|
|
|
01-31-2012, 09:25 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: MD -PA
Posts: 614
Likes: 120
Liked 299 Times in 142 Posts
|
|
I have good luck both with accuracy and reliability with Federal Tactical 124 gr JHP.
I pray I will never have to shoot and possible kill another human being, that being said I am fully prepared to do just that if my life or the life of my love ones are in danger.
I normally sleep with a S&W 625 loaded with 45 long colts but on occasion, when traveling I will depend on my CZ85-B for “home defense”, I use this gun for several reasons.
I am well acquainted with this pistol and I am comfortable shooting it.
It has good night sites.
I shoot it well, and it shoot to my point of aim.
I have multiple high capacity magazines for this pistol.
It packs well and I and carry 75 rounds of ammo in a small package,four magazines plus one in the CZ85.
I do however have a question, it is my understanding that the American loading for 9mm is “loaded down” compared to the original round designed by George Luger.If this is true as I believe it to be what available loading would approach the original loading and how effective would that round be for self defense.It seeming serve the German army well in two world wars.
Penmon AKA Jim
|
01-31-2012, 09:57 PM
|
Banned
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 2,026
Liked 1,451 Times in 555 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by martywinston
Thanks - challenges like this help me shape my definitions.
I have been trying to differentiate a circumstance where you might try to deliberately shoot through a wall (to hit a bad guy who just ducked behind it, for example) - a circumstance I regard as tactical - versus having enough stopping power for the bad guy while limiting what happens to the round after that. (The genesis of the JHP, right?)
It's not that I get nervous about holes in walls - just a little about what may be on the other side of a wall.
And - from the physics/math perspective - I was trying to refer specifically to penetration into the torso when I said that I thought any perception of needing 18" (or whatever) into a torso is a bit convoluted. A shot doesn't have to travel that far into a torso to penetrate every vital organ in its path; but I can see that it's a tweak to account for penetration through clothing or forearms when simply viewing pentration in a gel path.
I have no intention of diving that deeply into the ballistics; without telling everybody exactly the tests I plan to perform, they're designed to deliver fairly binary (go/no-go) results.
I view the pre-fragmented "safety" ammo with some suspicion; it's up in the air whether I will test any of it, but I may feel compelled to do so if only to disclose the results.
I love "Have Gun Will Travel" because of the great lengths Paladin took to avoid having to shoot anyone.
|
You should also look into the study on the State Trooper in Texas who was killed after firing and hitting the BG five times, center mass with a .357. The problem was this was a very big, 300lbs plus bad guy and the trooper was above him, the guys size combined with the angle led to under penetration. The BG killed the trooper with a mini-revolver shot to the head, if I remember correctly. Penetration sufficient to be an adequate SD round is not found in a limited penetration round IMO.
I would also say, the numbers I usually read as optimal are 11-14 inches, not 18.
|
01-31-2012, 10:27 PM
|
Banned
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,759
Likes: 613
Liked 1,190 Times in 626 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by elm_creek_smith
Besides bullet performance, ammunition needs to be examined in the light of 'How does it function in your firearm?' I was given some Federal 147 grain Hydrashok 9mm +P ammunition that absolutely failed to function in my daughter's 9mm pistol. I gave the ammo to my brother in whose KelTec 2000 9mm carbine it worked wonderfully. My daughter's 9mm is currently loaded with Winchester standard pressure 115 grain Silvertips which have proven to be the most accurate in her pistol.
Me, I'm a .38 Special kinda guy.
ECS
|
Very true, especially with regards to autoloaders. If the gun will not function, it is a rock...... throw it at the bad guy! Some guns are really picky about the ammo they like. The user MUST find a weight and power load that the gun will function with. Above all else, this is most important.
And, there is nothing special about the .38.........
|
01-31-2012, 10:45 PM
|
Banned
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 2,026
Liked 1,451 Times in 555 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Honea
This is exactly correct,thank you ElectroMotive. The credibility of their so called testing and reports has been destroyed long ago by serious ballisticians.
Any serious student of "terminal ballistics"can easily find the correct data to intelligently select a load for their specific purposes by referring to the sources I mentioned in my first post. It has also been proven that when using modern well designed ammunition that there is very little difference in bullet performance in actual shootings.
The 45 makes a bigger hole than the 40,the 40 makes a slightly bigger hole than 9mm,etc.,etc,and so forth and so on.
There is no such thing as stopping power except as the term applies to disc brakes, period!
Central nervous system hits(brain/spinal cord) or multiple hits from ANY CALIBER to increase blood loss and drop blood pressure,are the only ways to shut down a violently aggressive
human being. Rifles may have stopping power,but pistols,all pistols,are woefully lacking in this regard.To even think otherwise can get you killed.
As I stated previously,there is very good information available simply for the looking, from credible sources.
Marshall and Sanow's data is the biggest hoax that has ever been perpetrated against the shooting public,and to follow their suggestions is an extremely dangerous journey.
Yes,this is a very serious subject. I thought this silliness had been settled long ago,and I pray that those less knowledgeable do not fall into this trap.
|
I have several thoughts on your post.
1. Hoax? That implies a purposeful fraud being perpetrated? Is that what you wish to say, in writing, for the record? That it was a purposeful fraud? The factual statement is that the criticisms of their studies are it was statistically too small a sample size or it was an anecdotal study. Finally, the other criticism I've read is that they let preconceived biases subconsciously color their findings.
As an FYI, I do have a statistical background, so I do see where and why the sample size criticism and probability issues have been brought up.
2. Their findings came from the info they gathered from law enforcement shootings, which is real life data. Therefore, looking at the case studies does in fact have value, though you can accurately say the limited sample size does not allow for scientific conclusions.
