View Full Version : JOINT AGENCY BALLISTICS TEST FOR DEFENSIVE HANDGUN AMMUNITION
If you have not read it, a must read doc of extensive formal third party testing of common duty loads, and 5.7. If you don't want to read all the details, caliber summary starts on page 35.
*It appears solid copper is the way to go. I may switch after reading that report.
*Rnds with excess velocity like the 10mm have higher failure rates, and as expected, unlikely to be the best choice
*.45 still appears to be hard to beat. Whether the juice worth the squeeze in reduced capacity, recoil, etc is the Q
* 5.7 (first formal testing I'm aware of for SD handgun) did exhibit some impressive results and very bullet choice dependent and may be a viable choice under some circumstances.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z6gdk_JdqKkYlUHqABWwb8Bh8dK2rHqo/view
Interesting read. Seems the Leigh Defense fluted, all copper projectiles are worth a look
I wrote a whole reply about some of the details on pages 32, 41, and 42, complete with quotes, but my iPhone is a worse word processor than a typewriter from 1992, so I accidentally deleted it. Anyway, $&@% me; just read those pages, and you can probably guess why I was highlighting them.
Excellent read!
Thanks for posting Will.
Interesting read. Seems the Leigh Defense fluted, all copper projectiles are worth a look
Expensive and hard to find, but may be worth it. Barrier blind, most consistent/reliable, biggest PWC.
Only issue with the 5.7 is that the good ammo that makes it worthwhile isn't available to us lowly plebes.
Also, interesting to see that the Underwood Xtreme Defender rounds (the fluted all-copper ones) basically did the best overall of all the ammo tested in the "faster" calibers like 9mm, 357Sig, and 10mm, and even better than the top .45 and .40 rounds. Basically it is THE round to have in the "faster" calibers, perhaps THE best handgun round out of all the ones tested period.
Only issue with the 5.7 is that the good ammo that makes it worthwhile isn't available to us lowly plebes.
Also, interesting to see that the Underwood Xtreme Defender rounds (the fluted all-copper ones) basically did the best overall of all the ammo tested in the "faster" calibers like 9mm, 357Sig, and 10mm, and even better than the top .45 and .40 rounds. Basically it is THE round to have in the "faster" calibers, perhaps THE best handgun round out of all the ones tested period.
I don't believe that's the case and the ammo they were testing is not the "good stuff" us plebs could not get (though many did), but more modern after marker designs sold to consumers.
The Underwood stuff is interesting in that it's effects on PWC velocity dependent for the wounding mechanisms, so what ever projectile has the most velocity.
I'm very skeptical of the Lehigh fluted solids. Their nose design is not intended to produce large wounds, it is borrowed for a pattent for shaped nose penetrators for 105mm tank guns. You also see similar designs in African dangerous game solids. Its designed to stabilize the nose and keep it nose forward, giving deep, straight line penetration. I think the wounding effect of the bullets is exaggerated by the nature of gel. Gel stretches like tissue but it tears much easier than living tissue, causing the cavitation shown in gel. I fear that in living tissue they will act just like expensive flat nosed fmj
I don't believe that's the case and the ammo they were testing is not the "good stuff" us plebs could not get (though many did), but more modern after marker designs sold to consumers.
The Underwood stuff is interesting in that it's effects on PWC velocity dependent for the wounding mechanisms, so what ever projectile has the most velocity.
I have some .380 Penetrator ammo from Underwood (not the Defender one although they look very similar). Haven't shot it yet.
After reading this I went downstairs and verified which round it was once I read your link, then went to Lehigh's site (Underwood used Lehigh bullets in these rounds) and watched a little video on the difference between them. The scallops on the Defender are wider and deeper than on the Penetrator. Defenders are also lighter/faster. The Penetrator in the video was a 9mm 115gr; it went 30+" in gel. The 90gr Defender in 9mm went exactly 18" and the PWC was two or three times the size of the Penetrator's.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnFwr2ycgXk&t=17s
I'm very skeptical of the Lehigh fluted solids. Their nose design is not intended to produce large wounds, it is borrowed for a pattent for shaped nose penetrators for 105mm tank guns. You also see similar designs in African dangerous game solids. Its designed to stabilize the nose and keep it nose forward, giving deep, straight line penetration. I think the wounding effect of the bullets is exaggerated by the nature of gel. Gel stretches like tissue but it tears much easier than living tissue, causing the cavitation shown in gel. I fear that in living tissue they will act just like expensive flat nosed fmj
I don't have a life so I read a good deal of that PDF Will linked. They also tested with two beef briskets, one behind the other. The study claims the PWC from the Defender (not Penetrator), even in less-elastic "flesh", was outstanding.
I read that but at least to me it means nothing because there were no pictures, and processed meat is non analogous to living tissue. Shooting into meat like brisket or ham is more comparable to ballistics gel than it is to living tissue. Dead meat is much less flexible and tears more easily than living tissue. My only experience with the lehigh's is back when they first came out and were the hot new thing, I shot a coyote attacking my dog with a 115gr 9mm xp. It penetrated through both shoulders. The coyote turned around and walked away and found it about 40 yards away, it died surprisingly slowly. The wound was unimpressive and was a clean through and through. the wound was small and didn't do an impressive amount of damage. It broke the first shoulder well, but only put a small hole through both lungs and knicked the heart. I was unimpressive and went back to 147gr hst. My other experience shooting a coyote with 9mm was with a 124gr +p gold dot from a Glock 26. Shot shattered the first shoulder, put an impressive hole in both lungs, and barely passed through the other side. I actually found the bullet on the ground on the other side of the yote. Even though it was only a lung shot, that coyote did a flip, rolled over and died. So ill be sticking with tried and true JHPs
So ill be sticking with tried and true JHPs
Oh yeah, me too, especially since I am heavily invested in them! I just found the observations about a different bullet technology interesting. Who knows, something in that direction might be the future.
I'm very skeptical of the Lehigh fluted solids. Their nose design is not intended to produce large wounds, it is borrowed for a pattent for shaped nose penetrators for 105mm tank guns. You also see similar designs in African dangerous game solids. Its designed to stabilize the nose and keep it nose forward, giving deep, straight line penetration. I think the wounding effect of the bullets is exaggerated by the nature of gel. Gel stretches like tissue but it tears much easier than living tissue, causing the cavitation shown in gel. I fear that in living tissue they will act just like expensive flat nosed fmj
That issue is discussed in the paper BTW.
There are four main subjects involved in stopping power. Shot placement (wound
placement), amount of shots, bullet capability (wound ballistic profile) and the target
being shot.
They're starting with false premises. We'll just ignore the use of the term stopping power, but "bullet capability" can't be ignored as they're defining it, and especially not by how they're measuring it. They define that to include permanent wound cavity, which they're deriving by doing some calculus on gel blocks. Gel is in no way comparable to human tissue. There is not a manmade substance on this planet that can replicate the resilience of living tissue. Nor one that even comes close! The reason gel is relevant is because it's the closest you can get, and being stabilized water it takes a snapshot of how a bullet might behave in a person, not how the bullet will affect said person. It simply acts as a predictor of how a bullet will respond to moving through a fluid, in terms of how it will tumble or expand, fragment, etc. It also allows parallels to be drawn between bullets pulled from gel and ones pulled from people (e.g. a bullet penetrating 18" in gel is unlikely to fully penetrate an average sized male). You can't predict whether a permanent cavity will form, beyond the obvious that you would already know. Measuring the minute differences in cavity size between duty pistol bullets won't predict anything at all, and it is safe to assume that none of them will have any spectacular effect in that regard, making the exercise pointless.
I will give them props for admitting that stretch cavities don't lead to permanent wounds within the scope of this study, but at the same time it just makes it all the more frustrating that they're still measuring the gel cavities and using that data to influence their conclusions, because the cavities they're measuring are a direct result of the stretch cavity in the gel. It seems as if they're not quite clear on the relationship between stretch cavities and the resulting permanent cavities they're measuring, but at the same time it seems they are in fact very aware of how it all works. The only thing I can figure is this was a group effort and everyone got to have his say before someone else edited it all together. The connection they draw between velocity and likelihood of tearing is also false. For example, a shotgun slug is well under 2k fps, and it will definitely leave a nasty hole. I've also seen deer hearts and lungs shot with magnum pistols that were turned into minced meat, with velocities around the speed of sound but muzzle energies approaching 1k ft lbs.
