Martin L. Fackler
- Thread starter Anibal
- Start date
Well, he certainly thinks so.
Fackler has done a lot for the development of effective handgun bullets. No question about it. He's the king of the "gello junkies", the guys who use calibrated 10% gelatin for bullet testing. His work, along with the great contributions of Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow, have led us to the point where you just can't buy a bad premium self defense load from a major ammo company.
Fackler and M&S are on opposite sides of the fence in regards to terminal ballistics.
Fackler's research using ballistic gelatin has been shown to be very close to actual bullet penetration figures in real life shootings.
His work is used by the FBI in developing better loads for small arms. Fackler's work can be summarized here:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf
This work indicates that a well designed heavy bullet traveling at a moderate velocity generally penetrates farther to ensure vital organs or structures inside the body will be damaged. Fackler's work concentrated on the physiological damage done by a bullet. This school of thought says that damage caused by a handgun bullet is only the tissue or structures that the bullet actually contacts. This camp teaches that service caliber handguns do not generate enough kinetic energy to cause reliable incapacitation.
Marshall and Sanow, on the other hand, used a totally different approach. They gathered police reports, autopsy and hospital records and eyewitness reports from real life shootings to determine which load had the greatest chance of a "one shot stop."
This is a summary of their work:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_power_chart.htm
Their conclusions were generally that a high velocity, lighter weight bullet seemed to incapacitate faster, even if it did not penetrate enough to damage vital structures. Their work seemed to focus on the psychological damage a bullet may do.
Their work is not without merit, although it has been critcized as seriously flawed. Testing on live animals often show what hunters have known for some time. A higher energy bullet often works better than a lower energy bullet, if bullet placement is equal.
Gun writer Massad Ayoob writes about this continuing argument.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_145_24/ai_59328836/
Chuck Hawk's article on the debate can be found here:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/fackler_marshall_stopping_power.htm
So one camp relies on laboratory testing, one relies on "street results."
So who is right?
Good question. That's why we have so many caliber wars on gun forums!
goodspeed(TPF)
New member
Google is your friend.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Actually, the search feature here is your friend. Fackler, Sanow, and Marshall have been discussed at great length over the years.
I think Dr. Fackler has helped push handgun ammo significantly forward across his career. To a lesser degree, so have M&S.
Dr. Fackler is correct when he says "you gotta have enough penetration".
I think his other big claim, that temporary stretch cavities don't matter in handguns, is only partially right.
Basically, the question is "can bullets harm tissue that they don't actually touch?" In other words, when a bullet hits, it pushes material out of the way...can that pushed material itself go on to do more damage?
When the material is bone and the bullet energy is high enough, the answer is "yes". Period. But what about when the "material" is just flesh itself?
That's where the controversy lies.
Fackler says it doesn't happen, period, not until you get rifle bullet energy and speeds up past 2,000fps, which basically isn't going to happen in a handgun (ignoring rare exceptions in guns that aren't very packable or practical for police/CCW use). Somewhere up past 2,000fps you get "hydrostatic shock", like when a .223 rifle hits muscle and blows a fist-size chunk out.
I've studied a LOT of ballistics, more or less everything I can get my hands on online and some on dead trees.
I *suspect* that Fackler is wrong, but only when you get into bullet energies greater than what law enforcement wants to deal with.
The FBI dabbled briefly in the "big horsepower" school with the 10mm, which more or less equals the 357Magnum. They were shooting it with ammo up around 700ft/lbs energy, and it was just killing their smaller (and female) agents. They first backed down the power level to about 550ft/lbs (the "10mm lite") with reduced power springs, and then S&W figured out you could get that level of power in a 9mm-sized gun with 9mm-length shells of 10mm bore, which is how the 40S&W was conceived and has taken the police world by storm. Meanwhile the FBI abandoned the 10mm before they'd had any sort of street track record with it, and before any really good projectiles came out for it.
So what am *I* doing?
The first two rounds in my gun right now are quality 38Spl +Ps, 135gr Gold Dot hollowpoints doing about 250ft/lbs energy from my 4.5" barrel wheelgun. They're pretty classic "Facker-inspired" slugs, meant to expand fairly well but not too much and punch at least 12" deep. I think it's quite likely they'll do exactly that and no more - no "explosive spatter" effects at this power level. Speer set them up to match Fackler's required spec and they're now a top issue load for departments still authorizing 38Spl snubbies for carry.
But the next four rounds are something else again. Still Gold Dots, 125gr "high speed" variant in full house 357Magnum loaded by Doubletap Ammo to about 1,600fps, about 800ft/lbs energy.
