Editor asks: 9mm ammo for home protection

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:
nosreme said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
nosreme said:
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.
Click to expand...

Same thought I had, take a look at the publication this "editor" writes for.
 
ElectroMotive said:
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
Click to expand...
+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
 
retarmyaviator said:
Same thought I had, take a look at the publication this "editor" writes for.
Click to expand...

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?
 
martywinston said:
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?
Click to expand...
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:
Stu Honea said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
nosreme said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Stu Honea said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ElectroMotive said:
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.
Click to expand...


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 a moderator:
martywinston said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Stu Honea said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
StatesRightist said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
martywinston said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
martywinston said:
"... But this is America, and no one has any right to challenge any other person's belief system.."
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
nosreme said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'll let others address the tipping points between freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

I'm just trying to address ammunition.
 
martywinston said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
StatesRightist said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
Hornady .223 Critical Defense
Replies
0
Views
498
WR Moore
W
N
.223 55 gr. JSP for home defense?
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Bald1
Bald1
P
Federal 380 ammo
Replies
12
Views
725
STORMINORMAN
S
R
Ammo recommendations for .556/223
Replies
17
Views
829
Yendor357
Y
R
Ammo for Shield EZ 380
Replies
0
Views
275
Redcup
R

Latest posts

Back
Top