I don't care about the bs stories marshall tells, or the goat bs. what's interesting is the velocity measurements of some of the ammo Sanow tested, and the exotic type bullets offered at that time. did you know that tubular copper bullets were once sold here, by PMC, or that aluminum bulleted ammo has been sold commerically? remember the "white rhino" ammo fiasco? did you know that black talon jhp's don't expand in flesh? Their velocities are MUCH too slow to peel back that tough of a bullet jacket. In fact, they are too slow to reliably expand a pure, soft lead hp, in flesh, now. What happens in jello or water is irrelevant. you are being LIED to about jello performance, guys. the chest is mostly lungs, and the lungs are just air sacs. there's very little fluid in them, penetrating them doesn;t expand low velocity hp's, and if the target is wearing thick clothing, the nose cavity is often "clogged" with clothing debris, delaying or stopping expansion of the hp. So in wintertime, you need HIGHER velocity. Non expanding bullets penetrate DEEPER, so it's not a case of getting less penetration vs heavy clothing, it's getting too much penetration and not enough use of the power that you have
Read Sanow's book on stopping power?
- Thread starter titon
- Start date
Those arguments (minus the brand specifics) can be found in books from the 1930's, and are still not resolved as far as 'lack of argument'. I just like the idea of bigger holes first, more holes second, and not running out of ammo or wasting it by missing. That's just my opinion, and we all know those are as common as belly-buttons.
wow, .45 is a whole .09" wider hole, BOUND to make a big diff, right? 
Personally, I prefer the discrete speed of hand in pants pocket, on the gun butt, and very fast, very lw, hollowbased, hollowpointed bullets, that are split nearly in half, from the front, so that they break into 2 segments at impact. So in essence, I am shooting him twice with every hit, and he gets a 250 ft lb, sharp cornered, unstable-tumbling, 3/8" long, hard metal frag that diverts from the other one as it penetrates. I also favor getting 5 or more hits per second, and better yet, 2 on the chest, and then WITHOUT WAITING AT ALL, firing more at the head, until i see his brains splatter. Of course, this is assuming that I don't have to move on to shoot his buddy, before coming back for the brain hits.
At impact speeds over 2200 fps, the 22 gr, solid aluminum frag ALSO has the advantage of the Mach II effect, ie, it's able to damage fragile organ tissue, like the lungs, with merely its temporary gas cavity. Such ammo will never be commercially sold, tho, because it pierces Kevlar vests. You do need the thicker, longer case of the 356 TSW and a fully supported barrel for this load to be safe in a 3" barreled pocket 9mm, and you have to use so much Bullseye under that very lw bullet that it scares the typical handloader to death, but the big, conical holllwbase makes for much more powder room, and so does the .100" longer case of the 356. The bullet is so lw that it gets moving very easily, and has little friction in the barrel, so high pressures are not really a problem, but the 356 case is built to handle 40,000 CUP, not 33,000 like the 9mm plus p. no other powder has enough "octane" to even cycle the slide reliably, with such bullets, when you use compressed loads. .22lr powder might, but not any sort of canister-available powder.
Personally, I prefer the discrete speed of hand in pants pocket, on the gun butt, and very fast, very lw, hollowbased, hollowpointed bullets, that are split nearly in half, from the front, so that they break into 2 segments at impact. So in essence, I am shooting him twice with every hit, and he gets a 250 ft lb, sharp cornered, unstable-tumbling, 3/8" long, hard metal frag that diverts from the other one as it penetrates. I also favor getting 5 or more hits per second, and better yet, 2 on the chest, and then WITHOUT WAITING AT ALL, firing more at the head, until i see his brains splatter. Of course, this is assuming that I don't have to move on to shoot his buddy, before coming back for the brain hits.At impact speeds over 2200 fps, the 22 gr, solid aluminum frag ALSO has the advantage of the Mach II effect, ie, it's able to damage fragile organ tissue, like the lungs, with merely its temporary gas cavity. Such ammo will never be commercially sold, tho, because it pierces Kevlar vests. You do need the thicker, longer case of the 356 TSW and a fully supported barrel for this load to be safe in a 3" barreled pocket 9mm, and you have to use so much Bullseye under that very lw bullet that it scares the typical handloader to death, but the big, conical holllwbase makes for much more powder room, and so does the .100" longer case of the 356. The bullet is so lw that it gets moving very easily, and has little friction in the barrel, so high pressures are not really a problem, but the 356 case is built to handle 40,000 CUP, not 33,000 like the 9mm plus p. no other powder has enough "octane" to even cycle the slide reliably, with such bullets, when you use compressed loads. .22lr powder might, but not any sort of canister-available powder.
BigSlick
New member
wow, .45 is a whole .09" wider hole, BOUND to make a big diff, right?
At impact speeds over 2200 fps, the 22 gr, solid aluminum frag ALSO has the advantage of the Mach II effect, ie, it's able to damage fragile organ tissue, like the lungs, with merely its temporary gas cavity. Such ammo will never be commercially sold, tho, because it pierces Kevlar vests. You do need the thicker, longer case of the 356 TSW and a fully supported barrel for this load to be safe in a 3" barreled pocket 9mm, and you have to use so much Bullseye under that very lw bullet that it scares the typical handloader to death, but the big, conical holllwbase makes for much more powder room, and so does the .100" longer case of the 356. The bullet is so lw that it gets moving very easily, and has little friction in the barrel, so high pressures are not really a problem, but the 356 case is built to handle 40,000 CUP, not 33,000 like the 9mm plus p. no other powder has enough "octane" to even cycle the slide reliably, with such bullets, when you use compressed loads. .22lr powder might, but not any sort of canister-available powder.
Just stick to modern over the counter defense ammo and you will be fine. Save the boutique rounds for the range.
says you, because you have shot 20 people in the chest, with both standard loads and "boatique" (you mean botique?) That's what it takes to have an INFORMED opinion, and you'd have to do this with EACH "botique" load, or you'd just be guessing. I've shot 100's of animals, with lots of loads, so at least I know how each does in flesh and blood. Do you even know THAT much? Have you matched your repeat hit times vs what most punks can achieve with a .22lr autoloader, to see if you are handicapping yourself with an uncontrolable, too awkward gun and load (ie, dumbass derringer, or airweight 357?)
schadenfreude
New member
Same here.
.
Marshall & Sanow's "research" has been debunked by several independent sources-
.
Too Good to be True, Wishful Thinking?, The Best Defense
.
Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow "Data Base": An Evaluation Over Time
.
Sanow Strikes (Out) Again
.
The M&S "studies" suffer from obvious data manipulation and have been proven via statistical analyses to be fraudulent. All of their books (and magazine articles) are simply not worth the paper they are printed on.
schadenfreude
New member
No problem, Stan. :smile:
.
The M&S books (three of them) sell for about fifty bucks apiece :blink: ; so maybe this information can help stop someone from being scammed out of $150 of their hard-earned money.
gunnerbob
PEW Professional
One of my favorite caliber & loads to shoot & carry is 124gr +P JHP 9mm... I like Gold Dot & Saber.
I know these aren't the end-all, be-all of defense loads but they're comfortable to shoot, I'm consistant with them and they have respectable showings in most tests. Call me old fashioned, but I think being able to hit what you're aiming at is the most important part of it all.
I know these aren't the end-all, be-all of defense loads but they're comfortable to shoot, I'm consistant with them and they have respectable showings in most tests. Call me old fashioned, but I think being able to hit what you're aiming at is the most important part of it all.
if you guys could READ, you'd know that my op was NOT about their "research' into shootings, but rather about the various loads tested as to velocity, expansion, etc. There are some pretty neat ammo types available, or reproducible, that Sanow's book reveals, and it can be had thru your interlibrary book loan system.
schadenfreude
New member
If you could READ, you'd see that none of what Marshall or Sanow have to say is worth the paper that it's printed on and that includes their thoughts on ammunition and any "tests" that they might have conducted.
.
Marshall & Sanow are "hucksters" of the worst sort and their books should be avoided by anyone interested in the legitimate study of the field of terminal ballistics.
.
Even if it's "free of charge", it is still rubbish. "Free" garbage is still garbage.
.
Without any apparent evidence to support your claim, it is difficult to accept your refutation of the validity of these mediums (water and calibrated ordnance gelatin) as valid test mediums given the tremendous amount of technical research conducted by numerous professionals (ballisticians, physicians, engineers) that suggests otherwise.
.
Other than an unfounded opinion, do you have the professional credentials and suitable documented research that would support your ability to make an authoritative statement such as the one you have made above?
.
schadenfreude
New member
Bring it on. We are all looking forward to this proof that you claim to be able to provide.
.
So, under what research credentials will you be presenting this proof?
.
Really?
.
I've hunted and shot many animals on three different continents over the last twenty years and seen for myself what bullets will do to an animal. Besides insult, what have you got?
schadenfreude
New member
U don't got no idea whut I dun. :sarcastic:
Ridiculous. You lack the gravitas to support anything you've said so far- including the half-baked whackadoo claims you've made above and elsewhere.
the dark
New member
Wait, wait, wait...
This is the guy in the other thread who was telling someone to shoot at cans thrown into the air or some such manure before they'd be ready for CCW. Why are we even listening to this?
