WODR to you. He did these test in the same way Old Painless does his. I havent seen anyone post "official testing" quotes to counter O/Ps "backyard" test. DS posted chrono data, very good pix of the targets, described the targets as best he could and tested as many different loads of 9mm, .40, .357sig and .45 as possible on the plates he had. I will give him the benefit of the doubt even though hes not from a .gov ABC agency or testing lab. |
Agreed. It's apparent to me that there are many variables to consider. In this instance, with the type of steel used, spaced the way they were, .357Sig penetrated better. It's plainly evident. Does that mean it penetrates plywood, car doors, etc better than other rounds? Not necessarily. But in his test, .357Sig clearly penetrated better under the circumstances. I don't know how you could argue any different. |
|
Good post! In reality, as you mentioned a handgun is a compromise in itself, not even to mention the difference is ballistics from 9mm on up to .45ACP. I wonder what an inch and a half would have done for the .45? Someone did a study in a gun rag about 9 years ago using ultra light loads for handguns something along the lines of 50gr 9mm and 80gr .45 bullets. They zipped right through Class 3 vests. Obviously there is SOME merit to high velocity handgun rounds. |
|
Thanks for the great write up. Well done. I really liked the 357 sig in my 4" XD. The recoil was very snappy, but my hand barely moved when I shot it. Much faster coming back down on target than my XD 45's (which I dearly love). I sold it a while back because I needed the money. It is one of the few that I really miss. |
Very nice job, Duke.  Of course, we need to realize that you only shot one type and thickness of steel, but your tests showed that "for this type and thickness of steel plates", the .357 Sig penetrated all three. You might get different results with different types of steel. Quite honestly, that's why I've never shot steel, even though a lot of folks have asked me to. There are just too many types of steel, and shooting one type doesn't tell you much about another type. But your write-up and photos were well done. And it seems that you confirmed that shooting stuff is fun.  Thanks for the report. |
Doc Roberts is a member of the IWBA and is routinely involved in ballistics testing for law enforcement and military applications. Their results are better info than this particular post.... Just like their information is better than my Buick shoot. |
Yep. That's a hoot. "No one questions OP's tests."  I do my stuff for my and my friend's enjoyment. But I fully realize that Dr. Roberts and his cohorts are much more qualified and financially able to do scientific tests than I am. That's why I limit my tests to stuff that is "interesting" instead of "scientific". And, my tests have all been in general agreement with those done by professional labs. If I did a test that was not in agreement with their findings, I would be concerned about my methods and findings. |
Precisely. I get e-mails all the time from police officers about the Buick stuff, asking if they can incorporate it into their training. I am always happy to help with that, but I also point them to people like Doc Roberts for better information than I can give them. The Buick shoot was meant to demonstrate mainly how badly cars suck as cover....but I can't tell you how many internet threads I have seen where people are having detailed and nuanced arguments based on the limited information I provided, taking things WAY beyond what I said or intended. That's the internet for you. What is really odd is that when I show up to actually correct some of those excesses the people who make the assertions start attacking ME...the guy who actually did the documentation.....and telling me how wrong I am about the information I wrote up.....  What Old_Painless and what I have done, and this particular thread are not scientific tests. If someone wants information to bet their hide on, they should talk to actual experts who know their stuff. The stuff Old_Painless does and the Buick shoot were meant to clear up some commonly held myths and to get people to look for better sources of information. Plus, shooting stuff is fun. |
I know O/Ps test arent "scientific". Neither was DS test which is the meat of this thread. I was trying to be fair to DS. I still havent read anyone posting "scientific firearms test" results to refute any of your outstanding BoT threads. Doesnt Doc Roberts post quite a bit in the 6.8SPC threads? |
He posts on ARFCOM when he finds something that interests him. There are a number of actual experts that browse and post on ARFCOM, but they keep a low profile because they don't want to get pestered to death, or endure bad behavior.... |
|
great post. could you space out your materials like in real life situations for your penatrations. like 8 feet between sheet rock walls and maybe 2 feet and more for steel tests. I love your write ups but the walls in my hous are 8-12 feet apart, your tests are a few inches. I'm betting you'll get different results in penatration with wider gaps in your test materials. thanks for taking the time for everything you do. |
Seems like we used to have a lot more experts in each field. Somehow, some folks managed to pester them until they quit returning. 
