Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: Richard Mann FBI ammo overview

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Dobbs View Post
    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

  2. #22
    Site Supporter DocGKR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    "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.
    Facts matter...Feelings Can Lie

  3. #23
    Member the Schwartz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    The Luminiferous Æther
    Quote Originally Posted by DocGKR View Post
    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.
    Last edited by the Schwartz; 08-17-2019 at 04:44 PM.
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

  4. #24
    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."
    Sensei for President 2020: a man with a firm grasp on America's problems!

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •