You make an excellent point indeed. It may not be a good idea at all to shoot BBs into a "body" first to check whether it is "calibrated"!Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's
You make an excellent point indeed. It may not be a good idea at all to shoot BBs into a "body" first to check whether it is "calibrated"!
Got your point loud and clear.
True. I should of known better lol
First, almost all my wound ballistic research has been for military or LE organizations, as noted in the bio included in one of my few non-restricted briefings that was publicly released by DOD here: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf
Secondly, I find it amusing when folks write comments about me or the research I do, without ever having taken the time to contact me to clarify or verify what they write--it is not like my contact info is hard to find, since it is in the telephone directory and on the web....
Facts matter...Feelings Can Lie
High speed videography is quite useful in assessing projectile AOA on impact. It has been my experience that calculated KE loss does not bring much to the table that cannot better be realized through directly looking at the actual projectile induced damage pattern--but then again I am a clinician who is looking for simple practical data and not an engineer who loves complex equations..."May I ask, what useful information (if any) does hi speed motion picture analysis of gel block impacts and calculated KE loss bring to the table?"
Facts matter...Feelings Can Lie
It's probably just the facts/feelings thing again. The facts seem to hurt their feelings. If we were talking about college students, I suppose they'd say that the facts are "microaggressions." Either way, they aren't about to call you.
I made a number of factual points in this thread; none of them have been factually challenged. Instead, replies have ranged from calling factual points stupid, trolling attempts, etc., evidently proving you signature "facts matter.. feelings can lie." There are two main points that I made here in regard to the information that you posted on other websites.
1. When giving out penetration and expansion information in gel tests, gel calibration is an important part of the test, as penetrations can vary as much as 2.0" just due to different viscosities in gels, even if BB penetrations in gels are within sometimes accepted 3.0-3.75" @590 fps calibration range. Of course, sometimes gel calibration is outside of that range making gel calibration information even more important. When penetration in a gel test is marginal, it becomes even more important for gel calibration to be known. The point was that gel calibration is an important aspect of the self-defense ammunition test, so that appropriate corrections can be made to compensate for non-standard gel. Unfortunately, calibration information is often not given, even by professionals, resulting in unnecessary uncertainty in self-defense bullet performance.
2. In a reasoned discussion of FMJ vs. JHP, the key factor, obviously, is whether a chosen JHP penetrates enough. What is very likely to be enough? I have maintained in this thread that 12-13" penetration in a bare 10% standard ordnance gel (let alone in a gel with lower viscosity) is not necessarily enough penetration, even if the FBI's minimum penetration standard of 12" in soft tissue is to be achieved. Furthermore, add in bone, and unshored skin and consequently 13" JHP penetration, even in a standard gel, is not nearly enough. Earlier in this thread you stated that "in the past two decades almost all the issued FBI service caliber handgun ammo has tended to penetrate about 14-16" in bare gel, just about right in the middle of that 12-18" range that almost everyone who evaluates such things recommends." It was my premise in this thread as well that 14-16" JHP penetration in bare standard ordnance gel would make a JHP a clear choice for self-defense vs. FMJ. However, looking at nearly all available data, including your own tests where gel calibration was sometimes given, I don't find that most of the JHPs on your "list" are capable of such penetrations in bare gel; they expand too much for a given mass and velocity. This brings up this question: do you now prefer 14-16" service caliber JHP penetration in bare standard gel, as opposed to 12-14" penetrations that you have evidently previously preferred?
Are you calling me a troll for originally asking the question?
Excellent topic, providing that it's factual, of course. Facts matter indeed, and feeling can indeed lie...
Sorry if I missed it, but what *is* your carry load?
ETA: I use 9mm Speer Gold Dot 124 gr HP; they are generally available, don't 'pop' my hands like the +p rounds do, and offer performance near those on Doc's list.
Last edited by RJ; 12-31-2015 at 03:40 PM.
