BHM's Homesteading & Self-Reliance Forum

Posting requires Registration and the use of Cookies-enabled browser

  #41  
Old 10-28-2013, 12:39 PM
ROnMO ROnMO is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trav View Post
The FBI spent a lot of time and money answering this very question. I'm going with hollow points.

http://gundata.org/blog/post/fbi-handgun-ballistics/
What about Hollow Points?

Yes hollow points matter because they increase the bullet diameter and therefore increase the chances of the bullet hitting the central nervous system. That being said hollow points do decrease penetration, and remember they said you need at the very least 13" of penetration, and set a optimal depth of 18" of penetration.


And this is the issue. Regardless the size of the round if it misses its mark it is useless. Regardless the depth it penetrates if it misses its mark it is useless.

I believe the FBI shoots .40. That round penetrates decent compared to over handguns. A .40 and .357 penetrate better than other hand guns. I carry a .45. I won't penetrate as much as the .357 or possible the .40 but already has its size. I would still favor FMJ with a .40. I wouldn’t consider any other round for a self defense other than a .40 .357 (38+p would be good) or .45.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 10-28-2013, 05:06 PM
Bearfootfarm's Avatar
Bearfootfarm Male Bearfootfarm is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Eastern North Carolina
Posts: 1,892
Default

Quote:
Standing shooting at static piece of gelatin does not make the cut for what I will accept as legit testing. It is not a realistic environment or a relevant threat.

I am not saying the HP will or will not perform, I am just rejecting the gelatin testing because it does not meet the standards I adhere to in my own work.

It just isn't good enough for me.
LOL
So INDUSTRY standards aren't good enough, and YOU set your OWN?

I don't believe the DoD lets YOU make those decisions

I think it just shows you won't accept reality if it doesn't fit your preconcieved notions, and it's actually kind of silly to be that way
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 10-28-2013, 05:34 PM
ROnMO ROnMO is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm View Post
LOL
So INDUSTRY standards aren't good enough, and YOU set your OWN?

I don't believe the DoD lets YOU make those decisions

I think it just shows you won't accept reality if it doesn't fit your preconcieved notions, and it's actually kind of silly to be that way


I do have a say in these decisions, one of many people that do this. My real input will come in when the operators are involved. I represent the operator for new equipment for my area. I do not work in ballistics but I deal with testing.

We do use allot of civilian equipment and we do re-test them. Industry testing is not adequate. We also have to encourage competition so we need to have our own test in order to help make choices. If there a choice between two types of ammo we would have to develop test and WE would have to test them EXCACTLY the same.

For our testing it has to be realistic environment with a realistic threat. I am not concerned with gelatin sitting on a bench as a threat therefore it is not realistic for the type of testing I would deal with. For R&D it may be fine but not as an operational test.

Maybe if they could drop one of these in their gelatin cube I would be more excepting of it, doesn't seem like it would be too difficult.


Last edited by ROnMO; 10-28-2013 at 06:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 10-28-2013, 08:02 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. Male ArmySGT. is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado!!!!!!!!!!
Posts: 1,621
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROnMO View Post
That is all fine BUT:

Any of it tested in it actual target? What you talk about is repeatable but not realistic. I will question and disregard any test that is not realistic. That is my job, it is what I do. I deal with a few types of testing, one verifies the item does what it says it will do, that test has to be realistic. Another is that it operates as claimed by the people who will use it in an environment that it will be used in against relevant threats. This way we can be as sure that the operator understands how to use it and it performs as it should.
Gelatin is an actual target. It is formulated to be the same density as flesh.

This isn't faith. This is science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROnMO View Post
Standing shooting at static piece of gelatin does not make the cut for what I will accept as legit testing. It is not a realistic environment or a relevant threat.


Ok, Then you need to explain what is it is you call "legit testing".

Gelatin is the "realistic environment" as it is a correct analog to human tissue. Gelatin is the "relevant threat" as it is a correct analog for human flesh, as opposed to water, clay, wet phone books, pine blocks, and layered silk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROnMO View Post
I am not saying the HP will or will not perform, I am just rejecting the gelatin testing because it does not meet the standards I adhere to in my own work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROnMO View Post
It just isn't good enough for me.
Ok, what are the standards you adhere to in your work? Does this testing have a correlation to ballistics testing? Ballistics isn't the same as measuring parts, or destruction testing for qualitative assessments.