3. The statement that any service caliber is equivalent to another is inaccurate on it's face. Yes, accuracy is supreme, however, the projectile with the widest expansion gives the larger probability of hitting/nicking a vital area by virtue of the fact it cuts a wider crush zone. Simple physics also shows a heavier bullet traveling at a comparable velocity has better penetration. Copper and it's different physical properties being the exception.
4. The most realistic gel studies I've seen are the ones, some of which are on BrassCatcher, are the ones which use not only clothing, but simulated bone matter before the gel. There clearly is a difference in rounds/calibers in these studies.
5. There is a significant difference in the distances yaw begins in calibers fired through some barriers, auto glass being a prime example.
Evan Marshall had 20 years in Law Enforcement when he retired, with if memory serves correctly, 18 shooting involvements, that alone makes your attempt to completely dismiss his knowledge and experience suspect. I will also in the interest of full disclosure say I am antiquated with Evan Marshall and fully admit to being a little put off by the word hoax. I do not think that is a word that could/should be used in regards to him. He's done a lot to educate fellow LEO on sound tactics and mindset, which I have no doubt has saved lives.
The simple timeless axiom of carry the largest caliber you shoot accurately is still good advice IMO.
|
01-31-2012, 10:52 PM
|
Banned
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 2,026
Liked 1,451 Times in 555 Posts
|
|
Gotta love spell check....... acquainted
|
01-31-2012, 11:56 PM
|
|
Moderator
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2006
Location: N.AZ
Posts: 3,860
Likes: 611
Liked 2,394 Times in 590 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by martywinston
Let me define some precepts. In this defensive context, a cartridge should penetrate clothing and bloom when entering soft tissue but even if it should moss or exit soft tissue, it should not penetrate walls. It should be capable of penetrating a forearm held up to block the shot. Its goal is to stop the bad guy as assuredly as possible with as few shots as possible, but still do so within the 9mm 9x19 Luger limitation.
|
Should penetrate barrier, stop in soft tissue, not penetrate next ‘barrier’ ( wall ain’t much of a barrier.)
Should penetrate soft tissue (forearm to block shot), barrier (clothes), stop in soft tissue.
Wait a minute, perp has arm up to block shot in defense (no, don’t shoot me).
Well Mr Winston, I am no expert but it sounds almost impossible for a round to do all of that but then hit drywall and just stop. If you’re an engineer, when you figure it out, let me know. I would most certainly buy that round.
I’m too slow, and ain’t got the time, to go through and address all of the 50+ posts in this thread but I am pretty sure that not once did I see anyone mention:
Do not point a weapon at anything you do not intend to destroy.
or
Know your target and the background.
|
02-01-2012, 01:32 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North-Central Texas
Posts: 278
Likes: 57
Liked 161 Times in 66 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by StatesRightist
You should also look into the study on the State Trooper in Texas who was killed after firing and hitting the BG five times, center mass with a .357. The problem was this was a very big, 300lbs plus bad guy and the trooper was above him, the guys size combined with the angle led to under penetration. The BG killed the trooper with a mini-revolver shot to the head, if I remember correctly. Penetration sufficient to be an adequate SD round is not found in a limited penetration round IMO.
I would also say, the numbers I usually read as optimal are 11-14 inches, not 18.
|
That would be Trooper Mark Coates of the South Carolina Highway Patrol. This was another of those unfortunate terminal ballistics landmark events. Trooper Coates hosed a badguy with 6 rounds from a .357 using 145gr Winchester STHPs. Badguy survived, and killed Trooper Coates with a .22LR under the vest. Trooper Coates bled out while awaiting first aid.
12 inches is the minimum according to the worlds foremost ballistic labratory, the FBI-FTU. More LE agencies use their data and reccomendations than anything else. Even foreign agencies get their data from FTU.
FTU is headed up by SA Buford Boone.
Last edited by ElectroMotive; 02-01-2012 at 01:37 AM.
|
02-01-2012, 01:39 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Northwest Georgia
Posts: 832
Likes: 276
Liked 335 Times in 182 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by StatesRightist
I have several thoughts on your post.
1. Hoax? That implies a purposeful fraud being perpetrated? Is that what you wish to say, in writing, for the record? That it was a purposeful fraud? The factual statement is that the criticisms of their studies are it was statistically too small a sample size or it was an anecdotal study. Finally, the other criticism I've read is that they let preconceived biases subconsciously color their findings.
As an FYI, I do have a statistical background, so I do see where and why the sample size criticism and probability issues have been brought up.
2. Their findings came from the info they gathered from law enforcement shootings, which is real life data. Therefore, looking at the case studies does in fact have value, though you can accurately say the limited sample size does not allow for scientific conclusions.
3. The statement that any service caliber is equivalent to another is inaccurate on it's face. Yes, accuracy is supreme, however, the projectile with the widest expansion gives the larger probability of hitting/nicking a vital area by virtue of the fact it cuts a wider crush zone. Simple physics also shows a heavier bullet traveling at a comparable velocity has better penetration. Copper and it's different physical properties being the exception.
4. The most realistic gel studies I've seen are the ones, some of which are on BrassCatcher, are the ones which use not only clothing, but simulated bone matter before the gel. There clearly is a difference in rounds/calibers in these studies.
5. There is a significant difference in the distances yaw begins in calibers fired through some barriers, auto glass being a prime example.
Evan Marshall had 20 years in Law Enforcement when he retired, with if memory serves correctly, 18 shooting involvements, that alone makes your attempt to completely dismiss his knowledge and experience suspect. I will also in the interest of full disclosure say I am antiquated with Evan Marshall and fully admit to being a little put off by the word hoax. I do not think that is a word that could/should be used in regards to him. He's done a lot to educate fellow LEO on sound tactics and mindset, which I have no doubt has saved lives.
The simple timeless axiom of carry the largest caliber you shoot accurately is still good advice IMO.
|
Yes to #1.
I do not believe that this endeavor started out as an intentional hoax,but evolved into one due to other things you mentioned. The first of those being pre conceived notions and "favorites" which lead to inaccurate data and the second being small sample sizes as well as results skewed by both.
