Bullet Tests Flawed

Posted by Hook686:
If one does not see value in the article, then simply ignore it and move on.
Click to expand...
I disagree with that approach. Ignoring the use of poor testing criteria only encourages others to do poor testing.

Using the same velocity “floor” for all calibers ignores the fact that proven loads producing excellent results in .45ACP are automatically rejected.

Using the same expansion ratio for all calibers ignores the fact that some bullets start off with a larger diameter than others. (Duhh!!)

Using an arbitrary minimum penetration depth ignores the fact that proven loads producing excellent results are automatically rejected.

Good testing procedures + careful record keeping + unreasonable criteria = bad results.
 
japle I think you can disagree all you want. I simply think you can do so silently. I see no need for you to stipulate your rationalizations. You seem to me to take up unnecessary bandwidth with unneeded negativity. Perhaps you are right, but I certainly do not need your judgements about alleged 'Facts'. Why should I listen to your opinion and accept over the OP ? Perhaps you are right, but i enjoy the posts regarding tests conducted and am quite able to evaluate the results for my personal use.
 
Hook686, maybe you are, and if so, that is great for you.

OTOH, that doesn't mean all the others who will read it have any background in testing, or in statistics, or even a general background in firearms. For people like that, points such as Japle makes could be very useful.

I'm not quite sure why his dissents and disclaimers discomfit you.
 
Posted by Japle
Good testing procedures + careful record keeping + unreasonable criteria = bad results.
Click to expand...

This is the most concise summary of the problems with a large fraction of the tests I have seen!

That observation includes tests by folks both in government and doing tests under contract.

Of course there is still the odd test that violates all three criteria...
 
Hooke686: said:
Why is there a need to intellectualize a a piece of data provided by someone who took the time to do some testing ?
Click to expand...

Because some of us prefer to do our own thinking instead of allowing ourselves to be led blindly into a dubious conclusion based upon a set of questionable data.

I find Japle's commentary and observations to be informed and logical- an approach we'd all do well to adopt.

There is no need for him disagree silently as his points are well taken.
 
'm not quite sure why his dissents and disclaimers discomfit you.
Click to expand...

It simply strikes me as someone I know absolutely nothing about is analyzing the OP test methodology. It struck me as he was whining more over the .45acp not getting better results and looking for ways to discredit the testing because of that. Now this is just my personal opinion and nothing more. You maybe see it different. That is okay by me. Some people like to state opinions as though they were fact. I know nothing about japle. The OP stated his test results and his parameters for HIS evaluation. I appreciate the test results. Any nine year old child can create evaluation parameters. The data and the description of its collection are important to me. I am not discomforted by japle's dissents. I just see no purpose in those presented and think they cloud the water, as the important part to me was the actual test results, not the evaluation, or what should have been considered and why the OP was wrong to not consider lower velocity data in his analysis.

Did you not like the data ?
 
Posted by Hook686:
…. the important part to me was the actual test results, not the evaluation …..
Click to expand...
I thought the test results were useful, also, especially if you live where it’s hot all the time and aren’t concerned about how the loads work when fired through clothing.

It’s the conclusions that bother me and the criteria used to arrive at those conclusions.

In the last 40-odd years, I’ve seen all kinds of “stopping power” theories that were based on what the author thought was important and not on what actually works. One of the best examples is the Hatcher formula. Many people promoted Hatcher because they liked the idea that their favorite calibers and loads got high rankings. But Hatcher was badly flawed. The “computer man” was badly flawed. Every formula that starts with a conclusion (only loads that break 1,000 fps are acceptable, only loads that expand to at least 1.5X their original diameter, no matter what that original diameter was are acceptable, etc), produces conclusions that are automatically suspect.
 
Hook686, I'd say the point Japle raises about the velocity floor is a valid one, as it removes most .44 Special, .45 ACP, and .45 Colt loads from consideration.
 
That magazine article was a hack-fest. He mentioned 10% ordnance gel but did not mention if it was stored properly, if it was calibrated properly, what size the block was or how many times it was shot before being discarded. These are all major factors that need to be addressed when presenting a gel test. Also, he only shot bare gel. Alot of overall poorly performing loads can look okay when looking at a bare gel test. No FBI tests were attempted. I'm assuming he only test one shot of each load which is not a statistically significant sample for testing. No explanation as to how expansion was measured. You do not take that maximum expansion width; the proper way is to take the max + min /2 to get the average which needed to be addressed rather then the silly "expansion factor" numbers that were presented. There was no report on recovered weight of the projectiles. Also, he discounted any load that was below 1000 fps??? Pretty much worthless information on the whole.

