The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: General Handgun Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 27, 2012, 10:51 PM   #101
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Does this assume unobtainium has the same physical properties as lead, minus mass?
sigcurious is offline  
Old September 27, 2012, 10:52 PM   #102
MLeake
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.
MLeake is offline  
Old September 27, 2012, 11:02 PM   #103
tipoc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 11, 2004
Location: Redwood City, Ca.
Posts: 2,432
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:
If it isn't reliable... then it can't be relied on nor counted.
I think their is agreement when we discuss stopping an aggressor or taking game. But to say that does not mean that there is no damage beyond the central wound track. We know that there is. At times this damage can be quite significant. It seems that you may be denying this.

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
tipoc is offline  
Old September 27, 2012, 11:20 PM   #104
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,407
Quote:
Then why credit extra damage that is low reliability...
Because if otherwise the statement is inaccurate.

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:
Internal hemorrhaging in tissue is bruising... its only a serious problem in a open cavity or if its outside the body.
It's only a serious problem if the hemorrhaging is sufficient to be a serious problem. There are examples of inelastic tissue that is very vascular tissue in the human body. The spleen, liver, kidneys and the brain are all examples of highly vascular inelastic tissue. These organs can be permanently and catastrophically damaged by temporary stretch, even when only handgun bullets are involved.
Quote:
Its also not a major issue if the damage is to smaller arteries. At least not with the speed needed in a defense situation.
Ok, now we're mixing things. Now you're talking not about wounding, but about incapacitation.

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).
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old September 28, 2012, 07:49 PM   #105
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by sigcurious
Does this assume unobtainium has the same physical properties as lead, minus mass?
Yes. The only variable would be weight/mass/density of the core material, not other physical properties such as hardness or elasticity. All other properties must be identical if the experiment is going to compare the two projectiles based solely on expansion relative to weight, at a constant velocity.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old September 28, 2012, 08:39 PM   #106
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnKSa:
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.
Unfortunately, this subtle distinction is lost upon many. It alll depends upon the elasticity of the tissue (its "stretchiness") that is being struck. Muscle, lungs, most GI tissue is very elastic - brain, liver, kidneys, not so much.
__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION
481 is offline  
Old September 28, 2012, 09:12 PM   #107
Sarge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2002
Location: MO
Posts: 4,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnKSa
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).
I'm soundly convinced that the difference between 9mm ball and the 'best' 10mm JHP will not compensate for 2 1/2" of lateral dispersion from the centerline of the body.
__________________
I'm inclined to think if a man hasn't gotten his point across in 4912 attempts, 4913 probably isn't going to do it.
Sarge is offline  
Old September 28, 2012, 11:03 PM   #108
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: TEXAS!
Posts: 1,430
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.
__________________
!أنا لست إرهابي
TXAZ is offline  
Old September 30, 2012, 04:39 AM   #109
Brit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 854
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.
Brit is offline  
Old September 30, 2012, 07:15 PM   #110
TEXASFIVEGUN
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 14, 2008
Posts: 11
Placement is KING and Penetration is QUEEN everything else is Angles dancing on pin heads!
TEXASFIVEGUN is offline  
Old September 30, 2012, 08:14 PM   #111
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Do the Angles dance with Saxons, or on their own?
MLeake is offline  
Old September 30, 2012, 09:22 PM   #112
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEXASFIVEGUN
Placement is KING and Penetration is QUEEN everything else is Angles dancing on pin heads!
And the question that started this discussion did not ask about either placement or penetration.

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?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old October 1, 2012, 05:20 PM   #113
Brit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 854
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!
Brit is offline  
Old October 1, 2012, 06:04 PM   #114
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,935
Quote:
The golf ball delivers much much greater energy to the guy's head.


Energy delivered to the target matters.



If you don't believe me, you provide the test head and I'll provide the ping pong ball and the golf ball.
"energy transfer" or "energy dump" is BS. Energy is the ability to do work. It does not mean that the work gets done, or that it is the work you intended to do.

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.
wayneinFL is offline  
Old October 1, 2012, 07:51 PM   #115
zombietactics
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 7, 2012
Location: Northern California
Posts: 336
^^^ Stealing this ^^^
zombietactics is offline  
Old October 1, 2012, 08:22 PM   #116
Nanuk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2005
Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam.
Posts: 1,698
Quote:
Still peddling the same worn-out disinformation, huh?

Wolberg's research paper is valid, here's why-

It is common and accepted practice for researchers to select the parametric and data constraints for their case studies. If this were viewed as reason to discredit his or anyone else's research and findings, then every case study research article that has ever been written and its findings would have to be thrown out. In fact, parametric and constraint selection is a sound practice within scientific research projects and to attempt to portray it as some sort of dishonesty is an act of intellectual dishonesty itself. So long as it is done honestly and openly (as evidenced by Wolberg's explanations of the constraints of his data selection on the first page of the article cited above) and the reasons for such constraint can be shown to be valid, then it is a valid practice.
Ok of 156 or 157 shootings he only used 27 bullets that met his "criteria" but M&S is made up RIGHT........
__________________
My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon.
Nanuk is offline  
Old October 1, 2012, 09:57 PM   #117
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanuk:
Quote:
Still peddling the same worn-out disinformation, huh?