Fackler would say that all that power won't matter - the bullet still won't hurt anything it doesn't touch.
I suspect he's wrong. I hope to God I never have to personally prove it, but I suspect these bad boys are going to explosively blow chunks of whatever they hit. I literally blew up a bowling ball with one, split it right in half at 20 paces out, sent fist-size pieces of the concrete core back past my feet. The owner of the now-ex-ball said he'd never seen a handgun do that to one, in any caliber. Power levels here are up *higher* than what the FBI dabbled in and gave up, but in my full-size revolver I can control them (barely - with grip modifications).
So...I may one day find out. I hope not...but...I know one thing.
I would NOT want to get hit with one of those 125s.
And interestingly enough, a milder but very common 125gr 357 load that's been shipping for a LONG time (Remington's 125 full house semi-jacketed JHP) ranks huge on the M&S stoppers list. I think it's there simply because it's been around a long time and has racked up an impressive kill list. I know for a fact both the Doubletap and Buffalo Bore 125s are loaded hotter, and I strongly suspect the Gold Dot projectile is worlds ahead of the old-school primitive JHP Remmie load.
Dr. Fackler is correct when he says "you gotta have enough penetration".
I think his other big claim, that temporary stretch cavities don't matter in handguns, is only partially right.
Basically, the question is "can bullets harm tissue that they don't actually touch?" In other words, when a bullet hits, it pushes material out of the way...can that pushed material itself go on to do more damage?
When the material is bone and the bullet energy is high enough, the answer is "yes". Period. But what about when the "material" is just flesh itself?
That's where the controversy lies.
Fackler says it doesn't happen, period, not until you get rifle bullet energy and speeds up past 2,000fps, which basically isn't going to happen in a handgun (ignoring rare exceptions in guns that aren't very packable or practical for police/CCW use). Somewhere up past 2,000fps you get "hydrostatic shock", like when a .223 rifle hits muscle and blows a fist-size chunk out.
I've studied a LOT of ballistics, more or less everything I can get my hands on online and some on dead trees.
I *suspect* that Fackler is wrong, but only when you get into bullet energies greater than what law enforcement wants to deal with.
The FBI dabbled briefly in the "big horsepower" school with the 10mm, which more or less equals the 357Magnum. They were shooting it with ammo up around 700ft/lbs energy, and it was just killing their smaller (and female) agents. They first backed down the power level to about 550ft/lbs (the "10mm lite") with reduced power springs, and then S&W figured out you could get that level of power in a 9mm-sized gun with 9mm-length shells of 10mm bore, which is how the 40S&W was conceived and has taken the police world by storm. Meanwhile the FBI abandoned the 10mm before they'd had any sort of street track record with it, and before any really good projectiles came out for it.
So what am *I* doing?
The first two rounds in my gun right now are quality 38Spl +Ps, 135gr Gold Dot hollowpoints doing about 250ft/lbs energy from my 4.5" barrel wheelgun. They're pretty classic "Facker-inspired" slugs, meant to expand fairly well but not too much and punch at least 12" deep. I think it's quite likely they'll do exactly that and no more - no "explosive spatter" effects at this power level. Speer set them up to match Fackler's required spec and they're now a top issue load for departments still authorizing 38Spl snubbies for carry.
But the next four rounds are something else again. Still Gold Dots, 125gr "high speed" variant in full house 357Magnum loaded by Doubletap Ammo to about 1,600fps, about 800ft/lbs energy.
Fackler would say that all that power won't matter - the bullet still won't hurt anything it doesn't touch.
I suspect he's wrong. I hope to God I never have to personally prove it, but I suspect these bad boys are going to explosively blow chunks of whatever they hit. I literally blew up a bowling ball with one, split it right in half at 20 paces out, sent fist-size pieces of the concrete core back past my feet. The owner of the now-ex-ball said he'd never seen a handgun do that to one, in any caliber. Power levels here are up *higher* than what the FBI dabbled in and gave up, but in my full-size revolver I can control them (barely - with grip modifications).
So...I may one day find out. I hope not...but...I know one thing.
I would NOT want to get hit with one of those 125s.
And interestingly enough, a milder but very common 125gr 357 load that's been shipping for a LONG time (Remington's 125 full house semi-jacketed JHP) ranks huge on the M&S stoppers list. I think it's there simply because it's been around a long time and has racked up an impressive kill list. I know for a fact both the Doubletap and Buffalo Bore 125s are loaded hotter, and I strongly suspect the Gold Dot projectile is worlds ahead of the old-school primitive JHP Remmie load.
I don't want to add fuel to a low simmering fire but many think Marshall/Sanow base their conclusions on "statistics" which are highly suspect at best. Dr. Fackler has called them on this without, IMHO, a satisfactory response. Some don't like Dr. Fackler because he deals in "theory" based on lab tests and find Marshall/Sanow's "real world" data appealing.
Frankly, the whole idea of "one shot stops" from a handgun should be discouraged unless the shot is to the central nervous system. While many bad guys may stop immediately upon being shot, a determined bad guy will still pose a menace even if the wound proves ultimately fatal. That's why people are taught to shoot 'til they stop.
Frankly, the whole idea of "one shot stops" from a handgun should be discouraged unless the shot is to the central nervous system. While many bad guys may stop immediately upon being shot, a determined bad guy will still pose a menace even if the wound proves ultimately fatal. That's why people are taught to shoot 'til they stop.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"M&S don't use statistics."
Then why do they include tables of statistics in each of their publications? That information is most certainly statistical data (such as % of one shot stops), and it's those statistics that have repeatedly called into question.
Then why do they include tables of statistics in each of their publications? That information is most certainly statistical data (such as % of one shot stops), and it's those statistics that have repeatedly called into question.
I've read a lot of such research projects and test. Differant people getting differant results with pretty much the same equipment.
Also I did a bit of CSI, attending serveral autopsys. I've come to the conclusion that no bullet is gonna react the same every time. I've seen bodys shot with the same ammo, from the same gun (mutipal gun shot wouds), hitting near the same spot, with competely differant results. I've seen a gun live after being shot with a 44 mag in the chest, I've seen a woman die after being gut shot with a 22.
No two people are built the same, (some fat and soft, some hard, some skinney, all wearing differant clothing).
The moral of the story, pick your round and hope for the best.
Like I've said, I;ve read a lot of differant test. The most interesting is from Col. La Garde's book, GUNSHOT INJURRIES.
Col. La Garde & Col Thompson (inventor of the Thompson machine gun), we taste with conducting test after the War Dept, discovered the Army .38 cal. preformed unsatisfactory.
Col La Grande used bodies, cadavers, beeves, and horses. (Also studies gun shot wounds from firing squads in South America, guess that wouldnt have been too PC in this country0.
Interesting but no real conclusions except no bullet reacts the same way all the time.
Another interesting read is P.O. Ackley. He was pushing the high velocity theory. Ackley used donkeys showing the effects of high velocity light weight bullets vs. heavy slow bullets.
Again a good read.
Often test results are pre-determined, depending on the opinions of the tester.
An example: When I'm working with kids, I like to show them the dangers of firarms. I like to take my 204 ruger and shoot a gal. jug full of water. Because of extreme velocity the jug/water turns to vapor. Cant get the same results with, lets say, a 45-70, which just seems to push the jug off the fence post. Is that to say I'd take the 204 Elk hunting, Not likely, but the 204 vs water jug proved my point, it impressed the kids. The see that bullets in real life arnt like bullets on TV. Another example is a Black Hills 125 grn +p opens up pretty good on phone books out of my 6 in. Model 27, they dont open up worth a hoot out of my 642. So if I'm hunting phone books the Model 27 will be my go to revolver.
So me, I'll stick to my SWCs out of my 642, not because its the best, but because its the best I've found that fits in my pocket. I'm not the smartest guy in the world but I know, that if I figured I was gonna get in a gun fight (which at my age is highly unlikely) I'm gonna take a rifle. Since I doubt I will I'll keep my 642 in my pocket.
I live in a relatively crime free area, if I get in a gun fight its gonna be with rattlers trying to occupy the same area as my grand kids, or pop a cotton tail for the camp pot, both cases can be taken care of with my 642 & SWCs.
But dont stop studying Gun shoot wounds, stopping power, etc, its fun, entertaining reading. None of us are too old to learn, and reading beats the heck out of the Boob Tube.
Also I did a bit of CSI, attending serveral autopsys. I've come to the conclusion that no bullet is gonna react the same every time. I've seen bodys shot with the same ammo, from the same gun (mutipal gun shot wouds), hitting near the same spot, with competely differant results. I've seen a gun live after being shot with a 44 mag in the chest, I've seen a woman die after being gut shot with a 22.
No two people are built the same, (some fat and soft, some hard, some skinney, all wearing differant clothing).
The moral of the story, pick your round and hope for the best.
