I know this stuff is debated constantly, but I'm looking for some guidance on whether there's a good way to interpret ballistic test results in terms of real world performance. I know the answer is somewhere between "no" and "it all depends" but I guess I'm just an optimist
I read through a huge set of impressive test results from Lucky Gunner -- I think that study must be pretty well known since it's often cited. Even they caution about reading too much into it. But here's the essence of my question:
Some loads tested fell right up against the 18" end of the penetration range. Others were right around 13".
One interpretation could be "The ones on the shallower end are less likely to actually penetrate far enough to stop an attack, so pick one that went 18" just to be safe"
The other could be "The ones at the deeper end are likely to blow right through a target and cause unintended damage, so pick one that went 13" to just to be safe."
Lucky Gunner seemed to be saying, ultimately, "all the loads that fall between 12-18 are good, and handgun bullets don't work miracles anyway."
The extra penetration that could pass through a barrier and save you in one scenario, could pass through the target and hit something else and damn you in some other scenario.
The guy who runs the range where I'm a member, retired cop, police and civilian shooting instructor for like 20 years basically summarizes it as "Pick something that runs reliably in your gun, falls somewhere in that 12-18 range on published tests and comes from a reputable manufacturer." Anything else is overthinking.
Is that a fair summary? Or is there really some better way to interpret results?
I read through a huge set of impressive test results from Lucky Gunner -- I think that study must be pretty well known since it's often cited. Even they caution about reading too much into it. But here's the essence of my question:
Some loads tested fell right up against the 18" end of the penetration range. Others were right around 13".
One interpretation could be "The ones on the shallower end are less likely to actually penetrate far enough to stop an attack, so pick one that went 18" just to be safe"
The other could be "The ones at the deeper end are likely to blow right through a target and cause unintended damage, so pick one that went 13" to just to be safe."
Lucky Gunner seemed to be saying, ultimately, "all the loads that fall between 12-18 are good, and handgun bullets don't work miracles anyway."
The extra penetration that could pass through a barrier and save you in one scenario, could pass through the target and hit something else and damn you in some other scenario.
The guy who runs the range where I'm a member, retired cop, police and civilian shooting instructor for like 20 years basically summarizes it as "Pick something that runs reliably in your gun, falls somewhere in that 12-18 range on published tests and comes from a reputable manufacturer." Anything else is overthinking.
Is that a fair summary? Or is there really some better way to interpret results?