9 mm 147 gr duty load testing

[DocGKR]

Penetration depths for the string you inquired about were 13.5, 13.5, 14.0, 13.5, 14.5.

"How do I know the HST bullet didn't penetrate 13.8" because it was a 148.4 gr bullet?"

Probably because that is an nonsensical question. The bullets were "true spec" to use your verbiage and had a nominal weight of 147 gr when fired. The recovered bullets have a bit of test media embedded in the folded metal "petals" and thus gained a minute bit of weight, as has already been explained to you earlier in the thread. This seems a very simple concept to grasp, yet you are failing to do so. Are you just being willfully obstreperous or are you truly so ignorant that you cannot understand this phenomenon?

[Tamara]

No reason to guess, as I've never said I had any training or did any testing.

How do I know the HST bullet didn't penetrate 13.8" because it was a 148.4 gr bullet?
What would the penetration be if it was a true spec 147 gr bullet? 12 inches?
What was the data of the individual 5 rounds?

Wow. Seriously?

[Colt191145lover]

No reason to guess, as I've never said I had any training or did any testing.

How do I know the HST bullet didn't penetrate 13.8" because it was a 148.4 gr bullet?
What would the penetration be if it was a true spec 147 gr bullet? 12 inches?
What was the data of the individual 5 rounds?

I do believe Pat Rogers would call this "Ballistic Masturbation" ...

[snakyjake]

This seems a very simple concept to grasp, yet you are failing to do so. Are you just being willfully obstreperous or are you truly so ignorant that you cannot understand this phenomenon?

Here is the phenomenon that is difficult to grasp (source):


Or another:

[DocGKR]

And what does your above post have to do with what we are discussing?

Manufacturer data means very little, as it is advertising--just like has been previously discussed.

Again, what are you trying to accomplish with your posts?

[Chuck Haggard]

I do believe Pat Rogers would call this "Ballistic Masturbation" ...

Jeff Cooper would call it "preoccupation with infinitesimal increments".........

[snakyjake]

And what does your above post have to do with what we are discussing?

I think it is fair to compare other credible tests and sources, rather than only accepting a single test/source. That's why I wanted to see a table/spreadsheet of results from other sources and tests.

Manufacturer data means very little, as it is advertising--just like has been previously discussed.

The manufacturer is advertising the failure of their own product. Multiple tests have shown a failure. Wouldn't the manufacturer be demonstrating passing the FBI test instead? Doesn't this surprise anyone? Why should I discredit this?

I'm frankly surprised that no one else has put a spotlight on the manufacture's results.

You say HST is good to go, manufacturer data suggests the opposite. HST sometimes passes, sometimes fails. I simply cannot ignore and discredit the data that sometimes HST fails. But I understand others can and will, and I'm trying to convince myself to go along with the crowd.

[DiscipulusArmorum]

Hey snakyjake, before you post another inane question, you'd do well to read this thread.

[DiscipulusArmorum]

I think it is fair to compare other credible tests and sources, rather than only accepting a single test/source. That's why I wanted to see a table/spreadsheet of results from other sources and tests.



The manufacturer is advertising the failure of their own product. Multiple tests have shown a failure. Wouldn't the manufacturer be demonstrating passing the FBI test instead? Doesn't this surprise anyone? Why should I discredit this?

I'm frankly surprised that no one else has put a spotlight on the manufacture's results.

You say HST is good to go, manufacturer data suggests the opposite. HST sometimes passes, sometimes fails. I simply cannot ignore and discredit the data that sometimes HST fails. But I understand others can and will, and I'm trying to convince myself to go along with the crowd.

How are you evaluating what data are credible and what data aren't? What is your education or experience?

Just because a test comes from the manufacturer doesn't make it valid or credible. Do we know if they calibrated their gel blocks with a BB reaching the proper depth? Did they hold the gelatin at the proper temperature? If they fail to provide this information in their ad copy, then we can't just assume they did everything right.

All data are not equal. All opinions are not valid.

[RJ]

All opinions are not valid.

This. Much this.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk