Effectiveness?

[200RNL]

What inspired this question was......... I was reading an article that referenced the "horrible performance" of early 9mm 147gr loads used by some police agencies.

When talking about handguns, there is mention of bullet 'failure'. Is there any standard definition? I suspect that it sometimes means that a bullet failed to expand or, that it over expanded and produced insufficient penetration. Other times they may be referring to a failure to incpacitate.

How do we know what actually happened when the 'fail' word is used?

[nineteenkilo]

I think it lies in whatever nuance they choose to apply to 'failure'. It might have jammed, failed to establish effective terminal performance, yadda, yadda.

This question brings to mind the argument in the front of the last Nosler reloading manual where an exasperated hunter brings in a spent Partition bullet that he retrieved from the offside of an Elk. He was angry that the weight retention hadn't been what he thought it should be and declared it substandard and not to be used ever again. The bullets 'failure' had been that it stopped inside the animal and had shed some of its weight during entry.

In actuality, the Partition performed exactly as it was designed. It shed a bit of the front portion to enable a more rapid rate of expansion from the tip to the bullets partition. This, in turn, enabled it to dump all of its energy inside the animal where it would do the most damage instead of expending it into the dirt. This is the primary purpose of the Partition bullet according to Nosler.

The 'failure' was simply in the eye of the beholder.

[Keith E.]

I was reading an article that referenced the "horrible performance" of early 9mm 147gr loads used by some police agencies.

Regarding the early use of the 147gr subsonic 9mm in handguns, reports showed the majority of the failures were lack of expansion leading to FMJ type performance along with some firearm malfunctions. With others loadings, depending on the details of each incident/example it could be referring to projectile performance, inability to cycle the firearm, great expectations, etc. as covered by 19k.

Keith

[481]

It is just another iteration of the buzzword "stopping power"- it varies so much in definition that it is meaningless.

What inspired this question was......... I was reading an article that referenced the "horrible performance" of early 9mm 147gr loads used by some police agencies.

When talking about handguns, there is mention of bullet 'failure'. Is there any standard definition? I suspect that it sometimes means that a bullet failed to expand or, that it over expanded and produced insufficient penetration. Other times they may be referring to a failure to incpacitate.

How do we know what actually happened when the 'fail' word is used?

We don't.

"Failure" is just another example of a nebulous term that suffers from a lack of a concrete definition- depends on who is using it and to what aspect of terminal ballistic performance they are applying it.

[200RNL]

The 'failure' was simply in the eye of the beholder.

If a bullet fails to expand but stops the threat, is that a failure. On the other hand, if a bullet expands and penetrates to an adequate depth, but the threat continues, is that a failure? What parameters must be met?

We need to examine all of the facts in order to fairly assess performance. Otherwise, people will be led astray by statements similar to the hunter in your example. Some could be discouraged from using that Nosler but the bullet perfomed as designed and anchored the Elk.

I would just hope that whenever we evaluate performance, all pertinate facts are included. Otherwise, we may lead others to a partially correct and thus partially wrong conclusion.

[tpd223]

I had a friend locally who was worried about the actual performance of the WW 147gr Super Match they were issued back in the late 80s. He crono'd it from his Sig 226 and had some rounds in the mid 600s. Not awe inspiring performance.

[S. Galbraith]

"....if you define a good shooting as one in which the subject stops whatever he was doing when he gets shot, we have yet to have a good one, and we are hitting our adversaries multiple times." -SA Urey Patrick from "10mm Notes"

There's one indea of "effectiveness". Fewer shots to get the person to stop. That encompasses penetration depth, hole size, wounding mechanism(push out of way, or crush/tear/cut), shot placement, and barrier penetration ability.

[Nephrology]

"....if you define a good shooting as one in which the subject stops whatever he was doing when he gets shot, we have yet to have a good one, and we are hitting our adversaries multiple times." -SA Urey Patrick from "10mm Notes"

There's one indea of "effectiveness". Fewer shots to get the person to stop. That encompasses penetration depth, hole size, wounding mechanism(push out of way, or crush/tear/cut), shot placement, and barrier penetration ability.

It's also such a highly variable attribute as to be basically meaningless.

Shot placement is more important than the bullet in question. As is a number of other factors including physiological capability, mental/emotional state, drugs, etc...

[tpd223]

I look at an effective bullet as one that reliably wounds when used and can be counted on through barriers in a variety of tactical and defensive scenarios, placement is obviously up to the shooter and the situation.

As an example; I think we would agree that a solid copper wadcutter of 250+ grains launched at max velocity from a .454Casull would be a round that we could count on to be consistent in wounding effect, would always penetrate more than enough, wouldn't glance off of bone, consistently following a straight wound path without deviating, good barrier penetration, etc.

A .25acp RNFMJ would be the opposite of the above bullet. We know the .25 to be an unreliable wounder, consistently failing to penetrate deeply enough, often glancing off of even light bone like ribs, easily deflected, poor barrier penetration.

[BBMW]

Isn't there a minimum standard for SD ammo? Something arbitrary like 12" minimum gel penetration with .50" expansion? And if there isn't, should there be?