Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > Ammunition-Gunsmithing > Ammo
o

Notices

Ammo All Ammo Discussions Go Here


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-13-2016, 08:56 AM
dben002's Avatar
dben002 dben002 is offline
US Veteran
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Triad Area North Carolina
Posts: 1,613
Likes: 1,184
Liked 2,027 Times in 826 Posts
Default Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall

You will probably find if you are of average build that your thickest point is your belly at about 14 inches and your chest area if average will be approx 12 inches thick......

Therefore does it not make sense that if your ammo travels more than 14 inches in ballistic gel and some do go to 16 inches and beyond you are using the wrong ammo as you have shot through the threat and endangered whatever is behind them...be that person or property.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-13-2016, 09:13 AM
-db-'s Avatar
-db- -db- is offline
US Veteran
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MI
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 13,995
Liked 5,918 Times in 1,761 Posts
Default

Take the same yardstick and hold it horizontally at chest level and measure from one armpit to the outside of an arm on the other side of your body.

Need I continue?
__________________
SWHF #448
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-13-2016, 09:16 AM
dben002's Avatar
dben002 dben002 is offline
US Veteran
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Triad Area North Carolina
Posts: 1,613
Likes: 1,184
Liked 2,027 Times in 826 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -db- View Post
Take the same yardstick and hold it horizontally at chest level and measure from one armpit to the outside of an arm on the other side of your body.

Need I continue?
That seem's find IF your target is standing sideways......
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-13-2016, 09:18 AM
-db-'s Avatar
-db- -db- is offline
US Veteran
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MI
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 13,995
Liked 5,918 Times in 1,761 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dben002 View Post
That's seem find IF your target is standing sideways......
Well, if you think a self-defense shooting is always going to be a situation where the adversary is always going to be standing perfectly squared up and facing you, arms to their side, their torso relatively bare or only lightly clothed, I don't know what to tell you.

Hopefully you're beginning to realize this "ammo that penetrates more than so many inches (insert your favorite arbitrary number here) is too dangerous" stuff is bunk.
__________________
SWHF #448

Last edited by -db-; 09-13-2016 at 09:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-13-2016, 09:38 AM
ImprovedModel56Fan ImprovedModel56Fan is offline
US Veteran
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 7,330
Likes: 7,502
Liked 5,556 Times in 2,547 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -db- View Post
Take the same yardstick and hold it horizontally at chest level and measure from one armpit to the outside of an arm on the other side of your body.

Need I continue?
Not on my account. Thank you.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #6  
Old 09-13-2016, 09:41 AM
Arik Arik is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Outside Philadelphia Pa
Posts: 16,601
Likes: 7,342
Liked 17,200 Times in 7,303 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dben002 View Post
You will probably find if you are of average build that your thickest point is your belly at about 14 inches and your chest area if average will be approx 12 inches thick......

Therefore does it not make sense that if your ammo travels more than 14 inches in ballistic gel and some do go to 16 inches and beyond you are using the wrong ammo as you have shot through the threat and endangered whatever is behind them...be that person or property.
Add clothing, body fluid (roughly 70% of your body), bones, fat, organs, muscle.

The 12 inches is considered minimum to cause damage to internal organs.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #7  
Old 09-13-2016, 09:56 AM
tops's Avatar
tops tops is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NC, Yadkin County
Posts: 6,209
Likes: 25,453
Liked 8,521 Times in 3,188 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dben002 View Post

Therefore does it not make sense that if your ammo travels more than 14 inches in ballistic gel and some do go to 16 inches and beyond you are using the wrong ammo as you have shot through the threat and endangered whatever is behind them...be that person or property.
I have never in my 74 years heard of anybody being injured, attacked or in any way molested by a bowl of jello. Shooting into the gel tells you what that bullet does in gel and that is a far cry from what it will do in the real world in a live animal. Larry
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-13-2016, 10:00 AM
Arik Arik is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Outside Philadelphia Pa
Posts: 16,601
Likes: 7,342
Liked 17,200 Times in 7,303 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tops View Post
I have never in my 74 years heard of anybody being injured, attacked or in any way molested by a bowl of jello. Shooting into the gel tells you what that bullet does in gel and that is a far cry from what it will do in the real world in a live animal. Larry
Ballistic gelatin closely simulates the DENSITY and VISCOSITY of human and animal muscle tissue, and is used as a standardized medium for testing the terminal performance.

While ballistic gelatin does not model the structure of the body, including skin and bones, it works fairly well as an approximation of tissue and provides similar performance for most ballistics testing. Ballistic gelatin is used rather than actual muscle tissue due to the ability to carefully control the properties of the gelatin, which allows consistent and reliable comparison of terminal ballistics.

