Gel test: 10mm 180 gr SIG V-Crown

Among other places, probably well over half the police departments in the US have used that round or the very similar Winchester and Remington offerings. Many still do. There is arguably no better documented load in the history of handgun combat.
 
Well, you see, when a police department shoots someone, there's usually paperwork filled out. One of the things typically included in that paperwork is the impact of the shooting on the person being shot. And in the case of the round in question, the impact was very consistently the incapacitation and/or death of the target from torso shots (as well as neck and head shots, but that's no surprise).
 
What are you looking for, a "source" on police department shooting reports? They come from hundreds of departments across multiple decades. There isn't one "source" like a URL you can type in to have the world handed to you on a platter.
 
So, in other words, there is no way to establish any statistical trends that would support the claim that the round in question is indeed "the single most effective handgun round in history". Without carefully controlled statistical analysis, all you really have is the obvious conclusion that bullets tend to negatively effect the health of a person struck with one.
 
Nope, plenty of people have correlated the reports and that bullet is consistently on top. Marshall & Sanow did it (3 times in each of their 3 books), the FBI's done it (AFAIK there's no URL - that round is from the era of paper reports), and several major police departments have done it. I've personally read the Indianapolis police department report (indicating 0 out of 200 subjects hit with the bullet returned fire) and Kentucky and Texas state trooper reports (likewise indicating effective performance although I don't remember exact numbers), but there are undoubtedly many more.
 
Their conclusion is the same as EVERYONE ELSE on this topic. Because everyone has the same shooting data.

You've got your head in the sand for some ridiculous reason - this is pointless.
 
Oh, and by the way anyone who says they've "thoroughly debunked" Marshall & Sanow either has to provide access to their superior database of real world shootings, or I will simply laugh in their face.
 
You're making broad statements again, without any reference. Which conclusions and who, exactly, agrees?

The M&S "conclusion" that shot placement matters more than any other factor? Sure. Everyone agrees.


Let's take a step back, though. Is 10mm 155 GD or a .357 semi-jacketed 125 gr hollow point likely to be effective most of the time? Sure. They do not have the penetration to be effective in some scenarios, though. That doesn't mean you should choose an inferior load like Hydrashok, either. You should choose a load that has decent terminal effect and adequate presentation, then bear in mind that handguns are generally poor at stopping people with any load and focus on shot placement.

Incidentally, I'm curious how many police departments still issue .357 mag, anyway. Not that its popularity in law enforcement is in any way indicative of its usefulness for personal defense.
 
You apparently didn't pay any attention to the four other reports I mentioned. They all make the same conclusion - nearly 100% effectiveness on torso, neck and head shots with Federal 357B.

And many departments still have a .357mag load - thanks to backup and undercover guns like the S&W 340 PD.
 
You can laugh all you want, but M&S was fundamentally flawed. It likely isn't possible to do any sort of relevant comparison of field results in the way they attempted. Too many variables that can't be controlled.
 
No, I haven't read those reports and you didn't provide a link. Did they compare the load in question to other .357 mag loads and to other calibers fired by similarly trained officers?
 
The proof that it's possible is that they did it. That their results match other studies with different methodologies says they did it well.

And suffice to say I have huge contempt for people who criticize the best available data on a subject, while offering no contribution of better data.
 
Could you provide a link and/or a summary of the findings? I wouldn't be surprised to find that aa 125 gr .357 mag 125 gr SJHP was more often effective with one shot than a 9mm 147 gr JHP, especially with the older designs that had more trouble expanding at low velocity. Then again, if the .357 was more effective with one shot, but officers were more likely to survive a gun fight with the 9mm, who cares? Not saying that's the case, just trying to help you understand why it is difficult to apply findings from that sort of study to real life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top