|
|
Serious question. How does a "scientific test" differ from a "real world" test? This test, along with Old_Painless' tests seem to be pretty damned real world to me. This particular test was to see which round penetrated the most layers of metal. How would one go about doing a "scientific test"? AND.....How could a test showing penetration into the same steel target be manipulated to acheive different results with different rounds? I'm going to bet any "scientific" test worth the paper it is written up on uses samples of steel being shot with different guns.... IOWs how could a layman conduct "scientific" tests ? |
My guess: A "scientific" test would show the same tests over and over with different types and thickness of steel. The guns also would be locked into a vice of sorts to make sure range was absolutely equal for all of them. They would also shoot the target multiple times using the same ammunition to see what variance can be found within the ammo itself. In short, a "Scientific" test would be very similar to the one shown here, but the scope of the testing would be much greater and certain variables would be more strictly controlled. None of that takes away from this test, as far as I'm concerned. Just take it for what it's worth. 
|
|
very cool post. I am impressed with the penetration of the .357 sig, but I would like to point out that 9mm Para can be loaded to .357 sig velocities safely in a lot (most) of modern guns. the 124gn NATO 9mm round that is considered "Hot" in America is par for the course elsewhere, American 9mm ammo is usually underloaded quite a bit compared to European standards. This test would be cool if you had five or six plates and tested a 10mm and the magnum revolver rounds as well as some truly hot 9mm ammo and some 5.7 I honestly do not thing the 5.7 would do very well on steel, its main advantage is on soft armor like kevlar, not hard armor |
I thought about that, but how many gun fights are conducted with the guns in vices? So that automatically makes the results of a test like that skewed.....the results should be able to be repeated in the real world, with shooters shooting as they would. If you want to scientific about it.... ETA Range is the easy variable to me, angle would be a bigger one. The vice thing would make me feel better about the angles. |
That's not the point. The point is to eliminate as many extraneous factors as possible to concentrate on the main set of variables you want to test. That is the way ALL scientific testing/research is done. Scientific testing is designed to isolate a single variable. All the variables that exist in the "real world" cannot be accounted for. That's why scientific ballistic testing is done with well documented and highly controlled mediums (like properly selected barriers and properly calibrated ballistics gel) and why each shot is chronographed, why each individual bullet is recovered and measured, etc. Science is science because it gives repeatable results when the tests are conducted under the same circumstances. If you have too many variables going on you learn absolutely nothing. Confounded variables don't help answer questions. |
This test, and the ones I do, are indeed "real world" tests. Nothing wrong with that. But this test, while interesting, shouldn't cause us to learn more than it actually taught. All this test did was show that with these particular pieces of metal, at those ranges, with those particular rounds, had this much penetration. Different steel, different bullets, different set-up would all cause different results. That doesn't mean this test is flawed. It just means that this test showed what happened under these circumstances. That's why I shoot rounds into water to test penetration. Water is always water. But every kind of steel is different, and will give different results. See the difference?
|
|
Nice post. I have been wanting to do this for a few years but never got around to it. I may have missed it in the OP, but what distance where you shooting the plates at? Oh and all you 10mm guys......my .500 will own your 10mm. LOL, but it is not very practical. |
The only difference is the "Scientific" test peeps are paid by a magazine or manufacturer and our "Real World" test peeps do it without any paid endorsements. We take old steel refrigerant bottles and fill them with water to do some testing.  Just as said before a rifle is a rifle and a handgun is a handgun.  The 12 Ga. 1-1/4 oz. Breneke slugs are the baddest thing yet to be tested. BigDozer66 |
The S&W 500 gives a whole new meaning to "Hog Leg"! BigDozer66 |
Many a dollar has been spent after spending time on ARFCOM! BigDozer66 |
Any test, whether scientific or not, only tells you what happens at that time, under those circumstances. You can’t argue that .45 is better at penetrating then the .357 sig based on the tests that you have seen compared to this test. Yes, under whatever circumstances you saw, using whatever ammo that was used, .45 may have been better. You CAN NOT extrapolate this to a general statement that .45 has better penetration then .357 sig. Under different conditions this will not always be true. A big part of science is reproducibility. |
Back to what I posted on page 2:
A few dozen barrier tests done by the FBI FTU and several other law enforcement agencies as well as IWBA scientists which demonstrate that the .45 ACP offers superior intermediate barrier performance IS enough to draw actionable conclusions from.
Which is maybe why I said:
|