Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/14/2006 6:55:04 PM EDT
Since my first exposure to serious ballistic research was reading the Ammo-Oracle several years ago, I guess all the reading and learning I have done since then is in the "Fackler" and "IWBA" school. I suppose I am firmly in that camp. Recently I've been reading about the "other side" because I have always seen references to it (both negative and positive), and wanted to know more about it.

My question is not sarcastic, but entirely genuine - are Marshall & Sanow, Ayoob, et all taken seriously anymore? Is it an equally sided debate, or is one side destroying the other? Not trying to start a war here, but thanks for your input.

Link Posted: 3/14/2006 7:18:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/14/2006 7:22:42 PM EDT by DasRonin]
My opinion...

They are all members of the "Legend in their own mind" club. Ayoob is the club founder and president for life. All part of a self serving act to stay in print in the gun rags.

If I had a dollar for every 1911 article written in my life time... I could have a couple very nice .45s to stick in my gun vault and money for ammo. So much is retread... (how many useful articles can there be on the 1911, Glock, AR-15, AK47/AKM/AK74, M1A, etc? But they keep on coming... read one and for the most part you have read them all) these writers have to have a monthly "contribution" for their editor, so they try to come up with "original" stuff. I don't know if they were ever taken seriously by professionals.
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 8:29:46 PM EDT
Ayoob is obviously a good shooter but yes, marshall and sanow is looked down on by most of the ballistic experts.

And I agree with dasronin. Gun rags get harder to read as time goes on, for me anyways.
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 8:46:55 PM EDT
IMHO, they can be considered among the sources of information to review when making your decisions. They are not the only source and should not be taken as gospel but look at multiple sources and make your decision. If you as a group about ballistics and what bullet/caliber is best you can practically start a riot with the different opinions. So objectively look at them all and make your own judgement.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 5:00:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/15/2006 8:05:31 AM EDT by PAEBR332]

Originally Posted By gunnut284:
IMHO, they can be considered among the sources of information to review when making your decisions. They are not the only source and should not be taken as gospel but look at multiple sources and make your decision. If you as a group about ballistics and what bullet/caliber is best you can practically start a riot with the different opinions. So objectively look at them all and make your own judgement.



But, one must be aware that M&S base their conclusions on obviously falsified data. Since the underlying data is so blatantly made up, their conclusions are MEANINGLESS.

www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-statistical-analysis.htm

www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 7:53:23 AM EDT
I don't.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 8:01:13 AM EDT
I am a fairly new shooter (only been in the gun thing a year now), but having read both fackler and M&S, i find the M&S stuff very hard to believe. It just doesnt seem very logical.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 8:59:55 AM EDT
I don't know who to believe about ammo issues.

I do know, however, that Corbon has really cool looking ads..
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 2:53:44 PM EDT
Irrelevant to me. They lost any credibility over the supposed goat tests.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 2:55:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 9:55:48 AM EDT by FMJ]
I belive evrything Im told by this FORUM ONLY!

Well just maybe a couple of guys

KISS

I do belive that there is no Magic bullet PERIOD!

Shot placement matters more than FMJ vs JHP or 9mm vs 45 acp!

all you can do is practice an practice and know what your Rifle/Handgun can do with your load!
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 4:09:26 PM EDT
I think M&S were on to something. I think Fackler was too. I'm hoping that within the next ten years we some more progressive (and un-biased) research that will shed more light on the subject.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 5:17:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By swj0001:
My question is not sarcastic, but entirely genuine - are Marshall & Sanow, Ayoob, et all taken seriously anymore?



Yes.

For all the wrong reasons. They are taken seriously becase they are in gun rags, and invented cool terms like "Stopping Power". When people just getting into the gun world go looking for info, they go to gun mags. These characters are in damn near every one of them. Terms like the previously mention "stopping power" and "one shot stop" will grab at a new shooter. Those terms literally jump off the page at these people. They cant help it. They dont know any better.

Ayoob is full of himself, and shit. The man contradicts himself all the time, or flat out lies.

Sanow is the biggest internal threat to gun owners. The turd apparently took money to print pro_AWB stuff in his cop magazine.

Marshall is the only decent person out of all of this. He keeps up with his one shot stop garbage(atleast he stands by his stuff), but also blieves in the merits of balgel testing.

Meh, I'm still down wit da IWBA Posey! Recognize!
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:27:35 PM EDT
I took all the Ayoob stuff & Marshall and Sanow seriously about 10 yrs ago when it started. Then, fortunately, the internet allowed me to find other opinions and form my own. This forum, and others like it a easy to understand.

