old cal. vs. big cal. vs. new cal garbage

R

roundabout

Inactive
sick of reading about .40 vs 9mm vs .45 vs .357 sig. If there is a question about recoil, ask it. General consensus is 9mm has little, .357 sig has more, .40 is too snappy, and .45 is heavy but controllable.

if you want performance data, go to www.firearmstactical.com. They have a comprehensive list of performance data from the fbi, the manufacturer, and other tests.

Forget this paper shuffllng and this garbage about 9mm 115g loads. DO NOT rely on the marshall and sanow figures. Not that they are necessarily bogus, but rely on a study that was VERY poorly conducted.

Everyone has a favorite load or gun, but please base your opinion on fact rather than the baseless statements of a commercially biased gun writer.

I am sorry for the heavy criticism, but the on thimg that continues to show up as i read these threads is that most of the talking is just talk or unfounded opinion. You all have internet access, read up on the specs for a round or gun, listen to what real world people have to say about ergonomics, recoil, accuracy, and then make a sound decision, after trying the product yourself.

Ask and i can give you addresses of sites for sale or specs of some products. Anyways, most of you sound pretty intelligent, and friendly. Nice to find a good forum for discussions like this.

A good evening to all.


------------------

Use your head, don't believe everything you hear, and never come out on the bottom.
 
Heh. My POV is this: the venerable .45 became the standard US autoloading pistol round in, what, 1911?. Europe went to the 9mm in the 1930s. We've been arguing ever since about which round is better and why, and neither one has been declared a clear-cut victor. 70 years of argument tells me the differences ain't all that grand.

Flame on!

Mike ;) :D

------------------
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -Robert Heinlein
 
Someone else referred me to that site, and they say that the Gold Dot 124gr. +p out of a 4 inch plus barrel is not recommended. Has anyone else ever heard this from another source?
 
"sick of reading about .40 vs 9mm vs .45 vs .357 sig."

Uh, well, then don't read the thread?

Just a guess, but I'd say you're firmly in the Facklerite camp...

------------------
Smith & Wesson is dead to me.

If you want a Smith & Wesson, buy USED!
 
Hmm..
Roundabout. Let me get this straight. You are stating that the Marshall and Sanow figures are "VERY poorly conducted." And that if we want performance data, we should go to www.firearmstactical.com. where they have a comprehensive list of performance data from the FBI. Compared to ACTUAL shootings the FBI "formula" is roughly 60% accurate. It may be that the Marshall and Sanow figures were "VERY poorly conducted" however they correlate to somewhere in the 90th percentile to ACTUAL shootings. Is this not true? Might I ask on what grounds you base your statements on? :confused: After all, "most of the talking is just talk or unfounded opinion." :rolleyes: :D
 
roundabout
Firearmstactical is great if you through out everything they say and just read the stats for penitration and expansion. Stick to Marshalls data for real stopping power comparisons.
PAT

------------------
I intend to go into harms way.
 
Yeah, but most of their figures were done in the Late 80's to mid 90's. I think it's time to retest the current crop of defensive ammunition and then we can all refer to their website as the lost chapter of the Bible.

Also, I LIKE to read the caliber debates. Everyone knows most of the 9mm, .40, .357Sig, .45 rounds will be about the same on the street. These threads are for entertainment. And, walking around asking "real-world people" ;) sounds like a lot of work when I can just come to Forums like TFL and read what a lot of knowledgeable, nice people have to say. If everyone knew what the best defensive round was, Then we would all carry it, and then TFL and other forums would close down due to lack of membership. I would hate to go to a forum and not have anything to talk about except recoil :D. Have fun with caliber debates, thats how the .700 Crazy Bastard Magnum Butt Stomper was born :D, which is my all time favorite defensive round. This post does not reflect the views of the Administrators or anyone other than me, so take it with a Morton salt container. Peace. :)
 
I agree with you Roundabout, except for the length of time. John Browning & Springfield Arsenal etc developed the 45 ACP for Brownings model 1905. Germany demanded a bigger cartridge than the 7.65 mauser before adopting the Luger, resulting in the 9mm in 1908. So this argument has been going on for about 90 years, since the US Army rejected the 9mm and demanded a 45 ACP Luger that was tested in 1910.

Actually with all of the manufacturers trying to meet the FBI criteria for penetration (min 10", MAX 16") etc, there really isn't much difference in the performance of the self-defense ammo that is being produced, no matter what caliber.
 
Okay all, here it is. You are right that it is fun just to sit and watch the fight over the best rounds. Maybe I came on a little strong. However, NO, I am not a Facklerite. I do see gelatin as a way to double check statements and tests. In this way it is useful, not on its own however.

About Marshall and Sanow.
1) Anyone who who quotes the Strousberg tests, which still can not be shown to have actually happened, and compares them to their own bloated statistics to show the accuracy of their own writings is a fraud.
2) Shooting goats through the heart is in no way similiar to firing on a motivated human being at different points of impact.
3) Giving a .223 a 100% one shot stop means that every person who was ever hit with a .223, no matter whether leg, shoulder, or vital, has been stopped with that shot.
4) The 12 gauge slug was given a lesser rating. This means that for home defense, I should be carrying an AR or a target rifle rather than a shotgun.
5) M & S highy tout the Glaser, Mag-safe, etc. From a .357, the Glaser has about 6" penetration with almost no permanent cavity. I am supposed to choose this round over any other hollow point with more weight and penetration. What happens to my "energy transfer"?

All these statistics are too good to be true. A near 100% statistic means that there are no armed citizens that hit someone in a nonvital area. Every person carrying a weapon except maybe 2-4% is using ammunition and placing shots so well that every shot meant stopping another boogieman. There is no differentiation in one shot stops, multiple shot stops, mentality of subject, whether subject was on painkillers, alcohol or drugs, or shot placement. If I did a study like that when I was in High School, I'd have been kicked out.
Lastly, and this is my opinion, after talking to L.E., anyone who recommends a 115 +p which took 20 some rounds to stop Platt, over a 147 talon or sxt, is daft.
Hey, lets all rechamber our .223 to.177 cal and shoot field pellets. At 6435 fps, there should be some major stopping power there. Sorry about the sarcasm.
Have a good evening.
 
First off, let me say that I neither comletely belive Marshall & Sanow or The Facklerites and feel that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. If push came to shove, I would tend to side more with the Facklerites. That said, let me explain how Marshall & Sanow come up with a 100% stop for the .223!

Their stats are based on what has happened in the past and they supply the number of observations that this happened in. For example if there were 10 shootings with a .223 and it stopped the person each time, then that rates it a 100%. Does that mean that it really is a 100%? No. If you went to different parts of the country and asked people who they were going to vote for and ten out of ten people said Bush, would you conclude that everyone was voting Bush? No.

If, on the other hand, you went to different parts of the country and asked a 1000 people the same question, and 900 said that they were voting for Bush, that would translate into 90% but with a much larger sample and that 90% out of 1000 would mean more than the 100% out of 10.
 
The article, "Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow "Data Base": An Evaluation Over Time", By Maarten van Maanen, is a very basic study of the changes in the M&S "database" over time.

His conclusion? "I believe the Marshall & Sanow 'data base' is completely discredited by the impossible conditions shown to exist in it."

The article can be found in full here: http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm . (It was originally published in Wound Ballistics Review; 4(2), 1999: 9-13.)

Here are some quotes from the article:

"Why has no mention of this manipulation of the 'data base' ever been mentioned? Any kind of secret reevaluation of the results is a clear-cut violation of any form of doing research because it is one form of 'fudging' the data."

"These greater than 100% stopping percentage or negative numbers (showing mysterious disappearing shootings) are fairly described as misrepresentations because they demonstrate conclusively that the Marshall & Sanow 'data base' is not as it has been claimed to be. Specifically:

Marshall & Sanow have claimed to have continuously collected their 'data base' of shootings over time; this makes having fewer shootings in particular caliber and load combinations at later dates impossible, but eight such conditions exist in their 'data base.'

Marshall & Sanow have eight particular caliber and load combinations that show a completely impossible greater than 100% 'one-shot stop' percentages in their 'data base.'"