There is nothing wrong with using data from LE shootings.
Real certified ballisticians also do this and compare results with their own lab testing to arrive at accurate conclusions,many of which are in direct conflict with everything that Marshall and Sanow published.Most,in fact.
Yes,a 45 makes a bigger hole than a 9mm,not really hard to figure that one out. The fact is bullet design has brought all of the common calibers up in performance.
I keep hearing the hydra shok mentioned in a lot of threads. Well,that's currently a load that's at the bottom of the heap when it comes to modern,well designed projectiles.
As far as windshiled glass,it is a tough obstacle for many rounds and the heavy 40's do better than the 9mm's.
It's also one of the primary reasons that we now have good bonded bullet loads in both rifle and pistol calibers.
Marshall and Sanow set out to do something that neither was qualified to do and as a result,bad information and skewed results were put out to the public and to LE agencies.
If you read their books carefully you will find many cases where the authors contradict themselves throughout the book.
You will also find that lightweight projectile loads were always at the top of the list,which in itself immediately raises a red flag.The only exception to this being the 45ACP.
You will note that I post in this forum under my real name,not a moniker,and I stand by my statements.I had 27 years in the profession myself,not that it really means anything,except that I have a few scars and marks from my own skirmishes. I guess they need to go and shoot some more goats.In TOP SECRET,of course.
Most people who are knowledgeable in true"terminal ballistics" have already dismissed this for what it is,and have moved on and continue to contribute worthwhile information at no cost. They don't subsidize their incomes by writing books about it. I myself will move on from this thread,and we can agree to disagree.
Last edited by Stu Honea; 02-01-2012 at 01:50 AM.
|
02-01-2012, 01:59 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North-Central Texas
Posts: 278
Likes: 57
Liked 161 Times in 66 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by StatesRightist
I have several thoughts on your post.
1. Hoax? That implies a purposeful fraud being perpetrated? Is that what you wish to say, in writing, for the record? That it was a purposeful fraud? The factual statement is that the criticisms of their studies are it was statistically too small a sample size or it was an anecdotal study. Finally, the other criticism I've read is that they let preconceived biases subconsciously color their findings.
|
Nope, hoax applies. They BS'd their way to three books on a subject they made profit off of. They refused to let anyone see their data while claiming factual information was used.
Quote:
As an FYI, I do have a statistical background, so I do see where and why the sample size criticism and probability issues have been brought up.
|
Their books were taken to a prestigous mathematics dept on the east coast. The faculty and students dismissed it as fiction. Furthermore Dr Carroll Peters, head of engineering at the University of Tennessee pronounced M&S's work as bogus, assigning a probability of truth in the 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of being true. Thats pretty condemning.
Quote:
2. Their findings came from the info they gathered from law enforcement shootings, which is real life data. Therefore, looking at the case studies does in fact have value, though you can accurately say the limited sample size does not allow for scientific conclusions.
|
Thats a negative. They tried to take real world shootings and change the facts to fit their agenda. The most egrigous cases of this involved Amarillo, TX PD and Toledo, OH PD. Contacts from both depts requested retractions because of the falsified data M&S used.
Quote:
3. The statement that any service caliber is equivalent to another is inaccurate on it's face. Yes, accuracy is supreme, however, the projectile with the widest expansion gives the larger probability of hitting/nicking a vital area by virtue of the fact it cuts a wider crush zone. Simple physics also shows a heavier bullet traveling at a comparable velocity has better penetration. Copper and it's different physical properties being the exception.
|
They thing is, 9mm .40S&W, .45acp do perform almost identically. Almost! While true it isnt exact, its close enough that people who chose say 9mm over .45acp shouldnt have any concerns, as long as a good bullet was chosen. Google Winchester LE, and look at the penetration and expansion data.
4. The most realistic gel studies I've seen are the ones, some of which are on BrassCatcher, are the ones which use not only clothing, but simulated bone matter before the gel. There clearly is a difference in rounds/calibers in these studies.
Quote:
5. There is a significant difference in the distances yaw begins in calibers fired through some barriers, auto glass being a prime example.
|
Pistol rounds dont rely on yawing, and dont do it mych at all.
Quote:
Evan Marshall had 20 years in Law Enforcement when he retired, with if memory serves correctly, 18 shooting involvements, that alone makes your attempt to completely dismiss his knowledge and experience suspect. I will also in the interest of full disclosure say I am antiquated with Evan Marshall and fully admit to being a little put off by the word hoax. I do not think that is a word that could/should be used in regards to him. He's done a lot to educate fellow LEO on sound tactics and mindset, which I have no doubt has saved lives.
|
It really doesnt matter how many years or how many shooting he was in. Horse**** is horse****. It is what it is. Marshall&Sanow both made up stories and used falsified data to make money and make names for themselves.
That said, I think you are confusing Marshall with Cirillo.
Quote:
The simple timeless axiom of carry the largest caliber you shoot accurately is still good advice IMO.
|
Truth! Modern ammunition design and testing standards have made it a lot easier choice when one chooses a robust bullet.
Last edited by s&wchad; 02-01-2012 at 12:01 PM.
|
02-01-2012, 02:24 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North-Central Texas
Posts: 278
Likes: 57
Liked 161 Times in 66 Posts
|
|
|
02-01-2012, 06:35 AM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 51
Likes: 4
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
|
|
After six pages, I doubt that anybody is better informed or less certain whether there's a right answer than before the opening pseudo-question (which actually seems to look a lot like bait) in the very first post.
Last edited by nosreme; 02-01-2012 at 06:38 AM.
|
02-01-2012, 09:36 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Novelty (Geauga Cty) OH
Posts: 96
Likes: 7
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nosreme
After six pages, I doubt that anybody is better informed or less certain whether there's a right answer than before the opening pseudo-question (which actually seems to look a lot like bait) in the very first post.
|
Bait?
