Interpreting FBI testing standards and meaning

[OhioGuy]

I know this stuff is debated constantly, but I'm looking for some guidance on whether there's a good way to interpret ballistic test results in terms of real world performance. I know the answer is somewhere between "no" and "it all depends" but I guess I'm just an optimist

I read through a huge set of impressive test results from Lucky Gunner -- I think that study must be pretty well known since it's often cited. Even they caution about reading too much into it. But here's the essence of my question:

Some loads tested fell right up against the 18" end of the penetration range. Others were right around 13".

One interpretation could be "The ones on the shallower end are less likely to actually penetrate far enough to stop an attack, so pick one that went 18" just to be safe"

The other could be "The ones at the deeper end are likely to blow right through a target and cause unintended damage, so pick one that went 13" to just to be safe."

Lucky Gunner seemed to be saying, ultimately, "all the loads that fall between 12-18 are good, and handgun bullets don't work miracles anyway."

The extra penetration that could pass through a barrier and save you in one scenario, could pass through the target and hit something else and damn you in some other scenario.

The guy who runs the range where I'm a member, retired cop, police and civilian shooting instructor for like 20 years basically summarizes it as "Pick something that runs reliably in your gun, falls somewhere in that 12-18 range on published tests and comes from a reputable manufacturer." Anything else is overthinking.

Is that a fair summary? Or is there really some better way to interpret results?

[Nanuk]

I would say pick something that runs reliably in your gun. Until you can place your shots in a playing card size groups consistently at what distance you will shoot defensively your ammo is irrelevant. That comes from 30 years as a street cop.

[MandolinMan]

It's easy to get caught up in the hype and be always chasing the latest, greatest, 'game changing' bullet featured in the gun magazines. My advice is to not overthink it. Choose something that functions reliably and shoots to point of aim.

[cslinger]

I think the biggest reason not to look too deeply into these tests is they may give you a false sense of handgun capabilities. Handgun rounds SUCK generally speaking.

Like has been said. Find a reliably feeding, defensive round from a known reputable manufacturer and then focus on lots of hits quickly.

I am not saying to throw the testing out the window or that New bullet technology isn’t impressive but just because I like HST and it is a rockstar among current offerings in all calibers, I have no illusions that it is a one shot stop Star Trek stun gun.

Also keep in mind misses are the ultimate in over penetration.

[T. O'Heir]

Do not use FBI testing standards for anything. They are not the standard setters for anything.
"...penetrate far enough to stop an attack..." A short can go right through a body and not stop said body. Even if the body the bullet goes through is the head. There is no such thing as stopping power.
Ballistic test results have nothing to do with much of anything other than velocity and remaining energy.

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by T. O'Heir

Do not use FBI testing standards for anything. They are not the standard setters for anything.
"...penetrate far enough to stop an attack..." A short can go right through a body and not stop said body. Even if the body the bullet goes through is the head. There is no such thing as stopping power.
Ballistic test results have nothing to do with much of anything other than velocity and remaining energy.

Are they indicative of the bullet's ability to traverse intermediate barriers?

For instance I was reading up on Hornady's rubber-tipped ammo lines, Critical Defense and Critical Duty. The marketing says the former is for CCW, optimized for shorter barrels, and not designed to penetrate auto glass or whatnot. The latter is said to be designed for defeating barriers. In the Lucky Gunner tests, the Defense averaged 13" in gel and the Duty averaged almost 18".

Of course I'm sure that doesn't mean that a Defense round won't punch through steel, or a Duty round will, on any given shot.

So the consensus seems to be pick something you know runs reliably in your gun, and make sure you hit what you're aiming at. Fair statement?

[TailGator]

"all the loads that fall between 12-18 are good, and handgun bullets don't work miracles anyway."

That's actually not a bad way to think about it. You aren't going to know the exact needs until an incident demands that you fire. The angle of the attacker to you, the position of his/her arms, clothing, and the vagaries of a bullet's path will all effect the penetration of a live target. Meaningful penetration and fairly reliable expansion are all you can ask of a projectile. Trying to be certain that it stops at a certain point is beyond the realm of reasonable projection.

[2damnold4this]

The guy who runs the range where I'm a member, retired cop, police and civilian shooting instructor for like 20 years basically summarizes it as "Pick something that runs reliably in your gun, falls somewhere in that 12-18 range on published tests and comes from a reputable manufacturer." Anything else is overthinking.

Is that a fair summary? Or is there really some better way to interpret results?

I think that is a fair summary. I would tend to pick the ammo that expands more and still gets the 12-18 penetration. It also needs to be readily available and not too expensive.

The Lucky Gunner tests are helpful but they don't do a lot of tests that the FBI does. LG isn't shooting through auto glass and etc.

[Nanuk]

Handgun rounds SUCK generally speaking.