------------------
If you value your right to keep and bear arms, support Citizens Of America -- they're doing it right!
Wound Ballistics is the study of effects on the body produced by penetrating projectiles.
Great Daily Commentary from a thoughtful Christian perspective.
Some fascinating insights into the current market mania from the Prudent Bear fund.
 
Formulas and data do not create wounds.


Hit them hard (I don't care if it's a baseball bat, a car, or a 9mm), hit them often, make them STOP.

My car has less recoil than my 41AE, but more than my 22LR.

------------------
"All my ammo is factory ammo"
 
Here's another way to look at it: your friend Joe tells you that he shot at 10 varmints each with his 9mm and .45 caliber handguns.

The results? The .45 did great: 10 shots, 10 stops. But the 9mm did even better: 10 shots, 11 stops! His conclusion: the 9mm is the better stopper.

If you query him about the strange discrepancy of 11 stops with 10 shots and he stands by his numbers, even though he says he didn't get two varmints with one shot and can't explain how he got 11 stops with 10 shots, you would have plenty of justification if you told him his "numbers" don't make sense and that you don't believe his results. That's really all that Maarten is saying.

No, numbers and formulas do not create wounds, but its obvious we must use them every time we evaluate the results of even a simple test such as Joe's.

One thing kinda irks me, btw: every time we get into a discussion about cartridge wounding effectiveness, someone always has to change the subject and make the obvious point: just hit what you're aiming at and hit him often and the cartridge/gun won't matter. This is a different subject!

The reliability of the gun and the skill of the shooter are of primary importance in terms of meeting the immediate objective, which is to hit the intended target. This has very little to do with the cartridge, except in terms of its inherent accuracy and flight ballistics.

However, in terms of wounding effectiveness, we are concerned with how effective the slug is *once it makes contact with the intended target*! Changing the subject for what ever reason, because you disagree with what's being said or whatever adds nothing to the conversation.

If you think the differences in wounding effectiveness between the calibers most people use is so small as to be neglible, that's great, please share your thoughts. But just changing the subject to one you like better doesn't add anything and just confuses the issues.

Hope you're not offended by this, weshoot2. You have do have good points to make and I appreciate your posts.

Take care,
-adad
 
No offense taken; just an injection of (hopeful) humor in an otherwise tedious subject.

IMO the only relevant data is what is provided by "actual" shooting incidences. The obvious trouble is what reported data to believe.

I believe a 115g JHP+P+(R-P) 9mm (or any .355"-bore) works well, in the .357" both the 125g JHP Magnum(R-P) and SIG(Gold Dot), 135g JHP's(Nosler) in the .400", and 180g Gold Dots in the 41AE. The 45ACP shines with 185g JHP+P(R-P) and 230g JHP+P(Golden Saber).

Others opinions are available.

------------------
"All my ammo is factory ammo"
 
Neat numbers in the papers.

Now iffen I double tap a bad guy with sumpin that goes through the sturnum and blows away the T4 vertabra with the first shot and the second goes in a tad higher and gets the T3, either one would have been a stopper but only one bad guy and two shots. That comes out to 50 percent one shot stops.

roundabout, you may be bored with all the fuss when you can read a "real" article that solves all the problems. However, there is probably more experience, knowledge and talant on these boards than in any stack of magazines.

Iffen Pope, Keith, Sharpe, Browning et all were around; probably find em dukin it out and sharing right here on TFL. The new generation is here. Writers, manufacturers, users, newbies, wannabies; the works.

Sam.....follow me, I know a shortcut.
 
Than you Sam.
I am not knocking the posters here. I was impressed with the knowledge of some of those who posted regularly. I guess my biggest nitpick is those who quote Marshall and Sanow to prove that a given round is more effective. As for a stack of magazines, I read them, however, read them critically to seperate fact from personal opinion and commercial bias. I do have respect for those who post here.
I want to hear what they have to say, maybe they put down a coyote at 40 yards with a .357 sig, or maybe did a penetration test an an old rusty thunderbird in the back yard. Maybe they found some new specs somewhere that look good. But DO NOT tell me a round is good because someone gave it a 100% rating in a book. Thanks for all the input, it is good stuff, and this is getting to be my most visited site.
Have a good evening.


------------------

Use your head, don't believe everything you hear, and never come out on the bottom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top