Richard Mann FBI ammo overview

[Tokarev]

https://gundigest.com/gear-ammo/ammunition/are-ballistic-gel-penetration-tests-gospel



Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[GyroF-16]

I kept waiting for the author to get to the point, beyond expressing an opinion. Then the article ended.
I expected some examples where loads with strong performance in FBI tests performed consistently poorly in the real world, or the opposite, where some load was demonstrated as consistently effective in real life, but doesn’t pass FBI standards.
But, no.

[the Schwartz]

When Mann dismisses results obtained in properly prepared 10% ordnance gelatin as being "simply the findings of a government agency", I am led to wonder about his "expertise" in the field. 10% ordnance gelatin and water are both valid soft tissue representatives(1) that correlate well with terminal behavior observed in pig and human soft tissue(2) models. There are no other tissue simulants that presently have the same amount of research supporting their validity in this role. There is no government fiat involved in this at all as Mann would have us believe.

Mann also seems to misunderstand the role of the F.B.I. test protocols. Mann's statement that the F.B.I. test protocol is not the primary determinant of a bullet's "ability...to “stop” a bad guy" and that it "does not hinge on the score it receives while being subjected to FBI testing" is correct, but it also suggests that he misunderstands the purpose of the F.B.I. test protocols. The F.B.I. test protocols are simply a series of various mechanical failure tests that are meant to serve as a guide for determining which munitions will perform best through commonly encountered barriers while still providing sufficient penetration afterwards to reach key/vital anatomical structures to bring about involuntary incapacitation.

Furthermore, Mann's assertion near the end of the article, "And finally, the only folks who adhere to the FBI testing protocol are...members of the FBI", could not be farther from the truth. There are a great number of LE agencies, domestic ammunition manufacturers, and armed citizens that rely upon the F.B.I. test protocols as a guide for choosing their self-defense ammunition; Dr. Gary Roberts, the SME for the Ammunition sub-forum here at P-F, being one of the most knowledgeable resources in that particular regard.

After reading Mann's article, I am left with the impression that he had a certain amount of column space to fill, but no meaningful input to offer.

1.) "Police Handgun Ammunition Selection" by Dr. Martin Fackler, MD: pages 32 - 37; Vol. 1, No. 3 Fall 1992, IWBA Wound Ballistics Review
2.) "Performance of the Winchester 9mm 147 Grain Subsonic Jacketed Hollow Point Bullet in Human Tissue and Tissue Simulant" by Eugene J. Wolberg, Sr. Criminologist, SFPD: pages 10 - 13; Vol. 1, No. 1 Winter 1991, IWBA Wound Ballistics Review

[ST911]

Mann's website: http://empty-cases.com/blog/


Host on the Gunsite Academy NOW: https://www.gunsite.com/videos/

[TiroFijo]

What a waste of time...

[paherne]

Waste of time, indeed. Richard Mann fails to understand the importance of Gene Wolberg's research that correlated performance in properly calibrated/mixed 10% ordnance gel to actual street performance in a significant number of gunfights. Richard Mann misses the forest for the trees. How old is this guy and what's his CV? Making such a basic error makes me question anything he writes about guns, self-defense and tactics.

[RJ]

Never heard of the guy.

My rules:

1) buy stuff in-stock from what is on Doc’s list
2) focus on shot placement
3) if out of ammo, return to 1)

[Tokarev]

Waste of time, indeed. Richard Mann fails to understand the importance of Gene Wolberg's research that correlated performance in properly calibrated/mixed 10% ordnance gel to actual street performance in a significant number of gunfights. Richard Mann misses the forest for the trees. How old is this guy and what's his CV? Making such a basic error makes me question anything he writes about guns, self-defense and tactics.I'm not sure what his motivation is for an article like this when he's previously done some gel testing of his own.

I do, however, somewhat agree with this caption: Because FBI testing relies so heavily on barrier testing, the protocol might be better at finding bullets that shoot through things as opposed to bullets that stop bad guys. Or I agree with it but for the wrong reason.

Barrier blind ammo is getting better all the time and is certainly worth considering. Take the Federal 130 HST 38 +P. My findings are that it probably would do okay as long as barrier penetration isn't high on your list of priorities. That bullet expanded nicely and just barely fell short of 12" in gel. The same bullet basically blew apart when fired against auto glass. Is it a bad load? For home defense it is probably good. For police off duty of backup? Maybe not.

Even the smallest department has access to FBI's testing data so it isn't like one government agency is keeping all the info under lock and key. Strange the way he worded that part and/or the way it was edited.

Regards to Mr. Mann; don't quote me on this but I believe he is a retired police officer. I met him back in something like 2010 when he'd just made the decision to try writing as a primary craft. I believe at that time he said he was retiring from a small department somewhere down south.



Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Kyle Reese]

Never heard of the guy.

My rules:

1) buy stuff in-stock from what is on Doc’s list
2) focus on shot placement
3) if out of ammo, return to 1)

Good rules to live by, I think!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ed L]

After reading Mann's article, I am left with the impression that he had a certain amount of column space to fill, but no meaningful input to offer.

1.) "Police Handgun Ammunition Selection" by Dr. Martin Fackler, MD: pages 32 - 37; Vol. 1, No. 3 Fall 1992, IWBA Wound Ballistics Review
2.) "Performance of the Winchester 9mm 147 Grain Subsonic Jacketed Hollow Point Bullet in Human Tissue and Tissue Simulant" by Eugene J. Wolberg, Sr. Criminologist, SFPD: pages 10 - 13; Vol. 1, No. 1 Winter 1991, IWBA Wound Ballistics Review


All available online here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B_PmkwLd1hmbd3pWYVVJeGlGaFE

[JHC]

Never heard of the guy.

My rules:

1) buy stuff in-stock from what is on Doc’s list
2) focus on shot placement
3) if out of ammo, return to 1)

+1 and all else being equal, I'll lean towards the better barrier performing load. Cause it's a hard world.

[Wayne Dobbs]

Never heard of the guy.

My rules:

1) buy stuff in-stock from what is on Doc’s list
2) focus on shot placement
3) if out of ammo, return to 1)

Good advice. For LE load selection, I've found (and Doc has confirmed) that if you have a load that does well in the 4LD and the windshield glass test, you have a load that will work well across a range of uses in the real world.

[DocGKR]

Wayne Dobbs is correct....as usual.

[Jeep]

Good advice. For LE load selection, I've found (and Doc has confirmed) that if you have a load that does well in the 4LD and the windshield glass test, you have a load that will work well across a range of uses in the real world.

As a non-LEO, I skip the windshield glass test and simply look at the 4LD. And that's only because I find the results interesting. Basically, I too simply rely on Doc's advice (and price) in my selection. In other words, I try to buy the cheapest reasonably available load that Doc says is good, hope I never have to use it, but train to use it effectively.

[OMWAG]

Ok, Here is the Cliff Notes abbreviated version of the article.

Organic ballistic gelatin simulates soft tissue of the body, but it is not identical by any means.
Synthetic gel does not match organic gel in characteristics.
Ballistic gel of any type is only a comparative medium for assessing the performance differences between bullets and nothing more.
Ballistic gel tests provide comparisons of expansion and penetration as they are related. Deeper penetration with consistent expansion is generally a good SD round.
The FBI criteria are not perfect but they are the best available.

[Wayne Dobbs]

As a non-LEO, I skip the windshield glass test and simply look at the 4LD. And that's only because I find the results interesting. Basically, I too simply rely on Doc's advice (and price) in my selection. In other words, I try to buy the cheapest reasonably available load that Doc says is good, hope I never have to use it, but train to use it effectively.

It's a very bad idea to disregard that windshield glass test for some of these reasons:

1. Do you ever carry a gun in a car for protection from carjackings, kidnap attempts, etc.?
2. Would you consider shooting through the car's glass structures to stop that type of assault?
3. Did you know that since ~2016, ALL the glass in a car is laminate glass exactly like windshields?
4. This test also gauges the ability of a load to defeat a hard barrier, like a bone. Bone is a barrier certain to be present at a defensive shooting, whether it's struck or not during the shooting.
5. The 4LD test is a gold standard, for sure, but it's more than interesting. It's a well thought out test to ascertain whether a load has robust performance, which is an engineering/scientific term for consistent performance across a range of demands.
6. The thought/hope/belief that your assailant will present you an unprotected frontal attitude is not well founded in actual events. They may start that way, but they likely won't remain so.

Use both events.

[RJ]

+1 and all else being equal, I'll lean towards the better barrier performing load. Cause it's a hard world.

I think I asked Doc in the HST thread, so forgive me if I forgot the answer, but for 9mm duty ammo, is this still Federal HST 147?

[JHC]

I think I asked Doc in the HST thread, so forgive me if I forgot the answer, but for 9mm duty ammo, is this still Federal HST 147?

I couldn't say. All else being equal would include how the loads run or POI in a particular pistol. Some prefer +P 124 gr loads etc etc

[RJ]

I couldn't say. All else being equal would include how the loads run or POI in a particular pistol. Some prefer +P 124 gr loads etc etc

Thanks J. I’m just going to rock on with the Federal HST 147. It shoots well out of shooting partners P365 and my G19. I will verify it when I get the G43X in a few months but I don’t expect any issues.

