Zhukov, the thing that amazes me sometimes here is when people come here seeking advice about a particular type of ammunition, then when you tell them the truth (using solid data from well established testing documentation), many seem to get all defensive or hurt if the ammo doesn't make the cut. So many times here I have seen similar things happen. And each time, I keep wondering to myself why they even asked in the first place? LOL. If they are unwilling to accept such advise and continue to argue in favor of use of inferior ammunition (using less than scientific data that often isn't even capable of being reproduced), I cannot understand why they bother asking in the first place.

I'm happy to see this topic come up.  I have watched with facination as you go through the (paraphrased) "projectile 'X' performs like this in a controled setting, whereas projectile 'Y' and many like it do not, so 'X' gets the nod" discussion with folks who refuse to accept the logic you attempt to inject into the discussion.  I wring my hands in frustration when I see self-appointed experts debating physical reality as though it were some kind of vague philosophical concept.  

The attitude seems to be "all or nothing" in many of these threads.  If my round isn't recommended then you think it's worthless, and if one is recommended then nothing else will do.  My favorite is the suggestion that someone let themselves be shot with a particular type of ammunition to see how ineffective it is.  What teriffic logic!

"Shades of grey."  Sound familiar?  It does to me.  You are a patient man.  

So much in firearms involves trade-offs.  When an expert says X is better than Y, he is really saying that the combination of positive and negative trade-offs of X is superior to the combination of positive and negative trade-offs of Y.  Sometimes that is merely opinion.  

For example the experts say not to use 223 varmint bullets as a SD load.  This is because varmint bullets do not have the required amount of penetration.  However there are a great number of places on a human body where a varmint bullet will be plenty lethal.  A FMJ will penetrate walls far more than a varmint bullet.  Thus putting others at risk.  This is a set of trade-offs.

So what the experts are really saying is "It is a better trade-off to risk injury to innocent people by errant shots penetrating walls,  than it is to risk the bad guy not being stopped by a round that fails to reach a vital organ."  That statement is an opinion.  One that a reasonable person might disagree with.

Actually I use M193, I just wanted to make a point.

thought you were not going to respond

Quoted: . . .snip. . .I *assume* they are somewhat like me, and that they will follow certain logical principles. . .snip. . .

On this board?    

Just razzin' ya' Zhukov, but that assumption was funny!  I assume that much of the current populace, here or elsewhere, have neither reading comprehension skills or a functional logic chip. . .

I don't disagree with the articles, I just don't read them anymore.  There are too many variables to account for, so until they make a bullet that will enter, exit, and then fall straight to the ground, good luck covering them all.

There is a .45 ACP by my bed loaded with 230grn FMJ  and a flash light.  

Sorry, if I tried to keep up on the newest bonded metal sintered jacket expanding metal pedal police tactical swat protection demon killer defense rounds, I'd go crazy.

height=8

Quoted: I don't disagree with the articles, I just don't read them anymore.  There are too many variables to account for, so until they make a bullet that will enter, exit, and then fall straight to the ground, good luck covering them all. There is a .45 ACP by my bed loaded with 230grn FMJ hock.gif  and a flash light.   Sorry, if I tried to keep up on the newest bonded metal sintered jacket expanding metal pedal police tactical swat protection demon killer defense rounds, I'd go crazy.

What he said: except mine is a .45LC with 300gr JSP. If you know something works, why change it? It's a little off topic but do you read all the stuff about elk hunting? For years a 30-30 or .270 or a 30-06 was great. You didn't need more. Nowadays all the gun writing gurus tell us we need ultra mags, short ultra mags, etc. You shouldn't go hunting without these latest, greatest wonder bullets. Does a 300 SAUM kill an elk any deader than a .270 did 20yrs ago?

As for questioning a Doctor... you'd better if you value your health. Why in God's good name wouldn't you?

Hey, is wolf ammo good for self defense?