Like I've said, I;ve read a lot of differant test. The most interesting is from Col. La Garde's book, GUNSHOT INJURRIES.
Col. La Garde & Col Thompson (inventor of the Thompson machine gun), we taste with conducting test after the War Dept, discovered the Army .38 cal. preformed unsatisfactory.
Col La Grande used bodies, cadavers, beeves, and horses. (Also studies gun shot wounds from firing squads in South America, guess that wouldnt have been too PC in this country0.
Interesting but no real conclusions except no bullet reacts the same way all the time.
Another interesting read is P.O. Ackley. He was pushing the high velocity theory. Ackley used donkeys showing the effects of high velocity light weight bullets vs. heavy slow bullets.
Again a good read.
Often test results are pre-determined, depending on the opinions of the tester.
An example: When I'm working with kids, I like to show them the dangers of firarms. I like to take my 204 ruger and shoot a gal. jug full of water. Because of extreme velocity the jug/water turns to vapor. Cant get the same results with, lets say, a 45-70, which just seems to push the jug off the fence post. Is that to say I'd take the 204 Elk hunting, Not likely, but the 204 vs water jug proved my point, it impressed the kids. The see that bullets in real life arnt like bullets on TV. Another example is a Black Hills 125 grn +p opens up pretty good on phone books out of my 6 in. Model 27, they dont open up worth a hoot out of my 642. So if I'm hunting phone books the Model 27 will be my go to revolver.
So me, I'll stick to my SWCs out of my 642, not because its the best, but because its the best I've found that fits in my pocket. I'm not the smartest guy in the world but I know, that if I figured I was gonna get in a gun fight (which at my age is highly unlikely) I'm gonna take a rifle. Since I doubt I will I'll keep my 642 in my pocket.
I live in a relatively crime free area, if I get in a gun fight its gonna be with rattlers trying to occupy the same area as my grand kids, or pop a cotton tail for the camp pot, both cases can be taken care of with my 642 & SWCs.
But dont stop studying Gun shoot wounds, stopping power, etc, its fun, entertaining reading. None of us are too old to learn, and reading beats the heck out of the Boob Tube.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Interesting but no real conclusions except no bullet reacts the same way all the time."
Actually, they had a number of pretty definitive conclusions based on their testing.
I don't have the summary review (from Cartridges of the World, 4th edition, IIRC, that's at home), but one of them was along the lines of small, fast bullets (like the 7.65 Luger) didn't produce much in the way of wounds except when they hit bone, especially the skull. That's when the velocity factor came into play by knocking splinters off the bone and increasing the wounding potential of the bullet.
They also concluded that the larger the bullet, the fewer shots it took to A) produce a noticable response from the critters they were shooting and B) the faster those critters were incapicatated.
Their ultimate conclusion was that larger bullets, even those traveling at slower velocities, were better than light fast bullets.
That needs to be caveated by saying that they tested NO expanding ammunition of any kind, an all of the semi-auto ammunition was full metal jacket.
The results of the Thompson-La Garde tests helped put the final screws in Smith & Wesson's attempt to get the military to adopt its improved .38 caliber round, the .38 Special, and pushed the military irrevocably towards what would become the .45 ACP cartridge.
Actually, they had a number of pretty definitive conclusions based on their testing.
I don't have the summary review (from Cartridges of the World, 4th edition, IIRC, that's at home), but one of them was along the lines of small, fast bullets (like the 7.65 Luger) didn't produce much in the way of wounds except when they hit bone, especially the skull. That's when the velocity factor came into play by knocking splinters off the bone and increasing the wounding potential of the bullet.
They also concluded that the larger the bullet, the fewer shots it took to A) produce a noticable response from the critters they were shooting and B) the faster those critters were incapicatated.
Their ultimate conclusion was that larger bullets, even those traveling at slower velocities, were better than light fast bullets.
That needs to be caveated by saying that they tested NO expanding ammunition of any kind, an all of the semi-auto ammunition was full metal jacket.
The results of the Thompson-La Garde tests helped put the final screws in Smith & Wesson's attempt to get the military to adopt its improved .38 caliber round, the .38 Special, and pushed the military irrevocably towards what would become the .45 ACP cartridge.
For another take on the matter, there is member Dr Courtney and his research into pressure wave effects:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/member.php?u=39107
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/member.php?u=39107
“Fackler would say that all that power won't matter - the bullet still won't hurt anything it doesn't touch.”
Jim March
But by this way of thinking would mean that a .38 Special load and a .357 Magnum load with the same type of bullet would do the same damage if both of them penetrate deep enough. I don’t know but it doesn’t sound logical to me.