I also have some skepticism regarding the claim that human tissue can't expand fast enough to withstand 2k fps. I have long thought that velocity does trump mass, overall energy being equal, but in looking to prove that I've been unable to. PDW rounds traveling over 2k fps should leave impressive permanent cavities in people and animals, but they don't seem to. I think they're either miscalculating the rate of expansion as it relates to velocity, or underestimating how resilient tissue is, or both. I would also accept that the rounds simply decelerate too fast, which is supported by their argument that higher inertia leads to larger cavities. In any case, you can't count on anything going 2k fps to cavitate, nor can you assume anything going slower won't.
Fear that a bullet will pass through a target body and damage a bystander are
unfounded.
This is pure gold. The FBI standards were made at a time when HPs were very unreliable, and 12-18 inches was the best you could hope for. Now we have better designs that will all stop from 18-20 inches in that 2 inch window. The standard needs to be updated to an average of 18 or maybe even 20 inches with a maximum deviation of plus or minus 1 inch.
Ballistic Ratio (BR) is a mathematical calculation used to compare results from
different tests.
And now we're back to hairpulling frustration. Despite clearly possessing all the facts to come to the obvious conclusion that PWC is beyond meaningless in this test, they're going to do it anyways. I'm beginning to feel like someone involved in this knew their stuff, but was shouted down by someone else who had a preconceived notion about what was best, and designed a test to reach a specific conclusion. I have a sinking feeling that .45 ACP is going to end up looking very favorable...
Animal Tissue with a standard denim barrier. All rounds fired at least 4 times
into Animal Tissue with a denim barrier. Rounds not recovered.
Even recently deceased, yet to be drained of blood tissue rapidly loses its resilience. By the time it's made into brisket and sold at the meat counter, it bears absolutely zero resemblance to living tissue. They could have simply gone hog hunting and gotten some useful data. You would actually be amazed and a little bit disturbed by how similar our physiology is. Even the size distribution is similar to human populations, with the average hog having similar dimensions to an average person (i.e. what penetrates in a hog is likely to penetrate in a human, too). What's more, the average hog in the wild is akin to a body builder in terms of composition and density, so if it works in the hog then you can bet it's going to work in super thug.
Cow brisket closely
represents human muscle tissue and organs. It is a compressible realistic consistent
media.
Yes, when it's alive!!! Not drained of blood, butchered, and sitting in a meat locker for days, weeks, or months on end. And especially not after being frozen and thawed.
Gel is a fluid and is non-compressible unlike human material.
Temporary Stretch Cavity does not represent any damaged or destroyed material.
Again, it's like someone had a clue and got outvoted when designing the test methods. They're literally saying that the measurements they're taking for their data are irrelevant. Anything beyond an icepick hole in gel is 100% due to the stretch cavity. If they were genuinely not measuring anything related to the stretch cavity, then the penetration depth alone would dictate their values for PWC, and for all calibers.
Take a look at the photo below. The icepick trail at the end is what a PWC looks like when no stretch cavity damage is at play. All the damage you see that's greater than that in the beginning is 100% due to tearing from the stretch cavity. This is even more dramatic in human tissue because it's far more resilient. It's like someone thinks bullets punch holes in tissue like they would something non water based. Let's put it this way. People get impaled by large rebar, pipes, etc. on a regular basis, and when they pull it out the hole does NOT in any way suggest that they were just run through with a giant cylinder. Aside from the entrance hole in the skin, a stab wound from a large piece of rebar is going to resemble one from an icepick.
It's like stretching a rubber band. Doesn't matter how far you stretch it, unless you stretch it far enough to break it. If you don't, it will just rebound to its previous shape. That's why minute differences in pistol bullets don't matter, because they all fall short by a wide margin of breaking the rubber band, so to speak. It's an all or nothing proposition. It either does or doesn't, there's no in between.
65449
In each caliber tested the FMJ rounds produced the smallest Permanent Wound
Cavity size.
If they redid this test on living hogs, they would find the differences to be irrelevant, and only present in the first few inches at that.
Overall if extremely deep penetration and barrier performance is important while
small diameter wounding is acceptable on your agency criteria list as it was for a
couple of the involved groups then FMJs are a logical choice.
Those two agencies obviously have some smart people working for them!
The solid copper rounds available in 9mm present some of the best bullets available
in this caliber. The jump in performance and wounding capability between hollow
points and solid copper is the largest of any caliber.
By their own admission they can't know this, because they have no way of knowing if those differences would be present in actual living tissue. For all they know, both would look identical, and that is indeed the most likely conclusion supported by the known facts. In real life, these probably wouldn't perform any differently than FMJ, and cost 5-10 times as much. Agencies would be better served by using FMJs and using the savings to train more, because shot placement is 99.9% of success. The only time you can ever blame the bullet is if it didn't penetrate far enough. By their own admission, 40% of bullets aren't even hitting the target, so let's improve that by saving money wherever possible and spending it on more range time, vs. spending several dollars per round on a bullet that MIGHT increase PWC by a small fraction of an inch.
The jump in performance, reliability and wounding capability between
hollow points and solid copper rounds is very large.
Ditto. They just restate this over and over without even beginning to offer any tangible justification for spending 10 times as much on ammo.
10mm hollow points tend to have excellent penetration, on par with the 45ACP.
Granted, but 9mm has no problem with penetration until you start artificially limiting it. If overpenetration is the desired outcome, you can simply switch to 9mm FMJ, rather than going to a larger caliber. There are varieties of 9mm that penetrate to any desired depth you could wish for. Now, full house 10mm and .45 ACP +P+ both are bordering on energy levels where permanent cavities do become relevant, but they also come with the recoil of .357 and break guns. Whether that tradeoff is worth it or not is up for debate. For those willing to carry a full size 10mm, maybe. However, there have been cases where high energy rifle rounds have passed within an inch of the heart and didn't incapacitate the shooter enough to make him stop shooting, so I would still say shot placement is 99% of the game, and therefore it would only make sense if you could shoot equally as well with both, and I'm willing to accept that some people probably can.
For us mortals though, tight groups placed fast are the name of the game. Since the heart is a small moving target, statistical probability is very much at play, no matter how good you are. Only a machine could hit a moving target that small with any reliability, so a reduction in felt recoil is a genuine life saver because it allows a person to exercise the same level of shot placement in a shorter time, which is usually the difference between life and death, either because someone is running at you or shooting back.
All agencies that took part in this test agreed that Penetration is the most
important characteristic of projectile wounding.
Between the rounds tested, with the possible exception of some of the 10mm, it's the only thing that matters.
That issue is discussed in the paper BTW.
They address it in word but don't do much test it. Shooting store bought briskets is not living tissue
Exactly who supposedly wrote this?
I don't see any Law Enforcement agencies testing Underwood or Fort Scott ammo and including it in a report.
Exactly who supposedly wrote this?
I don't see any Law Enforcement agencies testing Underwood or Fort Scott ammo and including it in a report.
I could see a foreword thinking agency or two putting together a test of Lehigh bullets. I remember sitting in on an agency testing fort Scott rifle rounds a year ago. According to the report its the sanitized civilian copy so maybe they removed the names of the agencies involved
vicious_cb
03-20-21, 21:33
beef briskets
What!? No fruits and vegetables like that guy on youtube? This "test" is too heavily biased towards the carnivore diet. We need to see how bullets perform against a balanced diet.
I have some .380 Penetrator ammo from Underwood (not the Defender one although they look very similar). Haven't shot it yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnFwr2ycgXk&t=17s
Thats probably the only use for these "propeller" bullets is in pocket guns when your other choices are FMJ or poorly expanding XTP bullets. Personally I'd still go for the XTP bullet. You would be stupid to use a "propeller" bullet in a proper service caliber. Hell, the petals on an expanded HP probably cause more propeller like temporary stretch cavity than the actual "propeller" bullet.
What!? No fruits and vegetables like that guy on youtube? This "test" is too heavily biased towards the carnivore diet. We need to see how bullets perform against a balanced diet.
I'm going to postulate that a block of silky tofu is probably ballistically identical to the average Antifa member.
vicious_cb
03-20-21, 21:47
I'm going to postulate that a block of silky tofu is probably ballistically identical to the average Antifa member.