You can always buy a frozen chunk of meat but since no 2 animals will be the same you have no way to standardize the test.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Last edited by Arik; 09-13-2016 at 10:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #9  
Old 09-13-2016, 10:06 AM
bigwheelzip's Avatar
bigwheelzip bigwheelzip is offline
Absent Comrade
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Upstate SC
Posts: 12,990
Likes: 17,229
Liked 41,503 Times in 9,146 Posts
Default

The gel penetration depth most testers seem to "shoot" for is the FBI standard of 12 to 18 inches.
This is a good laymans explanation of why this criteria is used:
Bullet Effectiveness — what’s the big deal about 12″ penetration anyway? | Shooting The Bull
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #10  
Old 09-13-2016, 10:20 AM
Stephanie B's Avatar
Stephanie B Stephanie B is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: SE CT
Posts: 826
Likes: 310
Liked 1,195 Times in 363 Posts
Default

Somewhere I read that skin has the same resistance to bullets as 4" of muscle tissue.

Anyway, what Arik said is correct: Ballistic gel is a soft-tissue simulant. It is not equivalent to the same depth of penetration in living adversaries. The researchers have concluded that 12"-18" of ballistic gel penetration is what is necessary in order to be reasonably certain that a bullet will penetrate deeply enough to do what it needs to do.

27 years ago, the FBI concluded that a bullet has to penetrate and break things in order to incapacitate an opponent. I haven't researched it very much, but I've not heard of any major disagreement with that conclusion.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #11  
Old 09-13-2016, 10:36 AM
BAM-BAM BAM-BAM is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: A Burb of the Burgh
Posts: 14,748
Likes: 1,614
Liked 19,850 Times in 8,772 Posts
Default

Ask yourself ..... how much gelatin equals.... a rib; arm or hip bone or a person's femur...


I don't know the answer..... but I'd bet its more than one to one.......

or

what if the bullet has to penetrate some form of "concealment" (not bullet stopping "cover")...... like a pine door frame or a piece of overstuffed furniture.........
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-13-2016, 11:16 AM
dben002's Avatar
dben002 dben002 is offline
US Veteran
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Triad Area North Carolina
Posts: 1,613
Likes: 1,184
Liked 2,027 Times in 826 Posts
Default

Thanks to all commenters....I don't know a whole lot about gel testing but was concerned my new 45 might me "TO MUCH" for
EDC self defense...

Thanks again
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-13-2016, 11:20 AM
Cal44 Cal44 is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,568
Likes: 5,473
Liked 6,418 Times in 1,861 Posts
Default

Plus the bad guy could have anything from a light cotton shirt to a thick leather jacket on.

Plus if the bullet hits a bone, it might not go as far as if it hits only soft tissue.

This whole subject is way more complicated than it seems.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #14  
Old 09-13-2016, 11:25 AM
Arik Arik is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Outside Philadelphia Pa
Posts: 16,601
Likes: 7,342
Liked 17,200 Times in 7,303 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal44 View Post
Plus the bad guy could have anything from a light cotton shirt to a thick leather jacket on.

Plus if the bullet hits a bone, it might not go as far as if it hits only soft tissue.

This whole subject is way more complicated than it seems.
Exactly. Some people are fatter, some stronger, some just have denser muscle.

This was actually a problem in Somalia. The bad guys were too skinny for the 556 round to have any effect

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-13-2016, 12:53 PM
gwpercle's Avatar
gwpercle gwpercle is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Baton Rouge, La.
Posts: 6,838
Likes: 7,394
Liked 8,049 Times in 3,652 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dben002 View Post
Thanks to all commenters....I don't know a whole lot about gel testing but was concerned my new 45 might me "TO MUCH" for
EDC self defense...

Thanks again
I don't believe there is such a thing as "too much" when in a fight for your life.
Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Like Post:
  #16  
Old 09-13-2016, 01:10 PM
ParadiseRoad's Avatar
ParadiseRoad ParadiseRoad is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,774
Likes: 17,025
Liked 39,804 Times in 7,848 Posts
Default

__________________
A Country Boy Can Survive
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #17  
Old 09-13-2016, 01:21 PM
rog8732 rog8732 is offline
US Veteran
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Southern Virginia
Posts: 1,961
Likes: 9,647
Liked 2,427 Times in 1,028 Posts
Default

Alright, start again. Back to the wall,...yard stick, belly pokes out...if these numbers are to be posted anywhere, can I suck in my tum-tum and hold my breath ?
__________________
wanna do right-- not right now
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #18  
Old 09-13-2016, 01:38 PM
Steve912 Steve912 is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 2,444
Likes: 4,172
Liked 2,327 Times in 1,194 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arik View Post
Ballistic gelatin closely simulates the DENSITY and VISCOSITY of human and animal muscle tissue, and is used as a standardized medium for testing

You can always buy a frozen chunk of meat but since no 2 animals will be the same you have no way to standardize the test.
..but the magickal jelly that always is the same--!

Standardized gel testing is good for one thing: comparing bullet behavior in standardized gel. Going beyond that, is venturing into the Land of Pure Conjecture.

For assessing bullet behavior in humans, I much prefer hundreds of evaluations of bullet behavior in...humans.

That said, to remain on topic, I'd stay away from any slug
that penetrated only six inches in gel (Glaser type, Rhino ripper, copper petal rounds, etc.)
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #19  
Old 09-13-2016, 01:41 PM
Arik Arik is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Outside Philadelphia Pa
Posts: 16,601
Likes: 7,342
Liked 17,200 Times in 7,303 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve912 View Post
.

For assessing bullet behavior in humans, I much prefer hundreds of evaluations of bullet behavior in...humans.
Which you can't do because no two people will respond to being shot the same way. And no two people are alike. Kinda hard to see how a bullet performs.

I'm just curious as to why you don't let the FBI know about this? Obviously you figured it out

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-13-2016, 01:49 PM
Steve912 Steve912 is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 2,444
Likes: 4,172
Liked 2,327 Times in 1,194 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arik View Post
Exactly. Some people are fatter, some stronger, some just have denser muscle.

This was actually a problem in Somalia. The bad guys were too skinny for the 556 round to have any effect
Not caused so much by the body stature, as by the stability of the 855 slug. The increase in AR rifling twist-rate (from Stone's design spec, to faster and more slug stability) started way back in the Army's initial trials, and once again when the 855 round was adopted, in the M16A2. Each increase in twist brought a decrease in terminal ballistic performance. If the guys in Mogadishu were built like NFL linemen, it probably wouldn't have made much difference, in bullet effect. I've been told the newer 855(xx) slugs do much to improve on that, from proficient users of both old and new.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-13-2016, 01:59 PM
Steve912 Steve912 is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 2,444
Likes: 4,172
Liked 2,327 Times in 1,194 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arik View Post
Which you can't do because no two people will respond to being shot the same way. And no two people are alike. Kinda hard to see how a bullet performs.

I'm just curious as to why you don't let the FBI know about this? Obviously you figured it out
Ah, the FBI...remember "The Computer Man"?

The FBI insisted the 10mm was the schizzle...till they found the agents couldn't handle the recoil (the upside of that debacle: development of the .40 S&W--but by S&W and Winchester, not the FBI ).

There are studies of how bullets by caliber & design, behave in humans. Some call it 'anecdotal', and therefore, invalid. I say, "Five hundred anecdotes is pretty darn convincing!".

Those studies have been conducted by a couple of guys named Marshall & Sanow.

I'd try explaining it to the FBI...but have you ever tried to tell a lawyer or accountant, how to do something?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-13-2016, 02:04 PM
Steve912 Steve912 is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 2,444
Likes: 4,172
Liked 2,327 Times in 1,194 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tops View Post
Shooting into the gel tells you what that bullet does in gel and that is a far cry from what it will do in the real world in a live animal. Larry
9BPLE is one sterling example of that.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-13-2016, 02:17 PM
Arik Arik is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Outside Philadelphia Pa
Posts: 16,601
Likes: 7,342
Liked 17,200 Times in 7,303 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve912 View Post
Ah, the FBI...remember "The Computer Man"?

The FBI insisted the 10mm was the schizzle...till they found the agents couldn't handle the recoil (the upside of that debacle: development of the .40 S&W--but by S&W and Winchester, not the FBI ).

There are studies of how bullets by caliber & design, behave in humans. Some call it 'anecdotal', and therefore, invalid. I say, "Five hundred anecdotes is pretty darn convincing!".

Those studies have been conducted by a couple of guys named Marshall & Sanow.

I'd try explaining it to the FBI...but have you ever tried to tell a lawyer or accountant, how to do something?
You mean the two guys who data may have been doctored to suit their investment interests?

I wasn't aware lawyers were testing ammo
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Last edited by Arik; 09-13-2016 at 02:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-13-2016, 02:24 PM
Steve912 Steve912 is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 2,444
Likes: 4,172
Liked 2,327 Times in 1,194 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arik View Post
You mean the two guys who data may have been doctored to suit their investment interests?

I wasn't aware lawyers were testing ammo
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Take your choice.