The self-annointed demi-gods lose all credibility when they start talking about physics and ballistics--incorrectly, then contradict themselves next time around. Ayoob no longer pushes CorBon--wonder what's up with that.....not really--I'm sure it's about $$$.

The "studies" are very simplistic, static attempts to explain a rather dynamic process--once I started looking at the Fackler, etc. info, I couldn't believe I bought into the other nonsense....
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:48:30 PM EDT
I used to, but not anymore. I mean, I do enjoy reading their articles for entertainment. My ammo choices to to be Corbon 115, 135, etc. Now it is 124/127/147, 180 grain. Gel tests are controlled and you can pin down variables. Actual shooting data has too much else going on.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:22:38 AM EDT
i have gotten alot of useful information from the published work of M&S by reading all three of the 'Stopping Power' books. If you can read between the lines and know enough about interior and exterior ballistics and the subject matter as a whole the books are informative.

What i find most curious is the Fuller Index equation. They state that stopping power sharply tapers off after 675ft lbs. of energy has been deposited into a target(human torso) thats why they claim a .357mag is a better 'stopper' than a .44mag.
Perhaps they have updated their findings, but the last i checked they were saying that 8" in. was ideal for handgun bullet performance so as to dump, or transfer all of its kinetic energy into the target to achieve maximum stopping power.

According to M&S the perfect 'magic bullet' would be a large diameter ie; .44-.45 travelling at a high enough velocity to achieve 675ft. lbs. of muzzle energy. I've often wondered why the Winchester .44 mag 210gr. Silvertip isn't THE greatest handgun cartridge then according to M&S?

In all three of the books i have found NUMEROUS typos, misprints and false information that i have highlighted. . The books practically glow! lol

i do find ballistic gelatin or Perma-Gel to be a more precise way of testing handgun ammunition performance than shooting water filled zip-lock storage baggies or water filled jugs.
Water simulates NOTHING compared to human flesh, bones, and muscle tissue
Now you can test your own stuff by getting your own little ballistics lab here
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:55:14 AM EDT
I think they ran out of Topics and started on Ballistics and light vs heavy etc.

No one is going to agree 100 percent of the time.

Link Posted: 3/16/2006 12:23:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 12:23:37 PM EDT by leakycow]

Originally Posted By Rampant_Colt:
i have gotten alot of useful information from the published work of M&S by reading all three of the 'Stopping Power' books. If you can read between the lines and know enough about interior and exterior ballistics and the subject matter as a whole the books are informative.

What i find most curious is the Fuller Index equation. They state that stopping power sharply tapers off after 675ft lbs. of energy has been deposited into a target(human torso) thats why they claim a .357mag is a better 'stopper' than a .44mag.
Perhaps they have updated their findings, but the last i checked they were saying that 8" in. was ideal for handgun bullet performance so as to dump, or transfer all of its kinetic energy into the target to achieve maximum stopping power.

According to M&S the perfect 'magic bullet' would be a large diameter ie; .44-.45 travelling at a high enough velocity to achieve 675ft. lbs. of muzzle energy.
I've often wondered why the Winchester .44 mag 210gr. Silvertip isn't THE greatest handgun cartridge then according to M&S?

In all three of the books i have found NUMEROUS typos, misprints and false information that i have highlighted. . The books practically glow! lol

i do find ballistic gelatin or Perma-Gel to be a more precise way of testing handgun ammunition performance than shooting water filled zip-lock storage baggies or water filled jugs.
Water simulates NOTHING compared to human flesh, bones, and muscle tissue
Now you can test your own stuff by getting your own little ballistics lab here



wow. M&S have a limited grasp of both physics and physiology. no surprise.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 1:52:01 PM EDT
i also found it curious on how they compared the first generation.45acp 230gr. Black Talon to the vaunted 230gr. Federal Hydra-Shok saying that the Talon is a 'slow energy release' whereas the Hydra-Shok was a 'rapid energy release' . There may be *some* truth to that statement, but i think we might be talking nanoseconds between the two loads. Therefore the H-S is a far superior load based on that criteria. What a bunch of rubbish

In another article (pre internet days) M&S state that out of 5" barreled .45acp's, the Federal 230gr. Hydra-Shok is effective 100% of the time!!(based on about 100 or so shootings) and yeah, i'm guilty of taking that advice and putting it to practice about ten years ago myself.

The 230gr Hyrda-Shok is a good cartridge. . .but not a magic bullet.
Between Mas Ayoob, M&S and Handguns magazine you'd think the 230H-S was the magic bullet.


In tests i've personally conducted using soaking wet newpaper, the 230 H-S failed to perform as advertised if there was any clothing in front. Time after time the hollowpoint made a cookie-cutter effect and plugged the aperature or hole with cloth and acted just like a FMJ bullet and went clean through over 22" inches of wet paper.