No. 357, 44 magnum as well as 357 Sig work pretty dog gone good if you do your part.

[JohnKSa]

Lucky Gunner seemed to be saying, ultimately, "all the loads that fall between 12-18 are good, and handgun bullets don't work miracles anyway."

That seems to be the way the FBI sees their test as well. If a load passes, it passes, and they consider it to be suitable for issue.

It's important to understand that the FBI testing is more than just shooting a block of gelatin and measuring the penetration. It involves multiple types of intermediate barriers as well as the more commonly seen clothed and unclothed gelatin. The load must meet the penetration spec over the entire test, even the parts involving the various intermediate barriers.

The test doesn't guarantee that the load in question will stop a person with a solid shot--there's no guarantee of that with any of the typical self-defense handgun calibers. But it does pretty much guarantee that the round will penetrate sufficiently to reach vital organs in reasonable shooting scenarios. It insures that the defender will not be handicapped by ammunition that can't do the job.

Until you can place your shots in a playing card size groups consistently at what distance you will shoot defensively your ammo is irrelevant.

There's a lot of truth to the idea that if a person can't shoot, it doesn't really matter what gun or ammo they choose. I don't know that I would be dogmatic about "playing card size" as being the proper size, although it's certainly a worthwhile goal to strive for.

It's also worth looking at this from the other side of the equation. There's a very strong case to be made that when a person CAN place all their shots on a playing card at defensive distances, the specific ammo choice is still irrelevant as long as the selection is made from defensive ammo that expands and penetrates adequately.

In other words, if you can't shoot well, there's no point in agonizing over ammo choice. AND, if you can shoot well, there's still no point in worrying over your ammo choice as long as ammo that will expand and penetrate adequately is chosen.

[CDW4ME]

Lucky Gunner test is good resource.
12-18'' penetration plus consistent expansion is desirable.
Very few 380 loads penetrate 12-18'' and expand, which is why I regard 380 as a "best one can do" caliber.
Example: If restricted by work clothing, a 380 may be "best one can do" - carry something better otherwise.

The 125 JHP 357 Mag was not regarded as deficient (terminally) in police work, ie... it did not suck.

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/rev...llistics-test/

From 4'' barrel the Remington 125 SJHP ("legendary load") penetrated 13.6'' / .54 expansion, but that does not reflect total performance.
1,473 fps with 125 gr. bullet is 602# KE and IMO a factor in the positive reputation for the caliber in police work.

Last fall, I shot a deer with 10mm 155 gr. XTP - short version is bullet calculated to have impacted with just over 600# KE.
I documented holes of 1 1/4'' from a bullet that only expands to about .65
My pics still show here in replies #356 and #358
https://www.glocktalk.com/threads/of...373461/page-18

Generalization that handgun rounds can't cause tissue damage beyond what bullet physically touches, needs disclaimer "most"/"typical", because some (10mm) can.
I'd guess the "legendary" 357 Mag does too.

[jackstrawIII]

I get the whole "no handgun bullet is a stopper" stuff...

But here's the deal. You're going to spend your money to buy bullets anyways... might as well give yourself the best possible chance for a successful encounter. If there's a bullet (like the Federal HST, for example) that opens more reliably with decent penetration than some other bullets out there, why would you ignore that?

[craddleshooter]

I can never like real like applications... to many variable around real life scenarios. the wind, temperature, etc...

[jr24]

Originally Posted by CDW4ME

Lucky Gunner test is good resource...

The 125 JHP 357 Mag was not regarded as deficient (terminally) in police work, ie... it did not suck.

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/rev...llistics-test/

From 4'' barrel the Remington 125 SJHP ("legendary load") penetrated 13.6'' / .54 expansion, but that does not reflect total performance.
1,473 fps with 125 gr. bullet is 602# KE and IMO a factor in the positive reputation for the caliber in police work.

...

Generalization that handgun rounds can't cause tissue damage beyond what bullet physically touches, needs disclaimer "most"/"typical", because some (10mm) can.
I'd guess the "legendary" 357 Mag does too.

That 600# KE does seem to be the point where you start seeing some more impressive results. Recall, however that same round in the more common (for CCW) 2" barrel is far less impressive.

125 @ 1200 down to around 400 ft/lb isnt all that different than 9mm +P.

So we cant just generalize the .357 mag as always awesome (sadly, as I do love the round).

I wont argue on 10mm, great round. Though I am often disappointed in many factory loads barely surpassing .40 S&W. Wasting so much potential.

[labnoti]

You summarized two conclusions:

insufficient penetration, or overpenetration

The weakest cartridge tested (.380 Auto) had results where bullets penetrated over 25 inches, whereas some of the much more powerful 10mm rounds barely made it over 12 inches. The obvious difference is expansion.