I will address this very pragmatically.
There is a simple (albeit time-consuming) test that I intend to run on a variety of 9mm cartridges to determine (against a single criterion) whether they are or are not suitable choices for home protection use.
I have already contacted several of the manufacturers.
But I have no way of knowing whether I've left out any consequential choice without asking a sampling of people about their own real-world experiences with those or other ammunition varieties in home protection.
I've had several very productive answers.
If that is bait, what is the fish?
|
02-01-2012, 10:07 AM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2006
Location: US
Posts: 385
Likes: 86
Liked 182 Times in 92 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nosreme
After six pages, I doubt that anybody is better informed or less certain whether there's a right answer than before the opening pseudo-question (which actually seems to look a lot like bait) in the very first post.
|
Same thought I had, take a look at the publication this "editor" writes for.
|
02-01-2012, 10:26 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Escondido, CA
Posts: 1,147
Likes: 185
Liked 214 Times in 72 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElectroMotive
First, I'd suggest you heed the advice previously stated, and review the data presented by Dr Gary K Roberts (online handle DocGKR) on M4Carbine.net
Next I suggest you read the International Wounds Ballistics Association papers made available on FirearmsTactical.com - Home. In specfic, I reccomend the timeless terminal ballistics paper written by SA Urey Patrick entitled "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness".
A book you may be interested in is by Dr Duncan MacPherson, Bullet Penetration: Modeling the Dynamics & the Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma.
Dont waste your time with Ayoob, Marshall, Sanow, or Courtney
|
+1 on this. I don't put much stock in Ayoob, Marshall, Sanow or Courtney. Go to the firearmstactical web site and do some reading. I find their information much more accurate.
Regards,
Howard
|
02-01-2012, 10:32 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Novelty (Geauga Cty) OH
Posts: 96
Likes: 7
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by retarmyaviator
Same thought I had, take a look at the publication this "editor" writes for.
|
The Newstips Bulletin has been weekly for 30 years and I've written every word.
You'll find me on the registered press lists of Shot Show, the Consumer Electronics Show, the National Association of Broadcasters, the Photo Marketing Association, the Cellular Telephone Industry Association, even the Adult Entertainment Expo. I've been quoted (as editor) by major newspapers and in TV appearances and on the radio.
My readers are other news professionals - at daily newspapers, major magzines, TV, radio and more.
Do you really think that putting editor in quotes can do anything to diminish my credentials?
|
02-01-2012, 10:35 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Northwest Georgia
Posts: 832
Likes: 276
Liked 335 Times in 182 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by martywinston
Bait?
I will address this very pragmatically.
There is a simple (albeit time-consuming) test that I intend to run on a variety of 9mm cartridges to determine (against a single criterion) whether they are or are not suitable choices for home protection use.
I have already contacted several of the manufacturers.
But I have no way of knowing whether I've left out any consequential choice without asking a sampling of people about their own real-world experiences with those or other ammunition varieties in home protection.
I've had several very productive answers.
If that is bait, what is the fish?
|
I will simply ask,What are these tests you propose and what are your qualifications for performing them?
As stated numerous times,the testing has already been done by qualified people,and is ongoing,and info is updated as new developements are made.
The credentials you have posted will give you credibility in those areas but you have posted nothing that would qualify you as even an amateur ballistician.
I would suggest a lot more reading,study,and practical experience in this field before you make an attempt to either confirm or discredit the excellant work that has already been done.
Last edited by Stu Honea; 02-01-2012 at 10:47 AM.
|
02-01-2012, 10:41 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Novelty (Geauga Cty) OH
Posts: 96
Likes: 7
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Honea
I will simply ask,What are these tests you propose and what are your qualifications for performing them?
As stated numerous times,the testing has already been done by qualified people,and is ongoing,and info is updated as new developements are made.
|
And as I have repeatedly said, the testing methodology and results will be in my own publication, not here.
A question: would it be more rude for me to suggest that those details are none of your business than it was to ask for them in the first place?
|
02-01-2012, 10:51 AM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 51
Likes: 4
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
|
|
I think it's entirely reasonable for people asked to provide data for some kind of study to expect some meaningful info about the validity & reliability of the alleged study and about the qualifications (or lack thereof) of the person doing it.
|
02-01-2012, 11:15 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Novelty (Geauga Cty) OH
Posts: 96
Likes: 7
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nosreme
I think it's entirely reasonable for people asked to provide data for some kind of study to expect some meaningful info about the validity & reliability of the alleged study and about the qualifications (or lack thereof) of the person doing it.
|
I will be providing no additional data here.
Regardless of what anyone thinks is reasonable, I have a set of journalistic ethics and protocols to follow, and I do not intend to compromise those for the sake of anyone's curiosity.
If you choose to not contribute your personal experience with any specific ammunition type in a home defense or personal defense context, I find no fault with that; likewise, if you choose to share such experiences, I welcome the contribution.
That is the scope of my request here.
|
02-01-2012, 11:19 AM
|
Banned
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 2,026
Liked 1,451 Times in 555 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Honea
Yes to #1.
I do not believe that this endeavor started out as an intentional hoax,but evolved into one due to other things you mentioned. The first of those being pre conceived notions and "favorites" which lead to inaccurate data and the second being small sample sizes as well as results skewed by both.
There is nothing wrong with using data from LE shootings.
Real certified ballisticians also do this and compare results with their own lab testing to arrive at accurate conclusions,many of which are in direct conflict with everything that Marshall and Sanow published.Most,in fact.
Yes,a 45 makes a bigger hole than a 9mm,not really hard to figure that one out. The fact is bullet design has brought all of the common calibers up in performance.
I keep hearing the hydra shok mentioned in a lot of threads. Well,that's currently a load that's at the bottom of the heap when it comes to modern,well designed projectiles.
