Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Caliber Corner' started by TSAX, Feb 27, 2011.
I'm more afraid of the pudding pops.
BTW, Thanks for the info.
Saying that such tests are completely meaningless is just as inaccurate as saying they are the end-all be-all definitive answer to how ammunition will perform in the human body. Such testing serves as a general guideline regarding relative performance in materials that somewhat (poorly) approximate average human tissue density.
The human body is not filled with fluid (milk jugs), nor is it filled with homogeneously dense material (ballistic gel). Even animal carcasses are poor mimics as they have different tissue density and thickness, organs are placed differently and a dead creature lacks normal hemostatic pressure.
All that said, these are the best options that we have to test ammunition and, as such, can be used as a very general guide as long as we all realize they are not biblical truth. I would much rather carry ammunition that has performed superbly is such tests than ammunition that has performed abysmally as the superb ammo will likely (though not certainly) perform better in the real world
I am always puzzled why 12" of penetration is not sufficient? How deep is your heart in your chest?
I don't need an exit wound to track them like Deer hunting...
You didn't answer my question. How do you evaluate the effectiveness of a factory defense round? Maybe you have a better method to share. I'm waiting............
The 147 HST is an outstanding round.
Do you live in town? I don't know of, nor would I want to live in, any town in any part of the country where it is legal to plink away in your back yard. If you're out in the country, that's a different story.
Why stop at the heart? If it's that good a shot from the front I want it to take out the spine and spinal cord too.
The bullet may have to go through several inches down the length of a hand or forearm before it even gets to the chest. It might have had to punch through glass or an interior wall.
If from the side I want it to break the arm, ribs, perforate a lung, the heart, the other lung, and break ribs on the other side.
Sometimes bullets don't do what they were supposed to do all. They strike belts, jewelry, phones and books skulls or sternums and just stop or bounce off.
Pistol bullets are poor performers compared to rifles and shotguns. All you can hope for is to put deep holes where you need them to cut.
I agree with the FBI study. 12 inches is a minimum, up to 18 preffered. Remember thats just test gelatin. A little extra isn't neccessarily bad either.
I use to live in Oakland and just miles form Compton and South Central LA in CA so "plinking" in the backyard, front yards, alleys, hallways, uncle Bubba's house and heck everywhere else was normal especially at or from moving vehicles
While I don't disagree with you, my approach is strictly self defense oriented. If I am shooting through walls or overpenetrating I might have trouble explaining how I felt in danger for my life to the LEO investigating let alone deal with shooting other family members or others by mistake.
Studies are just a means to compare different bullets under the same conditions. I completely agree in regards to pistol bullets in general, a handgun is in my mind something to get me to my carbine.
If I'm ever attacked by a bunch of water jugs standing in formation I now know what 9mm rounds will look pretty after I shoot them.
That is a good one.
9MM isn't a man-stopper, neither is .40S&W or .45ACP. All service caliber cartridges out of a pistol are terrible for stopping a threat.
Care to volunteer for a trial run?
I'll bring the camera and popcorn
What up, TSA?!