Much more careful bullet selection is advised for defending yourself against Antifa. Early upset and expansion is a must since the lack of muscle mass found on Antifa members can lead to a failure to expand. :rolleyes:
What!? No fruits and vegetables like that guy on youtube? This "test" is too heavily biased towards the carnivore diet. We need to see how bullets perform against a balanced diet.
Thats probably the only use for these "propeller" bullets is in pocket guns when your other choices are FMJ or poorly expanding XTP bullets. Personally I'd still go for the XTP bullet. You would be stupid to use a "propeller" bullet in a proper service caliber. Hell, the petals on an expanded HP probably cause more propeller like temporary stretch cavity than the actual "propeller" bullet.
I think a well-marbled (i.e. fatty) chuck roast would be a closer match to most of American society!
Much more careful bullet selection is advised for defending yourself against Antifa. Early upset and expansion is a must since the lack of muscle mass found on Antifa members can lead to a failure to expand. :rolleyes:
Stocking up on M855 was a bad decision.:(
This alleged "study" smells of an info-mercial for Underwood ammunition.
This alleged "study" smells of an info-mercial for Underwood ammunition.
Strasbourg Part Deux?
Interesting reading. Maybe carrying a 1911 when wearing cold weather clothing is the norm is not outdated after all.
Interesting reading. Maybe carrying a 1911 when wearing cold weather clothing is the norm is not outdated after all.
Oh no it most certainly is outdated. Theres no reason to switch to 45 because it may not expand. People who perpetuate this myth just know nothing about modern ballistics and bullet design
I remember discussing this on a professional oriented Facebook page when it first came out. After some digging it was found to be basically an advertisement from some of the ammo companies thinly disguised as an official LE test.
This alleged "study" smells of an info-mercial for Underwood ammunition.
Strasbourg Part Deux?
That was my impression upon reading it. Strasbourg Part Deux by people who are closet Marshall-Sanow believers.
From the last section of the paper:
People involved in this 2016-17 Joint Agency Ballistics Test For Defensive
Handgun Ammunition came from the Department of Defense, Department of
Justice, Marshalls, two Texas State departments, 4 police and Sherriff departments,
2 security firms, 3 local gun stores and 2 training schools. We had 2 companies that
sponsored some of the tests by providing supplies and food. One local grocery store
chain gave great discount on brisket used in Phase 4/5. The tests were accomplished
at 4 outdoor ranges starting in March of 2016 and finishing in October of 2017.
Ammunition was provided by multiple sources ranging from the manufacturers to
gun stores and finally most provided by the agencies involved. No ammunition
manufacturers were allowed to sponsor or attend any test. They were only allowed
to provide ammunition and nothing else.
Note that the paper says the people involved were FROM those agencies and not that the agencies were actually involved in the testing. It also says the thing was compiled by Viper Weapons Training LLC.
That was my impression upon reading it. Strasbourg Part Deux by people who are closet Marshall-Sanow believers.
I wouldn't discard all of their testing numbers/stats (not saying you are), as they had a TON of information. I have both of their books. Back in 1992 until about 2000 or so I was a firm believer; not a Branch-Davidian style devotion, but I thought along those lines as it appeared to be based on solid foundations. As time has gone by and more shooting data is available (including two wars), it is apparent that their "formulas" for success were lacking. Certainly good "theory" and mostly correct, but penetration seems to be an often ignored (or at least given a back seat) aspect of their suggestions. I think DocGKR's stuff is considerably more valid but at least review Marshall and Sanow's data. I'll bet there is a reasonable amount of correlation at some point.
I wouldn't discard all of their testing numbers/stats (not saying you are), as they had a TON of information. I have both of their books. Back in 1992 until about 2000 or so I was a firm believer; not a Branch-Davidian style devotion, but I thought along those lines as it appeared to be based on solid foundations. As time has gone by and more shooting data is available (including two wars), it is apparent that their "formulas" for success were lacking. Certainly good "theory" and mostly correct, but penetration seems to be an often ignored (or at least given a back seat) aspect of their suggestions. I think DocGKR's stuff is considerably more valid but at least review Marshall and Sanow's data. I'll bet there is a reasonable amount of correlation at some point.
Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow articles and books had been debunked as BS decades ago. Their methodology is nonsense and the supposed shooting accounts and their data is bogus.
Many agencies who Marshall and Sanow claim to have gotten their shootings from have come forward and said that not only did they not provide any information to Marshall & Sanow, but that the shootings that Marshall and Sanow attributed to them do not match any of the shootings that they have on record. Credibility of data is key in any study, and Marshall and Sanow have shown that they have none.
Agencies who M&S claimed to get the information from like the RCMP, the NYPD, the LAPD, the LASO, the ISP, the PASP, the DSP, the TDPS, the USMS, the USBP, USINS, the FBI, the DEA, Also the people who M&S claimed to get the information from like the RCMP, the NYPD, the LAPD, the LASO, the ISP, the PASP, the DSP, the TDPS, the USMS, the USBP, USINS, the FBI, the DEA, the San Diego Sheriffs Dept, US Navy Crane center, and the USSS have all previously issued official responses stating specifically that they have not at any time corresponded with either M or S and not one of the shootings in any of the books comes from their files and that M&S have misquoted and misrepresented them in other matters.
The July 1992 Law and Order Magazine has several letters to the editor, as well as a statement by the magazines’ editor, further illustrating the lack of truth and serious errors in the Marshall and Sanow “data”. Several papers have been published in the peer reviewed IWBA “Wound Ballistics Review” which have discussed the lack of credibility of Marshall and Sanow. It was clear in our review and in from the investigations by others that Marshall & Sanow had lied, fabricated data, and did not follow scientific protocols. Their information is fraudulent and meaningless. Please do not stake your life on this garbage.”
In response to Sanow’s criticism of the 9mm WW 147 grain JHP bullet, SGT Mike Dunlap, Rangemaster at Amarillo, TX, PD contacted every department for which Sanow claimed poor results with this bullet in his “anti-subsonic” articles. Mike submitted his results to Law and Order: they showed that Sanow had misrepresented what these departments found.
In the November 1992 issue, Law and Order published three letters contradicting Sanow’s “data” (p. 90). SGT William Porter, head of the Michigan State Police Marksmanship Unit wrote, “I hope that those who read this article will not be influenced by what Sanow wrote about what happened in the Michigan State Police shooting, because it didn’t happen that way.” In a note introducing these letters, Bruce Cameron, Editorial Director of Law and Order wrote, concerning Sanow’s article, “...we do apologize for printing information that has proven to be in error.”
Oh no it most certainly is outdated. Theres no reason to switch to 45 because it may not expand. People who perpetuate this myth just know nothing about modern ballistics and bullet design
I've seen a few people shot with a standard 1911 loaded with 230 JHP and it works. A run of the mill 1911 doesn't have a 15 round magazine capacity, but it works. I select ammunition based on shooting incidents, not laboratory results or studies.
Ed L. brings up some valid points about articles published by Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow. I believe Medical Examiners Michael Graham and Mary Case were quoted in their works and there is some question about whether they were even contacted by Marshall and Sanow.
I've seen a few people shot with a standard 1911 loaded with 230 JHP and it works. A run of the mill 1911 doesn't have a 15 round magazine capacity, but it works. I select ammunition based on shooting incidents, not laboratory results or studies.
Ed L. brings up some valid points about articles published by Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow. I believe Medical Examiners Michael Graham and Mary Case were quoted in their works and there is some question about whether they were even contacted by Marshall and Sanow.
I didn't mean the 1911 design or 45acp is outdated, I own several 1911s and I occasionally carry a g21. I mean the idea that you need to carry FMJ during the winter because hollow points don't expand through heavy clothing is outdated.
Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow articles and books had been debunked as BS decades ago. Their methodology is nonsense and the supposed shooting accounts and their data is bogus.
Many agencies who Marshall and Sanow claim to have gotten their shootings from have come forward and said that not only did they not provide any information to Marshall & Sanow, but that the shootings that Marshall and Sanow attributed to them do not match any of the shootings that they have on record. Credibility of data is key in any study, and Marshall and Sanow have shown that they have none.
Interesting. Did not know this about them.
Also, Marshall & Sanow's methodology is retarded. By their own admission they exclude EVERY situation where one or more rounds were fired and a person was not stopped and thus required more rounds be fired.
What they did is create a formula that claims to calculate one-shot stops but is grossly flawed because it deliberately excludes the most common one-shot failures--all situations where one shot is fired and it fails to stop someone so additional shots need to be fired.
Their one shot stop numbers are meaningless because they do not factor situations when one shot was not enough to stop someone and more shots had to be fired.
Successes are meaningless unless you factor in failures. And Marshall & Sanow's numbers do not factor in a major number of failures, therefore they have no meaning.
Add to that the sources of their data is made up or distorted from the information that was supposedly provided to them and you have complete useless BS. Why do you think gun magazines stopped printing their stopping power articles 25 years ago?
Also, Marshall & Sanow's methodology is retarded. By their own admission they exclude EVERY situation where one or more rounds were fired and a person was not stopped and thus required more rounds be fired.
What they did is create a formula that claims to calculate one-shot stops but is grossly flawed because it deliberately excludes the most common one-shot failures--all situations where one shot is fired and it fails to stop someone so additional shots need to be fired.
Their one shot stop numbers are meaningless because they do not factor situations when one shot was not enough to stop someone and more shots had to be fired.
Successes are meaningless unless you factor in failures. And Marshall & Sanow's numbers do not factor in a major number of failures, therefore they have no meaning.
Add to that the sources of their data is made up or distorted from the information that was supposedly provided to them and you have complete useless BS. Why do you think gun magazines stopped printing their stopping power articles 25 years ago?
I think the term "one shot stop" is by far the most cringeworthy of them all, because it's usually uttered by people who should really know better. It's like using knockdown power and clip in the same sentence to the power of ten.
The one shot stop is like a hole in one. Yes it happens-and yes the skill of the golfer has a lot to do with the odds that it will-but a regulation ball is a regulation ball is a regulation ball. Take any one shot stop on record and there's going to be an airtight argument that it would have been equally successful with any flavor of any of the common duty calibers.
The only one stop shots I have done in my life were with 5.56 or 7.62 NATO, and were head shots.
The only one stop shots I have done in my life were with 5.56 or 7.62 NATO, and were head shots.
Are you Israeli special operations?
Exactly who supposedly wrote this?
I don't see any Law Enforcement agencies testing Underwood or Fort Scott ammo and including it in a report.
The whole doc smells of BS.
Take any one shot stop on record and there's going to be an airtight argument that it would have been equally successful with any flavor of any of the common duty calibers.
Completely agree. Timers and switches - switches are much harder to hit with a handgun.
The whole doc smells of BS.
There's a contact at the end:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are so many agencies and people to credit with the amazing amount of data
that was measured and calculated in this report. So many new things were
accomplished and considered like Ballistic Ratio, consulting of medical
professionals to create the first large scale test using realistic animal tissue as a
primary media and the testing of all four types of ammunition instead of just hollow
points.
People involved in this 2016-17 Joint Agency Ballistics Test For Defensive
Handgun Ammunition came from the Department of Defense, Department of
Justice, Marshalls, two Texas State departments, 4 police and Sherriff departments,
2 security firms, 3 local gun stores and 2 training schools. We had 2 companies that
sponsored some of the tests by providing supplies and food. One local grocery store
chain gave great discount on brisket used in Phase 4/5. The tests were accomplished
at 4 outdoor ranges starting in March of 2016 and finishing in October of 2017.
Ammunition was provided by multiple sources ranging from the manufacturers to
gun stores and finally most provided by the agencies involved. No ammunition
manufacturers were allowed to sponsor or attend any test. They were only allowed
to provide ammunition and nothing else.
The people involved were active, retired and by the end some of the active retired!
Many wished to remain anonymous and it was agreed that two final reports would
be made. One only for the agencies involved and one for general use that would
have all specific agencies, individuals and companies information removed, with the
exception of the company compiling and disseminating the final report. No agency,
company or individual received any financial or gift compensation of any kind for
testing or the report. A very special thanks to all the volunteers who helped set up,
tear down, film, photograph, measure, re-measure, document, calculate and check
all the data. Only through their diligent thorough work could this much accurate
data be generated.
The individual test reports were written by many testers, chapters were written and
reviewed by many and final composition and editing was accomplished by the
training company that provided continuity of testing and scheduling: Viper Weapons
Training LLC.
There are no conclusions in this test. Testing was accomplished only to provide raw
data on a large scale with an enormous sample size on multiple media with 4
predetermined quantifiable grading criteria. Each agency should first determine
which characteristics are important to them in order, before using the data for
ammunition determination or for ballistics training.
A 2019 test is being scheduled to include newer rounds, more direct competitions of
rounds by requested agencies and more tissue dissection data. The same protocols
will be maintained in that test so that comparisons and combined sample sizes may
be accomplished.
A power point presentation is available for any agency wishing to have this report
in that format.
Any agency wanting more information please make a request to
viperweaponstraining@gmail.com
I've never seen an actual agency or government run test paper that had or needed to put in a disclaimer at the end.
Does the FBI handgun ballistics report that cans out a few years ago have a bunch of disclaimers at the end?
There's a contact at the end:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are so many agencies and people to credit with the amazing amount of data
that was measured and calculated in this report. So many new things were
accomplished and considered like Ballistic Ratio, consulting of medical
professionals to create the first large scale test using realistic animal tissue as a
primary media and the testing of all four types of ammunition instead of just hollow
points.
People involved in this 2016-17 Joint Agency Ballistics Test For Defensive
Handgun Ammunition came from the Department of Defense, Department of
Justice, Marshalls, two Texas State departments, 4 police and Sherriff departments,
2 security firms, 3 local gun stores and 2 training schools. We had 2 companies that
sponsored some of the tests by providing supplies and food. One local grocery store
chain gave great discount on brisket used in Phase 4/5. The tests were accomplished
at 4 outdoor ranges starting in March of 2016 and finishing in October of 2017.
Ammunition was provided by multiple sources ranging from the manufacturers to
gun stores and finally most provided by the agencies involved. No ammunition
manufacturers were allowed to sponsor or attend any test. They were only allowed
to provide ammunition and nothing else.
The people involved were active, retired and by the end some of the active retired!
Many wished to remain anonymous and it was agreed that two final reports would
be made. One only for the agencies involved and one for general use that would
have all specific agencies, individuals and companies information removed, with the
exception of the company compiling and disseminating the final report. No agency,
company or individual received any financial or gift compensation of any kind for
testing or the report. A very special thanks to all the volunteers who helped set up,
tear down, film, photograph, measure, re-measure, document, calculate and check
all the data. Only through their diligent thorough work could this much accurate
data be generated.
The individual test reports were written by many testers, chapters were written and
reviewed by many and final composition and editing was accomplished by the
training company that provided continuity of testing and scheduling: Viper Weapons
Training LLC.
There are no conclusions in this test. Testing was accomplished only to provide raw
data on a large scale with an enormous sample size on multiple media with 4
predetermined quantifiable grading criteria. Each agency should first determine
which characteristics are important to them in order, before using the data for
ammunition determination or for ballistics training.
A 2019 test is being scheduled to include newer rounds, more direct competitions of
rounds by requested agencies and more tissue dissection data. The same protocols
will be maintained in that test so that comparisons and combined sample sizes may
be accomplished.
A power point presentation is available for any agency wishing to have this report
in that format.
Any agency wanting more information please make a request to
viperweaponstraining@gmail.com
They have their ways. If you followed the money trail, for example, you might find that an advertising agency put up the funds for the testing.
They have their ways. If you followed the money trail, for example, you might find that an advertising agency put up the funds for the testing.
No doubt they do. Are you aware of something specific to that report or is that a general statement?
No doubt they do. Are you aware of something specific to that report or is that a general statement?
Just in general. They're talking out both sides of their mouths though so it's pretty obvious you have some folks who know what they're talking about forced to adopt test protocols designed to accommodate someone's corporate interests. Basically you can sum it up thusly, "Measuring gel holes is meaningless in real life, but here are some gel hole measurements anyways, but we're not coming to any conclusions to give this the illusion of credibility (BTW, look at those really big gel holes!)."
