Service ammo performs "about the same". Right...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I find it amusing when in the very fluid world of wound ballistics folks still want to draw lines in the sand and state absolutes.


More shots fired faster will greatly increase the probability of "well placed" hits and therefore that of an effective stop
Click to expand...

Can you quantify that. exactly how much more likely can you stop and attack with 17 rounds than you can with 14?
 
[In response to]
More shots fired faster will greatly increase the probability of "well placed" hits and therefore that of an effective stop
Click to expand...
Can you quantify that. exactly how much more likely can you stop and attack with 17 rounds than you can with 14?
Click to expand...
I don't think that anyone is likely to be able to fire either 14 per 17 rounds at someone charging at close range.

The point is that if someone is moving at a nominal speed of five meters per second, not directly toward the defender but around the back of a truck while the defends is moving off line and possibly around his car, the defender will have very little time to place hits into the area the size of the upper chest. Faster controlled fire could help the defender achieve more shots in the short time available, and more hits will obviously provide a greater chance of hitting something important inside.
 
Can you quantify that. exactly how much more likely can you stop and attack with 17 rounds than you can with 14?
Click to expand...

About the same :)

Seems to be a reasonable unit of measurement used in these discussions.
 
I don't think that anyone is likely to be able to fire either 14 per 17 rounds at someone charging at close range.

The point is that if someone is moving at a nominal speed of five meters per second, not directly toward the defender but around the back of a truck while the defends is moving off line and possibly around his car, the defender will have very little time to place hits into the area the size of the upper chest. Faster controlled fir could help the defender achieve more hots in the short time available, and more hits will obviously provide a greater chance if hitting something important inside.
Click to expand...

So you can't quantify it?
 
Isn't another factor of importance the quickness of a follow up shot?

If one round has a low chance of "stopping the threat" to use the legal parlance, then the quickness of one or more follow up shots should also be studied.
 
The point is that if someone is moving at a nominal speed of five meters per second, not directly toward the defender but around the back of a truck while the defends is moving off line and possibly around his car, the defender will have very little time to place hits into the area the size of the upper chest. Faster controlled fir could help the defender achieve more hots in the short time available, and more hits will obviously provide a greater chance if hitting something important inside.
Click to expand...

I get your point. I'm concerned that such philosophy creates a "spray and pray" mentality in the end.
 
Actually, I did. I said that the probability of landing either 14 or 17 is nil.
Click to expand...
So the you can quantify split times,exactly how much more likely is one to survive having .016 second splits than .017 second splits?
 
I think folks need to let go of their preconceptions and look at the current science

At one point everybody KNEW the world was flat. That the universe revolved around the Earth.

Science progresses and new data becomes avail. That is exactly what happened with this new FBI research. You can continue to hold on to your beliefs or accecpt the progress thats been made in quantifying wound ballistics against capacity and controllability.

READ the actual FBI findings. Same wounds...lower recoil...more rounds...lower cost...less wear on guns. Im finding it hard to justifiy carrying anything besides a 9mm for human targets.
 
So the you can quantify split times,exactly how much more likely is one to survive having .016 second splits than .017 second splits?
Click to expand...

Yes. The FBI study DOES quantify that. Their Agents ACROSS THE BOARD had better qual scores with 9mm then 40
 
Yes. The FBI study DOES quantify that. Their Agents ACROSS THE BOARD had better qual scores with 9mm then 40
Click to expand...

That doesn't answer the question I can measure bullets diameter and measure shot to shot time, that's easy. can you quantify what the difference in .001 seconds in split times means to survival rates?
 
can you quantify what the difference in .001 seconds in split times means to survival rates?
Click to expand...
I can quantify what shot to shot time differences mean to the number of expected hits on a moving target, and so can you.

Why on earth would you zero in on a difference of .001 seconds?

And no one can reasonably apply that result, or differences expanded bullet diameter, or anything else to survival rates, and I think you know it.

Why are you asking?
 
Back in the 80s I carried a Raven 25. It was my only pistol and I practiced with it at 15 yards. It is accurate enough that I can trust it to hit where I want it to hit. It had been reliable and I carried soft tips.

I knew that for it to work in SD I'd have to aim for soft areas and that's the eyes, nose , ears and throat.
 
I think the problem comes to a feeling of an argument being card stacked.

We can disregard penetration over X

We can disregard expansion / diameter over X

We can disregard energy over X

We must consider recoil with Y being max

If we set X to 9MM and the Y is set to 9MM then the conclusion has to come to 9MM being the best choice.

The thing is I'm not even going to argue that it isn't. But the factors the FBI took into consideration are not necessarily the same factors others will. For instance because I do not see humans as the only (or even most likely) threat I will encounter I would like to have as much energy as I can reasonably conceal and place on target
 
BTW, I taught with Mas -- a few years ago at one of his MAG-40 classes in Sierra Vista, Arizona
Click to expand...

Well apparently you didn't listen to him. He still feels the larger rounds are better than than the smaller rounds.

All of the studies you point to (and yes, i know em) are from the late '70 & early '80s. Bullet design and construction science has come a long way since then. Times and thoughts on things change.
Click to expand...

Sure it has. But then JHPs in .45 have advances just as 9mm JHPs.Same for .40 S&W and .357 sig, and all others. Still comes out the same. Bigger bullets TEND to stop better... etc...

And folks, don't go down the road of measuring itsy bitsy split times. That is so stupid. And come one, which is harder to do, hit 'em a few times or hit them 10 times?

Deaf
 
Why on earth would you zero in on a difference of .001 seconds?
Click to expand...
Because near as I can tell that's the difference in split times when I shoot major PF vs when I shoot minor and even at that .001 is being generous.
And no one can reasonably apply that result, or differences expanded bullet diameter, or anything else to survival rates, and I think you know it.

Why are you asking?
Click to expand...
Of course you can't but you'll keep saying one doesn't matter because it can't be quantified and the other does.
 
The actual #1 criteria that almost everyone agrees on is not penetration; but shot placement. For most of this discussion it appears that everyone is assuming that shot placement was adequate. Once you've got adequate shot placement, then you worry about enough penetration to lessen the possibility of defelection, expansion, etc.

The reason I feel that is important is because as others have alluded to, shot placement and caliber are linked. To use just the most basic of example:

If we assume all other costs are equal (a 10mm has the same sevice life and parts replacement as a 9mm), then training ammo costs as of today are:

9mm - $165/1000
.40 - $260/1000
.45 - $300/1000
10mm - $340/1000

So for a $1000 training budget, I can shoot 6,060 rounds of 9mm; 3,840 rounds of .40; 3,333 rounds of .45, or 2,940 rounds of 10mm. Assuming I have an effective training program, which of those is likely to get me the adequate shot placement this discussion is assuming?
 
Last edited:
READ the actual FBI findings. Same wounds...lower recoil...more rounds...lower cost...less wear on guns. Im finding it hard to justifiy carrying anything besides a 9mm for human targets.
Click to expand...

If only that was true....
Lucky Gunner ammo tests:
http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/
9mm 147 gr. HST .61/15.2''
9mm 124 gr. Golden Saber +P .66/18.2''

45 acp 230 gr. HST .85/14''
45 acp 185 gr. Golden Saber +P .75/15.5''

Apples to apples: the 45 makes a bigger hole, not the same.
9mm holds more bullets, less recoil, ect...
The consensus is that a modern 9mm HP is sufficient for duty / SD

Same wound - nope.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top