I don't think your going to find many human volunteers for more realistic tests.. Maybe we can purchase human cadavers donated to science, other regimes around the world have used prisoners and political dissidents for firearms testing. I don't think we should start here.

That test would be invalid........ No two humans are alike.
__________________
This is a how-to, homesteading and self-reliance website and Forum. We want to attract people who are primarily interested in those areas and for whom politics is secondary.
Oliver
Here's an internet truth; just because it bothers you, doesn't mean anyone else cares! - Me.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 10-28-2013, 08:21 PM
Bearfootfarm's Avatar
Bearfootfarm Male Bearfootfarm is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Eastern North Carolina
Posts: 1,892
Default

Quote:
Maybe if they could drop one of these in their gelatin cube I would be more excepting of it, doesn't seem like it would be too difficult.
You keep pretending a 1/2" of bone is going to make a big difference in penetration, when bone fragments just become MORE projectiles

You also make the common mistake of assuming because YOU aren't aware of something, it must not have occured:


Quote:
In television the MythBusters team sometimes uses ballistics gel to aid in busting myths, but not necessarily involving bullets, including the exploding implants myth, the deadly card throw, and the ceiling fan decapitation.

They sometimes place real bones (from humans or pigs) or synthetic bones in the gel to simulate bone breaks as well.
Quote:
For a quick incapacitation, a hit to a vital, blood-bearing organ or the central nervous system is needed, so a bullet that will penetrate to the depth required for such a hit should be chosen.

When hunting groundhogs, for example, a bullet that expands quickly to form a large cavity with minimum penetration would be the best choice.

When hunting deer, a bullet which penetrates deeper is required; this can be accomplished by either limiting expansion (2 times the original width is often regarded as ideal), or by using a more powerful cartridge. For hunting bear, yet more penetration is required.

The pattern is, of course, that the larger the animal, the deeper its vital organs will be located, and therefore a firearm, cartridge, and bullet type should be chosen that will be able to reach the vital organs and kill humanely.
Quote:
Humans walk upright and present relatively unprotected vital organ targets from some angles, and have substantially thinner skin, so the bare minimum penetration is lower than for deer.

Cross-torso shots and shots which must first penetrate an arm are relatively common in defensive shooting scenarios, however.


Bullets for use on humans are usually designed to comply with the FBI's penetration requirement of 12 to 18 inches (30 to 46 cm)[citation needed], which is based on the IWBA's requirement of 12.5 to 14 inches (32 to 36 cm).

This is to ensure that the bullet can reach a vital blood-bearing organ or central nervous system structure from most angles. Frangible rounds, while they are sold for defensive purposes, are not well suited for the role, as they generally penetrate less than 10 inches (25 cm), and are therefore prone to failure when they must pass through nonvital tissues, such as a hand or arm.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 10-28-2013, 08:21 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. Male ArmySGT. is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado!!!!!!!!!!
Posts: 1,621
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROnMO View Post
Watch the video I posted. They have an X-ray of a .40 JHP hollow point going almost entirely through the body because it hit nothing but soft tissue. That shot would have done nothing to stop a threat in any sort of reasonable time. The same x-ray and victim that show the same type bullet (victim was shot twice) just passing barely into the chest, penetrating on a small amount because the increase muscle and bone in the area. It is a long video but there is allot very good information in it.

Penetration is what is needed to kill quickly when it comes to hand guns, not big shallow wounds. Yes hollow points the do incredible damage, yes the victim will bleed allot but they can still be a threat and if armed could easily shoot back. Even with modern hollow points. There is a also a security video showing showing someone getting shot twice at only a couple feet with a 9mm and the person didn't even skip a step.

Watch the video do other research from he medical community, not ammo manufactures.

Again what I am saying applies to hand guns, not rifles.