So instead, you could summarize the results differently:

over-expansion vs. insufficient expansion

At this point, it should be noted that you will encounter some bullets about which claims are made that they produce more effective wound channels without any expansion at all. This would include match wadcutters and those Lehigh things that look like screwdriver bits. I can't tell you if they work better or not.

So going back to over-expansion vs. insufficient expansion, you should also consider that bullets don't instantaneously expand, but they can expand at different rates. Some pop open a little past the t-shirt, while others might penetrate twelve inches before they're fully expanded. The early-popper might actually create a larger volume wound cavity than the one that doesn't expand until it's deeper. You'd have to consider your target, whether the greater cavity volume is better or whether greater penetration is needed to reach vitals.

When you start considering deeply penetrating bullets for use against bi-pedal targets, there does not seem to be much legitimate, rational cause for concern for "overpenetration." FBI reports cite their position that since the overwhelming majority of shots fired by law enforcement don't even hit the intended target, there's no reason to be more concerned about overpenetration of the one that does than all those others that are also going down-range. But we can also appreciate the sentiment that the FBI does not need to be regarded in this matter. By all rights, they should never have been armed in the first place and only accomplished popular support for this through murder, deceit, treachery and lies. What we should consider is what it is the bullet will necessarily be penetrating to reach the ultimate target.

Does the bullet need to penetrate an 18" chest of pectorals and ribs on a gorilla to reach the spine or heart? Or does it need that penetration because of heavy clothing? A car door? windshield? This should be considered carefully because the denim and gel test doesn't even begin to be relevant where deep penetration might be preferred to more shallow. Few defensive cartridge users can predict the circumstances with any meaningful detail under which their ammunition will need to perform, and so the result is we have is a broad range of performance that is considered acceptable.

One of the things I marvel at is how people survive multiple shots of popular modern handgun ammo like 9mm, .40, .45, and other people drop dead with one shot of .22LR. We can talk about "shot placement," but it's chance more than anything. I read about Jacob Grant being shot 9 times through most of his major organs with .45 hollowpoints at short range. He survived. Another man, Jim McGeehan took a lot shots from a 9mm (it was variously reported as 7, 12, and 18). He survived. Those weren't cases of bad shot placement. Handgun bullets just aren't certain death. On the other hand, we have to expect that immediate death could very well be the consequence of a single bullet from a novelty firearm in the weakest chambering and avoid negligence with the gravest sobriety.

[SonOfScubaDiver]

When I first started shooting, I was very disappointed in my groupings, and was having trouble deciding on my carry ammo. I'm talking 8 inch, 10 inch groupings. I ended up showing one of the paper targets to a retired cop that works at the range to ask his advice on improving my skills and what ammo to go with. He thought I did fairly well, and I thought he was just BSing me to make me feel better. He then put the target against his body, and told me something that has really stuck with me. He said (and I'm not accurately quoting it all), "You see all these holes in this paper against my torso? Any one of them could easily be more than enough to kill me, regardless of what ammo was used. Wanna know why? Because you just cannot predict what a bullet will do once it enters the human body. A hollow point could fully expand but miss a vital organ. A FMJ could go right through a vital organ or not hit one at all. A lead round nose could break apart after hitting a bone, with small pieces going in different directions. You just don't know what any bullet is going to do. The best thing you can do is find ammo you are comfortable with shooting and learn how to consistently aim for center mass. The rest is out of your control." Since then, my groupings have greatly improved (about fist sized at 15-20 yards, give or take), and I carry Critical Defense in my 380s, Remington semi jacketed hollow points in 38spcl, and HST in 9 and 40, but I have no worries about regular old FMJ in any of those calibers.

What that retired cop told me makes a lot of sense, and I don't spend any more time searching through all those gel test videos. The simple truth of the matter is that gel tests only tell you how a bullet will perform in gel. Yes, it may be the best way that's been figured out to test ammo, but no gel test can accurately tell you what a bullet is going to do once it enters the human body. Buy whatever ammo you are comfortable with shooting, learn how to aim for center mass, and take all those gel tests with a grain of salt.

[briandg]

Lucky Gunner seemed to be saying, ultimately, "all the loads that fall between 12-18 are good, and handgun bullets don't work miracles anyway."

This is the bottom line. A bullet or even a pair or more will always do damage and some will do better but every shot that hits a body hits a different spot from a different angle and performs differently for infinite reasons.

Gel is the standard and bullets these days are designed for gel performance and that is the simple fact, we created a standard test and design, and now, without a shadow of doubt, our bullets are fantastic.

The thing to do is pick a gun, a cartridge, a weight and brand, and just go with it and never look back. Become good. The most important factor in bullet choice is actually whether you use enough bullets to become proficient. how many of them you use to practice with. the best bullet made can miss the heart by an inch or two and cause far less damage than other bullets without high design standards.

People like to argue, they want to believe that they are smart and have secret information. When someone argues that a .357 revolver and a 10 mm auto are better than a ..45 or a .44 special it's mostly noise. Neither of those cartridges have any enormous advantage, they are all highly capable of terrible injuries. It is more an issue of which cartridge will work best at that specific moment that the trigger is pulled.

Look at the people who will stand in the street and argue about how yummy starbucks coffee is.

There are obviously classes of cartridges that are separate from other classes. the .380 and 9mm are not the same. the 9 mm and the .40 and the .38+p are different but probably still fall into a single category. The category of cartridges that are big enough, fast enough, accurate, and capable. from one shot to the next, there isn't any reason to believe that there is a one size fits all, that there is one fail safe round or gun, or that even the best of ammo will damage a target badly enough to stop an attack and save a life.

We have gelatine tests because shooting at wet newspapers, soap, water, candles, sand or mud, none of them worked worth a hoot. Gel is the best choice and it works. Thanks to gel, the finest ammo ever made can be in your gun, the finest guns ever made for this purpose.

My guru once told me to quit worrying about whether I'm drinking the wrong coffee and accept that I may be missing something better, but i still have coffee and a mouth to drink with.

[CDW4ME]

Originally Posted by SonOfScubaDiver

"You see all these holes in this paper against my torso? Any one of them could easily be more than enough to kill me, regardless of what ammo was used.

Lethal and quickly incapacitating are not always connected.
A poor hit with any caliber may be lethal but not quickly incapacitating.
A good hit with a 25 acp may be lethal but not quickly incapacitating.
In self defense quickly incapacitating (ASAP stopping potential) is desirable.
Larger holes and increasing amount of KE (assuming sufficient penetration) more likely to generate desired result (same shot placement).

[tipoc]

The guy who runs the range where I'm a member, retired cop, police and civilian shooting instructor for like 20 years basically summarizes it as "Pick something that runs reliably in your gun, falls somewhere in that 12-18 range on published tests and comes from a reputable manufacturer." Anything else is overthinking.

That's about right.

Also look at post #10. That's about right as well.

The standards also include shooting through auto glass, sheet metal, etc.

The FBI standards also take into account that a shooter cannot pick the angle of the shootee's body at the moment the bullet impacts or the trigger is pulled. The bullet may enter through the shoulder and exit at the hip or the other way around. You may be standing or sitting or on the ground when you fire or vice versa. Don't assume, that in a gun fight, folks will be standing facing each other. Assume that they, and you, will be moving, running, crawling, bent over, getting in or out of a vehicle, etc.

The above went into the thinking on the standards for penetration set by the FBI.

Take Lucky Gunners test results with a grain of salt. They are honest but they are short of the standards used in ballistic testing. How?;

1. They use clear gel rather than 10% ballistic gel. The latter is denser and approximates human tissue density, and is what is used by law enforcement and the industry.. The military uses 20% ballistic in it's testing.

2. LG does not calibrate it's gel. Calibration shows uniformity between blocks of gel.

LG's tests are informative. They are just not as rigorous as those done at Brass Fetcher for example or as those used in the industry.

http://www.brassfetcher.com/Handguns/Handguns.html

10% and 20% Ballistic gel allows ammo manufacturers around the globe to build ammo to the same standards with a variety of bullets. It allows for uniform testing. It cannot tell you how a bullet will perform in a human body. Nothing can tell you that in advance. But selecting a decent bullet for the job at hand can be a help in stopping an attack.

tipoc

[Sgt127]

The FBI standard is a consistent standard. All ammo competes on a level playing field.


All the major ammo makers strive to meet those standards. Therefore, all of the premium ammo will behave, roughly, the same.

Marketing and gimmicks are then employed to make you believe one is far superior to the others.

Pick one. Preferably cheap enough so you can order a case of it and shoot it. A lot.

Im a Neanderthal. I often carry the Federal 9BPLE or the slightly downloaded RCMP XM9001. (Cheaper than some ball) I bought two cases of it. It runs great. I know where it hits.

[briandg]

one of the very important things that the gel standard has done for manufacturers is to give them repeatability. previously you could test alloys and dimensions and weights but that wasn't good enough. You couldn't test the actual bullets for performance over and over, now you can fire any number of bullets into identical jel blocks and compare. Every tylenol tablet is the same weight and shape, that's really pretty simple, and it will always do exactly the same thing. Now, we can check to see if every lot of bullets functions properly. Design was made possible with gel, consistency was made possible.

[Water-Man]

I look for dependable feeding, reliable accuracy, being able to produce a good size wound channel, around 18" of penetration or a little more and barrier blind.

[briandg]

Not asking for too much?

[Water-Man]

Not asking for anything I don't already have.