As far as windshiled glass,it is a tough obstacle for many rounds and the heavy 40's do better than the 9mm's.
It's also one of the primary reasons that we now have good bonded bullet loads in both rifle and pistol calibers.
Marshall and Sanow set out to do something that neither was qualified to do and as a result,bad information and skewed results were put out to the public and to LE agencies.
If you read their books carefully you will find many cases where the authors contradict themselves throughout the book.
You will also find that lightweight projectile loads were always at the top of the list,which in itself immediately raises a red flag.The only exception to this being the 45ACP.
You will note that I post in this forum under my real name,not a moniker,and I stand by my statements.I had 27 years in the profession myself,not that it really means anything,except that I have a few scars and marks from my own skirmishes. I guess they need to go and shoot some more goats.In TOP SECRET,of course.
Most people who are knowledgeable in true"terminal ballistics" have already dismissed this for what it is,and have moved on and continue to contribute worthwhile information at no cost. They don't subsidize their incomes by writing books about it. I myself will move on from this thread,and we can agree to disagree.
|
I have no issue with our disagreeing, reasonable people should be able to do that and still show each other respect. My issue was I thought your first post had some personal venom in it toward Marshall, however this shows your issue is the findings, not personal. Your disagreeing with the findings is your right. I appreciate your civil response.
|
02-01-2012, 11:31 AM
|
Banned
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 2,026
Liked 1,451 Times in 555 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElectroMotive
Nope, hoax applies. They BS'd their way to three books on a subject they made profit off of. They refused to let anyone see their data while claiming factual information was used.
Their books were taken to a prestigous mathematics dept on the east coast. The faculty and students dismissed it as fiction. Furthermore Dr Carroll Peters, head of engineering at the University of Tennessee pronounced M&S's work as bogus, assigning a probability of truth in the 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of being true. Thats pretty condemning.
Thats a negative. They tried to take real world shootings and change the facts to fit their agenda. The most egrigous cases of this involved Amarillo, TX PD and Toledo, OH PD. Contacts from both depts requested retractions because of the falsified data M&S used.
They thing is, 9mm .40S&W, .45acp do perform almost identically. Almost! While true it isnt exact, its close enough that people who chose say 9mm over .45acp shouldnt have any concerns, as long as a good bullet was chosen. Google Winchester LE, and look at the penetration and expansion data.
4. The most realistic gel studies I've seen are the ones, some of which are on BrassCatcher, are the ones which use not only clothing, but simulated bone matter before the gel. There clearly is a difference in rounds/calibers in these studies.
Pistol rounds dont rely on yawing, and dont do it mych at all.
It really doesnt matter how many years or how many shooting he was in. Horse**** is horse****. It is what it is. Marshall&Sanow both made up stories and used falsified data to make money and make names for themselves.
That said, I think you are confusing Marshall with Cirillo.
Truth! Modern ammunition design and testing standards have made it a lot easier choice when one chooses a robust bullet.
|
I have no issue with your disagreeing with their findings, as my post said, there is a statistical basis for it. I do take exception to your personal attack on the authors as I do not see how you can ascribe motives to another person. Have you ever even met one of them? I find it particularly egregious since one of them is undergoing chemo for cancer right now. If you want to call people con artists that you do not know or have all the facts on, it's on you.
Personally, I think debating findings is acceptable and debate is good, bashing two guys integrity, who from what I can tell only sin was not being knowledgeable statisticians and research scientists is flat out wrong.
Last edited by s&wchad; 02-01-2012 at 12:03 PM.
|
02-01-2012, 11:46 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Northwest Georgia
Posts: 832
Likes: 276
Liked 335 Times in 182 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by martywinston
And as I have repeatedly said, the testing methodology and results will be in my own publication, not here.
A question: would it be more rude for me to suggest that those details are none of your business than it was to ask for them in the first place?
|
It certainly would not be rude,just as it was not rude for me to ask my question. If your
"publication" will contain data and information relevant to terminal ballistic performance,and will be made available for the benefit of law enforcement agencies,military personel,and the general shooting public who are interested in self defense,then it certainly IS my business as well as the business of anyone else involved in life or death encounters with firearms.
If,on the otherhand,your methodologies are kept secret,or are questionable to those who are knowledgeable in the particular field,then your results will be dismissed as irrelevent and meaningless.
|
02-01-2012, 11:53 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Novelty (Geauga Cty) OH
Posts: 96
Likes: 7
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Honea
If,on the otherhand,your methodologies are kept secret,or are questionable to those who are knowledgeable in the particular field,then your results will be dismissed as irrelevent and meaningless.
|
Happily, none of your conditions apply.
When published, the coverage will include a description of my methodology and its results. These are replicable tests. And my audience, as explained elsewhere, includes only other reporters.
You know, Stu, I've only been doing editorial reviews for about 45 years now - and not just for my own publication. Others tend not to find my results irrelevant or meaningless. But this is America, and no one has any right to challenge any other person's belief system, so if it's important to you to believe they are irrelevant or meaningless, I will happily defend your right to that belief.
I will also be happy to risk my long and well-established credentials on the validity of my evaluation - I've been doing that several times a week for a good many decades.
Do you have anything on-topic to contribute, as in your own experiences with home defense 9mm ammunition?
|
02-01-2012, 11:59 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Northwest Georgia
Posts: 832
Likes: 276
Liked 335 Times in 182 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by StatesRightist
I have no issue with our disagreeing, reasonable people should be able to do that and still show each other respect. My issue was I thought your first post had some personal venom in it toward Marshall, however this shows your issue is the findings, not personal. Your disagreeing with the findings is your right. I appreciate your civil response.
|
Thank you for your response,sir,and you are correct in assuming that there is no personal animosity toward either author. I am saddened ,as always, to hear of these health problems,and as a Christian man I will certainly include him in my prayers.
