Dan, before you read any further, please accept my apology. I feel that I came across in an overly harsh and blunt way in the above post. I didn't agree with what you said, but I could have been more eloquent. I'm sorry, and also want to say that I appreciate your contributions here especially regarding your personal experience shooting large mammals with handguns.
I have Marshall and Sanow's "Stopping Power" which I think was the last of their several books that came out after "Street Stoppers."
I'm citing the first book
Handgun Stopping Power as to M&S's opinion on frangibles. I have all three books and will reread the third, since it's been a while.
For instance, they included the chapter written by a Border Patrol agent
saying how incapable the 38+P+ 110 gr was for penetration (6" in gel). Yet in the back of the book, the 38+P+ T load was rated at #2 in stopping power from a 4" 38 revolver.
Dan, a few thoughts on this. The first is a question, because I don't know. Did Winchester manufacture the Treasury load? If not, then you're dealing with a different animal. If so, then yes I agree that there is a contradiction between M&S's stats and the author of that chapter, John Jacobs. Why they would include contradictory text is food for thought, you've given me plenty. As far as the 6" penetration in gel goes, my hunch is that the test was conducted using 20% gelatin, as that was the standard until the early nineties IIRC, so penetration should be much shallower than the 10% gel results we're used to seeing today. As a side note I believe that today's bullet technology (think DPX) makes the 110 gr. weight viable even if, for arguments sake, it wasn't then.
They also said the Federal 38+P+ 147gr Hydra was a "spotty performer," yet it had the deepest penetration (13") and largest average diameter in "actual shootings.
I'll look for where they said it was a spotty performer when I reread the book. It could have a lower rating because of bad luck in street shootings, not due to a lesser design. It may have a lower muzzle energy and at .38 +P and +P+ velocities, muzzle energy may be a component of stopping power that rears it's head enough to weigh in. I just don't know.
An interesting side note is that in more than one instance on this forum, people have said that load is extremely accurate. I didn't give it much thought, but figured that Federal must have used a powder and charge that worked very well in the a lot of guns throughout the Hydra-shok line, good engineering. In book #1 M&S pointed out that the Hydra-shok bullet is inherently better balanced because more of the bullet's weight is shifted forward due to having the weight of the post in the hollow cavity where other bullets have nothing. I though you might find that of interest.
They also said in the special 357 Sig chapter that the Glaser Safety Slug at 80grs was an excellent home defense round for the Sig, yet none of the fragments went deeper than 7". And they had just gotten through saying the 6" T load was bad.
Once again I'm curious about the gelatin ratio and whether it was the Glaser Silver, or Blue? Regardless, no two of us on this forum agree all the time, so whether they like Glasers or not, I don't trust the things.
Also, they claim in one chapter that 9mm ball is superior to 45 acp ball.
In another chapter, they say that the military was right to go 45
over 9. I agree- they should stick with the 45 unless they can issue HP.
I'll watch for that too. My understanding is that 9mm FMJ is a better penetrator of certain barriers (think chest pouch full of AK mags) than .45. I've shot the 1911 and the M9. I would rather take the Beretta into battle due to accuracy and capacity. I'm sure we at least agree that a guy stuck on a modern battlefield with only a pistol is in a pretty sticky situation.
Also, there stats were based on hits anywhere in the torso. There is really no way to make a true stat for stopping power like that.
There is no really purely scientific way to measure stopping power where all but one variable are kept the same in test after test. If there is a better way to quantify stopping power, I'm all ears, and I'm sure they would be too. If it could be done we would have far less to discuss here.
A 32 in the heart is better than a 9+P+ in the stomach. Taking any hit in the torso for a number just really doesnt seem like a true indicator to me.
Dan, as I recall you've shot no small number of large animals but, I'm guessing no two shots were ever exactly the same. Nevertheless, you've come to conclusions about what works and what doesn't even if you can't mathmatically quantify your opinion. Once there have been enough shootings with two different loads, it should become clear which one outperforms the other, or that they are fairly equal. Even if one cartridge seems to have stats based on hits that are a little better placed, that may still be valid as it may show that more people shoot that load with more accuracy.
They also claim no difference between SWC and Ball/LRN. Elmer Keith
might beg to differ as well as most who shoot/hunt with a revolver.
A flatnose bullet nocks a bigger hole, end of story.
I agree along with many members of this forum as well as the late Jim Cirillo. He felt that the SWC was an improvement over RNL. There is a reason my wife has wadcutters in her model 60.
That is why, as well as many other reasons, I cant go with their work.
I can respect that. You impress me as being every bit the student of this stuff that I am. We all have to do what we're comfortable with.
On the loads you mentioned, they only recommended the FBI 38 in a snub, not the 4."
In the chart on page 302 (.38 4"), the Federal FBI load was listed at #4 and only 4% behind the #1 load. Rem. is seventh. Winchester isn't listed, probably due to too few shoots.
They advocated how good the 165-185gr 45s were up against the 230 gr. Those weights have penetration problems.
On what do you base the claim that those weights have penetration problems? They are light for caliber, but nothing that I would think proper bullet design couldn't work around.
The 125gr 357 is light for caliber.
I agree. I listed it along with the FBI load and 230 gr. .45 to demonstrate that they don't discriminate against loads that are heavy, or light for caliber.
They also said 9mm 147 is bad. Every other round the FBI cooked up has been superior, why not the 147- even though now many seem to think it is good. I like them and use them for duty rounds when carrying my 226 Sig 9mm. I also still use the 147 38+P+.
At some point a case with limited capacity gives up too much of it as bullet weight goes up. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think 147 gr., although todays better loads in that weight are decent, is too heavy to be optimal, but not ineffective. Slowing the bullet down further like the old subsonics did, is insane. Bullets need enough velocity to expand consistently, and my impression is that the 147 gr. subsonic didn't have enough.
I mean no disrespect, I just like a good debate!
No offense taken. If there were no differing ideas, this forum would be a boring place, and once again I apologize if I came across as a jerk.
Don't squander the chance to learn everything you can while shooting them. Keep notes and test lots of different ammo. Of course you could create your own stopping power stats and really study the effects of the better loads in a given caliber and perhaps get other hunters to work in conjunction with you as they study different loads in different bores. A half dozen guys could learn a lot (and have a ton of fun) if they were somewhat organized.