As far as ordnance gelatin tests go, it is a misrepresentation that the ordnance gelatin is suppose to represent human soft tissue. It is not. Its simply a means to compare loads to compare overall performance. If you are worried about bone, look at tests that have been done properly with FBI barriers and that have passed these barrier tests. If they pass these tests they will defeat bone effectively. Also look at OIS information and what loads perform well in the real world. Also, stick with heavier loads as they have less chance of deflection. Here is an excellent list of loads that pass the FBI protocol. http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887 If you can't find a load you like here then you don't need to be carrying a handgun.
 
japle I think you can disagree all you want. I simply think you can do so silently. I see no need for you to stipulate your rationalizations. You seem to me to take up unnecessary bandwidth with unneeded negativity. Perhaps you are right, but I certainly do not need your judgements about alleged 'Facts'. Why should I listen to your opinion and accept over the OP ? Perhaps you are right, but i enjoy the posts regarding tests conducted and am quite able to evaluate the results for my personal use.
__________________
Hook686
Click to expand...

Why must he do so silently? Simply because he disagrees with you?

He disagrees, and gave valid reasons. This forum is a place for debate and discussion ....seems like the right place for reasoned discussion.
 
Why must he do so silently? Simply because he disagrees with you?
Click to expand...

No jimbob86 ... As I have pointed out, I think negative arguements against the test results posted by a member are counter productive. The article clearly stated the test results, the criteria for evaluation and the author's conclusion. If some objects to any of the criteria used, offer an alternative. Simply pointing out negative comments about the author's stated criteria strikes me as wasted bandwidth. If you enjoy reading the negatives, more power to you. You have your opinion, I have mine. I simply do not enjoy reading negative opinions, as opposed to simple facts.
 
Not all of us have the knowledge and experience to know when a test is poorly conducted, much less the basis for knowing when subtle or not-so-subtle bias is injected through poorly chosen criteria.

So, well-reasoned and politely worded critiques help all of us better understand the value and relevance of a particular set of test results. The value of these critiques is darned near as important to the tester as it is to someone who has just started to study the subject.
 
Last edited:
MLeake I enjoy reading positive comments, not negative, biased and otherwise slanted personal opinion. If you got something useful to say then say it in a constructive manner. I will listen. I might not buy it, but I will listen.
 
Critical Duty round article Amer Rifleman

First, a caveat. This opinion is NOT supported by Cheaper Than Dirt, nor is it supported by Hornady, a major contributor to MOST of the gun shows on The Sportsman Channel.

After suffering through a few boxes of Hornady's Critical Defense, in both 9mm and .38 special, I've had enough. I cannot put this stuff in a magazine or a speedloader, and call it my defense load. Too many misfires. The 9mm misfired in both my Browning Hi Power MKIII, and in my Taurus M905IB revolver. The .38 Special load misfired in both a new Taurus M82, and in my beloved SW M15 Combat Masterpiece.

Now, the great Gods/Editors of American Rifleman magazine, and I am sure to come, the TV shows as well, will be hyping up this 'new, improved, police load by Hornady.

Sorry folks, even attempting to get to the TV Zombie Crowd, by changing the color tips from orange to green, will not have me give this stuff, any more consideration.

I will stay with the old standard L-series Remington 115 grain FMJ and JHP for my Browning; and a standard semi-wadcutter (no HP or Plus P) of a stout 158 grains in my .38 Special revolvers. Both are old school and still works.

I agree that hit the mark, followed by penetration, are the key factors. The ogive on the L-series Remington is acceptable for what are listed as class 3 9mm semiautomatics, due to their design. If it is acceptable for a Browning MKII, it is acceptable for a MKIII. A standard 158 grain semiwadcutter from either a snubnose, or a service revolver design revolver, will deliver enough penetration.
(For comparison, a video is out there of the evaluation of Buffalo Bore LSWCHP non-plus-p 158 grain .38 special. The HP failed, becoming a wadcutter, that penetrated over 19 inches.)
Lastly, a box of LSWC or a box of L-series Remington rounds, each holding 50, currently still costs less than Hornady's 20 for $20.
 
You had bad luck with the Hornady's Critical Defense ammunition eh ? Anyone else have bad luck with these calibers ? I shot some .357 magnum out of my 627 and had no problems.
 
Balistic Tests

To answer the question above me first I actually carry Hornaday critical Defense in several of my handguns not all but several.