It is my sincere hope that the chemo and GOD's healing hand will return him to good health.
Last edited by Stu Honea; 02-01-2012 at 12:03 PM.
|
02-01-2012, 12:22 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Northwest Georgia
Posts: 832
Likes: 276
Liked 335 Times in 182 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by martywinston
Happily, none of your conditions apply.
When published, the coverage will include a description of my methodology and its results. These are replicable tests. And my audience, as explained elsewhere, includes only other reporters.
You know, Stu, I've only been doing editorial reviews for about 45 years now - and not just for my own publication. Others tend not to find my results irrelevant or meaningless. But this is America, and no one has any right to challenge any other person's belief system, so if it's important to you to believe they are irrelevant or meaningless, I will happily defend your right to that belief.
I will also be happy to risk my long and well-established credentials on the validity of my evaluation - I've been doing that several times a week for a good many decades.
Do you have anything on-topic to contribute, as in your own experiences with home defense 9mm ammunition?
|
Well,then Marty,I will eagerly await the release of your findings,and please announce to us on this forum when this i nformation will be available.
I have some personal experience with these things,but I do not wish to recall them.
I was,myself,a criime scene investigator for several years,and I will say that I have seen some people survive multiple wounds,and some others who died from wounds that should not have been fatal. This all occured before we had the benefit of the technology that we have now,and no load in any caliber even approached the efficiency of what is available today. Watching and photographing post mortem exams in an official capacity taught me a lot about what is required from a handgun bullet,and how bullets perform in the human anatomy.
I am still a student of this subject,and will be for some time to come. I doubt we will ever know it all.
This is a hugely encompassing subject,and requires years to arrive at logical conclusions simply due to the variables and the dynamics involved with individual gunfights.
We know more now than ever before,and we will continue to learn more with the passage of time,and even newer developments.
These studies are all about keeping good people alive.
I wish you the best in your endeavors into this subject.
|
02-01-2012, 12:27 PM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 51
Likes: 4
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by martywinston
"... But this is America, and no one has any right to challenge any other person's belief system.."
|
This is America, and everyone has every right to challenge another's "belief system." Whether those challenges would be viewed as "politically incorrrect" or just rude is another issue entirely.
|
02-01-2012, 12:29 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Novelty (Geauga Cty) OH
Posts: 96
Likes: 7
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Stu -
Your empirical experience does indeed represent a vastly more complex set of circumstances than those for which I'll be testing.
I admire and endorse your continuing attention to such details. And I freely admit that they represent a much broader spectrum of conditions than I would ever attempt in any one test.
Further, I share a degree of awe and wonder at the amazing engineering improvements that are appearing in new ammunition products.
Please never hesitate to challenge me - but please also understand when I place limits on how much I'm willing at any point to disclose.
|
02-01-2012, 12:32 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Novelty (Geauga Cty) OH
Posts: 96
Likes: 7
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nosreme
This is America, and everyone has every right to challenge another's "belief system." Whether those challenges would be viewed as "politically incorrrect" or just rude is another issue entirely.
|
I'll let others address the tipping points between freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
I'm just trying to address ammunition.
|
02-01-2012, 04:27 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Northwest Georgia
Posts: 832
Likes: 276
Liked 335 Times in 182 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by martywinston
Stu -
Your empirical experience does indeed represent a vastly more complex set of circumstances than those for which I'll be testing.
I admire and endorse your continuing attention to such details. And I freely admit that they represent a much broader spectrum of conditions than I would ever attempt in any one test.
Further, I share a degree of awe and wonder at the amazing engineering improvements that are appearing in new ammunition products.
Please never hesitate to challenge me - but please also understand when I place limits on how much I'm willing at any point to disclose.
|
Thank you,Marty. I would simply suggest that you take a look at the FBI's own testing results as well as the opinions,test results,and transcripts of Dr Martin Fackler and others at the International Wound Ballistics Assiciation.
Also include Dr.Gary Robert's testing in your review. These can serve you well as guidelines for your own testing,and can only be of help to you in this rather large pilgrimage that you are undertaking.And,once again,best of luck with your endeavors.
|
02-01-2012, 04:49 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 466
Likes: 2
Liked 39 Times in 29 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by StatesRightist
You mention Hornady Critical Defense, I would suggest you take a look at it's results in 4 layer gel, they are not inspiring, I would not carry it. I bought some when it first came out thanks to industry/press hype only to find out it was all show and no go.
Have you looked at Doc Roberts FBI Gel results?
Best Choices for Self Defense Ammo
There is a short list of rounds that do well in gel results for 4 layer denim at the above link.
Check out Evan Marshall's findings as well, they are based on actual real world shooting results.
Based on that and my own personal and LEO experience there are not but a few rounds that combine real world success and Gel results that I would carry personally.
The 124 +p and 127 +p+ Winchester Ranger rounds, Ranger T and the Bonded are each a little better than the other in certain aspects. The bonded are better for barriers and the T for expansion.
Speer Gold Dot 124 gr +p rounds, the most street proven round.
The Corbon DPX offering
Any Federal HST offerings, the hydra shoks etc are older inferior rounds.
That would be about all I would carry, with one exception.
The Speer Gold Dot Short Barrel 124gr +P is a fantastic load for under 4 inch barrel pistols, the round is designed to expand at lower velocities and still has fantastic penetration.
That's my opinion, you can value it as you like, I am not representing myself as an expert.
|
If I'm reading the test results correctly, the first box of Hornaday Critical Defense .38 didn't do very well but two later boxes (1 standard, 1 +p) did as well as the Corbon and Gold Speer. This is what is shown under the discussion of manufacturers.
|
02-01-2012, 05:03 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North-Central Texas
Posts: 278
Likes: 57
Liked 161 Times in 66 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by StatesRightist
I have no issue with your disagreeing with their findings, as my post said, there is a statistical basis for it. I do take exception to your personal attack on the authors as I do not see how you can ascribe motives to another person. Have you ever even met one of them? I find it particularly egregious since one of them is undergoing chemo for cancer right now. If you want to call people con artists that you do not know or have all the facts on, it's on you.