I'll take hundreds of street results over lab theories, any day.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-13-2016, 02:27 PM
mike campbell mike campbell is online now
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 531
Likes: 90
Liked 1,518 Times in 365 Posts
Default

A head is only about 8 inches thick....from any direction.
__________________
Carry.."hope" isn't a strategy
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #26  
Old 09-13-2016, 02:43 PM
BB57's Avatar
BB57 BB57 is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 4,710
Likes: 3,527
Liked 12,557 Times in 3,342 Posts
Default

Well...this took a predictable path.

----

The fact is that the ballistic gelatin fans like the predictability and repeatability of gel tests. Unfortunately, many of them fail to always make the connection that the 12" to 18" penetration distance with at least 1.5X expansion is a range set by the FBI based largely on the real world performance of loads that seem to have worked well in actual field shoots.

In that regard, the field reports are just as important, although the gel fans like to dismiss them as "case studies".

It's true that a single shoot tells you very little. The value of real world field data is in the patterns that emerge in the analysis of a large number of shoots with a number of calibers and loads fired under a wide range of circumstances.

You need the field data to validate the assumptions that are used to guide the gel testing, and you need to the gel testing to get a reasonable comparison of the performance of different loads in different pistols and revolvers.

----

So in essence, it's never a good idea to decide you only need one, and then start bashing the other. To do so suggests a serious level of ignorance of the strengths and limitations of either approach and how they complement each other.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #27  
Old 09-13-2016, 02:51 PM
BB57's Avatar
BB57 BB57 is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 4,710
Likes: 3,527
Liked 12,557 Times in 3,342 Posts
Default

The 12" to 18" FBI standard also assumes some very LEO specific issues.

For example LEOs can and often do fire at fleeing felons, where the aspect angle may be less than ideal. LEOs may also find themselves firing at suspects who have mistaken concealment for cover and are behind an interior wall.

Both are situations where to some degree or another an armed citizen might find them selves hard pressed to demonstrate an imminent threat existed that justified their use of deadly force.

Most armed citizen self defense shoots do in fact occur at short range and with the assailant more or less in a face to face orientation.

Do you need and want 12" of penetration in ballistic gel? Most likely that's a really good idea.

Do you want much more than 12" of penetration in ballistic gel? Probably not. Even from the side, 12" is enough to reach the vitals, and you are not likely to be shooting through windshields, car doors, etc, where the bullet may lose a lot of velocity before it reaches the target.

You definitely don't want or need more than 18" of penetration in ballistic gel. Yes, it's true that the elastic nature of skin tissue gives it an equivalent on exit of about 4" of ballistic gel, but on the average torso, any more than 18' of penetration increases the risk of an over penetrating round passing through and injuring a bystander.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #28  
Old 09-13-2016, 03:18 PM
Steve912 Steve912 is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 2,444
Likes: 4,172
Liked 2,327 Times in 1,194 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BB57 View Post
Well...this took a predictable path.
Like a slug through a block of calibrated gelatin?

I may be hazy, but I do believe the FBI's initial pronouncement (circa 1988 maybe) after Platt-Matix was a duty load must "penetrate a minimum of 18 inches."

As noted, they revised that criteria--based on street results.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-13-2016, 04:35 PM
Duckford Duckford is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 575
Likes: 563
Liked 920 Times in 303 Posts
Default

Marshall and Sannow's works are best used for fire starter or to perhaps level out a table on a very uneven surface, it is pretty well useless for anything else. Terminal ballistics is the science of how bullets do damage and stop, or fail to stop, attacks, and effects of bullets in various conditions and scenarios are far more useful to us than poorly cobbled together rough statistics. And worthless, poorly defined statistics is Marshall and Sannow's work. With all of their thrown together numbers, we don't get useful context to determine the effectiveness of the round in those scenarios, and the individual incidents are too different to be put together in a similar category in the first place for statistical purposes. M&S don't distinguish between a shot through intestinal track, a shot through the aorta, though the kidney, straight through from the front of the torso, a long angle shot through the torso that failed to get to organs, ect. Every single event they record for first shot to the torso is sloppily, carelessly lumped with each other, the only thing separating the shoots is cartridge load!

If you took M&S's trash and tried to replicate their percentages of one stop shot in real life scenarios, the relevance is non existent. They didn't put together a couple of anecdotes, they threw together cherry picked numbers to create the message they wanted, and even if they did do it right, the information is still too poorly separated scientifically to actually draw a single scientific conclusion. This mass aggregate without proper definition is pointless. Keep in mind, science is cause and effect, correlation is observation to hypothesis, not proof of anything. M&S's work do not, in any way, actually make any scientific or valuable statements to prove any of their theories, ideas, or actually prove any round is better than any other.

