I think you're missing the point that a few folks are making. Here we have a very clear real world example where their conclusion is not applicable. In this simple test, even the lowly 9mm performed better. That doesn't mean that it's ability to penetrate barriers is always better, but that in *some* cases, it most certainly is. It couldn't be any clearer. The dude shot clean through his 3 plates with a .357sig. He couldn't do it with .45ACP. The conclusions reached by the folks in Quantico CLEARLY do not apply all the time. I'm not discrediting their findings, I'm just pointing out that their conclusion is obviously not applicable in *all* circumstances. The OP demonstrated this. |
I think there is some confusion here. I don’t think we are discussing terminal performance AFTER barrier penetration. We are discussing the ability of either .357 or .45 to DEFEAT a given barrier. Expansion of the bullets was not measured, nor was it even considered like it was in the reference that you posted. In this case, the .45 couldnt even make it through the "intermediate barrier" while the .257 sig could. Hard to argue that the .45 is better in this case. |
That's why Doc Roberts talks in all caps about penetration through all the barriers. Yes, terminal performance after penetrating barriers is measured...but tests have also been done on raw barrier penetration as well. His statements are, I believe, based partly on those tests as well, which is another reason he mentions the increased intermediate barrier performance the CHP has experienced. It is also why he stated in another thread:
|
Let me repeat myself.....  And add. What good is a scientific test that can't be repeated in the real world? Especially if in the real world the results are the opposite? How many times has a product performed flawlessly in the lab, under controlled circumstances, and then failed miserably in the "real world"? |
Do you have the raw data?? The link in the link you posted above doesnt work (the link Doc suggests to go look at). I have never heard of the .45 acp being a better penatrator against hard targets then the 9mm or the .357 sig. In my informal plinking, and everything I could find by just googling it, I never found anything that showed .45 being superior. I would like to see his data. I am unaware of what round and caliber the CHP uses? |
I have found the .45 to be a poor penetrator as well. What data do you have that claims otherwise? |
Yes, we "get" it. We get that you don't understand what you are talking about.  Why don't you start another thread instead of mudding up this one and we will discuss it and try to educate you.  |
I dont have any, thats what I am trying to get. John_Waynne posted a link to Doc saying that the .45 acp is better then the 9mm and .357 sig at penetrating hard targets, but I can not get the actual data. |
|
I have not had .45 ACP's perform well when shooting through car doors. The 9mm is better at this and I do not own a .357 SIG so I have test data for that.  Neither is as good as the AK47 and nothing comes close to the 12 GA Breneke slugs. I for one hope I never get into a shoot out with a guy that is hiding behind a dumpster. If I do I will try to get back to my truck and get the AK47!  BigDozer66 |
|
Awsome post, This doesnt supprise me at all. When I lived in Texas I had the opportunity to watch some testing at a local range. They were testing out different rounds on gell blocks. All the different rounds would move the block of gell slightly. The 357 sig is the only round that knocked the gell block off the fricken table they were testing them at. I would have thought that the 45 would have done that with the 230 grn round. Shocked me. |
|
Superb writeup, thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just another reason why I love the 357sig & have 2 of em I actually have changed my CCW of choice from being a die hard 45acp fan to the 357sig and feel IMHO that the 357sig round is the best thing going for a CCW these days. |
So, if you were faced with a threat to a family member from a bad guy hiding behind a shield constructed from material like the one tested in this thread, and your only choice of weapons were Duke's .45 or .357 Sig......you would chose the....????? |
I really am mostly playing around.....but I don't think that the .45 would perform better on a thicker piece of steel do you? Really? |
Does it really matter what we "think" about it?  The only way to know would be to test it. But since there are almost an infinite number of types and thicknesses of steel, it would be a big job. That's why I've never done any steel plate testing. |