All you have presented is references to unnamed people and unnamed agencies with questionable boutique ammo. We've seen this all before.
What you are quoting is a bunch of obfuscation and BS designed to impress naïve, gullible people. Obviously in some cases it worked.
There's a contact at the end:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are so many agencies and people to credit with the amazing amount of data that was measured and calculated in this report. So many new things were accomplished and considered like Ballistic Ratio, consulting of medical professionals to create the first large scale test using realistic animal tissue as a primary media and the testing of all four types of ammunition instead of just hollow points.
People involved in this 2016-17 Joint Agency Ballistics Test For Defensive Handgun Ammunition came from the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, Marshalls, two Texas State departments, 4 police and Sherriff departments, 2 security firms, 3 local gun stores and 2 training schools. We had 2 companies that sponsored some of the tests by providing supplies and food. One local grocery store chain gave great discount on brisket used in Phase 4/5. The tests were accomplished at 4 outdoor ranges starting in March of 2016 and finishing in October of 2017.
Ammunition was provided by multiple sources ranging from the manufacturers to gun stores and finally most provided by the agencies involved. No ammunition manufacturers were allowed to sponsor or attend any test. They were only allowed to provide ammunition and nothing else.
The people involved were active, retired and by the end some of the active retired! Many wished to remain anonymous and it was agreed that two final reports would be made. One only for the agencies involved and one for general use that would have all specific agencies, individuals and companies information removed, with the exception of the company compiling and disseminating the final report. No agency,
company or individual received any financial or gift compensation of any kind for testing or the report. A very special thanks to all the volunteers who helped set up,
tear down, film, photograph, measure, re-measure, document, calculate and check all the data. Only through their diligent thorough work could this much accurate
data be generated.
The individual test reports were written by many testers, chapters were written and reviewed by many and final composition and editing was accomplished by the training company that provided continuity of testing and scheduling: Viper Weapons Training LLC.
There are no conclusions in this test. Testing was accomplished only to provide raw data on a large scale with an enormous sample size on multiple media with 4 predetermined quantifiable grading criteria. Each agency should first determine which characteristics are important to them in order, before using the data for ammunition determination or for ballistics training.
A 2019 test is being scheduled to include newer rounds, more direct competitions of rounds by requested agencies and more tissue dissection data. The same protocols will be maintained in that test so that comparisons and combined sample sizes may be accomplished.
A power point presentation is available for any agency wishing to have this report in that format.
Any agency wanting more information please make a request to viperweaponstraining@gmail.com
The paper says that no actaul government agencies were involved, just people from agencies. So why is there a "classified" version of the report?
My guess there isn't for two reasons:
1. Ammo tests of commercially available non military ammo has no reason to be classified
2. Again, no actual government agency is involved, so who is securing the "classified" copy of the report? The training company?
I just carry a 9mm loaded with bonded 124 Gr +P to save myself the trouble of reading studies.
Andy
robbins290
09-27-21, 13:59
I see way too much BS in the data charts.
According to this "document". I should ditch all my CCW ammo in all my calibers to place it with underwood ammo.
This alleged "study" smells of an info-mercial for Underwood ammunition.
Yea, it doesn't pass the smell test. Will disregard.
I see way too much BS in the data charts.
According to this "document". I should ditch all my CCW ammo in all my calibers to place it with underwood ammo.
Surely you're not suggesting that the gun industry is plagued by marketing in the guise of unbiased studies.
Are you Israeli special operations?
In my past.
Surely you're not suggesting that the gun industry is plagued by marketing in the guise of unbiased studies.
Oh yea.
They'd love for everyone to think that 9x19 is the only pistol caliber anyone needs, too.
It costs money having to make those other calibers. ☻
They have their ways. If you followed the money trail, for example, you might find that an advertising agency put up the funds for the testing.
Plenty of ways to pile 3 card monty.
I seem to recall that all that long ago, many 'noted' individuals were thought to be whole heartily against the 9x19 as a 'primary' defensive round. But, just a couple of years into the Bureau's all encompassing industry media blitz at attempting to convince us all how their studies showed the 9 to be the exemplar of what an defensive caliber should be, we now appear to be living in an 9mm world.
Sorry Folks, but in my world, a larger diameter projectile impacting the target will always produce more lasting trauma than an smaller sized projectile, given a relatively similar design & impact velocity. The FBI repeatedly stated that 'most' medical examiners, & or autopsy personnel could not, or had great difficulty in determining an 9mm versus a .45 via examination of the primary crush cavity ? Well, that in itself can be misleading, as human tissue being of an elastic nature, will of course revert back to its original size & configuration, except in some specific circumstances. IMHO, for what it's worth, I firmly believe that the the whole 'lets all use & love the 9x19' media campaign was to show cause as to why the change over was initiated, & in the long run, to save money by both reduced ammunition costs, reduced expense in firearms training, subsequently by less weapons maintenance, due to reduced firearms wear. As we all know, what's at the route of a great many ill advised ventures & schemes, 'money' !!
Sorry Guys, but that's my particular take on this whole issue. However, in closing, I will say that the 9mm, loaded with modern projectiles, can in many scenarios be an effective choice, given proper shot placement of course. And yes, the 9mm does rectify some former training issues when dealing with former, non-profit shooting recruits. The question remains though, to whose benefit ? I always believed that when training someone to shoot, within an Law Enforcement scenario, 'good enough', or well, OK, at least you Qualified, simply doesn't cut it in my book. But, a whole new Generation of Law Enforcement Personnel are growing up believing the '9' is THE caliber of choice. Well, for everyone's sake, I sure hope that they don't find out the hard way why so very many people before them were so adamant as to the the larger calibers 'enhanced' capabilitites !!
Best, dpast32
Special Operations has dabbled in 45 and 40 and cave back to 9mm. I doubt they were influenced by the FBI switch.
Also, in 14+ years as a street cop I haven't seen the "enhanced capabilities" of the bigger duty calibers. What I have seen is the importance of shot placement and penetration.
I have never seen what the Cooper and Taylor and others told me when I was young. I have seen the opposite and it almost killed me.
I watched a video of a guy shooting the Underwood .357 sigLeigh 65 grain out of a 6" Glock and it was kissing on 2300fps, I admit it intrigues me.
I seem to recall that all that long ago, many 'noted' individuals were thought to be whole heartily against the 9x19 as a 'primary' defensive round. But, just a couple of years into the Bureau's all encompassing industry media blitz at attempting to convince us all how their studies showed the 9 to be the exemplar of what an defensive caliber should be, we now appear to be living in an 9mm world.
Sorry Folks, but in my world, a larger diameter projectile impacting the target will always produce more lasting trauma than an smaller sized projectile, given a relatively similar design & impact velocity. The FBI repeatedly stated that 'most' medical examiners, & or autopsy personnel could not, or had great difficulty in determining an 9mm versus a .45 via examination of the primary crush cavity ? Well, that in itself can be misleading, as human tissue being of an elastic nature, will of course revert back to its original size & configuration, except in some specific circumstances. IMHO, for what it's worth, I firmly believe that the the whole 'lets all use & love the 9x19' media campaign was to show cause as to why the change over was initiated, & in the long run, to save money by both reduced ammunition costs, reduced expense in firearms training, subsequently by less weapons maintenance, due to reduced firearms wear. As we all know, what's at the route of a great many ill advised ventures & schemes, 'money' !!
Sorry Guys, but that's my particular take on this whole issue. However, in closing, I will say that the 9mm, loaded with modern projectiles, can in many scenarios be an effective choice, given proper shot placement of course. And yes, the 9mm does rectify some former training issues when dealing with former, non-profit shooting recruits. The question remains though, to whose benefit ? I always believed that when training someone to shoot, within an Law Enforcement scenario, 'good enough', or well, OK, at least you Qualified, simply doesn't cut it in my book. But, a whole new Generation of Law Enforcement Personnel are growing up believing the '9' is THE caliber of choice. Well, for everyone's sake, I sure hope that they don't find out the hard way why so very many people before them were so adamant as to the the larger calibers 'enhanced' capabilitites !!
