Where do you find real life info on handgun ammo? The only place I've found with more then a guy shooting into a bucket of water and saying "dis dun look good" is TNoutdoors9 on youtube. He only does a few shots for speed/recoil and 1 into denim/gel though. I'd love to get some real info on shots into a dead hog or something. A hog wearing people clothes I guess. A little gruesome maybe but I'm willing sacrifice some pork chops and bacon for life saving info. I have a say in the gun and ammo my mother carries and I want her armed with the best. Currently she carries a LCR 38 with 38+p critical defense. Not so helpful when she walks up on a bear, which we have done a couple times, but should be OK against a psycho. Always on the lookout for the best she could be carrying.
Handgun ammo test info?
- Thread starter qqq1
- Start date
Testing is done to extrapolate results and you need consistent test media to do that.
What would happen if you tested 5 bullets in 9% ordnance gelatin, 5 bullets in 10% ordnance gel and 5 bullets in 11% ordnance gel? You'd get disparate results that would give you erroneous information about the round.
If you shoot a hog in the chest you'll get different results than if you shoot him in the abdomen or the muscled legs (ham), I'm not even getting into shooting a wild boar in the gristle sheild). You can only shoot a hog so many times in the same place before you need another hog. A bullet is going to perform differently from one hog to another.
Testing with ordnance gel or sim media isn't cheap, imagine how expensive it is to shoot hogs.
I'm not aware of anyone who does it. The closest thing that I can think of are those people who put uncooked pork ribs between denim and tape that to the front of their gel block and shoot through it for their test.
What would happen if you tested 5 bullets in 9% ordnance gelatin, 5 bullets in 10% ordnance gel and 5 bullets in 11% ordnance gel? You'd get disparate results that would give you erroneous information about the round.
If you shoot a hog in the chest you'll get different results than if you shoot him in the abdomen or the muscled legs (ham), I'm not even getting into shooting a wild boar in the gristle sheild). You can only shoot a hog so many times in the same place before you need another hog. A bullet is going to perform differently from one hog to another.
Testing with ordnance gel or sim media isn't cheap, imagine how expensive it is to shoot hogs.
I'm not aware of anyone who does it. The closest thing that I can think of are those people who put uncooked pork ribs between denim and tape that to the front of their gel block and shoot through it for their test.
Someone is going to start talking about Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow on this thread so I might as well mention it now.
In the mid eighties there were a lot of different theories on what calibers and types of bullets were effective and a lot of competing theories:
foot pounds of energy, energy dump, knock down power, Relative Incapactitation Index, Hydrostatic shock - I'm probably mising some of the ideas that have been touted...
Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow began publishing articles where they proposed rating ammo on actual performance against human beings. They wrote about their concept of the "One-SHot-Stop". I think I first read about it in 1986 or 1987, I can't remember, but even back then I saw some problems with their criteria, but I was intrigued by the possible results - a grading system whereby all bulllets could be rated for their effectiveness.
There were people who saying things like pin-grabber bullets would stop people better than regular hollowpoints, and the Glaser Safety Slug would be the best, or FMJ would be the best, and there were some ordnance gel results, and there were still gun writers who were saying the only way to put a perp down was to use a bullet that would knock people on their ass. This concept of having a grading system - a single number assigned to a bullet was really appealing and I wanted to believe.
I even bought tons of ammo based on one of Marshal and Sanows article - I bought boxes and boxes of Federal Nyclad.
I knew their were problems with their criteria and it bothered me, but I wanted the comfort that came with believing in a grading system and buying the highest rated bullet.
Besides the problems with their criteria, I started seeing problems with their statistical methodology, and then problems came to light about other problems with their data-gathering methodology.
I eventually concluded that their published OSS "data" was worthless - actually worse than worthless since the findings seemed to be tainted by their own bias. The OSS "study" ended up being nothing more than a couple of guys touting their theory, just like the RII was one guy's theory and using pin-grabbers was one guy's theory.
I put more stock in Fackler's work on ballistics and wounding.
The writings of Greg Ellifritz are just so flawed its mind-boggling.
But anyway...
zombie thread but I can't help posting
In the mid eighties there were a lot of different theories on what calibers and types of bullets were effective and a lot of competing theories:
foot pounds of energy, energy dump, knock down power, Relative Incapactitation Index, Hydrostatic shock - I'm probably mising some of the ideas that have been touted...
Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow began publishing articles where they proposed rating ammo on actual performance against human beings. They wrote about their concept of the "One-SHot-Stop". I think I first read about it in 1986 or 1987, I can't remember, but even back then I saw some problems with their criteria, but I was intrigued by the possible results - a grading system whereby all bulllets could be rated for their effectiveness.
There were people who saying things like pin-grabber bullets would stop people better than regular hollowpoints, and the Glaser Safety Slug would be the best, or FMJ would be the best, and there were some ordnance gel results, and there were still gun writers who were saying the only way to put a perp down was to use a bullet that would knock people on their ass. This concept of having a grading system - a single number assigned to a bullet was really appealing and I wanted to believe.
I even bought tons of ammo based on one of Marshal and Sanows article - I bought boxes and boxes of Federal Nyclad.
I knew their were problems with their criteria and it bothered me, but I wanted the comfort that came with believing in a grading system and buying the highest rated bullet.
Besides the problems with their criteria, I started seeing problems with their statistical methodology, and then problems came to light about other problems with their data-gathering methodology.
I eventually concluded that their published OSS "data" was worthless - actually worse than worthless since the findings seemed to be tainted by their own bias. The OSS "study" ended up being nothing more than a couple of guys touting their theory, just like the RII was one guy's theory and using pin-grabbers was one guy's theory.
I put more stock in Fackler's work on ballistics and wounding.
The writings of Greg Ellifritz are just so flawed its mind-boggling.
But anyway...
zombie thread but I can't help posting
bullet performance
CountZero, I could not agree with you more. I started fooling with guns at the age of 10 in 1957 when I was given my first 410 shotgun.
I will not bore you with all the details but I attended several firearms schools and became an armorer and Firearms Instructor for a large dept.
I went through the days of Lee Jurras and the Glaser Safety slugs.
Lee did a lot for the gun world and has never received his credit due him.
Before he came out with his ammo, if you walked into a gun store and said give me a box of 38 specials. You were handed a box of 158 grain lead bullets that had a velocity of about 800 FPS. That was it, no other ammo was sold to the police or civilians.
The guys you speak of were trying to hand us a stack of bull that did not pan out. They were not the only ones.
If you remember the ammo companies produced a 38 special loaded with a 200 grain bullet that was touted as a true man stopper. It just did break about 680 FPS and would not break through the butterfly side glass of automobiles of the time. It would also fail to go through the heavy winter clothes wore by many in the cold North.
Today's ammo is leaps and bounds ahead of those days but it all has good and bad times to use it.
At one time I carried the first round up as a Glaser then the next three as 158 grain silvertips and the last two were Winchester 158 grain metal piercing.
These are no longer made and I was working in a rural area which may have required a engine shot to stop the fight.
You should not purchase any ammo by name but by performance testing. If none is available then set up your own.
You may purchase a product called Duct seal that is used in the HVAC business that makes into good testing blocks. Later David
CountZero, I could not agree with you more. I started fooling with guns at the age of 10 in 1957 when I was given my first 410 shotgun.
I will not bore you with all the details but I attended several firearms schools and became an armorer and Firearms Instructor for a large dept.
I went through the days of Lee Jurras and the Glaser Safety slugs.
Lee did a lot for the gun world and has never received his credit due him.
Before he came out with his ammo, if you walked into a gun store and said give me a box of 38 specials. You were handed a box of 158 grain lead bullets that had a velocity of about 800 FPS. That was it, no other ammo was sold to the police or civilians.
The guys you speak of were trying to hand us a stack of bull that did not pan out. They were not the only ones.
If you remember the ammo companies produced a 38 special loaded with a 200 grain bullet that was touted as a true man stopper. It just did break about 680 FPS and would not break through the butterfly side glass of automobiles of the time. It would also fail to go through the heavy winter clothes wore by many in the cold North.
Today's ammo is leaps and bounds ahead of those days but it all has good and bad times to use it.
At one time I carried the first round up as a Glaser then the next three as 158 grain silvertips and the last two were Winchester 158 grain metal piercing.
These are no longer made and I was working in a rural area which may have required a engine shot to stop the fight.
You should not purchase any ammo by name but by performance testing. If none is available then set up your own.
You may purchase a product called Duct seal that is used in the HVAC business that makes into good testing blocks. Later David