|
A couple years ago we took an armor plate off of a C-141 and shot it with all kinds of rifles in different barrel lengths. My conclusion was that if I was getting shot at by someone with a rifle and was hiding behind cover, the rifle that would scare me the most would be a Mosin shooting 7.62X54R. Not counting uber rounds like 50BMG. I don't know the spec because the plate had no markings. It stopped most US and Rusky ammo shot out of SBRs. Longer bbls had enough velicity to punch through. But the Mosin cracked the plate. The 2nd round would have been death. Edited to add pic I found 
|
I don't either, but I'm careful to point out "I'd have to test it for myself", however. In my personal and admittedly informal plinking, my 9mm penetrates mild steel scrap I've got laying around better than .45ACP. We're talking normal FMJ rounds, here (yet another variable). When I read how the FBI tests were conducted (though steel), it occurs to me that they were shooting through a medium (20 gauge hot rolled galvanized) that wouldn't slow down much of anything. As such, the results observed with regard to the *relative* (not absolute) performance differences between the rounds are really not that dissimilar from those tested without an intermediate barrier. In other words - surprise, surprise - the rounds that perform well in ballistics gel alone perform just as well when there is a light barrier between them. If I had a handgun, and I was shooting at a car, I'd go for the same round I'd use if there was no car - .45acp. If I'm shooting at somebody behind 1/8" or so of mild steel, I'd probably want to use .357sig. That's what I'm thinking, anyway. I ain't got a lot to work with, here.
|
That is one of those 'not absoulte' things. For some rounds (particularly handgun rounds) that is the case, for other rounds (like rifle rounds) that is often NOT the case. |
Where is this data that you allege shows that .45 ACP is a better barrier penetrator than 9mm para? my informal testing has shown the opposite to be true with sheet metal. |
In the Buick shoot the 7.62x54 penetrated completely through the vehicle with all of its shots. It's a potent cartridge. |
Apologies for not replying earlier, LaGaurdia is a mess  And thanks for posting the Dr Roberts quote, looked all over for it last night but couldn't find it. I'd like to see the details of these tests. I've spent enough time as an engineer and consultant dissecting the reports and studies of pundits and experts to know to never take these the results at face value. If not because the results might be flawed/outdated, then because the way people read them them are. What is meant in the first paragraph by "identical penetration"? Was it a binary test that in essence said, yes/no 357 and 45 can make it through a car door, but provides no measure of scale in how they performed? How was it performed, and how was it measured? There are a lot of mediums where velocity may result in lower penetration given the same bullet, steel however isn't one of them. The statement that the 9mm bullet penetrates steel better than 357 Sig doesn't jive with physics, nor with the other "professional ballistics tests" that say otherwise. IIRC, the US Secret Service, Texas DPS, Tennessee Highway Patrol, and other agencies selected the 357 Sig because their tests show it is superior to the other rounds for penetrating barriers, namely steel. I don't have access to the reports, maybe someone who has a more intimate knowledge of the studies will chime in. Going back to tests we can actually see the results from, let's take a look at we saw when Old_Painless shot steel: 9mm:  45:  Looks like the 9mm produced more deformation in the steel to me. Regardless, I always felt there's not enough critical thinking in the world, I encourage anyone that wants to see for themselves to try it out, that's why I talked about where to get the steel. It's ~20 cents a pound at these scrap yards, I paid about $4 for those 3 sheets. If someone does another test, I'd like to see how 10mm does too
|
Just trying to follow your footsteps sir I agree that people shouldn't extrapolate too much information from this, but I don't think the different grades of steel will have that much effect on the outcome. These tests will always be a compromise as long as we are shooting gelatin/water/sheets etc... but that doesn't mean we can't glance something useful from them
|
Thanks for the compliment. you did a fine job.
I would disagree with you on that one, but since there are an almost infinite number of different grades of steel, we will never test them all.
Absolutely correct. I have found that many folks quote my tests and draw conclusions that I never would. We should be careful not to "learn" more than the tests prove. |
It's much more than that. On top of controlling variables, there is a lot of verification and validation of your numbers/conclusions once you collect your numbers. If this were truly scientific, I would have to spend a fortune on materials, break out my Minitab, run t-tests, ANOVA, regression analysis, etc... Unless someone pays me what I used to make doing that stuff, no way I'm racking my brains on it! I consider this the lazy statisticians approach using another pillar of stats called the Pareto principle, I think I got 80% there with only 20% of the effort. mostly I just wanted to try different rounds against a more homogenous material than what others have done (ie your car, not a slam, there was just too many variables to draw conclusions from IMO). There were lots of anecdotal reports on drums and propane tanks also, but it's easy to glance a shot shooting these objects so I still didn't trust them but I seem to get the same results as these people. |
Ah but the water is standing in for flesh, while the steel is standing in for steel. Precision has no inherent accuracy, but accuracy does some have inherent precision
|
That's why I bought 2 cases from DoubleTap. Free shipping and no tax comes out to ~$17/box of 50 for FMJ. |
|
Here's a table I put together. I tried to put some more graduated numbers to the penetration results, that of course introduces some subjectivity but I think it tells a more accurate story. Basically the round got a full point for passing through a sheet, then got fractions depending on how much damage was done on the sheet that stopped it. Therefore the 9mm round that punched a hole and got stuck in the 3rd sheet got a 2.9 instead of being lumped in as a 2.5 with all the other rounds that barely cracked the 3rd sheet. 357 Sig and 12 ga slugs got 3+ because it's hard to say how many it would have gone through. Tok just got 3 because when blasting away, there were some rounds that got stopped in the 3rd although most rounds passed through all 3. Also added more background data. Was planning on running some analysis on it too but found out my Minitab license has expired. Oh well... Chrono data was averaged over 5 or more shots, gathered during previous outings. I thought about bringing it this time but I was already completely weighed down. 
|
|
That was an interesting Test. For another test how about: 45 Super vs 400 Corbon vs 10mm vs 357 Sig vs 5.7mm ?' Penetration in Water, Penetration in Barriers, Barrier Penentration and then into Ballistic Gelatin for Terminal Performance. Put into an excel file with 45 ACP 40SW 9mm ETA: suggested Hard Barriers: Car Door, Wood Door, a wood 2x4 with Drywall on both sides. Suggested Soft Barriers: A cut section from a Quilt, with a layer of Leather, and a layer of Levys to simulate thick clothing. |
I've been looking closely at .40 Super lately. It looks like a monster cartridge. I'd like to see how it compares to .45 Super, 10mm, .357 Sig, etc... |
| Just to further address any concern regarding the length of the barrels used, I just recently chrono'd my new (to me) G32 with a 4.0" barrel and it was pushing 125 grain bullets (both FMJ and Gold Dot rounds from DoubleTap) at an average vel of ~1430 fps. Consider that to the 125gr WWB from the 6" barrel traveled at pretty much the same velocity (1455 fps) and zipped right through all 3 sheets, I think it's safe to say even from a compact 4" bbl, 357 Sig outpenetrates 45 from a full size 4.4" bbl in steel. |
When I was in high school(late 80's), I deer hunted with a guy that used a Mosin 7.62x54. Not sure exactly what ammo he used, but I watched him shoot a large oak tree, at least 24 inches around, and it completely penetrated it. My 30/06 with soft points did not. Again, he could have used fmj/ap ammo, but I was simply amazed by the penetration of this round. |
Yeah dude, until you're shooting through barriers at a barricaded suspect. What works great for you works good for most. This was a penetration test my friend, no need to feel slighted. FWIW I feel fine with my 9, no sleep loss due to not having a .45acp on my hip......although I do own several. |
Looks like we finally have a clarification on what Doc Roberts is saying in the quotations above. HoodyHoo was correct when he guessed Doc Roberts is talking about penetration in gel AFTER penetrating the steel, not defeating a steel barrier itself. Here is what he says about which round is better at penetrating metal, which agrees with my previous comments and these results:
www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=5&f=4&t=44957&page=4 |