Different bullets can react different depending what they hit. There is no way to say what is best in every situation. I carry a mixed loaded of .45 FMJ and Jacketed HP.
From page three….Bullet penetrates bone. We don’t know everything there is to know as this is a story from an anesthesiologist not a Medical Examiner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROnMO View Post
bone

Do you really think there is a single best bullet or a single best anything?

heart is protected by bone.
Humans are not bear, bison, cape buffalo, rhinoceros, or elephants. The flat bones surrounding the human thoracic cavity are easily penetrated by .22 LR

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROnMO View Post
I do have a say in these decisions, one of many people that do this. My real input will come in when the operators are involved. I represent the operator for new equipment for my area. I do not work in ballistics but I deal with testing.

We do use allot of civilian equipment and we do re-test them. Industry testing is not adequate. We also have to encourage competition so we need to have our own test in order to help make choices. If there a choice between two types of ammo we would have to develop test and WE would have to test them EXCACTLY the same.

For our testing it has to be realistic environment with a realistic threat. I am not concerned with gelatin sitting on a bench as a threat therefore it is not realistic for the type of testing I would deal with. For R&D it may be fine but not as an operational test.

Maybe if they could drop one of these in their gelatin cube I would be more excepting of it, doesn't seem like it would be too difficult.

[IMG]file:///C:\Users\Username\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\ 01\clip_image001.jpg[/IMG]
You do realize that the part shaded in blue is cartilage? The cartilage is necessary for the chest cavity to flex or breathing would be far more difficult. Cartilage is even less dense than bone. The sternum itself is flat, thin, and not necessarily tough. The sternum acts as a hinge. This is why the sternum is frequently broken during life saving CPR.
__________________
This is a how-to, homesteading and self-reliance website and Forum. We want to attract people who are primarily interested in those areas and for whom politics is secondary.
Oliver
Here's an internet truth; just because it bothers you, doesn't mean anyone else cares! - Me.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 10-28-2013, 11:32 PM
ROnMO ROnMO is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
Gelatin is an actual target. It is formulated to be the same density as flesh.

This isn't faith. This is science.



Ok, Then you need to explain what is it is you call "legit testing".

Gelatin is the "realistic environment" as it is a correct analog to human tissue. Gelatin is the "relevant threat" as it is a correct analog for human flesh, as opposed to water, clay, wet phone books, pine blocks, and layered silk.

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]

Ok, what are the standards you adhere to in your work? Does this testing have a correlation to ballistics testing? Ballistics isn't the same as measuring parts, or destruction testing for qualitative assessments.

I don't think your going to find many human volunteers for more realistic tests.. Maybe we can purchase human cadavers donated to science, other regimes around the world have used prisoners and political dissidents for firearms testing. I don't think we should start here.

That test would be invalid........ No two humans are alike.
Being prior Army I am sure you have heard train as you fight, we also test as you would fight.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 10-29-2013, 12:19 AM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. Male ArmySGT. is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado!!!!!!!!!!
Posts: 1,621
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROnMO View Post


Being prior Army I am sure you have heard train as you fight, we also test as you would fight.

This is a non-answer.

Testing and Training are the not same.

Rifle qualifications on the 300 meter Trainfire pop up range is testing.

Practicing movement to contact in the woods with blanks against an opfor aggressor is training.
__________________
This is a how-to, homesteading and self-reliance website and Forum. We want to attract people who are primarily interested in those areas and for whom politics is secondary.
Oliver
Here's an internet truth; just because it bothers you, doesn't mean anyone else cares! - Me.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 10-29-2013, 02:34 AM
Bearfootfarm's Avatar
Bearfootfarm Male Bearfootfarm is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Eastern North Carolina
Posts: 1,892
Default

Quote:
we also test as you would fight.
LOL
You have live targets that shoot back?
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 10-29-2013, 10:25 AM
ROnMO ROnMO is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm View Post
LOL
You have live targets that shoot back?
again directed at ArmySGT, he will have more relevant experience here. But if you are interested you can Google Army Test Evaluation Command. The Army has incredible resources dedicated just to testing and evaluating those test.

Their goal is to produce the best product they can for the Warfighter, not sell you a box of ammo.