I believe Dr. Fackler wrote a very good article about why Marshall and Sannow are complete garbage, and shows why the work is less than relevant, it is misleading.

As for the original subject, I'll plug my own video shamelessly to make a point:


Attackers may not line themselves up in perfect straight angles to you, may not be standing straight up and walking tall at you, or standing still. You may not be standing in your proper shooting stance like you would be at the range or during normal training. Between your stance and the attacker's stance, shot angle can multiply the depth of shot to vitals dramatically, turning a 5 inch shot to a man's heart into a 18 inch shot. As far as pure depth in the human body, 18 inches or even further, especially as an attacker's size is increased in our theory, becomes very real indeed.

Yes, different tissues resist differently. From the old FBI and other works I've seen human skin can range from 2 to 4 inches worth of average muscle or ballistics gel because of its strength and elasticity. A steel pellet that pierces 3 inches into a ballistics gel block may not even pierce someone's skin in a certain situation, meaning that just because something can pierce a block does not necessarily mean it will pierce flesh, or certainly won't pierce that much in a living being. This means that 12 inches in a gel block can easily be less than what we think.

As for peace officer vs. citizen, I think that argument is almost null. Just because police are more likely to get into a gun fight, and can get into more severe gun fights, have to chase after bad guys, ect., does not mean that the realities of a gun fight are different. If a civilian is in a gun fight, it will be no different than if he was a cop, and all the real world laws and physics apply. If your attacker is at an angle and you are shooting at an angle, that doesn't magically change the terminal ballistics and effects of your bullet because you aren't a police officer. A gunfight doesn't get any easier, and the bad guys don't shoot any different, or act any different, because you are a civilian. The same failures a bullet may have for a police officer can very easily happen to a non police officer. Bad guys don't make exceptions, and don't follow magical rules about killing innocent people.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #30  
Old 09-13-2016, 04:39 PM
Lee's Landing Billy Lee's Landing Billy is offline
Banned
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Battery Oaks Range, S.C.
Posts: 1,847
Likes: 5,663
Liked 3,574 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

The stats vary but 60+% of all shots fired by LEs are misses. Is over penetration worse than an air ball? We must each seek our solution, as for me I will take penetration and placement above all else. Over penetration is not even problem B or C or D for me.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #31  
Old 09-13-2016, 04:49 PM
Brasky Brasky is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 665
Likes: 171
Liked 665 Times in 281 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike campbell View Post
A head is only about 8 inches thick....from any direction.
Threat is running at you with a knife on a non-level terrain. You're aiming at the head? Playing call of duty too much?
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-13-2016, 05:52 PM
V0OBWxZS16 V0OBWxZS16 is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 504
Likes: 241
Liked 310 Times in 190 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephanie B View Post
Somewhere I read that skin has the same resistance to bullets as 4" of muscle tissue.
On the exit side only.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tops View Post
I have never in my 74 years heard of anybody being injured, attacked or in any way molested by a bowl of jello. Shooting into the gel tells you what that bullet does in gel and that is a far cry from what it will do in the real world in a live animal. Larry
Properly calibrated ballistic gelatin was designed to correlate well with actual bullet behavior.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dben002 View Post
Thanks to all commenters....I don't know a whole lot about gel testing but was concerned my new 45 might me "TO MUCH" for
EDC self defense...

Thanks again
.45 ACP is not too much on the receiving end.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-13-2016, 05:59 PM
BUFF BUFF is offline
SWCA Member
Absent Comrade
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SLC, Utah
Posts: 5,062
Likes: 739
Liked 3,271 Times in 1,282 Posts
Default

Bullets, especially handgun bullets, very often glance off of the thick, rounded parts of the human skull and the skulls of many animals. Often, they penetrate the skin, encounter the bone at an angle and follow the curvature of the bone around the skull, sometimes exiting the skin on the opposite side of the skull from the entry point. Looks all the world like a through-and-through when the damage is often superficial. I have seen this first hand several times.

Sometimes, the bullet impacting the skull will deflect and not penetrate but will cause a depressed fracture, often sending bone fragments inside the skull through the brain tissue while the bullet goes off in some other direction.

The perfect bullet would penetrate the body completely and run out of energy just after it breaks through the skin on the far side, then dropping to the ground next to the shootee. We will never see that.

It's pretty well impossible to establish rules to govern bullet behavior with more than generalizations. Too much penetration is in my mind preferable to insufficient penetration.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-13-2016, 07:04 PM
Ptarmigan's Avatar
Ptarmigan Ptarmigan is offline
US Veteran
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 200
Likes: 8
Liked 141 Times in 72 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dben002 View Post
you are using the wrong ammo as you have shot through the threat and endangered whatever is behind them...be that person or property.
The number crunchers say that the majority of shots fired in a gunfight, whether from LE or bad guys, actually miss the intended target. So whoever or whatever is behind them is indeed in danger, regardless what the latest wonder bullet will do when fired into ballistic gel.