Best, dpast32
I don't know of anyone viewed as noted/SME on that topic claiming such a thing within the last few decades, if not longer. Any noted person with the creds to claim such a thing you can think of within a decade? It's not that there's no differences, it's more that the differences are so small, and upsided of greater capacity, reduced recoil, etc has the 9mm as the obvious net win. That and the fact all pistols rnds in common duty loads are poor man stoppers and people like Yoni who have shot people with pretty much all of them found the capacity factor was what worked best for goblins. He's written about that multiple times here.
vicious_cb
10-10-21, 16:56
I don't know of anyone viewed as noted/SME on that topic claiming such a thing within the last few decades, if not longer. Any noted person with the creds to claim such a thing you can think of within a decade? It's not that there's no differences, it's more that the differences are so small, and upsided of greater capacity, reduced recoil, etc has the 9mm as the obvious net win. That and the fact all pistols rnds in common duty loads are poor man stoppers and people like Yoni who have shot people with pretty much all of them found the capacity factor was what worked best for goblins. He's written about that multiple times here.
Bingo. No one denies larger calibers make a bigger hole but OIS autopsies show that if you replace a gunshot wound from a 9mm to a .40 or .45 it wouldnt have made a difference. You either hit something important or you dont. 9mm is chosen because its the smallest caliber that will CONSISTENTLY reach the vitals no matter what angle someone gets shot from.
If .380 could consistently reach the heart after passing through a deltoid or outstreched arm I would carry that.
Bingo. No one denies larger calibers make a bigger hole but OIS autopsies show that if you replace a gunshot wound from a 9mm to a .40 or .45 it wouldnt have made a difference. You either hit something important or you dont. 9mm is chosen because its the smallest caliber that will CONSISTENTLY reach the vitals no matter what angle someone gets shot from.
If .380 could consistently reach the heart after passing through a deltoid or outstreched arm I would carry that.
It's basically just the entrance wounds that are different/larger, and that only impacts pathology. It's useful for helping police determine what type of gun was used and that's about it.
I seem to recall that all that long ago, many 'noted' individuals were thought to be whole heartily against the 9x19 as a 'primary' defensive round.
Which SMEs were advising against the 9mm?
9mm is well 9mm, 40S&W is 10mm, 45acp is 11.43mm.
So the difference between 9mm and 45 is 2.43mm, now go look how small that is then some back and tell me you think 2,43mm is a game changer.
It's basically just the entrance wounds that are different/larger, and that only impacts pathology. It's useful for helping police determine what type of gun was used and that's about it.
I've attended my share of autopsies and in most cases the skin stretched back enough that the entrance wound shrunk. It was sometimes easier to see difference in entry wound size based on caliber with hollow points, but not always. In most cases the biggest difference in wound size was due to the angle the projectile hit the person not the caliber. All this of course was with wounds that were not inflicted at contact distance.
9mm is well 9mm, 40S&W is 10mm, 45acp is 11.43mm.
So the difference between 9mm and 45 is 2.43mm, now go look how small that is then some back and tell me you think 2,43mm is a game changer.
The game changer is being able to dump 15+ of them into the goblin vs 8 to stop all hostilities if required. Who did I hear that from? Oh wait, was you!
Full disclosure, I have been so busy trying to rebuild my body post covid. I lost 1.5" from my biceps, my forearms look like tooth picks and my legs lost so much muscle I have a lot of skin loose. So I have not read the whole thread nor the "study".
Here are my thoughts, when dealing with short M16's, it was clear that as the round lost velocity due to distance the ability of the round dropped off a lot. Up close they could still do damage, in some cases substantial in others not so much. Which is the issue with ALL bullets, they don't work the same all the time.
I remember two shots that hit in about the same place on two different guys, that were about the same size and same physical condition. They were both shot about 3" below the elbow, one guy had a small hole at entry and a slightly bigger exit wound. The second guy lost muscle from above where he was hit then down the arm for maybe 4 inches. Plus the bones were trashed.
Why did one guy have a massive wound and the other didn't ?
I don't know.
I used to have a lot of conversations with Jim Cirillo of NYPD stake out fame and like I said the my PCC thread he told me M1 carbine with 125 grain hollow points was the only weapon they used that had a 100% rate of 1 shot stops.
I am convinced that at about 2000 feet per second, we go from iffy power, to power that seems to do a lot more damage to live flesh.
But here is my rules for gun fights.
Tactics- which means being aware of what is around you and have spent so much time training and thinking about gun fights it comes like a flow of water to you. It also means you are on the attack and not receiving end.
Cover- If it isn't over in the first few shots you must move to cover
Shot placement- I don't care what fire arm you are using shot placement wins fights.
Mental grit- Never ever give up
I have won a lot of gun fights using 9mm ball and the above formula. I am not saying this is the best ammo you can get. I will however admit to always have a mag or 2 of hot subgun 9mm ball ammo with me even today so I can shoot through cover with a better chance of success.
I believe if we can achieve the 2000fps out of a small PCC or even a handgun, that has the potential to be a game changer.
9mm is well 9mm, 40S&W is 10mm, 45acp is 11.43mm.
So the difference between 9mm and 45 is 2.43mm, now go look how small that is then some back and tell me you think 2,43mm is a game changer.
Vid from the SME's at Federal on the topic, saying essentially same thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6kUvi72s0Y
Now, someone will ignore that and tell us awesome the .45 is to the 9mm...
I carried a 1911 in 45acp, I had to buy my own ammo. I would down load a Hi Power to 8 rounds in the mag in training to cut cost, then carry the 1911 for real.
The 1911 almost got me killed.
Screw 1911 and 45acp.
Give me lots of tiny little 9mm, 2.43mm smaller. I wonder if a bunch of gun guys know how to measure things.
No baby that really is 7 inches.
So what would you (anyone) rather have for personal time protection same gun same weight; 8 rds of 9x19 fmj (124 gr 1150 fps) or 13 rds of 7.65x17 mm (.32 acp) (73 gr 1000 fps) ?
Just food for thought.
So what would you (anyone) rather have for personal time protection same gun same weight; 8 rds of 9x19 fmj (124 gr 1150 fps) or 13 rds of 7.65x17 mm (.32 acp) (73 gr 1000 fps) ?
Just food for thought.
No thought needed: the 9mm as it meets all the criteria for penetration and expansion, where as the .32 does not. The 9mm continue to be the smallest handgun caliber that reliably meets the criteria. Above the 9mm, in typical duty loads, little is gained and offset by recoil, capacity, size of gun. Hence, again, where all things balanced and accounted for, is the 9mm.
So what would you (anyone) rather have for personal time protection same gun same weight; 8 rds of 9x19 fmj (124 gr 1150 fps) or 13 rds of 7.65x17 mm (.32 acp) (73 gr 1000 fps) ?
Just food for thought.
I cant remember a specific shooting with 32 ACP but from my experience the 380 and below cartridges can exhibit very shallow penetration at times. Also the barrier penetration is lacking. Maybe the 32 hits a sweet spot of sectional density, I dont know. But I do know what 9mm ball round will do and it's definitely not lacking penetration.
No thought needed: the 9mm as it meets all the criteria for penetration and expansion, where as the .32 does not. The 9mm continue to be the smallest handgun caliber that reliably meets the criteria. Above the 9mm, in typical duty loads, little is gained and offset by recoil, capacity, size of gun. Hence, again, where all things balanced and accounted for, is the 9mm.
I'm talking about fmj. .32 does meet the "criteria" for bare and clothed gelatin. I've never seen it tested against wood, steel, etc. though. I don't think .32 would do well vs laminated glass.
As for speed I'm undecided about that myself but I'm going to run a comparison between my Beretta Cheetah and a Hellcat. Maybe a Bill Drill.
I'm talking about fmj. .32 does meet the "criteria" for bare and clothed gelatin. I've never seen it tested against wood, steel, etc. though. I don't think .32 would do well vs laminated glass.
As for speed I'm undecided about that myself but I'm going to run a comparison between my Beretta Cheetah and a Hellcat. Maybe a Bill Drill.
And the advice for anyone considering anything below 9mm, FMJ is what's recommended. But, I'd think most here are focused on modern JHP, and or, some of the newer hybrid stuff such as the Lehigh Defense that appears to test so well. Here's their .32 offering. Maybe it makes the .32 more a viable SD rnd?
https://www.lehighdefense.com/32-auto-50gr-xtreme-cavitator-lead-free-subsonic-defense-handgun-ammo.html
I cant remember a specific shooting with 32 ACP but from my experience the 380 and below cartridges can exhibit very shallow penetration at times. Also the barrier penetration is lacking. Maybe the 32 hits a sweet spot of sectional density, I dont know. But I do know what 9mm ball round will do and it's definitely not lacking penetration.