Wolberg's research paper is valid, here's why-

It is common and accepted practice for researchers to select the parametric and data constraints for their case studies. If this were viewed as reason to discredit his or anyone else's research and findings, then every case study research article that has ever been written and its findings would have to be thrown out. In fact, parametric and constraint selection is a sound practice within scientific research projects and to attempt to portray it as some sort of dishonesty is an act of intellectual dishonesty itself. So long as it is done honestly and openly (as evidenced by Wolberg's explanations of the constraints of his data selection on the first page of the article cited above) and the reasons for such constraint can be shown to be valid, then it is a valid practice.
Ok of 156 or 157 shootings he only used 27 bullets that met his "criteria" but M&S is made up RIGHT........
There's a fundamental difference between the two acts (the selection of viable data versus the falsification and manipulation of outcomes) that you are either unaware of or have simply chosen to ignore.

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
__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION
481 is offline  
Old October 2, 2012, 10:23 AM   #118
Nanuk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2005
Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam.
Posts: 1,698
Quote:
There's a fundamental difference between the two acts (the selection of viable data versus the falsification and manipulation of outcomes) that you are either unaware of or have simply chosen to ignore.

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-
Semantics, manipulation is manipulation. I am not ignoring anything, I know what I have seen and what has worked on the street and what has not worked on the street. I know for a fact that if you take a 38 special +P 125 grain JHP which is a marginal stopper and increase the velocity by 500 FPS and call it a magnum it works very well on people.
__________________
My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon.

Last edited by Nanuk; October 2, 2012 at 10:29 AM.
Nanuk is offline  
Old October 2, 2012, 11:02 AM   #119
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanuk:
Semantics, manipulation is manipulation. I am not ignoring anything, I know what I have seen and what has worked on the street and what has not worked on the street.
OK, then hide behind the claim "that it's all semantics". Whether you accept it or not, one (ruling out invalid/unusable data) is a legitimate practice whereas the other (manipulating vaild data through ommission or alteration) is not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanuk:
I know for a fact that if you take a 38 special +P 125 grain JHP which is a marginal stopper and increase the velocity by 500 FPS and call it a magnum it works very well on people.
Your single point of data (that .38 caliber 125 gr. JHP at 1450 fps) is incomplete in that it fails to consider what anatomical structures/tissues are hit and damaged- a factor that has great significance as to how well a specific bullet will work on people. M&S's concept of "stopping power" treats every unfired bullet as having the same impact velocity, same expansion, same retained weight, same amount and type of tissue damage as another bullet of the same type and loading- reality be damned. This tremendous assumption is the other great failing point of M&S's concept of "stopping power".
__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION

Last edited by 481; October 2, 2012 at 11:12 AM.
481 is offline  
Old October 2, 2012, 11:16 AM   #120
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,935
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.
wayneinFL is offline  
Old October 2, 2012, 11:56 AM   #121
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by wayneinFL:
Both those studies have flawed methodologies.
Of course they are.

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:
These greater than 100% stopping percentage or negative numbers (showing mysterious disappearing shootings) are fairly described as misrepresentations because they demonstrate conclusively that the Marshall & Sanow "data base" is not as it has been claimed to be. Specifically:

Marshall & Sanow have claimed to have continuously collected their "data base" of shootings over time; this makes having fewer shootings in particular caliber and load combinations at later dates impossible, but eight such conditions exist in their "data base."

Marshall & Sanow have eight particular caliber and load combinations that show a completely impossible greater than 100% "one-shot stop" percentages in their "data base
".
__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION

Last edited by 481; October 2, 2012 at 12:05 PM.
481 is offline  
Old October 2, 2012, 12:42 PM   #122
Nanuk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2005
Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam.
Posts: 1,698
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?
__________________
My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon.
Nanuk is offline  
Old October 2, 2012, 04:00 PM   #123
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanuk:
I am not giving relevance to either study.
That doesn't seem to be the case here in post #116 where your language suggests otherwise-

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanuk:
Ok of 156 or 157 shootings he only used 27 bullets that met his "criteria" but M&S is made up RIGHT........
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanuk:
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.
You'll have to do better than that. Not everyone acts dishonestly and "blanket accusations" of misconduct and dishonesty are worthless without proof. The article by Wolberg has never been debunked as being fraudulent in any way despite your claims. If you can prove otherwise, I'd happily invite you to show me a source (other than some anonymous internet poster) that refutes Wolberg's article, "Performance of the Winchester 9mm 147 Grain Subsonic Jacketed Hollow Point Bullet in Human Tissue and Tissue Simulant", as being fraudulent.

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:
Originally Posted by Nanuk:
They drank their own cool aid and manipulated data to suit their agenda, Dr Wolberg at San Diego was one of the obvious ones with the paper on the subsonic 147 grain 9mm.
Source, please?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanuk:
If the IWBA was not blowing smoke why then is it gone? Why did the FBI run them off?
The FBI ran no one off. IWBA simply disbanded for many reasons, none of which have anything to do with the individual researchers' integrity. You can distract with unsubstantiable claims of misconduct and dishonesty all that you want, but your lack of citable material in support of your claims produces a deafening silence all on its own.

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:
Originally Posted by Nanuk:
They drank their own cool aid and manipulated data to suit their agenda, Dr Wolberg at San Diego was one of the obvious ones with the paper on the subsonic 147 grain 9mm.
__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION

Last edited by 481; October 2, 2012 at 04:31 PM.
481 is offline  
Old October 2, 2012, 06:02 PM   #124
Nanuk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2005
Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam.
Posts: 1,698
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.
__________________
My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon.
Nanuk is offline  
Old October 2, 2012, 06:28 PM   #125
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanuk
...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...
Exactly what are the other physiological reasons people stop fighting? Are you contending that there are physiological reasons beyond disruption of the central nervous system by trauma, or breaking major skeletal support structures, or tissue damage causing sufficient blood loss to incapacitate?
__________________
"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
Frank Ettin 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 10:35 AM.


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 0.11775 seconds with 8 queries