Have to disagree.
Originally Posted by SamRudolph
Why is it then that lighter bullets almost universally seem to penetrate less in a given caliber? If they were all designed to meet the same performance standard, why don't they perform equally?
See specifically the 155 gr. HST vs 180 gr. HST in .40 S&W.
I read the thread title and had to laugh. I don't think the debate has been settled yet.
I hear ya, but I just want to point out my reasoning for using +P ammo.
Originally Posted by gottabkiddin
1. Speer Gold Dot 124 gr. +P is a proven "street effective" load. (Not to mention the NYPD has been using this load and Glock 19s for quite a long time, so the combination of the two is proven as well).
2. I shoot +P more accurately than standard pressure 9mm due to shooting .40 S&W so often, not to mention that I'm not worried about wear on the gun since I own two Glock 19s (one carry, one practice). Also, we both know that Glocks could really care less if the load is standard or +P.
3. The standard Gold Dot 124 gr. didn't pass FBI/IWBA testing protocol.
4. There is absolutely no data which proves that a 147 gr. bullet will consistently penetrate more than a 124 gr. +P Gold Dot. Yes, the 147 gr. bullet does have a great sectional density, but the 124 gr. +P has much more momentum and energy.
5. According to testing done by Speer and the IWBA, the 124 gr. +P does just as well through intermediate barriers as the 147 gr.
Anyways, there is some of my thought process.
Fair enough sir, and I appreciate your thoughts on the matter... :bier:
Originally Posted by AZ Hawk
I like Pie too. I also chuckle at people who ridicule Marshall & Sanow results from actual shootings. How do we know how any round performs? By it's performance in real life. There are those that say prove those are real numbers. I say, prove you took a dump this week. I bet you did, and more than once. And people quote Dr. Roberts all the time like he's and infallable ammo god. He discounts velocity because he can't measure it's effects. Expansion and penetration is all that matters. Well real life proves a big advantage when velocity approaches and exceeds 1350fps combined with good penetration and expansion. What did Dr. Roberts go to school for? What are his degrees and speciality? Thats right, say it, say it. He's a dentist. Thank you.
They're ridiculed because they falsified data to fit their preconcieved, demonstrably false notions.
Originally Posted by mrwonderful
Like the Flat Earth Society.
Cuda66: "They're ridiculed because they falsified data to fit their preconcieved, demonstrably false notions."
Where's your proof they falsified data? From Dr. Roberts and the other facklerites? Anyone can throw unsubstantiated claims around. There's no doubt that Dr. Roberts has done some fine research but he and his like refuse to consider all factors in stopping power if they don't fit his preconceived ideas.
"The one thing I've been disappointed with is the feeble attacks by those individuals from the wrong side of the tracks. Their "research" has involved efforts such as calling the Homicide Section of the Detroit Police Department and asking the individual who answered if they knew Evan Marshall. When that unknown individual responded that he had never heard of me, they considered that "proof" that I had never worked there. The problem with this simple-minded approach is that any number of readers, editors, other writers, and friends had called me there on a number of occasions. Additionally, there are a number of files there with my name on them as the officer in charge."
"Another individual from the wrong side of the tracks wrote a critical review of HSP. In it he listed all my criteria for including my shooting in my statistical base and then started to dispute some Glaser shootings. This is at best sloppy and at worst deceptive. Readers can search HSP&SS and not find a single Glaser or Mag Safe incident, which included the actual shooting database. One of the wrong side of the tracks gang saw me sitting in the Cor Bon booth at a Shot Show years ago and took that as proof that I was a paid consultant for Cor Bon. I reserve the right to visit with friends and if this same person had followed me, he would surmised I was also a paid consultant for Remington, Federal, Winchester, etc. Besides, I'm curious why that when the gang from the wrong side of the tracks do consulting work it's an honorable effort, but the thought of me doing it compromises my objectivity and in their eyes destroys my credibility. Again, if this is best they can do I'm not impressed."
"I find it curious that they constantly whine that nobody has seen my database. What they are really saying is they haven't. A number of years ago I got a letter from one of the lads from the wrong side of the tracks saying that they thought my shooting results for 9MM 115gr jhp +P+ were fraudulent based on the fact they would not penetrate 12" in their beloved 10% gelatin. When I sent this individual 10 autopsy reports where these loads had averaged between 16-18" penetration in people, the response was to ignore it. I especially find the complaint about not publishing the sources for the data curious, since when one of their own was collecting data on actual shootings for a police publication, the "what's the source for this data crowd" were strangely silent. I guess it depends on agendas not the search for the truth."
You pays your money and chooses your experts, I guess.
I'd also have to point out that their study is also severely dated...Flat Earth theory again.
I guess if one wants to limit their carry choices to what was available twenty years ago...live it up.
Originally Posted by Cuda66
I would agree with your statement about experts. But is that how you refute arguments? Throw out a flat earth quote. What the heck? Also I didn't see an answer on proving how they falsified their data.
From 20 yrs ago? I don't recall recommending any loads from their data. But at any rate, several of their top loads are still in use today and are highly rated by many, and are considerably cheaper than today's new wonder loads. Federal 9BPLE just to name one. It has a history, and a history that worked for many police organizations and it still works very well today. Which is amazing since it doesn't reach the vaunted 12"-15" in gello. Yet it routinely stops aggressors with 1 or 2 rounds. Go figure. I personally favor middle weight loads in the 9mm but would feel well served by this load.
You know what they say about opinions. Peace....
When the Definitive Study hit the scene, it was one of the most quoted and referenced study ever put into print, as in my time as a shooter.Alot of good came from it, and many things still hold true. The 357 magnum was then and still is the king of stoppers in a particular loading.
I do believe that the study is a good reference for all even today.
I do believe however, that a heavy for caliber bullet is the most likely to provide adequate penetration under all conditions. I have had miserable failures to penetrate with the 115 weight +p loading in a feral dog. The bullet only made it thru one lung, and I found the dog by chance a few days later while cutting brush. It was a long way off from the spot where it was shot.
Now this in and of its self is not a track record, but it did happen, and there was a reason.
When I think back at your study, If I recall, the two top stoppers were the 357 mag with the 125 weight and the 45 acp , rated at around 96% and 89% respectively. Load development at that time had not really began to take off, and the premire round was the CCI/SPEER FLYING ASHTRAY , which got alot of bad rap for not feeding well in 1911s at the time.
Additionally, while 38, 9mm, and 357 abounded at that time as the weapon to carry, by LE, I do not know (or cant remember) any 45acp chambered guns besides the 1911.
Since cocked and locked carry was greatly misunderstood and rejected as liability issues by most LE agencies of the day, I do not believe the data you obtained for the 45acp was as plentiful as that obtained for the major police used calibers of the day, and I believe this is the only real flaw in the data as presented.
The value of your study, is not necassarily in the statistics of the data base, but in the way it made everyone get off their butts and begin to look at ammo and caliber selection, and help give an officer the tools to help him survive.
The study was and still is very good, as long as the reader understands how to interupt the information and understands the dynamics of what happens and can happen when the bullet hits the flesh.
Thats why I still like a little heavier bullet, and, I understand my logic and know why I choose it.
Anyway, good talking to you again. -C Roberts
Originally Posted by glockman10mm
I wouldn't disagree with what you stated. Me, I'm just your average joe. I think though that your confusing me with Evan Marshall. The paragraph's in quotes came from Mr. Marshalls webpage. I was trying to defend the man a little. Alot of people throw around things they have heard about him and I don't think thats fair if you don't have personal knowledge of what your saying about the man.
P.S. I think I sounded a little harsh about Dr. Roberts in my earlier post. I'm sure he's forgotten more
than I know about bullet ballistics, but we all have our opinions. I read and study all I can from many
men smarter than me on these things and form my ideas accordingly.
Yes, I thought you might be him. I have met and spoken to him on two seperate occasions. While I don't accept his work as the gospel, I respect the effort and value it for what it is.
And don't confuse me for " Dr Roberts". Never met him or even read his work.
Oh well, confusion over. :)
Originally Posted by a__l__a__n
Regardless, I carry 124Gr gold dots loaded in the +P range and I am comfortable and accurate with them....
I think you can't go wrong with any modern expanding 115/124/147 pick one and be happy with it