I'd suggest picking your self defense ammo based on what has the best chance of keeping you alive. If innocents are in your line of fire, you'd better re-think things.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #35  
Old 09-13-2016, 07:33 PM
mike campbell mike campbell is online now
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 531
Likes: 90
Liked 1,518 Times in 365 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brasky View Post
Threat is running at you with a knife on a non-level terrain. You're aiming at the head? Playing call of duty too much?
A man ought to know his limitations. I do.
__________________
Carry.."hope" isn't a strategy
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #36  
Old 09-13-2016, 09:14 PM
gregintenn gregintenn is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lafayette, Tennessee
Posts: 6,926
Likes: 6,833
Liked 8,936 Times in 2,910 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brasky View Post
Threat is running at you with a knife on a non-level terrain. You're aiming at the head? Playing call of duty too much?
Center mass until the threat is eliminated, or you hear a click.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-13-2016, 11:56 PM
model70hunter's Avatar
model70hunter model70hunter is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sante Fe Trail, Kansas
Posts: 5,350
Likes: 14,441
Liked 6,562 Times in 2,597 Posts
Default

Hold a ruler under your arm and your belly is bigger than your chest?

If one cant see his feet until one takes a step can we pass this test and go back to normal programming?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #38  
Old 09-14-2016, 04:14 PM
Kid44 Kid44 is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Kansas City area
Posts: 890
Likes: 0
Liked 740 Times in 368 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tops View Post
I have never in my 74 years heard of anybody being injured, attacked or in any way molested by a bowl of jello. Shooting into the gel tells you what that bullet does in gel and that is a far cry from what it will do in the real world in a live animal. Larry
Thank you Larry, you are exactly right. Ballistic gel is just that, gel. It is not under the influence of anything, it's not trying to kill you and it's not wearing anything, regardless of the weather. While a well placed round of (caliber of your choice) may stop me in my tracks, it may pass through the next guy and he will keep coming at you intent on killing you.
Last time I shot gel it was still gel, it just had a bullet hole in it.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-14-2016, 05:03 PM
dben002's Avatar
dben002 dben002 is offline
US Veteran
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Triad Area North Carolina
Posts: 1,613
Likes: 1,184
Liked 2,027 Times in 826 Posts
Default

Never ceases to amaze me how so many threads try to be taken off into 7 or 8 different directions rather than concentrate on the thread subject...

Intent was to discuss possible overpenetration of certain caliber and weights of ammo (ie 185 45, or some +p+ calibers) in everyday self defense usage.

Thanks to all for all the comments....all appreciated, and yes I did get an education about balistic gel.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-15-2016, 01:15 AM
Kanewpadle's Avatar
Kanewpadle Kanewpadle is offline
US Veteran
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Wrong side of Washington
Posts: 10,174
Likes: 13,010
Liked 17,099 Times in 5,129 Posts
Default

There's a lot to learn. But only if you look in the right place.

Terminal Ballistics
http://www.firearmsid.com/Gelatin/Ba...n%20Report.pdf
http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Fac...small_arms.pdf
Choose your ammo… police style | Backwoods Home Magazine
__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 09-15-2016, 09:24 AM
Steve912 Steve912 is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 2,444
Likes: 4,172
Liked 2,327 Times in 1,194 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanewpadle View Post
There's a lot to learn. But only if you look in the right place.
Agreed

Abstract of link:
"This article reviews published criticisms of several ballistic pressure wave experiments authored by Suneson et al., the Marshall and Sanow "one shot stop" data set, and the Strasbourg goat tests. These published criticisms contain numerous logical and rhetorical fallacies, are generally exaggerated, and fail to convincingly support the overly broad conclusions they contain."

Review of criticisms of ballistic pressure wave experiments, the Strasbourg goat tests, and the Marshall and Sanow data (PDF Download Available)
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09-15-2016, 09:33 AM
2ndAmendmentNut 2ndAmendmentNut is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 668
Likes: 25
Liked 392 Times in 201 Posts
Default

Personally I carry 357cal S&W revolvers. The first two chambers to roll into battery are loaded with Speer's 135gr short barrel load for 38+P. The next 3 or 4 shots are Remington's 158gr load. I hope to never need it, but I figure if I ever do need more than 2 shots I probable need the extra penetration the mags have to offer. The only threats I have ever encountered are feral hogs, it is amazing what a single 38 can do to a good sized pig.

Last edited by 2ndAmendmentNut; 09-15-2016 at 09:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-15-2016, 07:09 PM
Duckford Duckford is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 575
Likes: 563
Liked 920 Times in 303 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve912 View Post
Agreed

Abstract of link:
"This article reviews published criticisms of several ballistic pressure wave experiments authored by Suneson et al., the Marshall and Sanow "one shot stop" data set, and the Strasbourg goat tests. These published criticisms contain numerous logical and rhetorical fallacies, are generally exaggerated, and fail to convincingly support the overly broad conclusions they contain."

Review of criticisms of ballistic pressure wave experiments, the Strasbourg goat tests, and the Marshall and Sanow data (PDF Download Available)
Indeed, this article makes some valid points, however many of them are semantic and are about the tone of the criticism's and the wrong attitude being presented in scientific literature. Much of the article does take time to tear apart the logical fallacies Fackler used, and indeed he uses many, but the article does not address Fackler's valid criticism's of the tests provided. The article does point out negative points in Fackler's work, but avoids actually refuting his points or truly proving the theories that were attacked. It's title is accurate, and it does its job well, but don't take it as proof that Fackler is wrong and everything criticized is right. Exposing a few errors in logic and writing does not refute the facts of the points made.

The effect of shock stopping an attack has some scientific validity, but let's remember that in Suneson the distal hits were made with a high power, high velocity projectile, not a handgun, which means that effects recorded are relevant to projectiles of that nature, and may not be relevant, or as relevant, to lower velocity, lower power handgun projectiles. The pigs being anesthetized meant we could not determine if the distal effects would have incapacitated the pigs, the study only proves that there was distant damage from distal hit trauma. This study, and others like it, may prove there are distant effects from gun shot wounds, but cannot prove A. that it is a mechanism for stopping attacks and B. that it is a reliable and often repeated mechanism of stopping an attack.

Stasbourg tests had some interesting information about theory of pressure and incapacitation, however the tests also did little to show individual handgun rounds as being more or less effective, only having relevance in the general theory of biology and incapacitation. Strasbourg might help you decide which combat handgun load you want to kill goats by shooting the same exact way, but otherwise does not prove much on individual calibers, on human beings, with different angles and shots through different tissues at different depths. Even the pressure and immediate incapacitation correlation proves that even if this effect can cause incapacitation, it is not a reliable and readily reproducable means of stopping an attack. If the phenomona isn't extremely common, and cannot be relied upon to stop an attack, it is of very little use to us.

The criticisms of Fackler's criticism of M&S completely missed the most important part, that shots through the thoracic cavity is such a wide and open spectrum with such wild diversity of quality of shots that the category and resultant statistics are completely worthless. M&S make no difference between a shot straight through the heart of a 110 pound woman and a shot through the side of a 300 pound man's intestinal loop, meaning the most important factor, bullet path and tissues affected, is left out. This does not leave us with statistics that have strong enough parameters to be useful in any way, more important factors than the bullet choice and load are left in, ruining any useful conclusions on the cartridge itself.

M&S don't list why bullets are effective, and also don't list why they failed. If a certain load failed to penetrate deep enough to stop an attack, like the 115 grain 9mm bullet Dove fired during the Miami shootout, it is not included, if a .32 S&W bullet only killed a man fright of being shot gave him a heart attack, it does not list it. We are given zero context to the reason why rounds failed or succeeded, giving us no insight as to what is effective and why. We do not understand the mechanisms and mechanics of why the rounds did what they did, so we cannot determine if the bullet succeeded, if it failed, why, ect., meaning conclusions cannot prove if the round is really good or not, wither it has a failure rate, or under what circumstances it fails or succeeds, ect.

S&W is a load of poor quality bauxite when we need aluminum.

Certainly, your article did list some very real problems with Fackler's writing, but certainly does not discredit his critical responses, nor proved the works he criticized. Saying that someone's work should be discarded outright and all those he opposes are automatically correct is, in itself, a massive logical fallacy.

tl;dr Tissue crushing, blood pressure affects, blood loss, central direct central nervous system hits, are all proven 100% reliable mechanisms' for stopping an attack. Indeed, those things are universal, and if they can be affected, will always work, reliably, and loads designed to work those ends will always work if used correctly. Yes, Suneson and Strasbourg may have made insight into certain theories of distal shock being valid, but they also have never proved that we, in the real world, can rely upon those affects to stop attackers, because they have not been proven to be reliable and 100% reproducable. Indeed, a bullet actually crushing a kidney will have predictable and reproducable affects, and will always make those affects, whereas the traumatic shock stoppages suggested in the studies done are more or less flukes, cannot be predicted, may not happen and give us any advantage, and shifting our bullet and load designs to an affect we may not even get is foolish.

