Mike Irwin
Staff
George,
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! You continue to bash your head against a wall of INCORRECT linear thinking!
The effect of velocity is NOT linear, and does NOT affect each projectile the same way!
What is true for one projectile is NOT true for another.
That's like saying that the same engine, dropped into ANY chassie, will give ANY automobile the SAME performance, no matter what its curb weight, gear ratios, etc. It WON'T.
OK, since you're linear thinking dude, let's try it this way...
Why, George, are YOU carrying slugs that have SUCH A LOW POTENTIAL FOR EXPANSION?
Why are YOU handicapping yourself like that?
Why aren't YOU carrying some of the 90 to 100 grain 9mm bullet loads that are availble?
Since, in this TOTALLY LINEAR world of yours, if the 147s have a lower potential for expansion than your 115s, it MUST BE ABSOLUTELY TRUE that your 115s have a lower potential for expansion than the 90 to 100 grain 9mm bullets.
WHY ARE YOU HANDICAPPING YOURSELF IN SUCH A POTENTIALLY DEADLY FASHION?
The "Transmogrified" bit deals with Marshall and Sanow's conclusions. It's a slam against Marshall and Sanow.
"Going through an object."
What's an object, George? A street sign? A human torso? A car windshield? A human hand?
Any bullet could meet that criteria, given that "object" isn't defined, so without further information, these 6 shootings don't qualify.
Jesus, here we go with power again. Power power power power power.
Any second now I expect you to change your parameters once again to Accuracy Accuracy Accuracy Accuracy!
Ok, I'll try this again.
Power does not incapacitate people.
Disruption of critical body functions incapacitates people.
To ensure that disruption of critical body functions, you need to get deep into the body, to the major organs.
If you don't, you don't have a sure chance of incapacitation.
Power, and the concept of "shock," is a smokescreen.
The ONLY shock that matters is that caused by blood loss -- the so-called "shock" caused by a projectile impacting a human body is a quaint theory that just doens't hold water.
"If penetration is so important, in 9x19, why not use a more powerful 115 gr bullet designed to expand less"
Hello, George, what part of this part of my last post DON'T you understand?
BUT, if they both show the same amount of penetration and the same amount of expansion, but differ some in the raw power they generate, as far as I'm concerned they are BOTH still perfectly adequate defensive handgun rounds.
Since you don't seem to be able to stick to a SINGLE cogent topic of discussion, I'll explain this to you.
I don't have a problem with 115s. I don't have a problem with 124s. I don't have a problem with the newer generation of 147s.
If you had bothered to read my messages, instead of selectively parsing them and changing your angle of attack, you'd see that.
"My point was the article...failed to compare tests on the heavy, slower bullets with faster & more powerful 115 gr ammo. WHY?"
Had you bothered to READ the article, you'd see why those rounds weren't addressed there.
Just for your edification:
"To our pleasant surprise Speer’s Law Enforcement Director, Mr. Russell Ellis, invited us to Lewiston, Idaho to test Gold Dot
ammunition for ourselves. Speer would provide the ordnance gelatin, ammunition, and appropriate test facilities. Also, we’d get a
tour of the CCI-Speer manufacturing facility.
We explained to Mr. Ellis that we were interested in evaluating the performance of compact handgun/ammunition combinations
because there is a general lack of valid data for concealed carry handgun ammunition performance. Also, we wanted to test
Gold Dot ammunition in accordance with the IWBA Handgun Ammunition Specification. He said Speer could accommodate our
wishes.
This was an offer that just couldn’t be refused and we made arrangements to visit CCI-Speer in early August."
It wasn't MEANT to be a full-bore test, George.
And if you go BACK and READ the message where I first posted this, you'll see very clearly that I posted that information to disabuse you of the notion that 147s DON'T expand, not to provide comprehensive comparative testing data!
It did, however, provide COMPARATIVE data, as well as recommendations for other manufacturers:
"For those of you who just cannot bring yourself to use a 147 grain bullet, the 124 grain +P Gold Dot would also be a
good choice for personal defense. However this particular cartridge is difficult to locate. It is packaged in 50 round
boxes for law enforcement sales, but it is not restricted by Speer. If you don't want to go through all the trouble to
obtain Speer's 124 grain +P Gold Dot, another good choice for compact 9mm handguns is Remington's 124 grain
Golden Saber +P."
"Gelatin tests are easy to rig..."
Ah, now we have the crux of your argument. You don't believe it simply because you think the tests MIGHT be rigged, when it's really a case of "these tests don't support my preconceived notion of linear ballistics, that 147-gr. bullets simply CAN'T expand reliably because they weigh 147-grains."
So tell me, how do you know FOR A FACT that your 115s expand all of the time? Or is it simply a case of "They go faster, so they MUST be better. Proof? I don't need no steenkin' proof? Faster is better!"
Can we trust YOUR word on that? Could you have rigged any tests you might have done just to make yourself look good and support your theory of a linear ballistic universe?
Get over it, George. Life isn't linear, bullet performance isn't linear, and the new generation of 147s expand nicely, and show evidence of penetrating nicely, as well.
Sorry if that rocks your linear world.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! You continue to bash your head against a wall of INCORRECT linear thinking!
The effect of velocity is NOT linear, and does NOT affect each projectile the same way!
What is true for one projectile is NOT true for another.
That's like saying that the same engine, dropped into ANY chassie, will give ANY automobile the SAME performance, no matter what its curb weight, gear ratios, etc. It WON'T.
OK, since you're linear thinking dude, let's try it this way...
Why, George, are YOU carrying slugs that have SUCH A LOW POTENTIAL FOR EXPANSION?
Why are YOU handicapping yourself like that?
Why aren't YOU carrying some of the 90 to 100 grain 9mm bullet loads that are availble?
Since, in this TOTALLY LINEAR world of yours, if the 147s have a lower potential for expansion than your 115s, it MUST BE ABSOLUTELY TRUE that your 115s have a lower potential for expansion than the 90 to 100 grain 9mm bullets.
WHY ARE YOU HANDICAPPING YOURSELF IN SUCH A POTENTIALLY DEADLY FASHION?
The "Transmogrified" bit deals with Marshall and Sanow's conclusions. It's a slam against Marshall and Sanow.
"Going through an object."
What's an object, George? A street sign? A human torso? A car windshield? A human hand?
Any bullet could meet that criteria, given that "object" isn't defined, so without further information, these 6 shootings don't qualify.
Jesus, here we go with power again. Power power power power power.
Any second now I expect you to change your parameters once again to Accuracy Accuracy Accuracy Accuracy!
Ok, I'll try this again.
Power does not incapacitate people.
Disruption of critical body functions incapacitates people.
To ensure that disruption of critical body functions, you need to get deep into the body, to the major organs.
If you don't, you don't have a sure chance of incapacitation.
Power, and the concept of "shock," is a smokescreen.
The ONLY shock that matters is that caused by blood loss -- the so-called "shock" caused by a projectile impacting a human body is a quaint theory that just doens't hold water.
"If penetration is so important, in 9x19, why not use a more powerful 115 gr bullet designed to expand less"
Hello, George, what part of this part of my last post DON'T you understand?
BUT, if they both show the same amount of penetration and the same amount of expansion, but differ some in the raw power they generate, as far as I'm concerned they are BOTH still perfectly adequate defensive handgun rounds.
Since you don't seem to be able to stick to a SINGLE cogent topic of discussion, I'll explain this to you.
I don't have a problem with 115s. I don't have a problem with 124s. I don't have a problem with the newer generation of 147s.
If you had bothered to read my messages, instead of selectively parsing them and changing your angle of attack, you'd see that.
"My point was the article...failed to compare tests on the heavy, slower bullets with faster & more powerful 115 gr ammo. WHY?"
Had you bothered to READ the article, you'd see why those rounds weren't addressed there.
Just for your edification:
"To our pleasant surprise Speer’s Law Enforcement Director, Mr. Russell Ellis, invited us to Lewiston, Idaho to test Gold Dot
ammunition for ourselves. Speer would provide the ordnance gelatin, ammunition, and appropriate test facilities. Also, we’d get a
tour of the CCI-Speer manufacturing facility.
We explained to Mr. Ellis that we were interested in evaluating the performance of compact handgun/ammunition combinations
because there is a general lack of valid data for concealed carry handgun ammunition performance. Also, we wanted to test
Gold Dot ammunition in accordance with the IWBA Handgun Ammunition Specification. He said Speer could accommodate our
wishes.
This was an offer that just couldn’t be refused and we made arrangements to visit CCI-Speer in early August."
It wasn't MEANT to be a full-bore test, George.
And if you go BACK and READ the message where I first posted this, you'll see very clearly that I posted that information to disabuse you of the notion that 147s DON'T expand, not to provide comprehensive comparative testing data!
It did, however, provide COMPARATIVE data, as well as recommendations for other manufacturers:
"For those of you who just cannot bring yourself to use a 147 grain bullet, the 124 grain +P Gold Dot would also be a
good choice for personal defense. However this particular cartridge is difficult to locate. It is packaged in 50 round
boxes for law enforcement sales, but it is not restricted by Speer. If you don't want to go through all the trouble to
obtain Speer's 124 grain +P Gold Dot, another good choice for compact 9mm handguns is Remington's 124 grain
Golden Saber +P."
"Gelatin tests are easy to rig..."
Ah, now we have the crux of your argument. You don't believe it simply because you think the tests MIGHT be rigged, when it's really a case of "these tests don't support my preconceived notion of linear ballistics, that 147-gr. bullets simply CAN'T expand reliably because they weigh 147-grains."
So tell me, how do you know FOR A FACT that your 115s expand all of the time? Or is it simply a case of "They go faster, so they MUST be better. Proof? I don't need no steenkin' proof? Faster is better!"
Can we trust YOUR word on that? Could you have rigged any tests you might have done just to make yourself look good and support your theory of a linear ballistic universe?
Get over it, George. Life isn't linear, bullet performance isn't linear, and the new generation of 147s expand nicely, and show evidence of penetrating nicely, as well.
Sorry if that rocks your linear world.