Personally, I think debating findings is acceptable and debate is good, bashing two guys integrity, who from what I can tell only sin was not being knowledgeable statisticians and research scientists is flat out wrong.
|
Whether a man is Christian in his beliefs or is being treated for cancer matters not. You are attempting to elicit sympathy for one of the perpetrators of one of the most bogus "studies" to have ever taken place. Having had private correspondence with Mr Marshall in the past, and found him to be a nice man, I do wish him a return to health, but its not really germane. You dont like me using the word hoax, but the truth of the matter is that is exactly what Marshall&Sanow findings were/are. So are the supposed Strasbourg goat tests that they "may have or may not have" taken a part in.
Sir, I know the facts. It doesnt matter what their intentions were, they deceived the shooting public. When called on their wholly inaccurate data and falsehoods as early as the late 80's, they continued to use said inaccurate data and falsehoods. Why? Commitment to preconceived notions, the inability to admit truth, arrogance, profit, take your pick. It matters not which one you pick, any of them is an integrity issue at its very core.
I challenge you to read any of the links I provided you recently, and tell me you cannot see a pattern of dishonesty on their part.
|
02-01-2012, 05:13 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North-Central Texas
Posts: 278
Likes: 57
Liked 161 Times in 66 Posts
|
|
Marty, as I've said previously. You simply cannot have the best of both worlds in regards to necessary bullet penetration in human flesh, and reduced penetration in something as weak as standard sheetrock. Its impossible.
Also, consider that one of the FBI-FTU protocols for service pistol caliber performance is sheetrock/wallboard. The bullet must penetrate to the minimum acceptable depth in flesh, and still expand, after encountering sheetrock/wallboard.
Expansion, or "bloom" as you call it is not designed to stop in a human. That is an ancillary benefit of a JHP. Expansion is designed to increase the Permanent Crush Cavity(PCC), aka the flesh that is crushed and cut by the bullet, thus giving the shooter a better chance at incapacitation. Crushed flesh bleeds, cut flesh bleeds much more. More blood loss is always better than less because it leads to faster incapacitation.
|
02-01-2012, 05:20 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North-Central Texas
Posts: 278
Likes: 57
Liked 161 Times in 66 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by russp1
If I'm reading the test results correctly, the first box of Hornaday Critical Defense .38 didn't do very well but two later boxes (1 standard, 1 +p) did as well as the Corbon and Gold Speer. This is what is shown under the discussion of manufacturers.
|
That is correct. Good on you for noticing!
|
02-01-2012, 05:27 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Novelty (Geauga Cty) OH
Posts: 96
Likes: 7
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElectroMotive
Marty, as I've said previously. You simply cannot have the best of both worlds in regards to necessary bullet penetration in human flesh, and reduced penetration in something as weak as standard sheetrock.
|
I'm pretty sure I conceded your point earlier - my intention was never to have a wall stop or slow a bullet until after the bullet had first done its job - and it is the most disposable of my criteria.
Consider CorBon DXP versus their standard JHP - or Hornady Critical Duty versus Critical Defense - just 2 examples. In each case, the first product is positioned as one that will cut through barriers like walls, doors or windshields while the second is only about whatever synonym anybody wants to use for what we all really mean by "stopping power".
There are certainly times when a shooter wants a bullet to tunnel through everything in the way and get to a bad guy, but in a purely home protection scenario, I don't see that as a priority. If you can't get the bad guy to just cut and run then he still presents a threat and you have to stop him. Once he cuts and runs, you don't need (or want) to gun him down.
But - as multiply noted on these many pages - what it takes to stop any particular bad guy can span a spectrum of attributes, many as a direct result of his own size, shape and attitude (among other things).
So I've narrowed my request here - and in deference to that not coming under everybody's notice - I'll restate it here.
For 9mm Luger 9x19 ammunition in semi-automatic pistols and considering only its use in a home defense context, I would like to hear about any personal experience with specific ammo types that leads you to recommend either for or against it - including such elements as its ability to penetrate a blocking forearm, its ability to penetrate thick clothing and, to whatever extent possible, reducing the likelihood that after doing its job it will go visit the neighbors to produce unintended damage.
|
02-01-2012, 05:30 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North-Central Texas
Posts: 278
Likes: 57
Liked 161 Times in 66 Posts
|
|
My apologies, I failed to address this paragraph in a previous post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StatesRightist
4. The most realistic gel studies I've seen are the ones, some of which are on BrassCatcher, are the ones which use not only clothing, but simulated bone matter before the gel. There clearly is a difference in rounds/calibers in these studies.
|
The problem with using bones in properly calibrated ballistic gelatin (ordnance grade) is that once something dies, its bones immediately begin to get fragile. Also, bones offer variables which is impossible to replicate. Things like angle, expansion, bone rigidity, thickness, calcium levels, etc. We are talking millions of variables for one bullet in simple bare gelatin testing with one round. Imagine the logistics of doing it over the entire FBI-FTU Protocol, and then doing it with dozens of different bullets.
Truth be told, few service caliber bullets have problems with bone. Having killed large feal hogs with 9mm (147gr Speer Gold Dot, and my daily carry of 147gr Winchester Ranger Talon), bone is not an issue and is easily defeated.