.32 fmj can give acceptable penetration without barriers if it's a warmer load from a 3.5 + inch barrel.
It can be as hot as a S&B 73 gr round from a Vz61 at @1125 fps, 1000 fps from a Beretta 81, down to Geco fmj from a Kel-tec at 750 fps. Pretty wide range.
I'm using the near best-case performance of .32 vs the worst of 9mm (fmj) I know.
But am i more likely to get hurt if attacked solely because I'm shooting .32 acp instead of a heavier, faster bullet? Maybe?
And the advice for anyone considering anything below 9mm, FMJ is what's recommended. But, I'd think most here are focused on modern JHP, and or, some of the newer hybrid stuff such as the Lehigh Defense that appears to test so well. Here's their .32 offering. Maybe it makes the .32 more a viable SD rnd?
https://www.lehighdefense.com/32-auto-50gr-xtreme-cavitator-lead-free-subsonic-defense-handgun-ammo.html
These look promising:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf-IF1emoJI
And the advice for anyone considering anything below 9mm, FMJ is what's recommended. But, I'd think most here are focused on modern JHP, and or, some of the newer hybrid stuff such as the Lehigh Defense that appears to test so well. Here's their .32 offering. Maybe it makes the .32 more a viable SD rnd?
https://www.lehighdefense.com/32-auto-50gr-xtreme-cavitator-lead-free-subsonic-defense-handgun-ammo.html
I dunno.
925 fps with a 50 gr bullet? I've had older Fiocchi 60 gr JHP approach 1200 fps.
Maybe their velocity is from a Kel-tec or similar?
What I really want is greater holster selection and an optic mount on my Beretta Cheetahs. I'm not sure its possible.
So, I got a Hellcat instead. Haven't fired it yet. So far it doesn't draw from the waist as well (as in smoothly or fast or consistently) as a Cheetah or Ruger LCR. Small grip.
But I'll keep working with it.
I dunno.
925 fps with a 50 gr bullet? I've had older Fiocchi 60 gr JHP approach 1200 fps.
Maybe their velocity is from a Kel-tec or similar?
What I really want is greater holster selection and an optic mount on my Beretta Cheetahs. I'm not sure its possible.
So, I got a Hellcat instead. Haven't fired it yet. So far it doesn't draw from the waist as well (as in smoothly or fast or consistently) as a Cheetah or Ruger LCR. Small grip.
But I'll keep working with it.
But it's about terminal performance vs velocity per se, and those bullets appear to perform well given the limitations. Less recoil from the mouse gun and better terminal performance, sounds like a potential winner there. See vid posted.
.32 fmj can give acceptable penetration without barriers if it's a warmer load from a 3.5 + inch barrel.
It can be as hot as a S&B 73 gr round from a Vz61 at @1125 fps, 1000 fps from a Beretta 81, down to Geco fmj from a Kel-tec at 750 fps. Pretty wide range.
I'm using the near best-case performance of .32 vs the worst of 9mm (fmj) I know.
But am i more likely to get hurt if attacked solely because I'm shooting .32 acp instead of a heavier, faster bullet? Maybe?
When talking about barrier you gotta remember that body parts can act as barriers too. If a guy is shooting at you, his chest is likely being covered by his arms. So you might have to get a bullet through a wrist, hand, or forearm before you even get it to the chest.
A straight on frontal shot will most likely have enough penetration, but how well is a 73 grain bullet going to do against hand or wrist bones?
Again I cant remember a specific 32 ACP shooting Ive investigated but from my experience the rounds start to get iffy at 380 ACP. From my experience 380 FMJ offers adequate penetration most of the time. But I remember a few distinct instances were even FMJ 380 had less than adequate penetration. Maybe a 32 does better but I wouldn't bet money on it.
Another issue is having to rely on FMJ. Im not one of those people that says FMJ doesnt work because Ive seen a lot of people shot with FMJ in pretty much every caliber and it jacks you up. But hollow points offer benefits besides the bigger wound aspect. FMJ ammo seems to deflect more than hollow points do. Ive read theories that the sharp leading edge will "bite" into surfaces while the rounded edged of a FMJ are more likely to skip off or ride around the object. Ive seen deflection like that with hollow points too but it seems to happen more with FMJ and others have reported the same thing.
Im not one of those people that says FMJ doesnt work because Ive seen a lot of people shot with FMJ in pretty much every caliber and it jacks you up.
To steal from your signature: No dude is going to get shot in the chest at 300 yards and look down and say "What is that, a 3 MOA group?"
No dude is going to get shot in the chest with a .32 or .380 and shrug it off because it wasn’t a 9x19 or .45.
Shots on target with adequate penetration end a fight. At some point pistol caliber is an academic exercise and it becomes much more about how well the shooter can rapidly engage and provide follow up shots. The fallacy that someone will get hit with a single .45 and drop (or a 10mm and explode) doesn’t hold a candle to a guy or gal with a .32 who practices regularly. And of course none of it means a thing if people don’t have some sort of situational awareness.
So what would you (anyone) rather have for personal time protection same gun same weight; 8 rds of 9x19 fmj (124 gr 1150 fps) or 13 rds of 7.65x17 mm (.32 acp) (73 gr 1000 fps) ?
Just food for thought.
.32 is just on the very, very edge of the bare minimum horsepower if you get my meaning. It doesn't leave any margin for error. Big dude wearing thick clothes, some light barrier like an interior door or drywall, a hand or arm covering the target, oblique angles, etc. will all pretty much defeat .32 ACP. Even in a straight on, unobstructed gimme scenario, it might fail to penetrate or glance off a rib or something. And that's all in FMJ form. Don't even think about carrying .32 hollow points.
The thing to keep in mind is that people don't just stand there and let you shoot them, and human bodies aren't made out of ballistic gel. They're muscle and bone, and a whole bunch of sinews and intersecting tissue planes. And when confronted with an armed assailant, they reflexively turn their shoulder towards the threat and cover their vitals with their weak hand while shooting back with the strong hand, which just so happens to also be in front of their heart. And naturally they try to duck behind anything available.
9mm only overpenetrates if you're assuming a target standing square to you with their arms down, and no barriers. If assuming all of the above, it's pretty much the bare minimum of what's required to be reliable in the real world.
To steal from your signature: No dude is going to get shot in the chest at 300 yards and look down and say "What is that, a 3 MOA group?"
No dude is going to get shot in the chest with a .32 or .380 and shrug it off because it wasn’t a 9x19 or .45.
Shots on target with adequate penetration end a fight. At some point pistol caliber is an academic exercise and it becomes much more about how well the shooter can rapidly engage and provide follow up shots. The fallacy that someone will get hit with a single .45 and drop (or a 10mm and explode) doesn’t hold a candle to a guy or gal with a .32 who practices regularly. And of course none of it means a thing if people don’t have some sort of situational awareness.
If it doesn't hit something vital they're not even going to realize they've been shot. So yes, given what we know about .32 ballistics, it's very much within the realm of possibility, or even likelihood, that they would be unaffected by it, in terms of their ability to return fire, beat you to death, etc.
I say all this btw as someone who owns a P32, but I only carry it when no other option exists, and I know its limitations. I also carry a good sized pocket knife as backup in such situations, and given the choice between the two, I would choose to forego the P32 in favor of the knife.
To steal from your signature: No dude is going to get shot in the chest at 300 yards and look down and say "What is that, a 3 MOA group?"
No dude is going to get shot in the chest with a .32 or .380 and shrug it off because it wasn’t a 9x19 or .45.
The problem is Ive personally seen the smaller rounds not work in actual shootings. Sure a straight on chest shot they will probably penetrate enough but you dont always get good straight on shots.
I remember one shooting at a bar where a guy took a 380 hollow point in the stomach at arms length distance. The victim was a construction worker so he was in fairly okay shape but had a bit of a beer belly. 6 foot tall and around 190 pounds.
the bullet hit him at a slight angle from the front towards the side. The bullet had okay expansion but stopped after penetrating about 6 inches into his love handle. Only went through skin and fat. Er cut open the skin near the bullet, pulled it out, cleaned thr wound, packed it with medical gauze, and he was out of the hospital in a couple hours.
