The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 25, 2012, 10:46 PM   #26
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 485
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbernie:
Brassfetcher uses a .25" thick layer of bone simulant directly in front of the gel block in many of his more current tests. IIRC, he gets it from a Swiss company...
It's called Synbone.

You can find it here-

http://www.synbone.ch/wEnglish/catal...anchor=1010043


-some sort of rigid polyurethane material.
__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION
481 is offline  
Old August 25, 2012, 11:04 PM   #27
Water-Man
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 23, 2008
Location: N. Georgia
Posts: 1,611
JohnKSa,

I believe if you asked them if they would like 12" or 18" they would choose the higher rather than the lower.
__________________
Vietnam Veteran
1964 - 1965
Water-Man is offline  
Old August 25, 2012, 11:15 PM   #28
silvermane_1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: Burien,WA
Posts: 448
interesting, although you can't do the penetration tests on live people, the next best thing is a pig or wild boar.
__________________
Ruger:SR1911 CMD,MK 3 .22lr 6",Sec. Six '76 liberty .357 4",SRH .480 Ruger 7.5",Mini-14 188 5.56/.233 18.5", Marlin: 795 .22lr 16.5",30aw 30-30 20",Mossberg:Mav. 88 Tact. 12 ga, 18.5",ATR 100 .270 Win. 22",S&W:SW9VE
9mm 4",Springfeild:XD .357sig 4",CAI PSL-54C, WASR 10/63
silvermane_1 is offline  
Old August 25, 2012, 11:33 PM   #29
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,561
Quote:
I believe if you asked them if they would like 12" or 18" they would choose the higher rather than the lower.
It's within their power to set the penetration spec to be anything they want. If they favor more penetration, all they have to do is set the spec accordingly.

Their current spec is no less than 12" and no more than 18". If they wanted it to be higher, say 14" to 19", it would be. No one's stopping them from making it anything they desire.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old August 26, 2012, 07:56 AM   #30
Archer 9505
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 10, 2010
Location: Maine
Posts: 213
What does 1000FPS have to do with incapacitation?

I also enjoyed the article. The author stated that they were looking for ammo that performed "Better than Average" and established 1000 FPS as the average velocity of the 100 different rounds tested. That meant that in their test, ammo that expanded and penetrated deeply, yet was moving slower than 1000 fps didn't get their stamp of approval as "Better than Average". Interesting test, but flawed. Example: the 230 grain winchester black talon penetrated to a depth of 15 inches and expanded to a factor of 1.66 times its' original diameter, yet didn't make the cut because it wasn't moving fast enough.
__________________
NRA Life Member
"An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will"
It's a free country; in a free country, freedom is for more than just those that conform to the accepted.
Archer 9505 is offline  
Old August 26, 2012, 09:04 AM   #31
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,546
I've seen several different so called "stopping power" test over the years and they all come up with different results.

I don't really believe any are "flawed", I think they are just different.

I've been to enough autopsies to know that no two bullets react the same way in the same target material.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old August 26, 2012, 03:11 PM   #32
PH/CIB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 281
Spent yesterday at the Big Springs Shooting Complex over by Searsboro, Iowa at the 2nd Amendment Rally sponsored by the Iowa Firearms Coalition and Brownells and the NRA. No admission charge,Cowboy Action Shooting, IDPA, 3 Gun, Full Auto Shooting, 50 Caliber and 338 Lapua Long Range Rifle Shooting, Vendors, Food Booths, and Pro 2nd Amendment Politicians and Speakers.

THANK YOU! Iowa Firearms Coalition, Brownells and the NRA.

I had not shot full automatic M-16, M-60, Browning 50 Cal Machine Gun since Viet Nam so I wandered over to the Full Auto Booth and shot 25 to 30 rounds each, HkMp5, Uzi, Thompson 45 Sub, Galil, HK36, AK47, German WWII MG42, and Browning World War water cooled 30 caliber machine gun. Eight guns on full auto for $160 or $20 per gun, at 25-30 rounds per gun that comes out to be 225 rounds for $160 or about .71 cents a round a real bargain and I cannot Thank the Guys at the full auto booth enough, it was literally a blast!

Getting back on subject, it is interesting to see that someone is producing the simulated bone and it does not cost that much Thanks 481, and someone is using the simulated bone product in ballistic tests Thanks rbernie, that it should be in my opinion included in all ballistic tests as even though we cannot control all the variables, and people come in all shapes and sizes the only constant that we will all bring to a gunfight is flesh and bone and we all need to know what penetrates and expands best through both materials.
__________________
Life Member,,,Military Order of the Purple Heart, Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion, Amvets, Disabled American Veterans, 173rd Airborne Skysoldier Association, National Rifle Association, Member,,,IDPA, USPSA, Iowa Sheriffs and Deputies Association,,Website http://www.handgunholsters.net

Last edited by PH/CIB; August 26, 2012 at 04:26 PM.
PH/CIB is offline  
Old August 26, 2012, 04:56 PM   #33
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 485
PH/CIB,

No problem.

As to using synbone (or any other analog for bone) in such tests, I see it as a confounding factor. The polyurethane plate is unlike bone in that it doesn't really duplicate the structure and density of actual anatomy none of which exists as a 12"x12" plate. The two main types of bone- cancellous and cortical- possess markedly different mechanical properties and are often both present in a given anatomical structure such as the pelvis and spine.


While I found the article kind of interesting, there were several issues that caught my attention, not the least of which was that block size and other test standards were not mentioned. Hard to say if they were simply omitted for the sake of space or if they were never adhered to in the first place, but I suspect that since AR is not a technical journal there is a different standard being followed.
__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION
481 is offline  
Old August 26, 2012, 04:58 PM   #34
G1R2
Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2011
Posts: 73
Sounds Great

Dear Mr. Floridaman,

I glad to see that someone is considering stepping forward. Just think, if there were enough of us, every shooting range across the country could have a few in stock.
G1R2 is offline  
Old August 26, 2012, 08:03 PM   #35
357autoloader
Member
 
Join Date: August 19, 2012
Posts: 25
I was disappointed that the American Rifleman article did not include .357sig in it's test. I believe in that caliber, in fact I trust my life with it. I have done some testing of my own that I was quite satisfied with.
357autoloader is offline  
Old August 27, 2012, 11:49 AM   #36
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
There is not and can not be testing for real world results. There are far too many variables. There would always be objections.
While the myriad of ballistic tests are informative and always interesting, I have much greater confidence in the numbers produced in actual shootings by police. Such data necessarily include real-world variables, whatever they may be.

Massad Ayoob takes this approach as well. He recommends loads based on how they actually perform in police shootings.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old August 29, 2012, 10:29 AM   #37
oldgranpa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2006
Location: Alabama
Posts: 209
I agree with Kraig that the tests weren't really "flawed", just different. Missing was info on handguns used. For instance the .380 results which normally use pistols with shorter barrels than some of the other calibers. This usually results in velocities lower than 1000fps. The Rem 102gr GS gave good results with both penetration and expansion, yet wasn't on the "approved list".
So, while the NRA article was interesting, it wasn't conclusive, IMO.
og
oldgranpa is offline  
Old August 29, 2012, 06:37 PM   #38
Japle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2004
Location: Viera, Florida
Posts: 1,188
As far as the American Rifleman article goes, I don’t see the value of the author’s conclusions. He picked totally arbitrary criteria and ignored the actual performance of the ammo. One example: He set the minimum acceptable velocity at 1000 fps. That eliminated most of the .45 loads. The result was that some of the most street-proven loads, like the Federal 125 gr .357 and the 230 gr .45 Hydra-Shok, didn’t make the cut.