Anibal.
Jim March
But by this way of thinking would mean that a .38 Special load and a .357 Magnum load with the same type of bullet would do the same damage if both of them penetrate deep enough. I don’t know but it doesn’t sound logical to me.
Anibal.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
That's the part I don't understand. It's seems to me that the only reliable conclusion from that data is "All else being equal, a bigger hole is better.", which seems a bit obvious, data or no.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Dude, it was 1904 when Thompson and LaGarde did their tests.
Hollowpoints were virtually unknown.
Where T-L's real merit lies is in it being the first recorded attempt to get a feel for the damage capabilities of handgun ammunition.
What seems obvious now didn't seem quite so obvious in 1904.
At that time the shooting world was in the middle of a HUGE crossroads largely caused by the introduction of successful smokeless powders.
Knowledge that had been obvious for the past 300 years no longer was.
Velocities were skyrocketing, calibers were dropping, jacketed bullets were now a necessity, wounds with the new high velocity rifle bullets were in many cases several degrees of magnitude more severe than what the old heavy, slow, blackpowder-propelled bullets created.
Smokeless powder truly set the conventional wisdom meter back almost to zero. In 1904 there was simply no true baseline for what small caliber, high velocity handgun bullets might do in human/animal tissue.
Would they do better? Worse? The same? That's what T-L tried to figure out.
Hollowpoints were virtually unknown.
Where T-L's real merit lies is in it being the first recorded attempt to get a feel for the damage capabilities of handgun ammunition.
What seems obvious now didn't seem quite so obvious in 1904.
At that time the shooting world was in the middle of a HUGE crossroads largely caused by the introduction of successful smokeless powders.
Knowledge that had been obvious for the past 300 years no longer was.
Velocities were skyrocketing, calibers were dropping, jacketed bullets were now a necessity, wounds with the new high velocity rifle bullets were in many cases several degrees of magnitude more severe than what the old heavy, slow, blackpowder-propelled bullets created.
Smokeless powder truly set the conventional wisdom meter back almost to zero. In 1904 there was simply no true baseline for what small caliber, high velocity handgun bullets might do in human/animal tissue.
Would they do better? Worse? The same? That's what T-L tried to figure out.
I didnt mean to imply the LaGrade test were valid, only that they, and other such test make interesting reading.
Just to make a point, below is a picture of two bullets I shot into a dry phone book. The one on the left is a Black Hills 125 HP, +P, it was deformed but did not expand. The one on the right is a Lyman 358477 150 Grn SWC (cast with range lead) pushed with 4.5 grns of 231. out of my 642. It pushroomed pretty good. I took these pictures a couple weeks ago
Just a few minutes ago, I fired the same load (lyman SWC) into a gal jug of water, that went through the jug, 3/8s chip board, and penitrated about 4 inches into wet red clay. Except for the rifling on the barrel you cant tell the bullet was shot. It was cast in the same lot and the mushroomed bullet above.
YOU JUST CAN NEVER TELL WHATS GONNA HAPPEN.
Just to make a point, below is a picture of two bullets I shot into a dry phone book. The one on the left is a Black Hills 125 HP, +P, it was deformed but did not expand. The one on the right is a Lyman 358477 150 Grn SWC (cast with range lead) pushed with 4.5 grns of 231. out of my 642. It pushroomed pretty good. I took these pictures a couple weeks ago
Just a few minutes ago, I fired the same load (lyman SWC) into a gal jug of water, that went through the jug, 3/8s chip board, and penitrated about 4 inches into wet red clay. Except for the rifling on the barrel you cant tell the bullet was shot. It was cast in the same lot and the mushroomed bullet above.
YOU JUST CAN NEVER TELL WHATS GONNA HAPPEN.
Last edited:
Mike Irwin
Staff
They fired into HUMAN cadavers.
But PETA is fine with that.
But PETA is fine with that.
Mike Irwin
Staff
I would not expect a jacketed hollowpoint to expand when fired into a dry medium. There's a long body of evidence for jacketed hollowpoints plugging up in dry materials and acting like solids.
The expansion of the lead slug is from upsetting when the soft lead hit a hard surface. Also a pretty long body of evidence for that.
Shoot them into wet materials, though, and you tend to get results that are exactly the opposite.
Gotta love ballistics!
The expansion of the lead slug is from upsetting when the soft lead hit a hard surface. Also a pretty long body of evidence for that.
Shoot them into wet materials, though, and you tend to get results that are exactly the opposite.
Gotta love ballistics!