As far as handgun penetration testing I find it to be in general useful but not the only thing to live by. My method with a new defensive firearm goes a little something like this......

1. Pick Gun
2. Clean and inspect gun before it ever sees the range
3. buy (or use if already on hand) the most cost effective ammo to famalrize myself with the weapon Federal Champoin bulk gets used alot
4. Begin to mix in High quality SD ammo to test for function and accuracy
5. Find The most accurate SD load
6. Test the most accurate SD load until I know it will function

I am way more concerned with hitting what I am aiming at than a round that does 14.3 or 15.2 inches in a balistic test. My plan is to be shooting COM on a human being who means me harm. I have no interest in a shot through glass, drywall, a car door, or any other barrier.

If there is a wall between myself and a threat I will be using it as concealment (not cover concealment) to mount a hasty retreat.

In my home I am armed with a very dependable shotgun if someone was beating down the bedroom door and they meant us harm I would be doing some penetration testing with Winchester PDX 1 the round with a slug and buckshot. PS I already know it will penetrate a standard interior door because I used one off a house remodle for testing.

I can understand why the FBI, LEOs, and the military need penetration testing on their ammo however I am not them therefore my needs are a bit different.

Regards, Vermonter
 
I am a metrologist/test engineer, both by trade and by "disposition of personality" (inside industry joke ... it basically means you are a certain kind of useful pain-in-the-neck)

Ballistics Gelatin testing satisfies only two criteria of scientific metrology:
  • Consistant, known initial conditions
  • Consistant testing medium

Where it fails is in using a meaningful and duplicative analog to the problem being simulated ... gelatin does not really duplicate any known body structure, and only does a very rough job of simulating certain aspects of muscle tissue. Gelatin is similar to muscle in terms of viscosity, for instance but not at all in respects to fibrous structures of varying tensile strength, shear strength, blah, blah, blah.

It works sorta well as an extrapolative test however, and nobody has come up with anything better in this regard than calibrated gel testing. Just don't be fooled (the FBI isn't) into thinking that X" of penetration or expansion will result in the same on anything living. It won't.
 
As an NRA Life Member, I hate to have to say this, but...I have largely given up on reading The American Rifleman, especially the tests of firearms, ammo, etc. (In all fairness, it seems as if a number of other gun-related publications fall into the same category.)

It may just be my observation, but it seems to me that everything they test is just the greatest thing to ever come along.

As far as the value of opposing viewpoints, I will make a confession:
When I started getting into recreational shooting in late 99/early 2000 (as opposed to merely owning a couple guns and shooting twice a year) I started reading...everything I could lay my hands on.

Before the Internet, I had read American Handgunner waxing ecstatically over MagSafe 9mm and .40 S&W loads. I also bought a copy of Marshall and Sannow's "Stopping Power", which also endorsed those pricey ($20/6pack) pre-fragmented loads.

I had those hyper-expensive loads in the P7 PSP sitting on my nightstand, and although I had only put a few of those rounds down the barrell, I was convinced that I had the best HD setup around.

You see, the problem was that I had exactly two data points, and they both aligned.

Then one fine day, along came Al Gore, [mega-sarcasm]and he blessed us with the Internet.[/mega-sarcasm] :D

I found numerous posts on the Internet that quickly dispelled the notion that I had done everything possible to prepare for "what if".

I started reading other opinions, and my eyes were quickly opened. I read, and I shot, and I read and I shot and then... I read and I shot some more. Nearly $200 worth of MagSafe 9mm and .40 (a pitifully small number of rounds) were expended into paper and I quickly discovered that the lighter (and faster!) 9mm load would not reliably cycle my S&W 469, which was so loaded...:eek:

Almost 13 years later, there are no "gimmick" rounds in my inventory. Just plain old factory JHPs...quality ones, like Gold Dots and DPX.

And every time someone posts asking about Glaser and/or MagSafe, I try to show "the Rest of the Story", as Paul Harvey would have said.

Bottom line: If it weren't for people willing to share their knowledge/experiences, and express "the other side" our community would be far poorer (in knowledge). If I was not willing to listen to both sides, I would have made some (more) very poor decisions along the way.

The more data points, the better. We are adults, and given sufficient evidence, we can make our own informed decisons. Key word being informed.

Supressing/discouraging dissenting opinions is counter-productive, and (IMHO) anti-American.

Most of us understand the concept of separating the wheat from the chaff...and are capable of doing so. :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top