Last edited by ROnMO; 10-29-2013 at 10:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 10-29-2013, 10:32 AM
ROnMO ROnMO is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 108
Default

This weekend is youth deer season in my area. I will probably end up skinning a deer Sat or Sun.

It has been about a year since I skinned a deer but I remember that getting my knife through the skin is different than cutting through fat which is different than cutting through the meat. If I hit a bone it is different than all of them.

The bullet hole through the skin is very different than the bullet hole in the meat.

The physical properties between the skin, fat, bone, organs, guts and meat are all very different. Just knick the right place in the guts and see what happens.

There is never that neat little trial leading to the bullet in a deer like there is in gelatin.

Shooting gelatin is NOTHING like shooting a living creature.

Maybe your deer are different than mine, but I doubt it.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10-29-2013, 10:41 AM
ROnMO ROnMO is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
This is a non-answer.

Testing and Training are the not same.

Rifle qualifications on the 300 meter Trainfire pop up range is testing.

Practicing movement to contact in the woods with blanks against an opfor aggressor is training.
That is all you did when it came to rifle qualification and training? What type of unit were you in? I will bet you never shot gelatin cubes.

I was that guy for 3 years at NTC (fun job).

When you trained along with blanks you probably used MILES and maybe air soft. There were probably pneumatic guns also shooting back. They were probably using some sort of pyrotechnics or other simulators to add to it. It was probably hot or raining or muddy or dusty.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 10-29-2013, 04:27 PM
Bearfootfarm's Avatar
Bearfootfarm Male Bearfootfarm is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Eastern North Carolina
Posts: 1,892
Default

Quote:
There is never that neat little trial leading to the bullet in a deer like there is in gelatin.

Shooting gelatin is NOTHING like shooting a living creature.
Actually it IS, which is why they have used it for decades.
You denial doesn't change that

You're also pretending there isn't huge amounts of data from actual shootings to confirm what has been learned from ballistic tests using 10% Gelatin
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 10-29-2013, 11:33 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. Male ArmySGT. is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado!!!!!!!!!!
Posts: 1,621
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROnMO View Post
That is all you did when it came to rifle qualification and training? What type of unit were you in? I will bet you never shot gelatin cubes.
The known distance ranges were done away with in the 1980s.

I was a Military Policeman.

My job was not to test bullet performance for the U.S. Army. However, the U.S. Army does have people who do test ballistics, and wound ballistics.

You will find them at the School of the Infantry, Ft. Benning, Ga. The Natick research labs, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

Testing bullets in gelatin wasn't my lane in the Army. I picked up on gelatin testing in gunsmithing school. Bullet performance being a big deal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROnMO View Post
I was that guy for 3 years at NTC (fun job).
Working the KD range, or making jello in the chow hall?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROnMO View Post
When you trained along with blanks you probably used MILES and maybe air soft. There were probably pneumatic guns also shooting back. They were probably using some sort of pyrotechnics or other simulators to add to it. It was probably hot or raining or muddy or dusty.
That is still training, not testing.

I have trained in mud, snow, sand, rain, chest deep swamp water, asphalt, concrete, and on frozen bare ground.

I have done training on days 100+ degrees and days -35 without wind chill. I have done training on sunny days, snowy days, rainy days, hailing days, and once in iceland all of those multiple times in one day with 18 hours of day light.

Are you confusing ARTEP with training? Army Testing and Evaluation Program is testing of skills and tasks by soldiers at -10,-20,-30, and -40 level.

Yes, you are in the woods in battle rattle with rifles and blanks. You can have any number of props. Smoke, CS gas, the machinegun simulators, chemical agent simulators, even exploding artillery simulators.

The difference is in ARTEP vs training........ During ARTEP you have an evaluator following you around grading your performance. Same as a rotation to NTC or JRTC. You or your unit is being shadowed by an evaluator. You can call it training, but in actuality a trip is a test. Do you know what you claim to know. Can you do what you claim to be able to do.

If there is an evaluator, it is a test.
__________________
This is a how-to, homesteading and self-reliance website and Forum. We want to attract people who are primarily interested in those areas and for whom politics is secondary.
Oliver
Here's an internet truth; just because it bothers you, doesn't mean anyone else cares! - Me.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 10-29-2013, 11:54 PM
ROnMO ROnMO is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
The known distance ranges were done away with in the 1980s.