The results are interesting, but I wouldn’t use his criteria to choose my SD loads.
Japle is offline  
Old September 3, 2012, 10:43 AM   #39
Hook686
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2005
Location: USA The Great State of California
Posts: 1,987
If one does not see value in the article, then simply ignore it and move on. Why is there a need to intellectualize a a piece of data provided by someone who took the time to do some testing ? If people do not like the parameters used by the tester, then set up a test and use alternate parameters. I enjoy reading the results of tests and research on the terms it was accomplished, and thank the testers and researchers for their efforts.
__________________
Hook686

When the number of people in institutions reaches 51%, we change sides.
Hook686 is offline  
Old September 3, 2012, 11:02 AM   #40
moxie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2006
Location: TX
Posts: 513
Given your emphasis on penetration, be sure to get bonded bullets. They tend to defeat barriers such as glass and doors more effectively than non-bonded.
__________________
If you want to shoot...shoot...don't talk! Tuco

USAF Munitions 1969-1992
RVN 1972-1973
moxie is offline  
Old September 3, 2012, 12:58 PM   #41
Japle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2004
Location: Viera, Florida
Posts: 1,188
Quote:
Posted by Hook686:
If one does not see value in the article, then simply ignore it and move on.
I disagree with that approach. Ignoring the use of poor testing criteria only encourages others to do poor testing.

Using the same velocity “floor” for all calibers ignores the fact that proven loads producing excellent results in .45ACP are automatically rejected.

Using the same expansion ratio for all calibers ignores the fact that some bullets start off with a larger diameter than others. (Duhh!!)

Using an arbitrary minimum penetration depth ignores the fact that proven loads producing excellent results are automatically rejected.

Good testing procedures + careful record keeping + unreasonable criteria = bad results.
Japle is offline  
Old September 3, 2012, 02:02 PM   #42
Hook686
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2005
Location: USA The Great State of California
Posts: 1,987
japle I think you can disagree all you want. I simply think you can do so silently. I see no need for you to stipulate your rationalizations. You seem to me to take up unnecessary bandwidth with unneeded negativity. Perhaps you are right, but I certainly do not need your judgements about alleged 'Facts'. Why should I listen to your opinion and accept over the OP ? Perhaps you are right, but i enjoy the posts regarding tests conducted and am quite able to evaluate the results for my personal use.
__________________
Hook686

When the number of people in institutions reaches 51%, we change sides.
Hook686 is offline  
Old September 3, 2012, 02:14 PM   #43
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Hook686, maybe you are, and if so, that is great for you.

OTOH, that doesn't mean all the others who will read it have any background in testing, or in statistics, or even a general background in firearms. For people like that, points such as Japle makes could be very useful.

I'm not quite sure why his dissents and disclaimers discomfit you.
MLeake is offline  
Old September 3, 2012, 02:35 PM   #44
JASmith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2009
Posts: 152
Quote:
Posted by Japle
Good testing procedures + careful record keeping + unreasonable criteria = bad results.
This is the most concise summary of the problems with a large fraction of the tests I have seen!

That observation includes tests by folks both in government and doing tests under contract.

Of course there is still the odd test that violates all three criteria...
__________________
Nevermore...
http://shootersnotes.com
JASmith is offline  
Old September 3, 2012, 05:52 PM   #45
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooke686:
Why is there a need to intellectualize a a piece of data provided by someone who took the time to do some testing ?
Because some of us prefer to do our own thinking instead of allowing ourselves to be led blindly into a dubious conclusion based upon a set of questionable data.

I find Japle's commentary and observations to be informed and logical- an approach we'd all do well to adopt.

There is no need for him disagree silently as his points are well taken.
__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION
481 is offline  
Old September 3, 2012, 05:57 PM   #46
Hook686
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2005
Location: USA The Great State of California
Posts: 1,987
Quote:
'm not quite sure why his dissents and disclaimers discomfit you.
It simply strikes me as someone I know absolutely nothing about is analyzing the OP test methodology. It struck me as he was whining more over the .45acp not getting better results and looking for ways to discredit the testing because of that. Now this is just my personal opinion and nothing more. You maybe see it different. That is okay by me. Some people like to state opinions as though they were fact. I know nothing about japle. The OP stated his test results and his parameters for HIS evaluation. I appreciate the test results. Any nine year old child can create evaluation parameters. The data and the description of its collection are important to me. I am not discomforted by japle's dissents. I just see no purpose in those presented and think they cloud the water, as the important part to me was the actual test results, not the evaluation, or what should have been considered and why the OP was wrong to not consider lower velocity data in his analysis.

Did you not like the data ?
__________________
Hook686

When the number of people in institutions reaches 51%, we change sides.
Hook686 is offline  
Old September 3, 2012, 07:12 PM   #47
Japle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2004
Location: Viera, Florida
Posts: 1,188
Quote:
Posted by Hook686:
…. the important part to me was the actual test results, not the evaluation …..
I thought the test results were useful, also, especially if you live where it’s hot all the time and aren’t concerned about how the loads work when fired through clothing.

It’s the conclusions that bother me and the criteria used to arrive at those conclusions.

In the last 40-odd years, I’ve seen all kinds of “stopping power” theories that were based on what the author thought was important and not on what actually works. One of the best examples is the Hatcher formula. Many people promoted Hatcher because they liked the idea that their favorite calibers and loads got high rankings. But Hatcher was badly flawed. The “computer man” was badly flawed. Every formula that starts with a conclusion (only loads that break 1,000 fps are acceptable, only loads that expand to at least 1.5X their original diameter, no matter what that original diameter was are acceptable, etc), produces conclusions that are automatically suspect.
Japle is offline  
Old September 3, 2012, 08:31 PM   #48
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Hook686, I'd say the point Japle raises about the velocity floor is a valid one, as it removes most .44 Special, .45 ACP, and .45 Colt loads from consideration.
MLeake is offline  
Old September 4, 2012, 12:01 PM   #49
TacticalDefense1911
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,276
That magazine article was a hack-fest. He mentioned 10% ordnance gel but did not mention if it was stored properly, if it was calibrated properly, what size the block was or how many times it was shot before being discarded. These are all major factors that need to be addressed when presenting a gel test. Also, he only shot bare gel. Alot of overall poorly performing loads can look okay when looking at a bare gel test. No FBI tests were attempted. I'm assuming he only test one shot of each load which is not a statistically significant sample for testing. No explanation as to how expansion was measured. You do not take that maximum expansion width; the proper way is to take the max + min /2 to get the average which needed to be addressed rather then the silly "expansion factor" numbers that were presented. There was no report on recovered weight of the projectiles. Also, he discounted any load that was below 1000 fps??? Pretty much worthless information on the whole.

As far as ordnance gelatin tests go, it is a misrepresentation that the ordnance gelatin is suppose to represent human soft tissue. It is not. Its simply a means to compare loads to compare overall performance. If you are worried about bone, look at tests that have been done properly with FBI barriers and that have passed these barrier tests. If they pass these tests they will defeat bone effectively. Also look at OIS information and what loads perform well in the real world. Also, stick with heavier loads as they have less chance of deflection. Here is an excellent list of loads that pass the FBI protocol. http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887 If you can't find a load you like here then you don't need to be carrying a handgun.
TacticalDefense1911 is offline  
Old September 4, 2012, 12:20 PM   #50
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 7,109
Quote:
japle I think you can disagree all you want. I simply think you can do so silently. I see no need for you to stipulate your rationalizations. You seem to me to take up unnecessary bandwidth with unneeded negativity. Perhaps you are right, but I certainly do not need your judgements about alleged 'Facts'. Why should I listen to your opinion and accept over the OP ? Perhaps you are right, but i enjoy the posts regarding tests conducted and am quite able to evaluate the results for my personal use.
__________________
Hook686
Why must he do so silently? Simply because he disagrees with you?

He disagrees, and gave valid reasons. This forum is a place for debate and discussion ....seems like the right place for reasoned discussion.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14321 seconds with 7 queries