We load out for the stoppages we can guarantee, not for special critical affects that are sporadic and may not be useful.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #44  
Old 09-15-2016, 07:39 PM
Iggy's Avatar
Iggy Iggy is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 10,419
Likes: 10,417
Liked 28,226 Times in 5,272 Posts
Default

Two holes bleed out faster than one. Two bigger holes works even better.
__________________
Eccentric old coot

Last edited by Iggy; 09-15-2016 at 07:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Like Post:
  #45  
Old 09-15-2016, 08:16 PM
ImprovedModel56Fan ImprovedModel56Fan is offline
US Veteran
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 7,330
Likes: 7,502
Liked 5,556 Times in 2,547 Posts
Default

Guys who know how to use knives are snickering at this thread, if they are reading it. They probably aren't reading it.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09-15-2016, 09:38 PM
Boge Boge is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Border
Posts: 426
Likes: 86
Liked 262 Times in 129 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy View Post
Two holes bleed out faster than one. Two bigger holes works even better.
Not really. It's complicated to explain without going into details.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-15-2016, 10:01 PM
Iggy's Avatar
Iggy Iggy is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 10,419
Likes: 10,417
Liked 28,226 Times in 5,272 Posts
Default

LOL, I never timed it but it worked pretty good for me..
__________________
Eccentric old coot
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #48  
Old 09-15-2016, 10:03 PM
shawn mccarver shawn mccarver is offline
SWCA Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,907
Likes: 3,513
Liked 6,728 Times in 2,620 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dben002 View Post
That seem's find IF your target is standing sideways......
Problem number one is that targets rarely "stand" anywhere for very long when in the middle of a gunfight - at least if they do not want to get dead in a hurry.

That said, a side shot might be the only shot you get, or your target might react and start to turn before you get your shot off, or _____ (fill in your scenario here).

You need only read the detailed account of the Miami shootout to see an example where a cartridge designed for penetration of less than the current standard failed, after going through the target's arm, to make it to the heart.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-15-2016, 10:34 PM
Steve912 Steve912 is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 2,444
Likes: 4,172
Liked 2,327 Times in 1,194 Posts
Default

The criticisms of Fackler's criticism of M&S completely missed the most important part, that shots through the thoracic cavity is such a wide and open spectrum with such wild diversity of quality of shots that the category and resultant statistics are completely worthless.

I'd say criticizing the variability in effects between different shots through different human torsos, with the unstated implication that shooting a block of gelatin is a better measure of how humans respond to being shot, is a bit of a stretch. Just a wee tad!

Saying that someone's work should be discarded outright and all those he opposes are automatically correct is, in itself, a massive logical fallacy.

Someone needs to inform the good doctor.

Bottom line, we aren't going to start lining people up to conduct ballistic research, the same way we don't force women to drink alcohol during pregnancy to investigate Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. In situations where ethics, law and/or morals prohibit classic dependent/independent variable research design, the best data comes from examination of existing documented cases (eg, look at kids who show symptoms of FAS, and learn more about the condition).

That's what M&S did.

I don't understand the high emotion demonstrated by their critics. Heck, M&S even tried to link their findings in to gelatin effects--taking the best street performers and trying to see what commonality they might demonstrate in gelatin--calibrating gelatin effects to street performance, if you will. They wanted to find the gelatin performance profile(s) for street-successful rounds--it would enable rapid and convenient assessment of newly introduced rounds, without waiting for collection of data from hundreds of shootings.

Last edited by Steve912; 09-15-2016 at 10:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-15-2016, 10:44 PM
Boge Boge is offline
Member
Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall Put a yardstick under your arm and back up to a wall  
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Border
Posts: 426
Likes: 86
Liked 262 Times in 129 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy View Post
LOL, I never timed it but it worked pretty good for me..
You don't need two holes to divert blood from its intended destination in the body. Whether the blood is leaking into the thoracic cavity or onto the ground makes no difference as the blood is not going to where it is needed thereby leading to suffocation by exsanguination.

Two holes may make tracking a wounded deer easier to track, but it doesn't make it slow down or die any sooner.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wall art - what do you like? JJEH The Lounge 50 08-05-2014 07:40 PM
little off the wall help? locodriver999 The Lounge 3 07-21-2013 09:26 PM
The Wall Iggy The Lounge 19 06-27-2011 02:36 PM
Gun in each hand. Back against the wall in '65! GF The Lounge 17 07-02-2010 11:25 AM
Just a name on the wall... PALADIN85020 The Lounge 21 11-07-2009 03:26 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:27 PM.


Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)