The one cartridge i do agree with Mas Ayoob and M&S is the 125gr. .357mag from Federal and Remington.
Remember that energy is the ability to do work, and the .357 has lots of energy. . .energy to go through barriers, obstacles... maybe the JHP is a little old for the FBI seven catagory test, but with newer loads like the 125gr. Gold Dot i still think the old .357 has alot of life left.

Link Posted: 3/16/2006 3:35:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 32ACP:
Ayoob no longer pushes CorBon--wonder what's up with that.....not really--I'm sure it's about $$$.




I know the "light and fast" mentality they gun writers had me believing went out the window when I shot a rabid racoon with a 9MM Corbon 115JHP. It didn't even go thru a stinkin racoon! He was very dead though.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 5:52:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rampant_Colt:
<snip>

In another article (pre internet days) M&S state that out of 5" barreled .45acp's, the Federal 230gr. Hydra-Shok is effective 100% of the time!!(based on about 100 or so shootings) and yeah, i'm guilty of taking that advice and putting it to practice about ten years ago myself.

The 230gr Hyrda-Shok is a good cartridge. . .but not a magic bullet.
Between Mas Ayoob, M&S and Handguns magazine you'd think the 230H-S was the magic bullet.


In tests i've personally conducted using soaking wet newpaper, the 230 H-S failed to perform as advertised if there was any clothing in front. Time after time the hollowpoint made a cookie-cutter effect and plugged the aperature or hole with cloth and acted just like a FMJ bullet and went clean through over 22" inches of wet paper.

<snip>




Here is a 230 gr. Hydra-shok I shot through a single layer of t-shirt material. In testing I have done, the failure-to-expand rate on Hydra-Shoks is over 20%

Link Posted: 3/16/2006 8:29:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rampant_Colt:

According to M&S the perfect 'magic bullet' would be a large diameter ie; .44-.45 travelling at a high enough velocity to achieve 675ft. lbs. of muzzle energy. I've often wondered why the Winchester .44 mag 210gr. Silvertip isn't THE greatest handgun cartridge then according to M&S?



Well I feel that their data is skewed by who carries what weapons. I believe their .357 shootings are so effective because the people who use that are better shots than the people who carry .44s. Or maybe the people who carry .44s flinch and do not strike as correct an area. That is one reason why I trust gelatin testing more.

.45 Super would reach that goal.

210 is a good weight for a .44/.45. Browning wanted the .45 ACP to be 200 grains. The military wanted a heavier bullet cause they were used to the .45 Colt weights. Browning was probably correct but the 230 grain has had so much R&D put into it that it was made to be good.

Likewise, 147 grain 9mm did not used to be good, but every company put all of their R&D into that weight and now the Winchester 147 9mm is about as good as it gets, second only to the 127 +P+ although more efficient. Surprisingly and counterintuitivly, it is actually a good choice for SHORT barrels. I never would have thought that, but it has a wide bandwidth for expansion.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:35:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 9:38:40 PM EDT by Cato]
Yes, I do read what they have to say. And I take Evan Marshall's advice seriously. He
is a seasoned street cop who has analyzed lots of actual shootings. And yes, contrary to the
Facklerites, I do think that case studies can tell us something. You don't want to be found
dying by a Facklerite who mumbles, "well the 147gr. was designed to our specifications-
so it should have worked"....
There are statistical problems for sure, but the "average recovered diameter" (out of bodies)
Marshall gave in his last book is something not to be found anywhere else. If you believe
its all fraud, well then look somewhere else. IMHO no side has all the knowledge and even
with the IWBA methodology, wound ballistics is a long run from exact science.

Link Posted: 3/17/2006 12:34:25 AM EDT


Lets get this party started!

w00t!
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 1:11:11 AM EDT
I am perplexed by all this stuff, and especially between the heavy& slow/ Light and fast groups. I guess it is that there is just not one blanket theory that covers everything and that ammunition will perform its best when designed to take into consideration the cartridge as a whole. For example, a 125gr .357 is/was the cartridge to beat as far as being a fight stopper, but making a .45 cal with the same weight bullet go that fast and well, you get a dud that does not penetrate far enough. For some reason I am reminded of Old_Painless's saying "Pistols are pistols and rifles are rifles" when these debates come up.

I I am saying that I do not discount their work completely, nor do I take it as gospel. There is enough info out there for one to make a pretty well educated decision, providing that one is willing to do a little research. That said, I put far more weight on what the folks here have to say than on M&S's work. Years ago I was a Minion of Peter Pi and an official Cor-Bon bitch. I grew out of that stage...least I never got into Mag-Safes etc.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:31:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By yekimak:
... For example, a 125gr .357 is/was the cartridge to beat as far as being a fight stopper,


Says who? Using what empirical evidence do you make this claim?