Google: Gene Wolfberg San Diego shootings and ballistic gelatin comparisons. His article is bound to pop up.
|
02-01-2012, 05:50 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North-Central Texas
Posts: 278
Likes: 57
Liked 161 Times in 66 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by martywinston
I'm pretty sure I conceded your point earlier - my intention was never to have a wall stop or slow a bullet until after the bullet had first done its job - and it is the most disposable of my criteria.
|
Having read your initial post, this was what you were looking for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by martywinston
Consider CorBon DXP versus their standard JHP - or Hornady Critical Duty versus Critical Defense - just 2 examples. In each case, the first product is positioned as one that will cut through barriers like walls, doors or windshields while the second is only about whatever synonym anybody wants to use for what we all really mean by "stopping power".
|
What something is designed for, and what it actually does in independent testing are two very different things.
The Corbon DPX is CB's attempt to finally have a bullet that meets the FBI-FTU protocol. Their standard JHP, which is usually a Sierra JHP, had no requirements by them. In testing they were shown to be sub-par bullets. They relied, as they do know, on Foot Pounds Energy (FPE) which means nothing in terms of wounding.
As for Hornady's ammunition, its not really ready for discussion as Critical Duty has yet to be tested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by martywinston
There are certainly times when a shooter wants a bullet to tunnel through everything in the way and get to a bad guy, but in a purely home protection scenario, I don't see that as a priority. If you can't get the bad guy to just cut and run then he still presents a threat and you have to stop him. Once he cuts and runs, you don't need (or want) to gun him down.
|
I would much rather the badguy, or badguys, flee without me having to fire a shot. That said, in a home defense shooting, as with any self defense shooting, the defender doesnt have the luxury of knowing what his opponent(s) will or wont do. Whether we like it or not, the badguy(s) does have a say in what goes down. Will the badguy(s) stay and duke it out, or will they run. A person can throw out percentages, but if we lived off of percentages we wouldnt own a gun for defense, or wear a seatbelt. Thats why prepare for the worst, and hope for the best. Its a cliche, no doubt, buts its still truth. Its better to have the most capable round in your firearm at all times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by martywinston
But - as multiply noted on these many pages - what it takes to stop any particular bad guy can span a spectrum of attributes, many as a direct result of his own size, shape and attitude (among other things).
|
Agreed. That said it isnt just the bad guys physical structure that one should be concerned with. Outside influences such as narcotics or alcohol can play a very large factor. Naturally occurring influences such as adrenaline, will, or mental deficiency also can make an opponent that much more difficult.
Quote:
Originally Posted by martywinston
So I've narrowed my request here - and in deference to that not coming under everybody's notice - I'll restate it here.
For 9mm Luger 9x19 ammunition in semi-automatic pistols and considering only its use in a home defense context, I would like to hear about any personal experience with specific ammo types that leads you to recommend either for or against it - including such elements as its ability to penetrate a blocking forearm, its ability to penetrate thick clothing and, to whatever extent possible, reducing the likelihood that after doing its job it will go visit the neighbors to produce unintended damage.
|
It must penetrate deeply. Deep enough to destroy the Central nervous System, or at the very least disrupt it. It must have expansion, no matter the barrier. The desire for such a round will cause over-penetration to be a risk should I miss the target (assuming my house doesnt contain the bullet). Its a balancing act one must be willing to make if they choose to use a pistol for home defense.
I use 147gr Winchester Ranger Talon (product code RA9T) in ALL of my 9mms. In .45acp I have moved to the 230gr Federal HST. That said, my first line of defense is an AR loaded with 28rds of Black Hills 77gr SMKs.
|
02-01-2012, 07:16 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Northwest Georgia
Posts: 832
Likes: 276
Liked 335 Times in 182 Posts
|
|
ElectroMotive,good choices on your part in all those weapons. I've been carrying the 147 HST's lately,but have a supply of the RA9T and used them for many years.Very consistent load.
In the testing that I did a few years ago,I was extremely impressed with the 230gr.HST's from a full size and compact 1911. Great expansion.Reminded me of my wife's cathead biscuits.
|
02-01-2012, 11:50 PM
|
Banned
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 2,026
Liked 1,451 Times in 555 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by russp1
If I'm reading the test results correctly, the first box of Hornaday Critical Defense .38 didn't do very well but two later boxes (1 standard, 1 +p) did as well as the Corbon and Gold Speer. This is what is shown under the discussion of manufacturers.
|
It would depends on what you call well. Here is my issue, but you are free to carry whatever you like.
It did not make the recommended list. The reason being it fails to expand as much as the other rounds. It's fine on penetration, not so good for expansion. Take a look at the expansion numbers in the CDvxDPXvsGDot test and make up your own mind. It's up to you, I carry what makes sense to me.
|
02-01-2012, 11:58 PM
|
Banned
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 2,026
Liked 1,451 Times in 555 Posts
|
|
I'm good with Rangers, HST's, nothing wrong with those loads. I used to be strictly a Ranger man, but HST's results are hard to ignore.
|
02-05-2012, 04:55 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,629
Likes: 1,813
Liked 5,384 Times in 2,711 Posts
|
|
BTW, if anyone wants to watch gelatin tests in real time, go to the Speer Ammunition website, select the Law Enforcement tab and then Wound Ballistics. They also have archived video where other than Speer/Federal may be tested if you want comparisons. Unfortunately, they don't list what others are tested, if any, you have to watch the individual archived videos.
|
02-08-2012, 09:10 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Omaha Nebraska
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 4 Posts
|
|
Hornady "Zombie" ammo.
Just got home with some 380 and 9mm from the
local Cabella's. instructions are on the back of each box for identification of a Zombie.
however it doesn't say just when or what time of day or night one is most likely to find one. any thoughts or advice greatly appreciated.
john
|
02-09-2012, 07:32 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North-Central Texas
Posts: 278
Likes: 57
Liked 161 Times in 66 Posts
|
|
Zombies are 24/7-365.
|
|
|
Tags
|
1911, 223, 22lr, 380, 45acp, 629, carbine, cartridge, ccw, concealed, hornady, idpa, leather, military, model 625, polymer, projectiles, remington, sig arms, silvertips, smith-wessonforum.com, snubby, tactical, trooper, winchester |
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|