |
October 2, 2012, 06:28 PM | #125 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
|
|