I was a Military Policeman.

My job was not to test bullet performance for the U.S. Army. However, the U.S. Army does have people who do test ballistics, and wound ballistics.

You will find them at the School of the Infantry, Ft. Benning, Ga. The Natick research labs, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

Testing bullets in gelatin wasn't my lane in the Army. I picked up on gelatin testing in gunsmithing school. Bullet performance being a big deal.

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana] Working the KD range, or making jello in the chow hall?

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]

That is still training, not testing.

I have trained in mud, snow, sand, rain, chest deep swamp water, asphalt, concrete, and on frozen bare ground.

I have done training on days 100+ degrees and days -35 without wind chill. I have done training on sunny days, snowy days, rainy days, hailing days, and once in iceland all of those multiple times in one day with 18 hours of day light.

Are you confusing ARTEP with training? Army Testing and Evaluation Program is testing of skills and tasks by soldiers at -10,-20,-30, and -40 level.

Yes, you are in the woods in battle rattle with rifles and blanks. You can have any number of props. Smoke, CS gas, the machinegun simulators, chemical agent simulators, even exploding artillery simulators.

The difference is in ARTEP vs training........ During ARTEP you have an evaluator following you around grading your performance. Same as a rotation to NTC or JRTC. You or your unit is being shadowed by an evaluator. You can call it training, but in actuality a trip is a test. Do you know what you claim to know. Can you do what you claim to be able to do.

If there is an evaluator, it is a test.
I said ATEC, Army Test and Evaluation Command. At NTC I was smoke, That was about 10 years ago. My last job in Uniform was at CDTF. I am a civilian but still work for the Chemical Corp (TRADOC) and along side you MP brothern at Fort Wood. Back in the day that was all down in Alabama.

I deal with the training that is given to Soldiers before operational testing (new equipment still in devolpment). The Military spend huge amounts on money on testing. We train our testers on the equipment before they operate it during testing. I am supposed to help insure training and tests are relevant and realistic and the Soldiers are prepared. This is also when we develop TMs. After the Army decides they need a new widget, I get involved. If you were being field a new vehicle somebody like me would work at developing the training you would recieve on how to drive and maintain it (operator level) during testing. Eventually that training would make it to the school house once the equipment is ready for feilding.

Last edited by ROnMO; 10-30-2013 at 04:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10-30-2013, 01:52 PM
Pitdog Pitdog is offline
Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The woods
Posts: 840
Default

Bullet performance is a big deal at Gunsmithing School?!?!?!?!
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 10-30-2013, 08:07 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. Male ArmySGT. is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado!!!!!!!!!!
Posts: 1,621
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitdog View Post
Bullet performance is a big deal at Gunsmithing School?!?!?!?!
I know! Who would have known?

Not the Gomers ofcourse.
__________________
This is a how-to, homesteading and self-reliance website and Forum. We want to attract people who are primarily interested in those areas and for whom politics is secondary.
Oliver
Here's an internet truth; just because it bothers you, doesn't mean anyone else cares! - Me.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 10-31-2013, 12:53 AM
Pitdog Pitdog is offline
Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The woods
Posts: 840
Default

Core Lokt FTW!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 10-31-2013, 02:07 AM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. Male ArmySGT. is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado!!!!!!!!!!
Posts: 1,621
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitdog View Post
Core Lokt FTW!!!!!!!
500 grains cast lead SWC coming out of a 45-70 Govt..... ballistic gelatin vanished...........blew it apart.
__________________
This is a how-to, homesteading and self-reliance website and Forum. We want to attract people who are primarily interested in those areas and for whom politics is secondary.
Oliver
Here's an internet truth; just because it bothers you, doesn't mean anyone else cares! - Me.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 10-31-2013, 01:40 PM
ROnMO ROnMO is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
500 grains cast lead SWC coming out of a 45-70 Govt..... ballistic gelatin vanished...........blew it apart.
At that point with HP of FMJ penetration would not be an issue.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -2. The time now is 07:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 1996 to Present. Backwoods Home Magazine, Inc.