What's the real reason 9mm is so popular?

[elSquid]

( Editor screwed up my posting. Edit seems to limit length. Trying again in a new post. )

[ZombieTactics]

...I am not saying that .45 or other calibers are better than 9mm I am just saying you are a SCREAMING 9mm fan boy. ...

That's an interesting charge. Have I even once said that 9mm is a superior round? I sure don't think it is, and I have said over and over that I think there isn't any significant difference in wounding effects. I own both 9mm and .40S&W handguns, and have an opportunity to shoot .45ACP often enough. I was forced to choose which one is better, I'd grudgingly go for .40S&W.

Given these facts, what's the basis of your charge?

[ZombieTactics]

elSquid: You'll note that I further expanded my comments for clarity and completeness, as I realized my original post could lead to misunderstandings. PLEASE CHECK THE TIME-STAMP and note that I did so well before your post, and not as some lame attempt after-the-fact history revision.

[elSquid]

It's important to note that BG was never intended to test anything besides penetration. It's OK for that purpose, when used under calibrated conditions. Manufacturers use it more for marketing purposes than anything else, and frequently set up their test beds with less than "calibrated" methodologies.

Reference for your assertion?

I quoted Fackler in post #167. I'll do it again here:

Fundamental to the use of tissue simulants, in lieu of animals, in wound ballistics is the establishment of their equivalence to animal tissue. For validity the simulant must reproduce the physical effects of the projectile-tissue interaction on the projectile (deformation, fragmentation), and in the simulant the projectile must stop at the same penetration depth as it does in living animal tissue.

Fackler would appear to disagree with you.

I think it's A reason, but not THE reason. BG doesn't tell you how layers of cotton, silk, denim, leather, etc. affect penetration, fragmentation or expansion, and they've had to figure out ways to test/design for these as well.

Absolute nonsense. This is commonly tested.

Here's a recent requirements spec ( 2010 ) the FBI put out for 5.56 duty loads:

https://www.fbo.gov/download/75d/75dab12cb09a05101d410d4d4db9bb07/556_TEP_RFP_200750_FY2010.doc

I don't recall if I used the word "lousy", but it might be too strong a term. It tests what it tests. It's OK for penetration. BG - being a common colloid - doesn't account for critical factors like viscoelasticity. This is one reason why recovered rounds don't seem to perform anything at all like they do in BG testing.

I provided a reference earlier that showed that San Diego PD actually did a study that showed that calibrated ballistic gel matched what was seen in actual shootings.

Honestly, you seem to lack a fundamental understanding of the history and usage of ballistic gel in ballistics research.

-- Michael

[Freq18Hz]

I'd appreciate the opportunity to address anything you find contradictory. I don't think I've claimed any unique knowledge.

I base this opinion mostly upon the notion that nobody can show any difference in actual shooting incidents. I don't claim "proof" per se, but only that certain kinds of evidence are more believable than others.

Hmmm ... I don't think BG testing is useless, only that it's not the end-all/be-all final word on the subject. I think it provides a reasonably good test for basic tissue penetration, assuming people keep in mind what BG really is and how it works. IMHO, It's pretty lousy as a medium for testing temp/perm cavity, fragmentation or JHP expansion.

I think that most people assume otherwise, which is unfortunate and frustrating. The evidence all but proves that this kind of direct testimony is extremely inaccurate. My comments are not unsupported in this respect, as it's nearly universal knowledge among experts in the field. I can point you to several books if you'd like, and maybe the earlier linked FBI report is a good place to start.

Well, if you accept the fact that there is no accurate, measurable data indicating a significant difference ... I wonder what the beef is. I don't think I've pretended otherwise.


Again if you accept "the fact that no accurate, measurable data exists to show any significant difference" ... what's the argument?

To what common sense argument do you refer which should be taken more seriously than that which can be demonstrated scientifically?

There's no actual evidence that caliber matters (in the 9/40/45 range) where people were stopped either.

That would put me in the same category as 95% of LEO. I think I've adequately spoken as to why this straw-man is a dead end. I've been shot once, and it really doesn't give me any special perspective on the subject at hand.

Neither you or I have been to the moon, but I'll bet we both could make a bunch of factual statements regarding it. With a few simple tools and a bit of math, we could prove them for ourselves.

Your suggestion seems to be that unless I have been in a gunfight (maybe several?), I cannot know anything about terminal ballistics, or logically analyze information from various sources. Given that it can be proven that people in gunfights don't even remember what-the-hell happened ... who do you suggest is a qualified expert?


I don't get insulted, as it's a waste of time, lol. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.

My position remains that in the 9/40/45 range ... there is no significant difference. I have reasons to believe so, and cannot find any reason to believe otherwise. If some evidence comes along one way or the other, I am happy to either change my opinion or have it reinforced.

You contradicted yourself earlier in the thread, when you cited information you obtained first hand in conversations with a medical examiner. Yet later in the thread, you point to test data and responses to those tests which disprove their accuracy. Unfortunately all these conclusions lead to the same conclusion, nobody knows.

I telling you that we can both have not gone to the moon, and yes we could make factual statements about it, but we have NO WAY to verify those statements.

Here's what I know first hand:

If you shoot a pumpkin or a water melon with a 9mm, sometimes the shell cracks, sometimes not.

8/10 times when you shoot it at the same distance with a .45 it explodes.

Every ballistic gel test I've seen shows .45 penetrates deeper, and makes a larger wound.

People hunt large game with larger caliber handguns, they don't use 9mm.

The 1911 .45 has been in military service for a long time, and from everyone I know who has had to use one in wartime, for good reason.

You are saying one thing, like most people have already agreed on the lethality of the calibers, but everyone I know that has discharged a weapon while pointing it at another human being, or has been involved in jobs where that sort of thing happens, seems to agree that the .45 is more likely to be lethal with a single shot than a 9mm. Basically they say the opposite of what your position is.

All I know is that common knowledge tells me that a bullet that weighs twice as much, and has a larger diameter, moving at a speed that is similar to that of a smaller, lighter projectile, is therefore more lethal.

For instance, I have seen air rifles that will shoot at around 1100 FPS.

If I had to choose, guess what I'd rather get shot with, between that and a .22lr?

I'm not trying to argue with you, or engage in conversation that would attempt to disprove the validity of what you are saying. My only goal here, which seems to be not achievable, is to get some answers. I want the truth of the data fueling the debate. I'm frustrated that it continues to be elusive.
At this point, I'm inclined to think that it doesn't matter, and that perhaps I should just stick to a rifle. Or better yet, just plan to never been in a violent situation where I have to defend my life, or the life of my loved ones. Maybe if I plan and hope for the best, I will manifest that instead of something negative.


-Freq

[ZombieTactics]

elSquid: I think we are losing focus, and perhaps that's partly my fault. I thought we were discussing manufacturers use of BG testing, and my general observations apply only in that sense. You'll note please that my edited/expanded (well ahead of your first or second response) comments reflect more directly to that point.

I've noticed that manufacturers commonly show very staged pictures of bare BG tests (event #1) and heaven help you if you can get them to reveal anything else.A lot of them are missing an all-important "telltale trace", of which you are certainly aware, since I (by your assertion) "lack a fundamental understanding of the history and usage of ballistic gel in ballistics research" (snicker)

I am fully aware that the FBI test regimen is more comprehensive ... else why would I reference it?

I appreciate your previous San Diego reference, and will look in to it more fully. Perhaps there is something there to learn.

I do in fact have a background in metrology, which I submit gives me a usefully skeptical frame of reference.

Is it your assertion that some general superiority of .45ACP or .40S&W has been proven over 9mm, and that I am just missing it?

[l8apex]

Actually, the debate ended a loooong time ago for anyone who genuinely understands the issue.

Bingo, / thread.

[elSquid]

elSquid: I think we are losing focus, and perhaps that's partly my fault. I thought we were discussing manufacturers use of BG testing, and my general observations apply only in that sense.

I think were we discussing a bunch of assertions that you have made about ballistic gel...assertions that appear to have no rational basis.

I've noticed that manufacturers commonly show very staged pictures of bare BG tests (event #1) and heaven help you if you can get them to reveal anything else.A lot of them are missing an all-important "telltale trace", of which you are certainly aware, since I (by your assertion) "lack a fundamental understanding of the history and usage of ballistic gel in ballistics research" (snicker)

I am fully aware that the FBI test regimen is more comprehensive ... else why would I reference it?

I have no idea. If you are aware of FBI test protocols, why would you state:

That would make more sense to me if BG was even a rough physical approximation of any human bodily structures ... it isn't. However you look at it: physical density, tensile strength, shear strength, dynamic viscoelasticity ... BG isn't even close. Actually I take that back ... I remember it is similar in some respects to lymphatic fluid, but that's not an accurate model for testing. 10% BG has the singular advantage of being a consistent testing medium, but doesn't really approximate anything human very well.

"lymphatic fluid"? Where did _that_ come from?

I do in fact have a background in metrology, which I submit gives me a usefully skeptical frame of reference.

I have an engineering degree. Both of our backgrounds are not relevant.

Is it your assertion that some general superiority of .45ACP or .40S&W has been proven over 9mm, and that I am just missing it?

No, my assertion is that you appear to lack knowledge about ballistic gelatin testing, and that you are quite light on references to back up your assertions.

-- Michael

[ZombieTactics]

I think were we discussing a bunch of assertions that you have made about ballistic gel...assertions that appear to have no rational basis.

Well, it's certainly more useful when done well than for an ad-slick in a gun mag. I've done some personal testing which leads me to believe that it's at least of questionable validity. It might be fun to recreate some of those tests, which are admittedly imperfect.

I have no idea. If you are aware of FBI test protocols, why would you state:

[I][INDENT]That would make more sense to me if BG was even a rough physical approximation of any human bodily structures ... it isn't. However you look at it: physical density, tensile strength, shear strength, dynamic viscoelasticity ... BG isn't even close.

My bad for not being clear. It approximates some aspects of a rough average of some average persons muscle tissue at rest. Which ones does BG claim to accurately simulate? Flexed or at rest? Am I wrong to think this makes a difference or even ask the question?

..."lymphatic fluid"? Where did _that_ come from? ...

Something misremembered, which I concede is ridiculous upon further reflection.

I have an engineering degree. Both of our backgrounds are not relevant.

I don't know ... it may mean I can learn something from you.

No, my assertion is that you appear to lack knowledge about ballistic gelatin testing, and that you are quite light on references to back up your assertions.

I am open to correction. I am encouraged to know that we appear to have reached similar conclusion regarding caliber choices, albeit for different reasons ... and perhaps better ones on your part. Are you of a mind that BG testing supports your opinion, and why?

I'd appreciate knowing how accurate you think BG testing is, how closely it models real structures (and which ones), and any suggested reading you'd recommend as such.

[Jack L]

Use human cadavers like NASA does...........

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1296

[ZombieTactics]

They also use a number of very accurate "artificial cadavers", some with all sorts of sensors and telemetry. My father-in-law was on the NASA Advisory Council until recently ... lots of fascinating material crosses his desk.

Seems to me they should have spared the expense and just bought a few vats of Knox gelatin because it's such a perfect test medium ... (kidding ... different engineering problem altogether)

[tbhracing]

Everyone- 9mm sucks!










So just send me all of your 9mm ammo and I will get rid of it for you. Whew.....youre welcome.

[l8apex]

As posted prior by another user.

[locosway]

As posted prior by another user.

It doesn't matter how much evidence you show to support the 9mm. All the people with small genitals will continue to wage war against the 9mm.

[Jack L]

As posted prior by another user.

Ouch!