[revchuck38]

I think I asked Doc in the HST thread, so forgive me if I forgot the answer, but for 9mm duty ammo, is this still Federal HST 147?

I'm obviously not Doc, but IIRC he advised that the 147s lose less performance from short barrels than lighter bullets.

FWIW, I'm sticking with 124 +P HST, because I have a few boxes, it shoots to POA, and practice ammo and reloading bullets are cheaper. My shortest 9x19 barrel is 3.5" and it loses about 20 fps compared to the four-inch versions. IOW, not enough to worry about.

[Jeep]

It's a very bad idea to disregard that windshield glass test for some of these reasons:

1. Do you ever carry a gun in a car for protection from carjackings, kidnap attempts, etc.?
2. Would you consider shooting through the car's glass structures to stop that type of assault?
3. Did you know that since ~2016, ALL the glass in a car is laminate glass exactly like windshields?
4. This test also gauges the ability of a load to defeat a hard barrier, like a bone. Bone is a barrier certain to be present at a defensive shooting, whether it's struck or not during the shooting.
5. The 4LD test is a gold standard, for sure, but it's more than interesting. It's a well thought out test to ascertain whether a load has robust performance, which is an engineering/scientific term for consistent performance across a range of demands.
6. The thought/hope/belief that your assailant will present you an unprotected frontal attitude is not well founded in actual events. They may start that way, but they likely won't remain so.

Use both events.

Wayne:

Thank you very much for that thoughtful and informative post.

I learned more than a bit there--which is not unusual with your posts--and I am going to start paying attention to the glass tests as well.

Jeep

[DocGKR]

"Ballistic gel of any type is only a comparative medium for assessing the performance differences between bullets and nothing more."

Hmmm.....yet that is not what data from many real world shooting incidents show. A very close correlation between actual shootings and properly performed laboratory testing has been demonstrated for at least three decades now. In most properly conducted post-mortem evaluations, there is indeed a rough 1:1 ratio between gel and torso tissue––for example, Gene Wolberg's study of nearly 150 SDPD OIS incidents showed the majority of the 9mm 147 gr bullets fired by officers had penetrated about 13" and expanded between 0.60 to 0.62 inches in both human tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin. While there was a greater range of results in human tissue than in gel, the averages were nearly identical. Several other agencies with strong, scientifically based ammunition terminal performance testing programs have conducted similar reviews of their shooting incidents with much the same results––there is an extremely strong connection between properly conducted and interpreted 10% ordnance gelatin laboratory studies and the physiological effects of projectiles in actual shooting incidents. You just have to understand the anatomy and variables involved while making an evaluation. Note that projectiles from many real world shootings tend to behave like those in four layer denim testing.

Bottom line: Folks should pick a robust performing barrier blind defensive/duty load that proves most reliable and accurate in YOUR handgun.

[the Schwartz]

Hmmm.....yet that is not what data from many real world shooting incidents show. A very close correlation between actual shootings and properly performed laboratory testing has been demonstrated for at least three decades now. In most properly conducted post-mortem evaluations, there is indeed a rough 1:1 ratio between gel and torso tissue––for example, Gene Wolberg's study of nearly 150 SDPD OIS incidents showed the majority of the 9mm 147 gr bullets fired by officers had penetrated about 13" and expanded between 0.60 to 0.62 inches in both human tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin. While there was a greater range of results in human tissue than in gel, the averages were nearly identical. Several other agencies with strong, scientifically based ammunition terminal performance testing programs have conducted similar reviews of their shooting incidents with much the same results––there is an extremely strong connection between properly conducted and interpreted 10% ordnance gelatin laboratory studies and the physiological effects of projectiles in actual shooting incidents. You just have to understand the anatomy and variables involved while making an evaluation. Note that projectiles from many real world shootings tend to behave like those in four layer denim testing.

Bottom line: Folks should pick a robust performing barrier blind defensive/duty load that proves most reliable and accurate in YOUR handgun.

Thanks for mentioning that (bolded red above), Doc. Much needed and very much appreciated!

There are numerous hobbyists (of the YouTube sort) who insist that there is no correlation/correspondence whatsoever between penetration depth in human bodies (e.g.: torsos) and 10% concentration ordnance gelatin. Besides being annoying/tiresome, it serves no function other than to introduce more "noise" into the understanding of the "how" and the "why" 10% gelatin is used as a soft-tissue surrogate.

[Baldanders]

I think this is just pandering to the always large "it's not real world experience" crowd.

Because for definitive, you need goats....lots and lots of poor goats. (I forgot about that particular "test" until recently, perusing the International Cartridge Collectors forum.) Or a bunch of "data" collected from police agencies that don't remember being included in your "study."