Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 8/2/2005 7:39:05 AM EDT
I read part of a discussion on another forum a while back and there were several people that felt there was no advantage in power between these 2 rounds. I would like to get a discussion started and see what some of you think.

Things that I do not care to talk about include muzzle flip or capacity. I can shoot both the Glock 19 and the Glock 32 equally well and there is only milliseconds difference even on the hot loads between my splits so lets not even go there.

I have done some ammo research and come up with a few facts. Since the conception of the .357 Sig the ammo power has gone down to the point that it is not much more powerful from some ammo companies than the 9mm but it is still more powerful. Then some loadings from some company’s are much more powerful like Hornady, Corbon, Georgia Arms, and Double Tap

I just found something that intrigued me. A lot of folks favor the 9mm 147gr for the consistent performance and good penetration and I do as well but I also like speed and normally go with a 127gr Ranger +p+. Winchester measured the Ranger T 127 gr +p+ out a 4" barrel at 1250fps/441ft/lbs energy. Now, since the round is from the same company the 125gr Ranger T .357 Sig is running out the same barrel at 1350fps/506ft/lbs of energy. Although that does not get my panties in a tangle the fact is apparent that it is more powerful even if it is by a small amount.

Now, the argument was that it was not enough to be better than the 9mm with a comparable load or the overall favorite the 147gr because the penetration was about the same or better than the 357 sig. Although I think penetration is probably one of the most important things when you talk about handgun ammo it is not the only thing that is important.

Now, I am becoming a big fan of custom ammo company’s with Double Tap leading the way. Now I have found a very comparable loading from Hornady that falls along the same loading of the famous 147gr 9mm as well.

The Hornady 147gr .357 Sig XTP is running 1250fps/490ft/lbs of energy and that to me is a serious improvement over the 9mm counterpart with stats running the same bullet @ 935fps/285ft/lbs of energy. I do not care about stopping power or any of that jazz because stopping power to me only relates to a head shot or upper spine shot and that is it. But there is an inherent advantage to speed with a good bullet design and there in my opinion is a difference made with a couple hundred fps.

This is basically the testing that I do for my carry rounds so don't laugh.

Some of the testing that I did was to see about energy transfer in 5 gal plastic pails. Not a scientific test but just to see. I used the 127gr Ranger T +p+ running at the advertised 1250fps out a 4" barrel (Glock 19). What I was looking for was water displacement. I related this to how the kinetic energy transfers into a body made up mostly of liquid. I fired at about 8" below the top of the open container at about 15' which is what I would consider to be the furthest most shoots for even LE to happen. What I wanted to see was the waters reaction upon impact. The 9mm did get some water out that bucket. About 1/2 gallon spilled up and out the top of the bucket and the bullet traveled completely through the 5 gal bucket which measures 12". I quickly plugged both holes with puddy and tape to prevent further spillage.

Again, this is not a scientific method but it works for me. Now onto the .357 sig. I did not want to use the 125gr Ranger because I do not think it brings enough to the table but to be fare I did the same test. Within an inch on a new bucket of the same place the last was hit the bullet impacted and it did considerably more with the bucket and the water. The buckets were placed on a fairly level picnic table and when the .357 round impacted it moved the bucket and displaced more water higher in the air by far. I would guess it was close to 11/2 gallons. It too traveled the 12" of water and went completely through the pail.

I knew the 147gr loadings for both would only penetrate better so I did not test them at this time but will on the next evolution and will post my test. The next time I do this I am also going to take pictures to document every step.

The next step was to test what will be my carry loading for the Glock 32 (the wife is carrying the Glock 19 and I wanted something new) the 125gr Gold Dot HP from Double Tap. Although I did not run the speeds I will for the next evolution of test. The claimed speed on this loading from a 4" barrel which is consistent with the Glock 32 was 1450fps/584ft/lbs. From testing done on the .40S&W and the 45 ACP the ammo runs real close to if not right on with what Double Tap advertised so I had not reason not the believe the same here.

The difference between the 127gr ranger T 9mm and the 125gr Gold Dot from DT was tremendous. It was very obvious that the .357 sig round had a lot more power and the couple hundred fps made a tremendous difference in the impact of the round. It displaced about the same amount of water but a lot higher in the air and made the water slouch around and spill out and also almost tipped the bucket over on impact.

My question to what I consider the die hard fans of the 9mm, what about that does not make it a more effective round than a 9mm? Keep in mind that I carry a 45 for duty and carried my Glock 19 as a back up and will never take anything away from the 9mm as a fight stopper. I have a lot of respect for the 9mm and will always have more than one but there is a serious advantage to more power and the 357 sig has it. What say you?

Also, keep this civil, I want to see everyone that has an opinion post it.



Link Posted: 8/2/2005 10:38:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2005 10:39:05 AM EDT by PAEBR332]
Velocity and energy of all the rounds you list is painfully low compared to even low powered rifle rounds. All rounds, but especially handgun rounds, must hit is a vital area, penetrate deeply enough to reach these areas under less than ideal circumstances, and destroy as much vital tissue as possible in the process. You simple cannot look at velocity and energy figures and make any predictions about bullet performance with JHP rounds. Judging performance based upon how how water shoots is also not a good method.

There is actual physics involved in bullet penetration. Read Duncan MacPherson's book Bullet Penetration and you will start to get an idea about it.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 10:57:31 AM EDT
So basically what you are saying is that the rapid displacement of kinetic energy in a living target does nothing in terms of effectiveness and all handgun rounds are the same. My thought process tells me that the extra speed and power may be the determining factor or that causes bullet striking a chest plate or ribs and breaking them into little bits and still flying 12" into the body or the same bullet hitting and slowing down enough after impact of bone and cartilage to be less effective.

The reasoning on shooting large heavy bullets is to remedy this problem. The bullet is large enough to push through heavy bone and muscle and travel into the vitals. When you talk of smaller bullets needing to be able to produce the same results or similar then you need something else to help this process and that is speed. A 45ACP has tremendous weight to help push it through bone and muscle, heavy clothing and so on and still hit vitals.

And then again maybe I am just a brick and have not read as many books on the topic as you. I also see ammo that is as light as a feather bust a Class IIIA vest and stop inside the target and it does not do this with just bullet design, it does it with speed. That fact alone is proof that speed does help. Stating that it does nothing for the bullets performance even at handgun speeds tells me that either all handgun bullets are the same just named different or someone is missing the boat.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 3:15:09 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 3:24:00 AM EDT
The only thing that turned me away from 357 SIG is the expensive plinking ammo and I don't feel like reloading since I can get 9mm plinking grade for $0.10-$0.11/rd, about the price of a bullet if I were to reload.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 4:19:52 AM EDT
When I first got a 357 I noticed the steel targets in my backyard shooting range got destroyed in no time, something my 9mm and 40cal loads didn't do in years of use.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 5:15:39 AM EDT
Yea I too shoot my Glock 19 and 17 a whole lot more. So much cheaper. But that is also one of the good things about how the Glocks are made. Every time I shoot the Glock 19 I practice with all of the Glocks that size.

I really don't see that big a difference in recoil or splits or any of that. I don't really like the 40S&W so I shoot if less than all the rest. I to notice the difference when shooting steel. I noticed that when I hit a steel plate with the 230gr +p HP out my Glock 21 and then a 125gr HP out the 357 that the later makes a whole lot more noise and movement as well.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 1:27:22 AM EDT
Ft/lbs of energy or "power" means very little to me in a defensive handgun round. It's all about the holes; where they are and how deep they go (and then to a lesser degree how big around the hole is).

Other than the possibility of superior barrier penatration, I don't see what a 357sig does that a 9mm doesn't except cost a lot more. And barrier penatration is somewhat far down my list of important factors in a defensive handgun. If I was LE and thought it was quite possible I might have to shoot through cars or something, then I might consider 357sig over 9mm.

"...[E]nergy transfer in 5 gal plastic pails..." doesn't mean anything to me. I'm not sure how water splashing out of a bucket (or not splashing out of a bucket) has any correlation with the wounding mechanisms of defensive handgun calibers. I'm not trying to bash, I'm just letting you know what I think.

Shooting stuff is fun though.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 2:12:03 AM EDT
From what I've read on the subject we've got ballisticians and the penetration proponents saying the .357 SIG is not better than many 9MM loads, particularly the 147gr JHP. On the other hand we have the USSS and the Texas DPS saying the .357 SIg is the best thing going, and have had very good results with it on the street.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 8:23:54 AM EDT
The reasoning behind the buckets of water was to see the difference in the impact of the bullet. I am not sure what kinetic energy does in the form of wounding and how living targets deal with it. Most can't tell you what makes it more effective but there is a difference. I have been shooting all my life with all sorts of guns. I have seen the difference in the terms of killing power on animals.

I went from a kid thinking a 12 gauge with a 00buck load would pick grown man up and send him flying to knowing the truth about it. I have shot a many of critters with different bullets and seen a many of different things happen. I am in LE and I have seen what different bullets can do to humans as well.

The thing I know is there is an impact factor and it does help even if it is a small factor to get as much as you can out of any bullet you can.

A hunting trip that I went on about a year ago and one I will do again this winter was a boar hunt were we took well over 60 pigs. Before you wonder what the hell is going on, pigs in most southern states breed faster than a NY rat and have no natural predators. We go out to a couple farms every year and exterminate them and fill hunters for the hungry trucks every day with fresh pork.

Last year over 30 pigs were taken with pistols from a 9mm and up to a 44mag because I had questions I wanted answered. First off, yea a 9mm 147 bullet penetrates well but it has no push power as I would call it at all. If it hits bone it does not penetrate as well as you would think. The 127gr +p+ ranger T did a better job on taking the pigs down than ANY 9mm and I tried several from just about every major company out their.

The 40SW sucked the big one out there. The best performers were the 180gr Gold Dot and the 180 Ranger T and they were totally unimpressive. The 9mm had more of a physical effect on the pigs than the 40 cal did with any load. Not sure why, the scientific community would tell me that can't be true and being real it should not be with simple physics but I know what I saw.

I had a 127gr Ranger break the left front shoulder on if I can remember correctly a 200lb pig and drop him in his dirt. After we process each pig we looked for the bullets and that one had bone fragments and bullet all up in his vitals.

I know when I hit one pig with a 240gr 44spl running around 1150fps it passed through and the pig ran about 50yrds before he hit the dirt. Pig of relevant size was hit with a 240gr 44mag (exact same bullet and gun) running around 1400fps and that bitch hit the dirt in its tracks. Neither one had bone broken that would prevent it from running.

Now, even though these are pistol speeds the velocity on the same exact bullets made a difference with the impact on the animal. There is really no way if we use ballistic gel to understand why this happens. That is why I have said that gel is not the be all end all method to determine the effectiveness of a projectile on living targets. It only helps.

I think what may have surprised me the most was when just about every 45ACP 230gr HP consistently passed through the pigs when the bullet did not really come into contact with bone. I would venture to guess that on hearts and lungs the bullet passes a lot easier than with gel. The penetration was greater with every bullet tested than what was claimed with the gel and would tend to guess that was because gel is a solid target and the body has give inside and air pockets inside. But hey, I am not doctor and maybe I should attempt to try and understand it a little better in the future.

The 10mm will be used this year as well with mostly loads from Double Tap. Actually most of the loads that will be used as a whole will be from DT. We will use the 9mm again, the 40SW, 45ACP, .357SIG, 44SPL, 44MAG, and the 10mm. This year I am taking pictures and a film crew and anyone that wants a copy can mail me blank VHS tape and you will have it.

Again, like the water in the bucket method, this is not a scientific method of determining how effective a bullet is on a human but I can assure you one thing. Which ever high performance hand gun ammo and caliber produce the best flattening power of the bunch will be the rounds/caliber I will choose to carry.

I am not opposed to carrying a 9mm. Hell I love that caliber and have carried one for many years. It is more than effective to stop a fight. There are in like pistol calibers more effective and you may not see much in terms of the good ol gel to make you believe that but there is.

Had a guide the first time laugh out loud when I told him I would be taking some boar with a 9mm handgun. In is infinite wisdom he explained to me that the 45acp with FMJs would not even draw blood on a boar and he had witnessed it with his own eyes. I politely told him he was full of shit. Then I asked him the proverbial question, do you know what happens to a boar that has a 127gr +p+ Winchester Ranger T HP slam into his head? He honestly did not expect to ever see a boar drop by a 9mm. The next day I hit one at about 15yards in the head right above the between the eyes mark and dropped him. I turned and looked at him and said that is what happens. They die.

Take it for what it is worth. I am not trying to prove anything to any of you. I will have facts from several shoots involving wild boars and handguns sometime in late Dec. of this year. I will post facts and pictures of all for all to see as well as have the video dubbed for any who want it. You can make up your minds then.

Again, this is my experience. You are welcome to call me a dumbass or question me about anything. I posted this for a couple reasons, one was to try and understand the whole terminal ballistics thing and two to challenge the norm which is not enough to satisfy my way of thinking.

Wait, let me get my on. Now go ahead.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 8:29:02 AM EDT
53vortec,
The USSS is also using a version of the round that makes over 1400fps out a Sig 229 vs. pushing the same bullet about 1200fps with the 9mm. Saying that this does not make a difference is like saying why use a 357 mag 125 HP over a 38spl 125gr HP because there is no difference on the impact on a human between the 2.

I do not car if the gel shows no difference between the 357mag and the 38spl with the same bullet, there is a difference and that is a fact.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 9:46:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By spcwes:
53vortec,
The USSS is also using a version of the round that makes over 1400fps out a Sig 229 vs. pushing the same bullet about 1200fps with the 9mm. Saying that this does not make a difference is like saying why use a 357 mag 125 HP over a 38spl 125gr HP because there is no difference on the impact on a human between the 2.

I do not car if the gel shows no difference between the 357mag and the 38spl with the same bullet, there is a difference and that is a fact.



Care to point out these irrefutable facts to all us poor benighted souls? You just saying it is a fact does not make it so.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 10:55:52 AM EDT
Well let’s see, since we can't live and die (literally) by what the gel says. Is there more speed with the same bullet out a 357 mag or 38 spl? Choose your answer. Now that you have selected which everyone that you decided which ever one has the more speed is going to increases the power. Again if you do not believe me go ahead and do the math or ask someone else for help.

That is a difference. If that is not enough of an answer then I am not sure that I can help you. I think that what you’re trying to say is that if there is not much more of a temp wound track generated in a block of 10% gel or not much more penetration then there is not enough difference between the two to justify a change in your defensive posture.

Bro, that is fine with me. I also carry a 9mm G19 with Ranger T 127 +p+ hps and feel just fine about carrying the weapon and loading. I feel completely comfortable that I can defend myself with the loading and weapon. But ignoring facts and saying that using the same bullet design, of the same weight does no better at higher speeds is like saying that one bullet should be fine for every application period. If that bullet does not fail on top of generating more power, well I am not sure how anyone could not understand.

If these bullets go faster and hit harder as a result of the increase of speed then guess what, it is simple math. They were not designed to shoot into 10% gel to see the exact way they will perform on a human. If a bullet is designed to run speeds of 1200fps and to achieve 12in of penetration and stay together then that is probably what it will do. If a bullet of the same weight and size is designed to run at 1400fps and to achieve 12in of penetration that is likely what it will do regardless of speed.

Double Tap ran the 147gr Gold Dot that was designed for the 9mm loading up to 1550fps/ 785 ftlbs with the 9X23 and guess what happen. The bullet held together in 10% gel, mushroomed perfectly and penetrated 17 to 18 in consistently.
Do you think the 9mm load running under 1000fps is just as good?

There is a difference. DT is getting the test ready to post online to include pictures. As soon as they do I will let you see. So you don't have to take my word for it.

By the way, the new .357 sig load DT has already developed (due out around Memorial Day) is a 147gr Gold Dot running around 1300fps out a 4" barrel. Bullet does what it is supposed to do by holding together and mushrooming consistently. Do you really think that this load will not be anymore effective on a living target than your 147gr 9mm load running around 950fps?

If so you answered your own questions. There is nothing that one can say or do.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 4:25:56 AM EDT
If the DT loading expands to the same diameter and penetrates to the minimum 12", it is doing no more damage than the 9mm load.

I am sorry, but handgun rounds only wound by destroying the actual tissue they directly contact. All that extra velocity and energy from the 357 SIG just gets wasted on creating a larger, but still all but meaningless, temporary stretch cavity. To get what is basically 9mm performance you have to pay far more for ammo (which will affect the amount of training one can do), and endure more recoil and muzzle blast.

It really is painfully obvious that you do not understand handgun wound ballistics. Please, stop posting and go read up on the topic. HERE is a good place to start.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 4:34:59 AM EDT
.45

man up
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 12:47:26 PM EDT
According to Winchester's own LE catalog, gelatin tests show that all three 9mm loads offered in the Ranger T line (124 +p, 127 +P+, 147) outperforms the 357 sig Ranger T (125gr) in almost every respect. AFAIC, there is very little practical difference between the 4 of them except for the increased cost and recoil characteristics of the 357sig along with the 357sig's failure to penatrate 12+ inches thru bare gel and heavy cloth (it managed 12.1 thru the 4-layer denim test).

See for yourself, page 19: www.winchester.com/lawenforcement/pdf.aspx?pdf=le2004_productguide.pdf
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 12:08:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/7/2005 12:10:02 PM EDT by nsabjg]
I would have to say carry what makes you feel good to carry. I'm geting a little older and have had alot of guns, but I only have 5 guns at the time and don't plan on getting any more. The guns I have should out last me. I have had about all the guns that I have ever wanted to own in the past, but got tired of taking care of them. Now I have 2 handguns in 9mm, and 2 rifles in 7.62x39. I do not feel underpowerd with the 9mm at all. I use COR-BON 115gr +P, and GDHP 115gr +P+. I would also say that my guns can interchange parts and mags if needed(a big+). Good luck on finding that magic bullet, when you find it let me know. And the 5th gun is a 22lr.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 5:28:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2005 5:30:33 AM EDT by spcwes]
How about you do this instead. Other than ballistic gel show me someone the people can trust and his/her information can be proven or duplicated to show that there is no difference. Show me that. Oh and guess what, the temp wound cavity, well the name says it, is a wound. It plays an effect on the intended target however small it is. It is called trauma, the same little thing that us police use trauma plates for in our vest. It is the difference of getting poke by a finger real hard or hit by a baseball going 95mph.

I know most every part of this discussion, even by the people that claim to know what the hell there talking about is still people talking. Most of these folks have no idea what will happen because they have never been shot by both rounds to compare.

What you have posted would not build a case anymore than what I have posted but because people shoot gel and you think that I don't understand why. Do you think that your OPINIOIN is fact and mine is not? You do know that people dispute this both ways with fact right? I can agree with what I want to, and I can find fact myself and what I have seen with my own eyes VS what the gel chart is why I believe what I do.

So instead of me trying to put me on my heels like your right and I am wrong, I am in MO show me.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 6:00:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By spcwes:
How about you do this instead. Other than ballistic gel show me someone the people can trust and his/her information can be proven or duplicated to show that there is no difference. Show me that. Oh and guess what, the temp wound cavity, well the name says it, is a wound. It plays an effect on the intended target however small it is. It is called trauma, the same little thing that us police use trauma plates for in our vest. It is the difference of getting poke by a finger real hard or hit by a baseball going 95mph.

I know most every part of this discussion, even by the people that claim to know what the hell there talking about is still people talking. Most of these folks have no idea what will happen because they have never been shot by both rounds to compare.

What you have posted would not build a case anymore than what I have posted but because people shoot gel and you think that I don't understand why. Do you think that your OPINIOIN is fact and mine is not? You do know that people dispute this both ways with fact right? I can agree with what I want to, and I can find fact myself and what I have seen with my own eyes VS what the gel chart is why I believe what I do.

So instead of me trying to put me on my heels like your right and I am wrong, I am in MO show me.



Ballistic gelatin testing is not perfect, but it offers a few tremendous advantages over "real world" testing. First, it offers replicable results. Anyone shooting into propery calibrated gelatin will get statistically identical results. Therefore, different projectiles can be compared in a controlled, scientific manner. Second, it is a very good human tissue simulant. Studies by the late Gene Wolberg showed that the penetration an expansion of JHPs in human victims very closely replicated those found in ballistic gelatin tests. Third, it is not subject to the huge number of variable found in so-called "real world" results. There is simply no way to account for the different ways that different people react to the same stimuli. Even identical twins shot in the same body structure may in fact react differently, since we cannot control for their psychological reactions. Finally, "real world" testing would require HUGE sample size. Not the handfull or even the few hundred that Marshall and Sanow claim to have, but THOUSANDS for each loading in each caliber. Even then, the confidence intervals would be so wide (due to the attribute nature of the data) that you would most likely find no statistically significant difference between most rounds.

It sounds like you put a lot of stock in Marshall and Sanow and the "real world" accolytes. If so, I recommend you read up on how they have fabricated data, committed gross statistical errors, and refused all requests for independent analysis of their data.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 6:44:46 AM EDT
Actually tuff guy, I never read it. I have looked up multiple shootings and read the facts as presented. I have done my own testing as well. I also used a powder gel to make my own 10% gel and test. It is not the same stuff they use but since I work in a paint company as a second job I had access to the material. It is a gel powder used in water to make gel.

I have decided to use my own testing and common sense to make my decisions and have also decided that what I have seen on actual living targets far outweighs the gel method.

One thing that you said that I agree with is the stimuli that can't be replicated from creature to creature.

What I know is what works better. Like for instance, coyotes. I have noticed that certain bullets from difference calibers have more of a dramatic impact on the animal than others. We are talking pistol calibers here, not rifle. I have noticed that the 357 mag, 44mag and 45acp all work better on the animal as far as stopping it in its tracks (all with similar shots) than the 40 or the 9mm. Not scientific, but it is a living creature and the animal would in a more consistent manner drop in its tracks though be not every time when hit by even premium 9mm ammo using more powerful calibers.

Penetration is not the only thing that matters when you’re talking about the ability a bullet has to do damage. I have read many articles about the pistol rounds all being about the same as far as power and that none of them short of some of the truly impressive big bore rounds will play anymore difference on a human target yet hunters that wish to hunt with a handgun do not choose to use a 9mm for hardly any critters. Most of them for animals the size of a coyote will use a 357mag or above.

I do know there are more variables in the dynamics of the whole situation. Simple facts are this, there are bullets that are more powerful than a 9mm. They do more than the 9mm does and even in the Gel chart provided on a different thread it does more temp damage the faster it goes. The gel does what is necessary to test hollow point bullets, it fills the HP cavity with a fluid flesh type product that is necessary to expand the HP. HP bullets were designed to fill with flesh like products and fluid to get expansion.

I have actually spent more time trying to understand what makes good terminal ballistics and what effects bullets actually have on a living creature both physically and mentally for years now. More than I planned to in the beginning but there are so many things that can't be explained or used as evidence in this discussion that it is almost pointless in arguing.

My point is this, if you feel that an increase in power, weight, or speed while talking about pistol calibers makes no difference because of a 10% ballistic gelatin test then why do we have any other calibers of handgun ammunition. If heavier harder hitting bullets or faster harder hitting bullets of lighter weights make no difference in power or wound effectiveness then why would someone want to use any other bullet period to hunt with or defend themselves? Why would a guide in AK decide to use a 44mag or larger handgun instead of a 9mm? If the only thing the 44 mag has over a 9mm is penetration and not bullet weight or size then why choose a 44mag? Then why don't we speed up the 9mm to get the same penetration? Well let’s say we did that, would that not make it a more effective round for its intended purposes?

Does a bigger bullet have better penetration due to speed, bullet weight, or what? Will a bigger bullet or a smaller lighter bullet do better or worse on bone running around the same speed? These are often variables that need to be talked about because as pointed out to me on another thread since I didn’t know this "most bad guys will not cooperate and allow you to shoot them were you need to, they will twist and move and fling there arms around and such, so you need a bullet to get a minimum of 12” of penetration."

Just because someone writes a paper on a topic does not make it the truth. Just because someone writes a book on it does not either. Most people that believe something will attempt to find facts to back there beliefs. I understand that but there are no facts presented to say that a 357 mag is not more effective on a human than a .38spl but there is facts that show it being more powerful.

I feel that any bullet that you can make better by speed, weight, design or size is the right thing to do and even if it is the smallest amount it is still and advantage.


Link Posted: 8/8/2005 7:22:45 AM EDT
Handguns are poor tools for stopping an attack. Arguing which is better is like arguing which of the Stooges was smarter. Your best bet is to choose something in a 9mm or up firing a good, proven JHP round that meets IWBA and FBI requirements and functions 100% in your weapon of choice. Then practice, practice, practice. Expecting some magic bullet/round to stop an attacker is folly.

While the .357 Sig MAY offer some very marginal improvements over a good 9mm load, the difference is not significant. But, the penalty you pay for this very marginal improvement is quite high. Much more recoil and muzzle blast, and higher ammunition cost. All of these will contribute to less practice. And good practice is the most important factor in succeeding with a handgun in a defensive situtation.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 7:39:21 AM EDT
Well, I can agree with part of your statement but will have no difficulties in buying ammo or feel that the 357 is any harder to shoot than the 9mm. Let’s just end this because I do not feel that we are going forward in the conversation. Unless someone has anything else to add to improve this thread don't post.

I am not concerned with opinions of what ammo you like better or what gun you shoot it from. I am not concerned with ammo cost or recoil, capacity or how much you can $afford to practice. None of that is relevant because different people make different amounts of money and can afford to practice more. I was trying to better understand why people put so much faith in the Gel and why there was a simple refusal in facts due to a preference of a bullet or caliber.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 7:49:47 AM EDT
I just saw the 2004 Winchester LE catalog and the 9mm 147 gr JHP outperformed the 357 SIG offering.

Coupled with expensive plinking ammo, I see no reason to use 357 SIG. I didn't go with 40 S&W or 45 Auto because I needed a caliber that anyone could use w/o being afraid of the recoil. It just so happens the 45 Auto was only 25% better at auto glass penetration than the 9mm 147 gr JHP. You also get more control with the 9mm and a buttload more ammo as well.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 8:13:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2005 8:19:14 AM EDT by spcwes]
In what way did the 147gr 9mm outperform the 125gr .357 sig? Penetration?

Double Tap ammo is going to release a 147gr Gold Dot 357 sig offering that will run about 1300fps out a 4" barrel Glock 32 same as Glock 19. Do you think this bullet will not do as well as the 9mm 147gr bullet will do running around 950fps out a 4" barrel?

Just curious.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 9:02:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By spcwes:
In what way did the 147gr 9mm outperform the 125gr .357 sig? Penetration?

Double Tap ammo is going to release a 147gr Gold Dot 357 sig offering that will run about 1300fps out a 4" barrel Glock 32 same as Glock 19. Do you think this bullet will not do as well as the 9mm 147gr bullet will do running around 950fps out a 4" barrel?

Just curious.



You're doing it again. You are trying to make a prediction of performance based upon velocity figures. You simply cannot do this. The only way to know is to test it.

As shown in the Ranger-T testing, the higher velocity .357 Sig actually had LESS penetration, and the same expansion, and the 9mm loads. Simple velocity predictions would have said this could not happen, but it did.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 10:02:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2005 10:28:00 AM EDT by spcwes]
Actually, no I wasn't. I was serious. I was asking for an answer or educated guess. You see your opinion from what I gather is that no pistol caliber short of the supermags is no more effective than any other on a human target based on the research you have done as well as others. You also use the gel testing for the energy transfer and bullet performance on a human by using the temp wound track as the kinetic energy wound pattern and the bullet track as the permanent wound track which is what allot of people do.

I am simply stating that I believe that the more power you have the more power you have. And that being said the more effect it will have on the intended target. I may not be a scientist or have conducted the testing that some have but I will not base my opinions solely off the ballistic gel method. Hell the only reason I even look at it is to see the penetration standards and the bullet performance (expansion, weight retention, consistency...). I do not think that if a bullet penetrates 12" in gel that it will in human I just use it as a universal standard that if it does it should be able to reach the vitals if I do my part.

Now, from my earlier statement, let’s do this, put them all in the same category. Let’s say it is a 147 gr Gold Dot 9mm round. The company states that it will fly from a 4" barrel (Glock 19) at 985fps and has 318ftlbs of energy. This round as tested will penetrate about as well or better than the Ranger T so compare the gel results with that round. I think it is around 12" to 13". That being said neither you nor I can with facts state that even the 9X23 at 1550fps and 700+ftlbs of energy will have more or less of an effect on a person. What we do know is that on a couple of occasions it came close to 20" of penetration on the same gel fired into with the same bullet out a 9mm. The bullet exhibited the same positive qualities as did the 9mm with proper expansion and weight retention.

I say from my personal experience while hunting various types of animals that a bullet with more power has more of an effect on a critter even when we are talking about handgun calibers. My most positive results so far with animals and defensive caliber handguns was probably the Taurus Copper 185gr HP 45ACP round. Second by the 230+p Ranger T. These rounds slammed down boar and coyote. Out of 3 deer I shot with the Ranger +p loading 2 ran one about 10' the other about 80yrds and one dropped in its tracks with a front shoulder break and vital eviscerations.

My experience is this, the more powerful the bullets or the larger the bullets the more effect on the animal as in terms of dropping on impact as well as destructiveness with bone destruction and vital evisceration. That is my experience.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 10:57:37 AM EDT
I try to avoid these heated ballistic debates, as everyone seems to already have their mind made up- you're either with Fackler or Marshall & Sanow. It's either all penetration or all energy/expansion. One way or the other. You're either with me or against me. If you're with Fackler you're disregarding street results, if you're with Marshall & Sanow you're disregarding labratory science. Black and white. This issue has become drastically polarized for some odd reason. While I make no claims to be an "expert", I submit the following:


From Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness by Special Agent UREY W. PATRICK:


Psychological factors are probably the most important relative to achieving rapid incapacitation from a gunshot wound to the torso.


Later in the article we read this:


What is needed is an edge that makes the good result more probable than the bad... ...Even if that edge is only 1%, it is not insignificant because the guy trying to kill you could be in that 1%, and you won’t know it until it is too late.


I think a clue to the "mystery" of handgun round effectiveness lies in the above statements.

Consider the following scenario:
You shoot an aggressor in an altercation. Two of our "adequate penetration" bullets find their mark in the torso, but none damage the central nervous system. The target is bleeding out, but that alone does not put him out of the fight until he's done bleeding.

Now apply two different loads to the same scenario, loads X and Y. Same bullet diameter, same expanded diameter, same depth of penetration. Load Y travels 500fps faster than load X, and load Y produces a 50% larger temporary expansion cavity.

What does that larger expansion cavity do for us? It does not induce more bleeding. It does not damage the central nervous system. It certainly does not physically knock down the target. What it DOES do however is compress organs, send "pain" signals through the central nervous system and, depending on where the shot was delivered potentially "knock the wind" out of the target. Ever been struck and had the wind knocked out of you? Most likely it took you a moment to recover. Been struck in the same fashion harder? Took longer for you to recover, didn't it?

I believe that these pain and "wind knocked out" factors that the temporary expansion cavity produces CAN work to our benefit (depending of course on shot placement) regarding the psychological reaction of a target. In simpler words, the harder we "thump" the target, the more likely he is to realize he's been shot and stop, if only for a moment, what he's doing. Will that put him out of the fight? Nope, sooner or later (sooner, according to Murphy) he'll recover from it, but what did that keep him from doing, Firing another shot, or give us time to take cover? Good. Give us time to deliver more shots? Even better. Perhaps put him down or into the mindset of defeat long enough to bleed out as a result of the permanent cavity? Great.

If we found that load Y was 50% more likely to induce these psychological effects than round Y, would it not be the preferred round to put into an attacker. Would it be 100%? Nope. Could it give us that 1% (or better) that Special Agent Patrick referred to? Yes. The problem is that these results cannot be readily studied in the lab environment, nor are they consistent from individual to individual; but that does not mean they cannot increase our chances of stopping a human target. The above theory does not contest any of Fackler's finding about what is needed to permanently stop a human being. What it can do, now that we have a number of loads that meet the criteria set forth by Fackler, determine which of the "good" loads are better. It will not be until a study of thousands of shootings (as called for in the article quoted above) that considers these effects is performed will we know for sure, but until that point in time I fail to see the logic in totally discounting the potential benefit of the temporary wound cavity.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 11:16:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2005 11:17:08 AM EDT by spcwes]
I agree and since there is supposedly no psychological effect on animals vs. humans then an animal will not just drop over because it thinks it has been shot. There is an effect caused by this temp cavity because there are large mammals that I have hit personally with shots close to being the same that some ran on and some dropped on. The one thing that stood out was that the more powerful the weapon the more it happened.

Nothing is 100% but hey, I like to get as close as I can.


Edited to state that I am still referring to defensive handgun calibers.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 12:17:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 53vortec:
I try to avoid these heated ballistic debates, as everyone seems to already have their mind made up- you're either with Fackler or Marshall & Sanow. It's either all penetration or all energy/expansion. One way or the other. You're either with me or against me. If you're with Fackler you're disregarding street results, if you're with Marshall & Sanow you're disregarding labratory science. Black and white. This issue has become drastically polarized for some odd reason. While I make no claims to be an "expert", I submit the following:




Anyone who claims that Fackler is all about penetration has no clue about Fackler's studies, and those of his followers.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 12:25:02 PM EDT
I don't care either way, I have not read his studies either. I am just on my own I guess.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 12:45:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By 53vortec:
I try to avoid these heated ballistic debates, as everyone seems to already have their mind made up- you're either with Fackler or Marshall & Sanow. It's either all penetration or all energy/expansion. One way or the other. You're either with me or against me. If you're with Fackler you're disregarding street results, if you're with Marshall & Sanow you're disregarding labratory science. Black and white. This issue has become drastically polarized for some odd reason. While I make no claims to be an "expert", I submit the following:




Anyone who claims that Fackler is all about penetration has no clue about Fackler's studies, and those of his followers.



With that statement I was trying to illustrate how people tend to polarize and oversimplify the issue, not saying that those were the only conclusions of the respective researchers' studies. Sorry you missed that, but referring to those who believe in all of Fackler's work as "followers" does kind of demonstrate the cult-like mentality that I'm talking about.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 1:43:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By spcwes:
In what way did the 147gr 9mm outperform the 125gr .357 sig? Penetration?

Double Tap ammo is going to release a 147gr Gold Dot 357 sig offering that will run about 1300fps out a 4" barrel Glock 32 same as Glock 19. Do you think this bullet will not do as well as the 9mm 147gr bullet will do running around 950fps out a 4" barrel?

Just curious.



Yes, in penetration


After firing thousands of rounds into testing ballistic media, Winchester's latest Ranger LE Catalog shows the following data on 357 Sig 125-gr. (RA357SIGT) @ 1,350 fps versus 9mm 147-gr. (RA9T) @ 990 fps (page 19):

Ranger T's 357 Sig 125-gr. (RA357SIGT) @ 1,350 fps versus 9mm 147-gr. (RA9T) @ 990 fps:

Gelatin
357Sig 125gr. = 10.9 & .63
9mm: 147-gr. = 13.9 & .65

4-Ply Denim
357Sig 125gr. = 12.1 & .66
9mm: 147-gr. = 14.5 & .66

Heavy Cloth
357Sig 125gr. = 10.7 & .69
9mm: 147-gr. = 14.0 & .66

Wallboard
357Sig 125gr. = 15.4 & .48
9mm: 147-gr. = 15.0 & .67

Plywood
357Sig 125gr. = 12.2 & .66
9mm: 147-gr. = 14.8 & .62

Auto Glass
357Sig 125gr. = 10.3 & .49
9mm: 147-gr. = 10.8 & .52



www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=514692953249052478b6ceb028da064e&threadid=417200
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 5:32:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By spcwes:
I don't care either way, I have not read his studies either. I am just on my own I guess.



Dr. Martin Fackler is the father of modern wound ballistics studies. He probably knows more about what happens when bullets strike human flesh than any other man on this planet. He has treated hundreds of battle wound vicitms, as well as participated in hundreds more studies of civilian shooting vicitms. To cavalierly dismiss him speaks volumes about your knowledge of the topic.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 5:36:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2005 5:37:43 PM EDT by PAEBR332]

Originally Posted By 53vortec:
<snip>

With that statement I was trying to illustrate how people tend to polarize and oversimplify the issue, not saying that those were the only conclusions of the respective researchers' studies. Sorry you missed that, but referring to those who believe in all of Fackler's work as "followers" does kind of demonstrate the cult-like mentality that I'm talking about.



No, followers as in those who followed after. Fackler was the founder of modern scientific wound ballisitics studies.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 5:33:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/9/2005 6:19:38 AM EDT by spcwes]
I did not dismiss him, just stated that I had not read his studies. Listen, I am getting tired of this topic, even though I started it. It is not just because I asked a question and got an answer that I did not like but because I do not agree with it. The gel does not do for me what it does for you. We are continuing to argue about nothing.

In my mind the 125gr 357sig will out perform the 127gr +p+ loadings if even by a little with most factory loads. The hot loads do more than just a little from some of the custom ammo companies. The 147gr 9mm is what everyone seems to compare it to even though the bullet weight is different and say well this gets more penetration so its better even though it is only moving a little over 950fps.

That’s fine, when the gold dot 147gr 357 sig load is out then were will we go to with the conversation? The same bullet flying at 400fps faster on average. We will have the same argument and you will still say that it does NOTHING in terms of effect on a human and I will disagree with you. Neither of us can prove anything more than our opinion because for ever study supporting your topic there will be one supporting mine and so on.

I feel the more power the more power. I know there is more of a physical effect I have seen it with my own eyes. But hey, I must have been seeing things. I will do it my way and you do it yours. Hopefully you do not have to ever use your weapon to defend yourself and you will never have to prove your point. Good luck.

Oh and this comment:

"To cavalierly dismiss him speaks volumes about your knowledge of the topic."

I could just as easy say that assumption is the mother of all fuckups to. One thing that I have always tried to do is to see things for my self and run some of my own test. I may not do the same things that have become a standard as far as penetration and bullet performance with the gel test but hey I get by. My test show that a 357sig bullet impacts harder on 5gal buckets filled with water and on steel plates. I have seen this and heard it with my own eyes and ears. So when we get the 147gr load and it out penetrates the 147 9mm load I will just call it good.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 6:55:08 AM EDT
Carry what you like. Shoot what you feel confident in. But don't delude yourself into thinking that the 357 Sig offers any real advantage over the 9mm (with comparable JHPs). There simply is no significant difference.

Energy is the ABILITY to do work. With a handgun round, that ABILITY must be converted to actuality. Enough vital tissue to rapidly incapacitate the attacker must be destroyed. Ordinance gelatin testing is the best method yet found to measure this. Such testing has shown the 357 SIG makes no larger permanent wounds than that of equivalent 9mm JHPs. Facts are stubborn things.

Most of your faith in the power of the temporary stretch cavity and energy transfer has already been disproven in Dr. Fackler's studies. Your failure to read them means you lack the information needed to make a fully informed decision about their value. You are debating one side of an issue without ever even looking at the other side. That is not productive.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 7:22:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/9/2005 7:26:18 AM EDT by spcwes]
No, I have seen the bullets impact living creatures and mediums I used for testing. I have seen first hand what a 357 mag can do and a 9mm as well and there is a difference, to humans. Power is power and studies are studies. The Gel is not the only test and just because this guy did studies does not mean he is right.

You know one of the reasons gel works so well for studies is that there is nothing different about it every time you shoot it. When a 147gr bullet smacks bone running around 950fps it WILL NOT do as much damage as the same bullet running 400fps faster. You can dispute this fact all you want. There is such thing as impact and there is a difference between bullets of the same weight traveling different speeds.

There are several things that I know will never be proven with bullets because you can't test on humans and then ask them which bullet did more or less to them. I will read this guys studies, but hey they are his conclusions based on his testing and information found from actual shootings.

And to be completely honest, I am not sure I ever stated that a comparable bullet going faster would do more permanent damage unless it struck bone. I think I said that there would be a greater impact on the target and my friend, I do not have to read Dr. Fackler's study, that is simple physics.

More speed equals more energy and more energy equals more impact. I will not delude myself with opinions but I will follow science and that is facts. Just because the gel impacts about the same with every bullet fired into it does not mean that they all impact the same way, they just do for the most part in the gel. Even in the charts I have seen, even if it is small there is a greater temp wound even in the gel test with the sig. I do believe I witnessed this with my own eyes as well.

I have also seen testing done on blocks of clay, 12” squares to see the difference in bullet impact and there is a difference and if the same impact I witnessed were to have the same effect on the inside of the body it would be like a heavyweight boxer punching your organs. It will make a difference. I will go my way and you go yours. Stop insulting my knowledge just because I did not read a study that you feel is the be all end all study of ballistics. People disagree with him about his findings and there meanings in terms of how the bullet impacts the body just like people disagreed with M&S. The real difference is most of the information that these gentlemen based their studies on was factual shootings just presented differently.

I am not the only one that sees this. In the next 10 years there may be another that refutes all the studies present today. We will see.

I tell you what, you want to do a simple test since you feel that really no ammo has any advantage over a 147 9mm bullet? Put some safety glasses on and have someone take a bullet not the shell case just the bullet. Use a 147gr FMJ and 230gr FMJ and have them throw the bullets at you, not real hard but enough to sting and see which one hurts more. I know, kind of like cave men but hey, you WILL see a difference.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 8:39:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/9/2005 8:40:27 AM EDT by PAEBR332]
Now you recommend we THROW bullets at each other in order to "prove" you are correct?

You do realize that most fired handgun bullets only pack as much "energy" as a decent punch? The reason they do so much more damage than a punch is the bullet penetrates vital tissue and destroys it. The total energy available in the super-duper Double Tap 147gr. 357 SIG at 1550 fps you keep touting will only be able to push a 180 pound attacker back at a velocity of .18 fps. Not really impressive when put into perspective.

It is not the energy (which is only the ability to do work), but the actual work (tissue destroyed) that does the job.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 9:19:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/9/2005 9:30:15 AM EDT by spcwes]
Listen, I am not trying to prove anything to you. If you are so blind that the only thing you will rely on is something someone else says then you are in a bad way. Some of this stuff I have actually tested myself. WOW what a noble idea.

The difference in impact is a little more than you may understand by your comment. Impact is not force to knock someone down, it is not going to send them flying or any of that shit. The guy the Trooper dropped a load of buck into did not stop, get knocked down or blown off his feet. He continued to run forward while falling and then finally hit the dirt.

Stop insulting me because you can't understand what I am trying to say. While wearing a bullet resistant vest a 230gr FMJ out a 45 ACP running around 900fps hits with the same force as a baseball at 95mph. Tested and proved. If you hit a man with a baseball doing 130mph it is not going to knock him down, he may fall down because of the results of the impact on his body but it will not knock him down unless he is off balance or already falling. There is not enough mass to take him off his feet, but he would more likely be knocked over by something that did not penetrate and spread the force of the impact on his insides rather than the blunt force trauma on the outside.

Now genius like you so mentioned the reason that we do not beat someone to death with a baseball or a bullet is because of the lethal part of the equation, the bullets penetration. That is what happens when the bullet impacts. Do you think that the force of the bullet magically goes away because it penetrates? Are you out of your mind? The bullet still hits like a piece of metal flying at whet ever insane speed it is traveling at.

The faster it is flying the harder it will hit, again simple for you to understand if you look physics!!!

The little throw the bullet test was in hopes that you would understand that a 230gr chunk of lead and metal hurts more and can do more damage at the speed of someone throwing it at you, much less launching it at 900fps. Get off your horse and open your eyes it is right there in front of you.

IMPACT! MAKES DIFFERENCE! Do you think the bullet fails when it penetrates? Do you know what happens to the blunt trauma that would be like getting hit with a baseball at 95mph when the bullet penetrates, it happens on the inside. It is call the energy transfer, however small you think it is.

If you think I know nothing and have no idea what we are talking about here then stop typing.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 11:35:04 AM EDT
You're right, impact energy makes a difference. It's just that at pistol projectile velocities, the differences are insignificant. The 147 DT load you adore, as noted above, would generate a velocity of .18 fps. in a 180 pound person. The 147 gr. 9mm load would generate .12 fps in the same person. While the velocity difference is real and measurable, it is meaningless. Neither round has enough energy to hurt anyone through energy transfer.


While wearing a bullet resistant vest a 230gr FMJ out a 45 ACP running around 900fps hits with the same force as a baseball at 95mph. Tested and proved.
A baseball, which weighs 5 ounces (or 2187.5 grains) traveling at 95 mph (139 fps) would strike with 94 ft-lbs of energy. The 230 gr. ACP round at 900 fps would have 414 ft-lbs of energy. Yet another of your "tested and proved" items found to be disproved.

If you really want to know the physics behind what happens when bullets strike, you need to read Duncan MacPherson's Bullet Penetration: Modeling the Dynamics and the Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma. MacPherson's book is full of physics formulae. Unfortunately for you, his studies also found that the laws of physics refute the energy transfer myth.

BTW, I do test my ammo. But I use test protocols which have proven correlations to ordinance gelatin and human tissue. Not "look how high the water spouted," and "wow that sure made a loud impact" tests.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 12:12:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/9/2005 12:50:06 PM EDT by spcwes]
When you shoot into a water bucket with a 147gr 9mm and a little water come out and you punch a hole in it what caused the water to fly out of the bucket? Do you think it is that little 9mm bullet? Through a bullet resistant vest a 45ACP traveling at 900fps with 414fps of energy causes the same amount of blunt force trauma as a baseball would on someone without a bullet resistant vest on being struck with it flying at 95mph. Sorry if I mistyped it. That is a pretty substantial impact. I can do the math too but hey if you want to try and contend that because you read about these test in a book authored by a person that some agree with and some don't then that’s fine. I do not agree with either completely. Excluding Macpherson’s studies because he used science to back.

Listen, bottom line is this, the water that fly’s out of the buckets is caused by the impact of the bullet and the displacement of the energy that is generated by the impact. Think about it before you respond because that is based on fact. If you do this test with a 9mm 147gr you may get a little more penetration but drastically less energy movement in the water. If you want to believe that when this energy goes into the body just like it did with that bucket of water that nothing happens your stoned and missing it. It may not do much more in gel but most bullets do not do much more in gel.

Sorry you put so much faith on the be all end all penetration and bullet performance test. Hey that is fine. We can agree to disagree, because let me tell you this, none of the shit you have presented except MacPhersons studies hold any weight with me and a several others so. The only one that uses facts and not opinions based off studies conducted is MacPherson. All you have been able to do is argue and on more than one occasion come of as a little rude with an arrogant ass complex.

This ends. If anyone else has something intelligent to add then do so.


Ok do this since you have so much useless info, prove that a more powerful bullet makes no difference on the impact of a human target. If you show me gel test the temp wound channel is larger with higher velocity bullets. So try and not bring that one up. The energy makes a difference in the gel test by showing more kinetic energy displacement in the gel with the larger and faster bullets as a whole. Hell the only thing that the 147gr 9mm really even does well is penetrate. Come on, show us facts that support that a faster bullet does no more damage than a slower one. We will be waiting.

Edited to add one more thing. We are also not talking about stopping power, I do not use this term unless there is a shot that severs a spine in the upper part of the body or a shot that destroys the brain. If the bullet has larger Temp Wound track then it is doing more, no matter how little. The so call experts might only think that little edge does nothing because they have not been shot by both. Not sure, will be ever know? OMG
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 6:31:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2005 4:07:20 AM EDT by Michael_Courtney]

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
If the DT loading expands to the same diameter and penetrates to the minimum 12", it is doing no more damage than the 9mm load.

I am sorry, but handgun rounds only wound by destroying the actual tissue they directly contact. All that extra velocity and energy from the 357 SIG just gets wasted on creating a larger, but still all but meaningless, temporary stretch cavity. To get what is basically 9mm performance you have to pay far more for ammo (which will affect the amount of training one can do), and endure more recoil and muzzle blast.

It really is painfully obvious that you do not understand handgun wound ballistics. Please, stop posting and go read up on the topic. HERE is a good place to start.



Your mistaken presupposition is that handguns can only incapacitate via wounding that is obvious to a trauma surgeon or medical examiner.

I am a scientist working in a multidisciplinary team currently preparing work for publication in which we show rather convincingly that a ballistic pressure wave plays an important role in incapacitation. In one project, we show that medium-sized mammals (10-20 lbs) immersed in water can be incapacitated with near misses from handgun bullets which create a large pressure wave (such as some .357 Sig loads). We were unable to reproduce such incapacitaiton with handgun loads producing relatively small pressure waves (such as the 147 grain 9mm loadings).

In a separate project, we show that using carefully controlled shot placement on deer, loads with a relatively large pressure wave incapacitate much more quickly than loads with comparable or larger wound channels, but a relatively small pressure wave. On average, deer shot with a 147 grain 9mm load ran twice as far as deer shot with a 115 grain .357 Sig load. This experiment also gave excellent agreement with predictions made from the Strasbourg goat test providing substantial experimental support for the Strasbourg tests which also observed a pressure wave dependent incapacitation mechanism. If the Strasbourg tests were a fraud (as some have suggested) then how is it possible to use their results to accurately and quantitatively predict incapacitation in similar animals? With loads that create a large pressure wave, we also observed remote wounding beyond the reach of even the temporary stretch cavity.

Finally, we've developed an empirical model for Marshall and Sanow's one shot stop data that accurately describes their data while giving the proper limiting behavior and using only two adjustable parameters. Using the pressure wave magnitude and the crush cavity size as the dependent variables, we show that the hypothesis that the pressure wave is an independent incapacitation mechanism from the wound channel gives good agreement with the Marshall and Sanow data. For many bullet designs, the contribution of the pressure wave is larger than the contribution of the wound channel. Of course, we understand the limitations in the epidemiological nature of the Marshal and Sanow data, but given the fact that we have both experimentally verified the Strasboug tests (which are highly correlated with the Marshall and Sanow data) and seen the pressure wave incapacitate (and in some cases even kill) medium-sized mammals, we believe that it is valid to consider the relative importance of the pressure wave in the Marshall and Sanow data.

The bottom line is that no experimental data has ever been published in support of the presupposition that only the crush cavity is important in incapacitaion from handgun bullets. We've had a lot of "expert" opinion, but little or nothing in terms of repeatable experiments. Real scientists find repeatable experiments much more convincing than the opinion of experts.

Michael Courtney
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 6:31:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2005 4:02:29 AM EDT by Michael_Courtney]
Double post, sorry.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 5:05:14 AM EDT
Michael_Courtney,

I will be very interested in reading your study. Where will it be published? What type of scientists were involved in your team? I hope that your team will make all of their data available. I would like to analyze the data (once the study is published), since I use and teach advanced statistics.

Looking forward to the study.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 5:17:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By spcwes:
I read part of a discussion on another forum a while back and there were several people that felt there was no advantage in power between these 2 rounds. I would like to get a discussion started and see what some of you think.

Things that I do not care to talk about include muzzle flip or capacity. I can shoot both the Glock 19 and the Glock 32 equally well and there is only milliseconds difference even on the hot loads between my splits so lets not even go there.

I have done some ammo research and come up with a few facts. Since the conception of the .357 Sig the ammo power has gone down to the point that it is not much more powerful from some ammo companies than the 9mm but it is still more powerful. Then some loadings from some company’s are much more powerful like Hornady, Corbon, Georgia Arms, and Double Tap

I just found something that intrigued me. A lot of folks favor the 9mm 147gr for the consistent performance and good penetration and I do as well but I also like speed and normally go with a 127gr Ranger +p+. Winchester measured the Ranger T 127 gr +p+ out a 4" barrel at 1250fps/441ft/lbs energy. Now, since the round is from the same company the 125gr Ranger T .357 Sig is running out the same barrel at 1350fps/506ft/lbs of energy. Although that does not get my panties in a tangle the fact is apparent that it is more powerful even if it is by a small amount.

Now, the argument was that it was not enough to be better than the 9mm with a comparable load or the overall favorite the 147gr because the penetration was about the same or better than the 357 sig. Although I think penetration is probably one of the most important things when you talk about handgun ammo it is not the only thing that is important.

Now, I am becoming a big fan of custom ammo company’s with Double Tap leading the way. Now I have found a very comparable loading from Hornady that falls along the same loading of the famous 147gr 9mm as well.

The Hornady 147gr .357 Sig XTP is running 1250fps/490ft/lbs of energy and that to me is a serious improvement over the 9mm counterpart with stats running the same bullet @ 935fps/285ft/lbs of energy. I do not care about stopping power or any of that jazz because stopping power to me only relates to a head shot or upper spine shot and that is it. But there is an inherent advantage to speed with a good bullet design and there in my opinion is a difference made with a couple hundred fps.

This is basically the testing that I do for my carry rounds so don't laugh.

Some of the testing that I did was to see about energy transfer in 5 gal plastic pails. Not a scientific test but just to see. I used the 127gr Ranger T +p+ running at the advertised 1250fps out a 4" barrel (Glock 19). What I was looking for was water displacement. I related this to how the kinetic energy transfers into a body made up mostly of liquid. I fired at about 8" below the top of the open container at about 15' which is what I would consider to be the furthest most shoots for even LE to happen. What I wanted to see was the waters reaction upon impact. The 9mm did get some water out that bucket. About 1/2 gallon spilled up and out the top of the bucket and the bullet traveled completely through the 5 gal bucket which measures 12". I quickly plugged both holes with puddy and tape to prevent further spillage.

Again, this is not a scientific method but it works for me. Now onto the .357 sig. I did not want to use the 125gr Ranger because I do not think it brings enough to the table but to be fare I did the same test. Within an inch on a new bucket of the same place the last was hit the bullet impacted and it did considerably more with the bucket and the water. The buckets were placed on a fairly level picnic table and when the .357 round impacted it moved the bucket and displaced more water higher in the air by far. I would guess it was close to 11/2 gallons. It too traveled the 12" of water and went completely through the pail.

I knew the 147gr loadings for both would only penetrate better so I did not test them at this time but will on the next evolution and will post my test. The next time I do this I am also going to take pictures to document every step.

The next step was to test what will be my carry loading for the Glock 32 (the wife is carrying the Glock 19 and I wanted something new) the 125gr Gold Dot HP from Double Tap. Although I did not run the speeds I will for the next evolution of test. The claimed speed on this loading from a 4" barrel which is consistent with the Glock 32 was 1450fps/584ft/lbs. From testing done on the .40S&W and the 45 ACP the ammo runs real close to if not right on with what Double Tap advertised so I had not reason not the believe the same here.

The difference between the 127gr ranger T 9mm and the 125gr Gold Dot from DT was tremendous. It was very obvious that the .357 sig round had a lot more power and the couple hundred fps made a tremendous difference in the impact of the round. It displaced about the same amount of water but a lot higher in the air and made the water slouch around and spill out and also almost tipped the bucket over on impact.

My question to what I consider the die hard fans of the 9mm, what about that does not make it a more effective round than a 9mm? Keep in mind that I carry a 45 for duty and carried my Glock 19 as a back up and will never take anything away from the 9mm as a fight stopper. I have a lot of respect for the 9mm and will always have more than one but there is a serious advantage to more power and the 357 sig has it. What say you?

Also, keep this civil, I want to see everyone that has an opinion post it.







I think you both should use the G19 or both G32, that way if your attacked by zombies you can use each other mags.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 5:34:16 AM EDT
Wow, Michael, good post. If you can offer anymore information I would love to hear it and see any results that you may have in form of charts, pictures and or video. Please keep us updated and if you can provide enough information we can have the Mods look into making a sticky out of it.

One question, what is the method that your using for measuring the effect of ballistic pressure wave and which ammo provides a the best in terms of a substantial amount of it?

Link Posted: 8/10/2005 5:36:09 AM EDT
PerryF,

Sounds like an idea, I will let you know how it comes out. Thanks for the advice! LOL

Link Posted: 8/10/2005 5:45:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
Michael_Courtney,

I will be very interested in reading your study. Where will it be published? What type of scientists were involved in your team? I hope that your team will make all of their data available. I would like to analyze the data (once the study is published), since I use and teach advanced statistics.

Looking forward to the study.



We're currently considering our publication options. Since we want to separate the idea of wounding from that of incapacitation, we are leaning away from the trauma journals. Our goal in publication is to make as many ballistics professionals as possible aware of our work so that it can be repeated, tested, expanded, and used in future bullet designs.

The most important contributors are a biomedical engineer (Harvard PhD) and a physicist (MIT PhD). We're also received significant contributions from a microbiologist, a vet, and experts in statistics.

We do plan on making significant amounts of our data available to other researchers in the field. However, our team is bound by a non-disclosure agreement so that there needs to be agreement among team members before data is shared, and most likely recipients of unpublished data will also have to enter into non-disclosure and perhaps non-compete agreements. Our team has already agreed that we are willing to publish the incapacitation metrics measured for each and every shooting event.

Other documents and data such as the lab notebooks, photographs, video and audio, are less likely to be made widely available for several reasons. First of all, almost no one who engages in live animal testing makes these documents available. It's horrible public relations, and it invites both legal and criminal attacks by animal rights terrorists. Several members of our team have been consistantly harassed by animal rights terrorists for unrelated activities (one was threatened with a shotgun), and no one is eager to add fuel to that fire. Secondly, making these documents available would be giving away significant potential for future discoveries, as the lab notebooks, photographs, audio, and video all contain evidence pointing to areas of important future research. I don't think that these documents will be made available until our team has had ample opportunity to explore and publish work in these other areas, and until after both civil and criminal statutes of limitations have expired. (One might think that legal concerns are unwarranted since all our activities were legal. However, we've seen many lawsuits from groups like "in defense of deer" and a local trapper is currently being threatened with a criminal legal action for euthanizing a legally trapped furbearing animal with a standard and widely accepted technique.)

I also teach statistics, both at the introductory and intermediate levels. I've also published a number of more advanced applied techniques in the peer-reviewed journals, and I authored a data analysis package that has been widely used by science and engineering professionals for over a decade.

Michael Courtney
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 6:19:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By spcwes:
Wow, Michael, good post. If you can offer anymore information I would love to hear it and see any results that you may have in form of charts, pictures and or video. Please keep us updated and if you can provide enough information we can have the Mods look into making a sticky out of it.

One question, what is the method that your using for measuring the effect of ballistic pressure wave and which ammo provides a the best in terms of a substantial amount of it?




We're using some relatively simple physics formulas that include kinetic energy, penetration distance, and retained mass.

One can also use expensive instrumentation (pzt or strain gauge based pressure transducers and analog to digital converters) to measure the pressure wave directy in either water or gelatin, but these measurements depend strongly on the type of pressure sensor and geometry of the measurement set-up. Because these measurements are so dependent on the set-up and type of gauge, they will be difficult to replicate in different laboratories, so we decided against using them.

Ultimately, we believe the most accurate and repeatable determination of the pressure wave will come from high-speed photography of bullets in gelatin.

Your method of visualizing the pressure wave from the height and quantity of water displaced in a 5 gallon bucket is also pretty good, as both of these metrics will be highly correlated with the pressure wave (because they are directly caused by the pressure wave). In short, you are doing about the best test possible without expensive specialized equipment. You can save money on 5 gallon buckets by shooting from the top rather than from the side and putting a few inches of sand in the bottom of the bucket. Once in a while, a bullet that creates a large pressure wave will burst the bucket, but your buckets will last much longer than shooting them from the side. There's no way to avoid getting wet. An easy way to determine the maximum height of the water is to time how long it takes to fall back to the height of the bucket and use a simple physics formula:

height (in feet) = 4*t*t.

t is time measured in seconds. For example, a total time of 3 seconds indicates a height of 36 feet. You need a pretty good time measurement, so a stopwatch should be used and someone other than the shooter should time the flight time, and it's good to average multiple trials.

The handgun loads which create the largest pressure waves (above 175 PSI determined 1" from the center of the wound channel) are the 125 grain JHPs in .357 Magnum, the full power 135, 150, 155, and 165 grain JHPs in .40 S&W, and the 115 and 125 grain JHPs in .357 Sig.

Of these, the loads which top 200 PSI are the Fed 125 grain JHP in .357 Mag, the Corbon 135 grain JHP in .40 S&W, and Triton 135 and 155 grain Quik-Shok in .40 S&W, the Corbon 115 grain JHP in .357 Sig, and the Triton 115 grain Quik-Shok in .357 Sig.

The top pressure wave performer among 9mm loads is the Rem115JHP+P+ at 172 PSI. Most 147 grain JHPs in 9mm are below 100 PSI.

The top pressure wave among all service caliber loads is the 135 grain Corbon in .40 S&W at 247 PSI. This pressure wave magnitude actually exceeds some rifle loads.

Michael Courtney
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 6:43:26 AM EDT
Thanks for the info, great stuff Michael. We will all look forward to your studies.
Keep us informed and updated as often as you can.

Will
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 6:48:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2005 6:53:19 AM EDT by Michael_Courtney]

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
Most of your faith in the power of the temporary stretch cavity and energy transfer has already been disproven in Dr. Fackler's studies. Your failure to read them means you lack the information needed to make a fully informed decision about their value. You are debating one side of an issue without ever even looking at the other side. That is not productive.



I challenge you to provide citations for the published experimental data behind the assertion that "the power of the temporary stretch cavity and energy transfer has already been disproven in Dr. Fackler's studies."

In fact, the assertion hasn't been disproven at all in terms of a scientific, repeatable experiment. All we have is expert opinion repeated over and over without any data.

You claim to know something about statistics, so you should know that for Dr. Fackler to disprove the claim that temporary stretch cavity and energy transfer play a role in handgun incapacitation would require making some sort of quantitative measure of incapacitation effectiveness and an attempt to correlate that with quantitative measures of temporary stretch cavity, energy transfer, and permanent crush cavity. If (and only if) such a study had a positive correlation between incapacitation and permanent crush cavity, AND zero or negative correlations with temporary stretch cavity and energy transfer, could one say that Dr. Fackler's opinions have been scientifically suported.

Dr. Fackler has indeed failed to find wounding due to the temporary stretch cavity and energy transfer. However, the idea that incapacitation can only occur from the kind of wounding usually detected by a trauma surgeon or medical examiner is an unproven presupposition. First of all, we need to consider the possibility that incapacitation can occur without any wounding that is detectable with current methods. Secondly, we should consider the possibility that incapacitation is contributed to by wounding that goes unnoticed or is not attributed to the bullet. Our research team has directly observed wounding in deer (due to the pressure wave) so remote from the wound channel that most trauma surgeons would never see it, and most medical examiners would tend to think it came from a separate blunt force event.


Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
You are debating one side of an issue without ever even looking at the other side. That is not productive.



Are you considering both sides? How much consideration have you given to the Strasbourg goat tests? Are you aware of attempts to repeat these experiments that have obtained substantially different results? How much consideration have you given to the Marshall and Sanow studies and the work of Steve Fuller showing that the temporary stretch cavity and energy transfer are both well correlated to the one shot stop data? I have personally repeated all of Fuller's published work, and while there are some minor errors, his basic conclusions that the TSC and energy transfer are highly correlated are sound. Look at the other side.

This is not to say that there are no weaknesses in the Strasbourg tests of the work or Marshall and Sanow. There certainly are weaknesses, but we need to consider how much these weaknesses affect the accuracy of these works, rather than be too quick to reject the works completely. From a scientific point of view, completely rejecting experimental results requires repeated experiments which yield substantially different results. To my knowledge, there are no published experimental studies which yield substantially different results from Strasbourg or the work of Marshall and Sanow.

Michael Courtney
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top