(yes this is thread related).
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:39:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/17/2006 7:46:30 AM EDT by PAEBR332]

Originally Posted By Cato:
<snip>
There are statistical problems for sure, but the "average recovered diameter" (out of bodies) Marshall gave in his last book is something not to be found anywhere else. If you believe its all fraud, well then look somewhere else. IMHO no side has all the knowledge and even with the IWBA methodology, wound ballistics is a long run from exact science.




Gene Wolberg, a "Facklerite" who worked at the San Diego PD did a very thorough study of all the police shooting done in San Diego for a long time. He published the results in peer reviewed journals, including the recovered diameter of rounds from actual bodies about a decade before Marshall did. What Wolberg found is that both penetration and expansion in human beings showed a one-to-one correlation to the same bulets fired into properly calibrate ballisitic gelatin. And unlike Marshall, he made his data available for others to cross-check.

But you go ahead and believe the made-up M&S data.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 8:33:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By Cato:
<snip>
There are statistical problems for sure, but the "average recovered diameter" (out of bodies) Marshall gave in his last book is something not to be found anywhere else. If you believe its all fraud, well then look somewhere else. IMHO no side has all the knowledge and even with the IWBA methodology, wound ballistics is a long run from exact science.




Gene Wolberg, a "Facklerite" who worked at the San Diego PD did a very thorough study of all the police shooting done in San Diego for a long time. He published the results in peer reviewed journals, including the recovered diameter of rounds from actual bodies about a decade before Marshall did. What Wolberg found is that both penetration and expansion in human beings showed a one-to-one correlation to the same bulets fired into properly calibrate ballisitic gelatin. And unlike Marshall, he made his data available for others to cross-check.

But you go ahead and believe the made-up M&S data.




the only problem i have with Fackler is he used to use 20% gelatin mix (like the FBI and army) as opposed to 10% more commomly used.
The recovered morgue bullets are a useful tool for determining the effectiveness of a given load in human flesh.

i also don't believe M&S had anything to do with the Strassbourg testing either. . .having said that, i don't really even believe they ever really even happened!
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 11:47:32 AM EDT
Fackler uses 10% gelatin. He was the guy who established this as the ballistic standard. The FBI also uses 10% gelatin.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 1:53:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cato:
Yes, I do read what they have to say. And I take Evan Marshall's advice seriously. He
is a seasoned street cop who has analyzed lots of actual shootings. And yes, contrary to the
Facklerites, I do think that case studies can tell us something. You don't want to be found
dying by a Facklerite who mumbles, "well the 147gr. was designed to our specifications-
so it should have worked"....

There are statistical problems for sure, but the "average recovered diameter" (out of bodies)
Marshall gave in his last book is something not to be found anywhere else. If you believe
its all fraud, well then look somewhere else. IMHO no side has all the knowledge and even
with the IWBA methodology, wound ballistics is a long run from exact science.




I challenge you to come up with a scenario in which case a 9mm 147 grain bullet that expands to .65 inch and penetrates 13 inches will fail, where a 9mm 115 grain bullet that expands to .65 inch and penetrates 8 inches succeeds.

If the words "energy" "dump" "transfer" and "deposit" appear in your answer, you might want to reconsider...
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 2:00:41 PM EDT
A couple of points to think about/discuss:

1. Imagine it's 1985, and "light and fast" is all the rage. Even back then, the 230 grain .45 bullet was the weight of choice. Why was that? Shouldn't it have been the 185 grain, since 115 grain 9mm bullets were "superior" to 147 grain subsonic?

2. Folks, don't feel like you have to compromise on this matter and sort of hybridize M&S and Fackler's works. That's like saying "this dude on TV says it's bright outside at noon because Martians are shining flashlights on the Earth. So, from now on I think there's some mysterious hasn't-been-fully-explained-yet combination of the Sun and Martians that causes daylight."

Marshall & Sanow's works are fraudulent and scientifically useless.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 2:34:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By yekimak:
... For example, a 125gr .357 is/was the cartridge to beat as far as being a fight stopper,


Says who? Using what empirical evidence do you make this claim?

(yes this is thread related).



Dammit Forrest.....

I tried to find articles on it, but everything I find says something along the lines of what I said.


I do know that the naming of the .357 Sig was done in an effort to capitalize on the .357 Magnums reputation.



From Chuck Hawks

The famous 125 grain .357 JHP bullet, the most effective one shot stopper of all handgun loads, penetrates 13.25" in ordinance gelatin and produces a football shaped stretch cavity. This is how the very best bullets perform. And bullet performance has a great effect on stopping power.




From gun week.

A .357 Magnum on a medium-heavy frame is an excellent outdoors sidearm. It'll easily take rabbits, woodchucks, Western marmots, raccoons, and other small animals, and will clobber deer, javelina, badger, bobcats, coyotes, and such dangerous beasties as cougar and bear in a pinch. The versatility of the .357 is really unmatched, especially when one factors in the ability to fire .38 Special ammunition. As a defense handgun, the .357 reigns supreme, having the best stopping record of any cartridge for which a large database is available. Even for home protection, the best .38 Plus P loads are as good as anything, and better than most. The GP-100 is certainly chambered for the optimum cartridge, as revolvers go.



I ain't found any of this "data" that everyone talks about, and I am not a fan of the use of the term "stopping power". I am beginning to think that the .357's reputation may be one of those things taken as gospel that maybe shouldn't be.

the only performance data I found using fbi testing.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 2:54:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:

Originally Posted By 32ACP:
Ayoob no longer pushes CorBon--wonder what's up with that.....not really--I'm sure it's about $$$.




I know the "light and fast" mentality they gun writers had me believing went out the window when I shot a rabid racoon with a 9MM Corbon 115JHP. It didn't even go thru a stinkin racoon! He was very dead though.





I seen Big deer drop with a 22lr

I seen a 250 pound pig drop with a 22lr

Shit happens!
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 5:46:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By yekimak:

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By yekimak:
... For example, a 125gr .357 is/was the cartridge to beat as far as being a fight stopper,


Says who? Using what empirical evidence do you make this claim?

(yes this is thread related).



Dammit Forrest.....

I tried to find articles on it, but everything I find says something along the lines of what I said.


I do know that the naming of the .357 Sig was done in an effort to capitalize on the .357 Magnums reputation.



From Chuck Hawks

The famous 125 grain .357 JHP bullet, the most effective one shot stopper of all handgun loads, penetrates 13.25" in ordinance gelatin and produces a football shaped stretch cavity. This is how the very best bullets perform. And bullet performance has a great effect on stopping power.




From gun week.

A .357 Magnum on a medium-heavy frame is an excellent outdoors sidearm. It'll easily take rabbits, woodchucks, Western marmots, raccoons, and other small animals, and will clobber deer, javelina, badger, bobcats, coyotes, and such dangerous beasties as cougar and bear in a pinch. The versatility of the .357 is really unmatched, especially when one factors in the ability to fire .38 Special ammunition. As a defense handgun, the .357 reigns supreme, having the best stopping record of any cartridge for which a large database is available. Even for home protection, the best .38 Plus P loads are as good as anything, and better than most. The GP-100 is certainly chambered for the optimum cartridge, as revolvers go.



I ain't found any of this "data" that everyone talks about, and I am not a fan of the use of the term "stopping power". I am beginning to think that the .357's reputation may be one of those things taken as gospel that maybe shouldn't be.

the only performance data I found using fbi testing.



The first two links base their conclusion on Marshall and Sanow's fraudulent research. They just keep repeating the same crap ad nauseum Your last sentence is a wise statement.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:21:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
What Wolberg found is that both penetration and expansion in human beings showed a one-to-one correlation to the same bulets fired into properly calibrate ballisitic gelatin. And unlike Marshall, he made his data available for others to cross-check.



Where is this published? Extrapolating balistic gellatin results to real life is based on exactly what you're describing but I've never met anyone who's read the article you're referencing.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:32:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/17/2006 6:45:02 PM EDT by PAEBR332]

Originally Posted By Ahab:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
What Wolberg found is that both penetration and expansion in human beings showed a one-to-one correlation to the same bulets fired into properly calibrate ballisitic gelatin. And unlike Marshall, he made his data available for others to cross-check.



Where is this published? Extrapolating balistic gellatin results to real life is based on exactly what you're describing but I've never met anyone who's read the article you're referencing.



Wolberg first published this in 1991 in Wound Ballistics Review, which is not available online. You will have to go to a research library and read it in the paper version. It used to be posted in PDF format in a sticky on the Ammunition section of the AR-15 board here on ARFcom. It appears that the link is now down.

The fist study in 1991 included 27 shooting vicitms. By a year later, he was able to add another 17 to his database. Wolberg eventually studied over 100 people shot by the San Diego PD. Wolberg was a criminologist for the San Diego PD, and participated in the autopsies so that he would be certain of the integrity of the data. Wolberg never published a final study that included all the data he collected, due to his untimely death.

ETA: I found the link to Wolberg's original study. www.btammolabs.com/fackler/winchester_9mm.pdf
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:43:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By yekimak:

From gun week.

A .357 Magnum on a medium-heavy frame is an excellent outdoors sidearm. It'll easily take rabbits, woodchucks, Western marmots, raccoons, and other small animals, and will clobber deer, javelina, badger, bobcats, coyotes, and such dangerous beasties as cougar and bear in a pinch. The versatility of the .357 is really unmatched, especially when one factors in the ability to fire .38 Special ammunition. As a defense handgun, the .357 reigns supreme, having the best stopping record of any cartridge for which a large database is available. Even for home protection, the best .38 Plus P loads are as good as anything, and better than most. The GP-100 is certainly chambered for the optimum cartridge, as revolvers go.




The above may be true about the .357; I have heard enough of people taking Deer, Javelina and 'yotes with them that I'd feel comfortable taking it handgun hunting (or hiking/handgun varmiting) with me. In a six-gun.

I would also not feel at all underhandgunned in a Katrina situation if my only handgun was a .357 revolver.

However, when you look at a different mission (e.g. police department issue weapon, civilian CCW weapon, or military sidearm) the .357 may not be such an outstanding choice.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:47:07 PM EDT
I spent alot of time on chuck hawks website. Like the other poster said, he's just repeating the all the same M & S crap out there. He even had the nerve to say the 147 9mm was the worst of the bunch and has a tenancy to not cycle weapons. he he he he he. I wonder if he ever had that problem or if he was just making it up. repeat after me: cor bon cor bon cor bon cor bon cor bon.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:49:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DasRonin:
My opinion...

They are all members of the "Legend in their own mind" club.
snip



Hahahaha!!!

This hits the nail on the head!! Not just the above mentioned folks, but in my opinion all of them are a bunch of humor deficient wanna be scientists with inferiority complexes.

I am a HUGE fan of terminal ballistics, and have spent many hours researching and reading all I can find on the subject. However, most of what I read is a bunch of guys hurling insults back and forth and trying to disprove each others ideas and convince people that they are the only one who really understands ballistics and the scientific method.

With the exception of juvenile behavior, there is alot of good information out there from various sources. However, it appears to me that most people who study the issue however have too narrow a focus.
For example, some people place way too much emphasis on ballistic gel results. They don't care if XYZ ammo was used successfully thousands of times by various millitary and law enforcement agencies, they think it is crap because ACME golden hydro-sherrifs penetrated .276" deeper in ballistic gel, therefore you are a complete idiot if you do not follow their recommendations

Others put too much empasis on some energy or muzzle velocity figure. They think that the ultra max ballistic tip bb is the greatest thing going because it goes 4500 fps, who cares if it only penetrates 1/2" in ballistic gel before disentegrating!!

Others don't care at all about any type of research, figures, or experimental studies because their uncles brother said that he took out a gaggle of drug enduced head hunters with rabies in the great war of 1987 with one shot from his 45 acp with ball ammo, so that's good enough for him.

Personally, I think that everyone needs to at listen attempt to listen to different points of view. After all, the purpose is for us all to learn and not prove each other wrong. People need to lighten up and quit desperately holding on to those sacred cows.
Despite what most ballistics experts will tell you, people are not bullet proof and under the right conditions most bullets will perform better that you thought they would.
At the same time, under the wrong conditions, the best bullets will perform much worse than you thought they could, and in real life the results will probably be somewhere in between (Results may vary)

Link Posted: 3/17/2006 11:46:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/17/2006 11:47:07 PM EDT by leakycow]

Originally Posted By chevyrulez1:
For example, some people place way too much emphasis on ballistic gel results. They don't care if XYZ ammo was used successfully thousands of times by various millitary and law enforcement agencies, they think it is crap because ACME golden hydro-sherrifs penetrated .276" deeper in ballistic gel, therefore you are a complete idiot if you do not follow their recommendations



Some people can get carried away with numbers, but that's a fringe extreme. Data does shed light in a quantifiable, objective manner. After all, if you found out that there was a better way to put holes in wood, wouldn't you swap out your drill bits? That doesn't change the fact that drill bits have successfully put holes in things for decades.


Others put too much empasis on some energy or muzzle velocity figure. They think that the ultra max ballistic tip bb is the greatest thing going because it goes 4500 fps, who cares if it only penetrates 1/2" in ballistic gel before disentegrating!!


agreed...kinetic energy figures in common ballistics charts are VERY misleading. Many people equate terminal performance with foot-pounds of energy.


Others don't care at all about any type of research, figures, or experimental studies because their uncles brother said that he took out a gaggle of drug enduced head hunters with rabies in the great war of 1987 with one shot from his 45 acp with ball ammo, so that's good enough for him.


lots of these types, too


Personally, I think that everyone needs to at listen attempt to listen to different points of view. After all, the purpose is for us all to learn and not prove each other wrong. People need to lighten up and quit desperately holding on to those sacred cows.
Despite what most ballistics experts will tell you, people are not bullet proof and under the right conditions most bullets will perform better that you thought they would.
At the same time, under the wrong conditions, the best bullets will perform much worse than you thought they could, and in real life the results will probably be somewhere in between (Results may vary)




I agree wholeheartedly with what you say in red. Having said that, if you can maximize the performance of your weapon in the slightest, there's no reason not to.

I'll hesitate to agree with your statement in blue...nothing wrong with listening to other's points of view, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with eliminating erroneous points of view from your decision making. If the unicorn at the circus was revealed to be a hoax, there's no rational reason to go around thinking that unicorns are now suddenly a possibility.
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 1:36:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By leakycow:
A couple of points to think about/discuss:

1. Imagine it's 1985, and "light and fast" is all the rage. Even back then, the 230 grain .45 bullet was the weight of choice. Why was that? Shouldn't it have been the 185 grain, since 115 grain 9mm bullets were "superior" to 147 grain subsonic?

2. Folks, don't feel like you have to compromise on this matter and sort of hybridize M&S and Fackler's works. That's like saying "this dude on TV says it's bright outside at noon because Martians are shining flashlights on the Earth. So, from now on I think there's some mysterious hasn't-been-fully-explained-yet combination of the Sun and Martians that causes daylight."

Marshall & Sanow's works are fraudulent and scientifically useless.



Here's another sun analogy, mostly in reference to the Facklerites - it's like a doctor saying "People exposed to sunlight come into my office with sunburns. Prolonged exposure to sunlight causes sunburns. I've heard people say that their eyes hurt when they're in the bright sun, but when they come into my office they don't complain of their eyes hurting, so this must not be true".

I've never seen the logic of discounting one of totally discounting one of the aspects of a gunshot wound. Fackler did a fantastic job of showing us what can and cannot kill a human being with a gunshot wound, but ignoring the temporary cavity because no permenant damage is done doesn't make any sense to me. Like saying "if I can't see it it's not there".

The biggest tragedy of M&S's flawed/fraudulent research is that now whenever anyone else attempts to research the affects of the temporary cavity, they are immediatley deemed M&S deciples and lumped in with the lies.
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 9:57:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/18/2006 9:58:11 AM EDT by leakycow]

Originally Posted By 53vortec:

Here's another sun analogy, mostly in reference to the Facklerites - it's like a doctor saying "People exposed to sunlight come into my office with sunburns. Prolonged exposure to sunlight causes sunburns. I've heard people say that their eyes hurt when they're in the bright sun, but when they come into my office they don't complain of their eyes hurting, so this must not be true".



I read and re-read that a few times, and honestly, I just don't follow.


I've never seen the logic of discounting one of totally discounting one of the aspects of a gunshot wound. Fackler did a fantastic job of showing us what can and cannot kill a human being with a gunshot wound, but ignoring the temporary cavity because no permenant damage is done doesn't make any sense to me. Like saying "if I can't see it it's not there".


Nobody's ignoring the temporary cavity. Everybody agrees that it is there.

In typical combat handgun calibers, temporary cavitation is an insignificant wounding mechanism. I'm not sure what other studies need to be done to show this. Moreover, the main tenet of "Facklerites" as you call them isn't that the temporary cavity sucks, it's that adequate penetration is the key. Follow that up with as much tissue destruction through that adequate depth of penetration, and you have a winning combination.

In rifle calibers, Fackler would be the first to say that temporary cavitation plays a key role.


The biggest tragedy of M&S's flawed/fraudulent research is that now whenever anyone else attempts to research the affects of the temporary cavity, they are immediatley deemed M&S deciples and lumped in with the lies.


I'm a scientist by education and a science teacher by profession. Research all you want! But you'd better damn well conduct your research using scientifically appropriate methods (including ethical practices) or you will most certainly be labeled a fraud. If people jump to conclusions and lump you in with M&S, that's their biased prerogative, and you'll just have to deal with it.
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 10:26:13 AM EDT
Careful---when this came up on Tacticalforums either Marshall or Sanow sent a lawyer over to threaten the board owner, moderator and all thread participants with lawsuits for libel
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 10:42:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Careful---when this came up on Tacticalforums either Marshall or Sanow sent a lawyer over to threaten the board owner, moderator and all thread participants with lawsuits for libel




M&S wrote three books, and it's alright to discuss pros and cons of the subject pertaining to them.
nobody's gonna get sued here for discussing a subject in an open forum
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 11:03:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By leakycow:

Originally Posted By 53vortec:

Here's another sun analogy, mostly in reference to the Facklerites - it's like a doctor saying "People exposed to sunlight come into my office with sunburns. Prolonged exposure to sunlight causes sunburns. I've heard people say that their eyes hurt when they're in the bright sun, but when they come into my office they don't complain of their eyes hurting, so this must not be true".



I read and re-read that a few times, and honestly, I just don't follow.



I'll admit I was tired when I wrote it. (Hardly and excuse, as I tend to take my analogies [and writing in general] seriousley). What I was going for there is the process of looking only at factors that provide themselves as readily evident (ie the permenant damage observed on a shooting vitcim), and disregarding the affects only evident at the time of exposure (the reaction of a shooting victim at the time of the shooting).




I've never seen the logic of discounting one of totally discounting one of the aspects of a gunshot wound. Fackler did a fantastic job of showing us what can and cannot kill a human being with a gunshot wound, but ignoring the temporary cavity because no permenant damage is done doesn't make any sense to me. Like saying "if I can't see it it's not there".


Nobody's ignoring the temporary cavity. Everybody agrees that it is there.

In typical combat handgun calibers, temporary cavitation is an insignificant wounding mechanism. I'm not sure what other studies need to be done to show this. Moreover, the main tenet of "Facklerites" as you call them isn't that the temporary cavity sucks, it's that adequate penetration is the key. Follow that up with as much tissue destruction through that adequate depth of penetration, and you have a winning combination.

In rifle calibers, Fackler would be the first to say that temporary cavitation plays a key role.



No arguement there - no matter what future research may indicate, I do whole heartedly believe that these qualities should be exhibited in ANY load considered for self-defense. The only point of interest would be finding if, of these loads that already qualify as valid, any of them exhibit better qualities in stopping the actions of an assailant than the others.



The biggest tragedy of M&S's flawed/fraudulent research is that now whenever anyone else attempts to research the affects of the temporary cavity, they are immediatley deemed M&S deciples and lumped in with the lies.


I'm a scientist by education and a science teacher by profession. Research all you want! But you'd better damn well conduct your research using scientifically appropriate methods (including ethical practices) or you will most certainly be labeled a fraud. If people jump to conclusions and lump you in with M&S, that's their biased prerogative, and you'll just have to deal with it.



Couldn't agree more.
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 3:40:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By Ahab:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
What Wolberg found is that both penetration and expansion in human beings showed a one-to-one correlation to the same bulets fired into properly calibrate ballisitic gelatin. And unlike Marshall, he made his data available for others to cross-check.



Where is this published? Extrapolating balistic gellatin results to real life is based on exactly what you're describing but I've never met anyone who's read the article you're referencing.



Wolberg first published this in 1991 in Wound Ballistics Review, which is not available online. You will have to go to a research library and read it in the paper version. It used to be posted in PDF format in a sticky on the Ammunition section of the AR-15 board here on ARFcom. It appears that the link is now down.

The fist study in 1991 included 27 shooting vicitms. By a year later, he was able to add another 17 to his database. Wolberg eventually studied over 100 people shot by the San Diego PD. Wolberg was a criminologist for the San Diego PD, and participated in the autopsies so that he would be certain of the integrity of the data. Wolberg never published a final study that included all the data he collected, due to his untimely death.

ETA: I found the link to Wolberg's original study. www.btammolabs.com/fackler/winchester_9mm.pdf



Thanks much for that link- I appreciate it!
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 3:43:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 53vortec:
I think M&S were on to something. I think Fackler was too. I'm hoping that within the next ten years we some more progressive (and un-biased) research that will shed more light on the subject.



+1
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 3:50:16 PM EDT
Energy transfer has jack shit to do with wounding in handguns. In high velocity rifle projectiles you can argue the opposite, but handgun bullets wound only with the permanent cavity.
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 4:11:31 PM EDT
There is a way to test this stuff, we are just either too weak willed, or too moral (take your pick) to do it. The Chinese did it when selecting their new rifle round. It involves prisoners...
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 9:30:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Careful---when this came up on Tacticalforums either Marshall or Sanow sent a lawyer over to threaten the board owner, moderator and all thread participants with lawsuits for libel



I dont think it was anyone sanctioned by Evan Marshall. I think it was someone who is a subscriber to Marshalls info that took it way too far, but I could be wrong.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 10:56:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Careful---when this came up on Tacticalforums either Marshall or Sanow sent a lawyer over to threaten the board owner, moderator and all thread participants with lawsuits for libel



I dont think it was anyone sanctioned by Evan Marshall. I think it was someone who is a subscriber to Marshalls info that took it way too far, but I could be wrong.



It is quite possible that he was just a troll. I was just introucing that to the discussion for humor value.
Top Top