Ive also seen 380 stop inside forearms after either hitting the bone or going in at an odd angle.
I know these things also happen with the duty calibers but Ive never seen it and Ive seen a lot more people shot with the duty calibers than I have with the "mouse guns". The only time I have seen the duty calibers have little penetration is hitting the bigger bones of the arms and legs or the frontal areas of the skull. Even then the bullet tends to shatter those bones.
Examples. A couple coworkers got into a shootout with a chick and one nailed her in the shoulder from a side profile shot. The 230 +P HST 45 hit the upper part of the humerous right were it attaches to the shoulder. It shattered the bone and the bullet ended up on the other side in the arm pit area. Another coworker got shot in the thigh with a 9mm and it shattered her femur causing her to fall down some stairs and causing a compound fracture. She needed multiple surgeries and months of physical therapy. Another case had a tweeker get shot with a 380 FMJ in the arm. Direct center hit through the bicep which direct hits the humerous and stopped. Broke the bone but not seriously and didnt penetrate through the bone. Didnt even require a tourniquet.
I also have see many failures involving the 9mm short.aka 380.
In Israel a lot of older guys carried 380, 32, and 22, because in the 1950's that was what was available.
I will be blunt, if it is possible I will never carry any of those rounds.
To answer the question that was asked 8 rounds of 9mm or I think it 13 rounds of 32.
Give me 8 rounds of 9mm and a big knife. If they are close and I empty the 9 without killing them them I transition to the knife if need be.
When talking about barrier you gotta remember that body parts can act as barriers too. If a guy is shooting at you, his chest is likely being covered by his arms. So you might have to get a bullet through a wrist, hand, or forearm before you even get it to the chest.
A straight on frontal shot will most likely have enough penetration, but how well is a 73 grain bullet going to do against hand or wrist bones?
Again I cant remember a specific 32 ACP shooting Ive investigated but from my experience the rounds start to get iffy at 380 ACP. From my experience 380 FMJ offers adequate penetration most of the time. But I remember a few distinct instances were even FMJ 380 had less than adequate penetration. Maybe a 32 does better but I wouldn't bet money on it.
Another issue is having to rely on FMJ. Im not one of those people that says FMJ doesnt work because Ive seen a lot of people shot with FMJ in pretty much every caliber and it jacks you up. But hollow points offer benefits besides the bigger wound aspect. FMJ ammo seems to deflect more than hollow points do. Ive read theories that the sharp leading edge will "bite" into surfaces while the rounded edged of a FMJ are more likely to skip off or ride around the object. Ive seen deflection like that with hollow points too but it seems to happen more with FMJ and others have reported the same thing.
This seems accurate to me.
.32 is just on the very, very edge of the bare minimum horsepower if you get my meaning. It doesn't leave any margin for error. Big dude wearing thick clothes, some light barrier like an interior door or drywall, a hand or arm covering the target, oblique angles, etc. will all pretty much defeat .32 ACP. Even in a straight on, unobstructed gimme scenario, it might fail to penetrate or glance off a rib or something. And that's all in FMJ form. Don't even think about carrying .32 hollow points.
The thing to keep in mind is that people don't just stand there and let you shoot them, and human bodies aren't made out of ballistic gel. They're muscle and bone, and a whole bunch of sinews and intersecting tissue planes. And when confronted with an armed assailant, they reflexively turn their shoulder towards the threat and cover their vitals with their weak hand while shooting back with the strong hand, which just so happens to also be in front of their heart. And naturally they try to duck behind anything available.
9mm only overpenetrates if you're assuming a target standing square to you with their arms down, and no barriers. If assuming all of the above, it's pretty much the bare minimum of what's required to be reliable in the real world.
You make excellent points.
I realize most "stops" involving pistol bullets are psychological in nature.
But failing that a bullet that does more penetrating and damage (to put it simply) improves the chance of getting a desirable result.
Equally important is getting rounds on target quickly. I know I can fire 4 to 5 rounds of .32 in the A-zone of my targets compared to 3 or 4 rounds from my Glock 19. (And 8-10 vs 6-8, too)
I'm beginning to think the couple extra rounds may be less desirable than slightly fewer more powerful ones.
I hope I like my new Hellcat. I dont expect it to be as fast a Cheetah or G19. It will probably compare to my M&P 2.0 full size .45 split-time wise.
Took my new Hellcat out and fired about 250 rds. About 70 jhp.
No stoppages.
- Last shot hold open only happened half the time. Not sure if it's the two mags I had, the gun, or if I'm pressing on the lever during firing.
- While I can replicate the lock up pressing the trigger blade to the side it's not an issue while firing and fixable with a small file if it was.
- Recoil is sort of Glock 27-like. After 250 rds my thumb web was about done though not bleeding.
- The biggest problem was my trigger finger getting pinched either on the blade or more likely between the trigger tip and guard. I could tell at 50rds it was happening and by 250 it was a blister and I was done anyway.
- The gun shot high. 6-8 inches at 25 yes with 115 gr fmj and jhp's. Otherwise the sights are very nice. I may file down the rear sight some.
- I only had Wolf left for accuracy testing. Freehand standing 10 rds at 25 yds 7.75 in group. I'll try again with a selection of ammo
I ran a bunch of Bill Drills with the new Hellcat, (loaded with common fmj) LCR .327 (loaded with .32 mag) and a Beretta M81FS. (Fiocchi 73 gr)
None of these have a large grip but the Beretta was the easiest to draw.
All from concealment with AIWB holsters. I disengaged the safety on the Hellcat each time. I never forgot it or missed it. I dont think it added to my times at all but I'll test that another time.
Timed, 7 yds, 6 shots, A-zone hits or it didn't count. I did about 10 with each gun.
The Hellcat was slowest at an average of about 3.75 sec. Its jumpy.
The LCR was a 1/4 second faster. (3.5s) The trigger, while excellent, holds it back. I short stroked it once, immediately after I'd been firing Beretta.
The Beretta 81FS average about 2.65 sec. 😁 Pretty damn fast. I never lose the front sight while firing. The time to the first shot (starting in DA decock position) is about the same as the Hellcat but the split times are fast.
The difference between the .32 and 9mm was more than I expected. In 2.65 s I could put 3 shot of 9mm (3 inch ballistics) or 6 shots of .32 (full length ballistics) in the A-zone.
The Beretta was more accurate at 25 yds with a 5.5 inch 10 shot group but again, I only had Wolf ammo left to get the 7.75 inch group in the Hellcat.
I give the Hellcat a B-minus so far.
Thanks for posting the info. Looks like Fed HST in 9mm 147gr and 40 180gr are still hard to beat. I'm sticking with them since I stockpiled them years ago.
Wow, that is incredibly interesting. It does confirm some notions I had, but at the same time, surprises me with the success of 5.7. As a Fort Scott native, I'm sad, but in no way surprised, by FSM's lackluster performance.
Thanks for posting the info. Looks like Fed HST in 9mm 147gr and 40 180gr are still hard to beat. I'm sticking with them since I stockpiled them years ago.
If one has invested in any of the typical duty loads and using modern JHP, there's none of them demonstrate a large enough difference in terminal ballistics (quite minimal in fact...) to change to another one. I think that's the take home I think.
If you have not read it, a must read doc of extensive formal third party testing of common duty loads, and 5.7. If you don't want to read all the details, caliber summary starts on page 35.
*It appears solid copper is the way to go. I may switch after reading that report.
*Rnds with excess velocity like the 10mm have higher failure rates, and as expected, unlikely to be the best choice
*.45 still appears to be hard to beat. Whether the juice worth the squeeze in reduced capacity, recoil, etc is the Q
* 5.7 (first formal testing I'm aware of for SD handgun) did exhibit some impressive results and very bullet choice dependent and may be a viable choice under some circumstances.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z6gdk_JdqKkYlUHqABWwb8Bh8dK2rHqo/view
Thank you for sharing this, Will.
After my primitive testing I decided to keep the HST /Gold Dot vs. the new high velocity penetration ammo. I looked for reviews on Google and found yours. Small web. Thank you again for the documentation.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.