I dont disagree with all of it. In fact, the loads that are recomended are very good and probably do perform well. I disagree with the balistic tips being a shollow penatrator because in fact they are not. In actual tissue they penatrate very well. And create a massive wound channel. I am talking 55 and above. Many deer and humans have fallen to them. No EXPERT can say otherwise.  


Edit: there was a story on here about a prison guard killing an inmate with two 60grain TAP loads through phone books. Also showing how they are pretty good penatrators.



MAny experts....not all....only look at gel.

Some people do not understand the concept of logic, that is the problem.

I don't have any issues with the laboratory testing.  I just think people go overboard on the way they interpret the results after viewing the raw data gels, on both sides.

Ballistic gel is not a 1:1 comparison of a torso.  It is a simplified single medium average density material with no membrane, organ, or other structures involved.  Now it would be 100% relevant if we were often attacked by jelly monsters, but the human body is a much more complicated and advanced structure with a variety of densities.  

It seems that one of the fundamental problems of terminal ballistic testing is having a reliable test, with repeatable results.  A human system simply has so many variables, so a compromise has to be made, hence the use of calibrated gels.  The density and temperature of the gel cannot be changed to keep the testing system consistent.

With that said, ballistic testing is perhaps the best way to compare terminal results of one round against another.  I do not think it is the 100% relevant to say, "this is what the round will do against a torso" based entirely on gel tests.  But rather, "this round has more fragmentation/penetration/expansion potential than the other round".

I think it would be possible for rounds that do not do as well in gel tests to perform much better in real world applications, and vice versa.

I just get annoyed by the reverence some have for the new magical bullet that makes obsolete all ammunition of the past over something as subtle as a slightly more reliable expansion.  Honestly, humanity has been killing each other for thousands of years, in the grand theme of things, we are splitting hairs in our ease of accomplishing this.

I think people around here depend TOO MUCH on the ammo, and not enough about the other factors involved in SD.


The bullet is just one factor.

I think the root of the problem is that people want - literally - a Magic Bullet. When the true predictor of lethality is shot placement. These "magic bullets" are talismans that people think will protect them and compensate for their lack of realistic training and mindset.  We all make fun of the gun show commandos but how many of us actually train semi-regularly?  Hell, how many of us just dry fire on a daily basis?

As I understand it, 80% of people hit with a rifle end up dead whereas 20% of those hit with handgun rounds end up dead.  Handguns are a compromise and a POOR compromise at that when you're trying to kill someone that needs killing.

Add to all this the macho BS that comes about with "boys and their toys" and you've got ARFCOM's weekly "super terrorist-gangbanger tactical destruction round" argument.  Most gunfights in the US are up close and personal - spitting distance - where you can expect to get punched, kicked or stabbed while trying to get your gun into the fight.  People that carry need to expect their fight will be up close if (god-forbid) it happens.

Personally, I shoot 5.56 & .45 but I'd be comfortable carrying 9mm or 40.
I train because I know the bullets won't do all the work and I have to send them where needed.

My personal defense rounds are either Winchester Rangers or Remington Golden Sabers based on the "Best choices for defensive ammunition" on the top of this forum and what I could find locally.  Rifle-wise, I usually use 55gr 5.56 and shotgun-wise, I use 00 Buck.


So the short answer is that uninformed, self appointed macho gun show idiots think they know more about balistics than trained experts with PHDs and MDs.  Hell, there are still people that believe in creationism and that flouride is a gov. conspiracy.  I don't argue with any of these folks because it's a waste of time.

I think that part of the equasion is always left out, personally. You have to hit the perp first before whatever you shoot will do anything. The meanest Mo Fo round out there won't do better then FMJ if it hits air only.

Thats why I seldom get into the arguements, I've shot enough deer and such to know almost everything out there is going to fall to good shot placement, and a bullet of the day won't make up for poor shot placement.

The best of the bullet designs is just icing on the cake, shot placement IS the cake.

Some things I have learned today:

1. Variables negate results gained through testing in a controlled setting.  We should not choose the best potential candidate for the job since we don't know for sure how the work environment will look.

2. Lists of recommended equipment options based on laboratory testing are too complex to be useful, even when one understands how the test protocol relates to the potential performance of said equipment.

3.  Research designed to provide handgun projectiles with increased potential for reliable terminal performance is wasted effort, as any advances through such research are incremental at best.  Only "breakthrough" discoveries are of any concern or deserving of implementation.

4.  My belief that God created the universe makes me a booger-eating moron.

 

to many people get hung up on a "magic bullet", and meeting FBI penetration depths.
many rounds frowned on here work in the real world, yet don't make 12". the debate will never end.  heavy slow bullets vs lite faster bullets, use whatever works for you.
many people asking about (pick a bullet) don't really care if it will penetrate glass and steel and have enough energy left to meet 12" of penetration, they want to know if brand X will work for a house gun down a 20' hallway, and worry about killing someone in the next house if they miss.   it's all grey area, nothing cut and dry.

Actually--I was one of those fast/light believers--until I started reading the date and seeing folks shot while training in residency. Honestly, I still don't believe in a magic bullet--at the time, I just thought the gun writers knew more than I knew--not that they were/are selling a product. So--I guess I was guilty of not doing my homework.

I do believe placement is key--caliber to hit penetrate the structures, and bullet design--if it works as advertised--is next important.

As a doc--I get to deal with folks who make bad choices about many different thing--but like I say to them--you makes your choices and takes your chances--just remember--You made the choice.

I think the recommendations of the experts are generally valid, but I am a mechanical engineer by trade and so I can use that knowledge and experience to determine whether a given recommendation makes sense or not based on its key assertions.  

That being said, I do think people get a little carried away looking for the magic bullet, but it is human nature to get all the extra advantage, especially in a life or death situation, one can get.  

I keep XM193 loaded in my AR's for self defense because

(1) the experts like it (for 16" + barreled weapons, with 1/9 twist like I have)
(2) their rationale for liking it, when fired out of longer barreled weapons at close range, is a valid set of reasons based on fluid mechanics and projectile design.
(3) it goes bang every time I pull the trigger
(4) a whole boatload of dead VC can attest to its lethality and massive tissue damage at close range when driven to a high enough velocity

XM193 is not the latest "wonder bullet", especially for SBR's, but it is still a proven and expert recommended round in longer barrels of slower twist (1/9, 1/12, etc.).


For the handguns, I have been a little more reluctant to let go of my 9's in favor of the now "expert" recommended gold-standard gold-plated .45ACP.  I have 5 or 6 .45ACP's, but the 9 is still my favorite, loaded with Speer Gold Dots, of course .

Zhukov, you are starting to sound like Al Gore.  "I am Zhukov and so and so said this is best so don't question me."  Won't be long until Air America has an ad at the top of the page.

Learn to shoot, put the shots where they count, your ass is on the line so train how to protect it.  When I trained it was two shots rapid succesion to the mid torso / chest.  Stay calm, keep your eye on the target and sighted to it, two more if that didn't do it.  The biggest enemy you have is adrenelin, stay focused and AIM.  15 rounds out of a pistol is no good if you don't hit anything.  I keep a 9mm with +P hollow points and a .357 with +P 38 specl. hollow points for self defence.  I prefer the revolver, 6 shots, 4 more than I need, I know I'll place the shots, the 9 is the back up.  If you really want to feel secure, a 12 guage with buck shot, nothing is walking away from that, but believe it or not you can still miss.  Training and concentration. There is too much read into over penetration, safe bullets, frangible bullets, gel tests, and on and on.  A well placed shot  with suitable ammo will do the trick.  There is no magic bullet, you can hit a bad guy with a .44 mag and still lose if you hit the wrong spot.  Just my opinion.

Quoted: Zhukov, you are starting to sound like Al Gore.  "I am Zhukov and so and so said this is best so don't question me."  Won't be long until Air America has an ad at the top of the page.

Wow, what an information filled post. NOT.

Original poster's request. We'll just continue this discussion in the various posts...