Please stop with this must go 12 inches or more penitration Bull crap.

Status
Not open for further replies.
45King

What is the point of that article? It continues the FBI myth that ammunition, not terrible tactics and decisionmaking (including having someone who couldn't shoot straight without glasses as a field agent), was the main problem. And it glosses over the that the FBI considered the .357 125 gr and Illinois State Police 9 mm loads (both documented as excellent fight stoppers yet neither with consistent 12" or more penetration) as failures. Not much real meat to support the argument that all the penetration you can get is the best.
 
Look at all the data and make up your own mind. Believe what you want to believe.

If you purchase enough ammunition, the companies will make anything you want. If you handload, you can load about anything you want.

Why is it important that others agree with you?
 
While we're wishing for things (Christmas IS just around the corner), I wish people would quit throwing around the term "stopping power" when discussing pistol rounds. No such thing, imo, and I'm sure there's a more accurate description of a bullet's effectiveness...like bullet effectiveness!
 
I know I read somewhere that 12" of gelatin is not equivalent to 12" of flesh, but instead something considerably less than that. For one thing, there's bone. Also, the bullet will often go all the way through, hit underside of the skin, stretch it out, and remain lodged there - under the skin. Isn't that what hunters see? (I don't hunt.) Am I wrong? Is 12" of gelatin really supposed to be equivalent to 12" of human?
 
not to put a damper on anyone's meal or sleep but there is a reason why the japanese tested their katana (longswords) on convicts and corpses: there really is nothing like the real thing. especially when it comes to testing something that your life will depend on.

cheers
 
What if what if. Most bullets penitrate farther in humans than in Gelatine. In fact most factors in a real shooting such as heaviy clothing which inpeads or stops expansion can greatly increase penitration. ALso the human body is not one pure muscle and that what gelatin simulates muscle tissue. Bullets go much farther through air (lungs) and fat and other soft tissues. I feel the INS hit the nail on the head by requiring 9 to 14 inches. Less than 9 may once in a great while not be enough and more than 14 you will be getting innocent people shot that are behind the perp. The INS has seen a lot more gunfire than the FBI. The Secret service also disagrees with the FBI they always carried a +p+ 115 grain 9mm load and now they carry the 357sig. You can listen to Dr. Marty Quack Fackler but not me.
PAT

------------------
I intend to go into harms way.
 
Where we disagree is that the snub 357 is not controlable. I note that you make no claims about TIMES for those hits. I can get 6 hits per second on a 10" circle at 10 ft with an SA auto and loads that do a LOT better job on dogs than 150-160 gr jhp's in a snub 357. Have you chronographed those loads in that 2 1/2" barrel? I seriously doubt that they exceed 1200 fps, and some have trouble beating 1100 fps by very much. Depends upon the bore's size, smoothness, flashgap, alignment, angle and size of forcing cone, size of "throats" in the cylinder, etc. Many revolvers vary as much as 100 fps on either side of the "mean" of all 6 chambers. In other words, some rds (all out of same box of ammo) will be 1100 fps, others 1300 fps, average 1200 fps. Oftentimes, 1200 fps won't reliably expand a .36 jhp, after its nose cavity is "plugged" by clothing-debris. Why be marginal, when you can have real power,(60 gr prefrag, 3 segments) at 2200 fps, in a 357 Sig pocket auto. I doubt that the 357 is all that concealable, either, unless you weigh 300 lbs or dress like a hobo. A single stack auto (like Kahr) with its corners rounded, in a thin plastic pocket liner, looks exactly like a wallet. I would wear one to the policeman's ball, in NYC, totally felonious behavior.
 
Parabellum,

Good memory. It's now "The Guy Formally Known as P228." ;)

I made the comment as the thread heading was very confrontational. I'm glad to see that the members of this board have yet again shown themselves to be mature and serious folks. And no, I don't fancy myself Mr Manners.

Pat,

The problem with M&S isn't that they report real world events, but rather that they fabricate evidence to suit their conclusions. There have been articles in the nonAyoobfest mags such as Soldier of Fortune that detail case by case how they distort anecdotes reported, fabricate events, and knowingly employ faulty statistical methods.

------------------
"Get yourself a Lorcin and lose that nickel plated sissy pistol."

[This message has been edited by Tecolote (edited September 06, 2000).]
 
buzz_knox wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
It continues the FBI myth that ammunition, not terrible tactics and decisionmaking (including having someone who couldn't shoot straight without glasses as a field agent), was the main problem.
[/quote]

So, what you're implying is, if the FBI agents had done everything right -- tactics wise -- and they still had to shoot, their perfect tactics would have made the 9mm STHP perform better than it did? What if Dove or Grogan still had to shoot through Platt's arm with the 9mm 115gr STHP? Would perfect tactics have made the bullet penetrate deeper and pass through Platt's heart too?

The problem with concluding that poor tactics were the problem ignores the fact that even when tactics are perfect, things still go wrong. There were a lot of things that went wrong that day; ALL of these factors contributed to the outcome.

As for Ben Grogan and his lost glasses, I've spoken with the FBI Medical Director about the extent of Grogan's defective visual acuity. It wasn't as bad as as some gun writers have made it out to be. My vision is 20/200+ without corrective lenses (I'm nearsighted with an astigmatism), yet I can easily see people at distances of 100 yards and beyond without correction. Grogan's vision wasn't as bad as mine. He shot nine rounds during the shootout and hit Matix once in the forearm, and was the first agent to score a hit.

Grogan's been quoted as remarking, "Where is everybody?" during the gun fight. If I knew I was with seven other agents, and I could only account for two of them (Dove and Hanlon) in my immediate vicinity (McNeill and Mireles were down, Manauzzi was looking for his lost gun, Orrantia and Risner were shooting from across the street), when I'm expecting everyone to close distance and swarm the Monte Carlo with me, I'd sure as heck would be wondering "Where is everybody" too! Except my remark would be laced with pro- f**king -fanities.

And finally, no, the FBI doesn't believe the 125gr .357 Magnum or 9mm 115gr +P+ are "failures." Instead, neither of these loads meet the minimum penetration performance requirements that the FBI desires.

355sigfan:

I don't know why I bother, since you don't listen anyways, but...

From what I understand the INS desires a load whose bullet penetrates the closest to 12 inches. I believe this is in bare gelatin. In heavily clothed gelatin, penetration performance almost always exceed 12 inches. The two magazine articles I read about the INS test and selection protocol, one by Sanow and the other by Boyle (Combat Handguns, May 2000), failed to report the performance of the INS duty load, the Remington .40 S&W 155gr JHP cartridge, when shot from a Beretta 96D Brigadier, in any of the test events.

Here's how Sanow summarized the INS protocol (Handguns, July 2000, P. 67):

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
The load producing the largest stretch cavity volume, penetration nearest to 12 inches and highest retained weight will be rated at 100 percent in each category. Other loads in that test phase will be prorated depending on how close they are to the top performer.
[/quote]

I don't see this as a radical departure from the FBI's or IWBA's minimum penetration standards.

According to Sanow, INS shootings frequently involve heavy clothing, and bullet penetration performance in heavily clothed gelatin is given greater consideration (50%) than penetration performance in bare gelatin (30%). I find it incongruous that INS measures temporary cavity volume in bare gelatin only if most shootings involve bad guys who are wearing heavy clothes.

Secret Service often has to operate in large crowds. I believe they have a legitimate concern about over-penetration. However it appears they don't shoot bad guys very often.

------------------
/s/ Shawn Dodson
Firearms Tactical Institute
http://www.firearmstactical.com
 
Tecolote

The only lies are comming from the Falkerite camp. Shawn 12 inches was consider more of a maximum depth by the INS not a minimum depth at which loads that don't pass are useless. The FBI thinks that you will feel better after getting shot with a 380 as they gave it a negative wounding value. What shoot your self twice with a 380 and call me in the morning. And no I don't listen to the dribble the IWBA and Fackler spew forth abundantly.
PAT

------------------
I intend to go into harms way.
 
Shawn

If the FBI had exercised proper tactics:

none of the agents would have had their weapons on their seats and lost them when the collision occurred, forcing them to use only their backups (for those that had backups);

they would have had their body armor on, saving lives; and,

they would have had the heavy weapons (AR-15s and MP-5s) in the trunks ready to go, enabling them to return fire more effectively, and thereby control the situation.

Your response talked about tactics affecting a single bullet hit. You completely missed the point. Proper tactics would have meant that a single hit isn't the issue. Isn't one of the main tenets of defensive firearms training that you hit them as many times as possible? That didn't happen here because of the ineffectiveness of the tactics. If the FBI had exercised even a modicum of common sense, the issue of the Silvertip would never have come up. Instead, we would be asking if Platt really should have been hit with 30-40 .223 and 9mm subgun rounds.

For the record, I'm not suggesting that the FBI agents were incompetent. They just believed that everything was going to work out the way they planned (or hoped), and had no contingency plan for dealing with things if they went south.

Oh, as for Grogan, not only did he ask where everyone was, he also stumbled around blindly, standing up in the middle of a firefight. That's not something one does if one really can see where the bad guys are.

As for the 9mm and .357 rounds not meeting the arbitrary tests, you basically proved my point. If anything which doesn't meet the depth test is automatically a failure because of that, then the Feds ignored it.
 
Why the big concern with over penetration? Most shots in most gun fights are complete misses, even at point blank range. While it is always a big deal for the gun hating news media to play up accidental hits from gun fights, the odd are greater that you will be hit by lightning. If you are hit as a bystander it is probably because you were in the line of fire of a crazed shooter and not due to over penetration. Does anyone have any real statistics on the matter? Bottom line - putting a hole through sombody - in one side and out the other - is usually effective in discouraging them no matter what the diameter of the hole is.
 
First off, maybe if you wanted a better reaction, you should have made the name a little nicer. Second, depends where you get the shot from. Its not like you can ONLY shoot him in the chest. Or you can ONLY shoot him in the side. What happens if the guys is really big? Won't that make for more inches to shoot through?

So, you should plan on having 12 inches of penetration. Because it is better to know you have enough, the wind up not having enough, and the guy comming after you. "Better to be safe than sorry"
 
355Sigfan and I go way back. We've tangled and I do mean tangled on lots of stuff. So I feel qualified to offer up an observation here. 355 is not looking to make anyone angry. He is looking for a spirited debate. Do I agree with his methodology, or the majority of his opinions? No. Is he a litle rough around the edges? Yes. Do I think he's a bit too inflexible and opinionated? Yes. But ultimately, do I feel as if his heart is in the right place? Believe it or not, yes I do. 355sigfan wants to talk firearms and ballistics, that's all. There's no harm intended, and he's getting better all the time. Now, for those of you that have seen some of the vitriol that has passed between him and me should realize that if I can cut him some slack, anyone can. :)
 
Several months ago I was talking to a federal inmate about several bullet holes in his body. He related the incident which occured during a narcotics transaction in Tulsa, Oklahoma several years ago.

He is approx. 6'2 and weighs around 230 lbs. He was shot five times with .45 ACP ball ammo. All of the shots were more or less frontal. Four of the shots were solid torso hits, and one hit his bicep. The only bullet that exited his body was the bicep shot. He received a punctured lung and lost a kidney and nearly bled to death. After being shot, he drove himself to a hospital and collapsed in front of the emergency room entrance.

According to the popular gun rags, .45 ACP ball is a classic overpenetrator. That just wasn't the case here. In fact, this individual may still have two good kidneys had his attacker been using frangible bullets, or one of the light, rapidly expanding hollowpoints that are in vogue these days.
 
355sigfan wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Shawn 12 inches was consider more of a maximum depth by the INS not a minimum depth at which loads that don't pass are useless.
[/quote]

In Sanow's article he states: "In all five tests, measure bullet penetation up to 12 inches and retained weight. Bullet must penetrate between 9 and 20 inches in all test phases." Boyle's article says essentially the same thing.

355sigfan also wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
The FBI thinks that you will feel better after getting shot with a 380 as they gave it a negative wounding value. What shoot your self twice with a 380 and call me in the morning. And no I don't listen to the dribble the IWBA and Fackler spew forth abundantly.
[/quote]

You are either misinterpreting or deliberately mischaracterizing the FBI's negative wound value. MacPherson discusses the fallacy of your claim in his article Strikes (Out) Again". I invite you to read it and learn why your claim is so wrong.

It's too bad you have such a closed mind. Unlike you I want to learn all I can about wound ballistics so I can discuss this subject intelligently with others. Although I believe the work of Marshall & Sanow is junk science, nonetheless I own copies of their books, and I read their magazine articles, because I want a broad and deep knowledge of wound ballistics.

------------------
/s/ Shawn Dodson
Firearms Tactical Institute
http://www.firearmstactical.com
 
MrBlonde

I agree it good to have too much and not need it than to have not enough and need it. However I belive it is better to have too much stretch cavity and not need it as opposed to penitration behind the target. I may be oppinionated and bull headed sometimes. I posted this post as a reaction to another post about energy. There are many ways to skin a cat. It seems that low energy high momentium rounds that expand to large diameters and create a large crush cavity have a good stopping rate. (45 acp) It also seems that high energy rounds with some what lower momentium that create large strech cavities with fragmenting bullets also have a good stopping rate. In fact the two schools seem to be tied. The only real losers are the low energy low monentium rounds that have small recovered diameters. (like the first generation 147 grain 9mm's)

Chose which ever road you want both lead to the same place but will take you on a different path to get there. My only plea is to not discount the other path as not working. 45 acp guys (believe it or not its one of my faviorate calibers) say that only a big slow bullet works and energy is useless. While 357 mag, 40sw and 357 sig fans say that why carry a load that a good sprinter could outrun on a good day. They also say that the 45 has terrible barrier penitration and is a call back to the black poweder era. 9mm fans say that all handgun rounds are ineffective and that your better off with the 9mm light recoil so you can put more of those ineffecive pistol bullets in any given target faster. There is truth in all of these blanket statments it realy boils down to your style and prefrences. I would feel well armed with any of the main calibers except a 38 special and the 147 grain 9mm's. Give me a 9mm with +p or +p+ 115 or 124 thats fine, Give me a 40 sw with any load but the medium velocity 165 grainers and thats fine give me any 357 sig load except the 147 and 150 grainers cool give me any 45 acp jhp and I am still happy. Most of winning a gunfight is between your ears.

PAT

------------------
I intend to go into harms way.
 
buzz_knox:

As I already acknowledged, several errors in tactics were committed by the agents involved in the Miami shootout. I believe these errors were the result of a faulty mindset, which is something you alluded to also.

Body armor might have saved the life of Ben Grogan. He was the only agent who was fatally shot in the upper torso. McNeill was shot in the hand and neck, Mireles was shot in the arm, Hanlon was shot in the hand and crotch, and Dove was shot in the head.

There were a couple of other cars involved in the mobile surveillance with agents who were armed with MP5 SMGs. But they arrived on scene after the shooting was over. (As a result of all this bad luck, the Bureau began issuing each agent a lucky rabbit's foot in the color of their choice.) :)

Edmundo Mireles has stated he was armed with all the weapons he was authorized by the Bureau to employ.

As I stated before, you can be 100% tactically correct, but still lose the battle. All one can hope for is to successfully anticipate how the battle will be fought, to try to shape the engagement to your advantage and to be as prepared as best as possible. The fog of battle produces unpredictable and uncontrollable factors.

I believe the effects of Ben Grogan's eyesight on his performance are more myth than fact. I realize Ayoob, in his American Handgunner articles, makes similar claims as you do about Grogan stumbling around blindly during the shootout. But I also know these two articles written by Ayoob are filled with factual errors and I believe Ayoob is incorrect in his reconstruction of Grogan's activities.

Here's what I believe: After Matix was hit in the head and incapacitated by a bullet fired by McNeill, causing him to collapse unconscious on the front driver's side seat of the Monte Carlo, Grogan simply didn't have an opportunity to target Platt after Platt crawled out the passenger window. When Dove's gun was hit and disabled by one of Platt's bullets, Grogan was probably assisting Dove in trying to get the gun back into service, which allowed Platt to advance and kill both of them after shooting Hanlon. I doubt Grogan was physically incapable of seeing Platt, especially at the relatively short distances involved. Instead, I believe Grogan's attention was preoccupied in helping Dove, possibly with the mistaken belief that Hanlon was providing effective flank protection.

All these tactics errors have been recognized by the Bureau, which went on to establish an officer survival training group. The ammunition deficiency was also recognized and corrective actions were implemented.

12-inches of penetration might indeed be an arbitrary standard, but this standard was established based on informed medical opinion. A load that doesn't penetrate a minimum of 12-inches simply fails to meet the minimum standard for penetration performance. 12-inches is considered the minimum penetration depth for a general purpose load, one that will have the best chances of producing an effective wound in the widest variety of uncontrolled situations that can be encountered.

How well do .357 Magnum 125gr and 9mm 115gr +P+ perform when one of these bullets first hits an arm, exits and enters the torso of a bad guy? Are the results better than, just as good as, or worse than a bullet that reliably penetrates between 12 and 16 inches? These two loads appear to work very well when conditions are favorable, but when conditions challenge their ability to achieve adequate penetration (or transfer energy directly to internal organs), their potential to produce a rapidly incapacitating wound decreases.


------------------
/s/ Shawn Dodson
Firearms Tactical Institute
http://www.firearmstactical.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top