Author Topic: Bullet weight discussion  (Read 9910 times)

Offline Bill_in_TX

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: Bullet weight discussion
« Reply #15 on: May 12, 2009, 12:20:03 PM »
Quote
It gets even more interesting when you factor in the OAL data of various brands and loads which Chris posted in the FAQ site at this link:

http://www.acbsystems.com/boards/rohrbaugh/basefile/tumbling.htm






Richard,

That is an interesting reference.  Thanks for posting it.

I had forgotten about the freebore, but it clearly is another part of the puzzle.

The other part that I've been unable to find is some ambitious sole who has pulled various brands and weights of bullets apart to measure OL of just the bullet, itself.  IMO that is the major influence on stability, but might be tempered by the fact that the R9 is the first pistol I've explored with such freebore.

You other reference is a good read also for anyone interested in the actual teminal effects of the ammo.  While that one is a bit dated (only in that it doesn't include newer ammos) the work has been continued more-or-less in the terminal effects forum of  (IIRC) tacticalforums.com by a guy named Dr. G. B. Roberts.  You do need to subscribe to that one for access.


The whole business of tumbling/keyholing is a little bit more serious than some of the posts that I've seen in the forum would suggest.  

The FBI minimum penetration standard is 12", predicated upon being able to hit vitals that would disable an attacker.

The performance of bullets for adequate penetration is based upon (and measured) entering the person or gelatin perpendicular.  That is, with minimal frontal area drag in the medium.

Once a bullet starts keyholing it will try to penetrate the medium (flesh, gelatin, etc) with potentially much more frontal area, and drag  and not live up to its potential.  This obviously, depends on the degree of keyholing.  The extreme would be a bullet that had turned a full 90 degrees and entered sideways.  That would probably double frontal area and drag so that a bullet that should penetrate 12-14" might only go 6-7" and be tha much less effective.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2009, 12:37:51 PM by Bill_in_TX »

Offline DanR9SF

  • Expert
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
Re: Bullet weight discussion
« Reply #16 on: May 12, 2009, 01:08:54 PM »
Massad Ayoob wrote a book about concealed carry, copyright 2008, and in it he devoted a chapter to Defense Loads Of Choice - The Word From The Street.  http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0896896110
 
I mention this because, with our R9's short barrel we're seeing lower velocities than a standard-issue SIG or Glock, and since we can't fire +P or +P+ we're really on the short end of the stick velocity-wise.  Our R9's are not going to throw a 9mm at 1250+ FPS.  

Anyway, Massad talks about how "defensive ammunition choice is about picking what works best to neutralize armed and dangerous human beings before they can main or murder".  He further states "scientific testing of ammo in ballistic gelatin can help predict bullet performance in the field, but at the end of the day, it is the performance and not the prediction that will matter".

Massad is involved with the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, the International Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association, and the International Homicide Investigators, who have all studied many years of police shootings where police issue ammunition was used.  He says "police duty calibers and loads have the strongest data bases to learn from".

In 9mm Luger - he states "in the late 1980's through most of the 1990's, 147-grain hollowpoints of conventional copper jacketed construction were the trendy issue rounds.  They worked spotily - sometimes they expanded, and sometimes they just punched narrow little through-and-through holes like ball ammo - and as a result, most departments that used this stuff either switched to more powerful calibers, or went to 9mm ammo that was going faster, with lighter bullets".

He mentions "the Illinois State Police 115-grain standard JHP launched at 1300 fps proved itself to be the most decisive man-stopper available - it still works great".

"Other loadings have emerged that have the same decisive stopping power in 9mm.  They include Winchester's 127-grain Ranger series +P+ at 1250 FPS, and Speer's Gold Dot 124-grain +P at the same velocity".

"Chicago PD switched to the 124-grain +P after multiple dismal stopping failures with 147-grain subsonic".

"Orlando cops are issued P226 SIG's and 127-grain +P+ Winchester, and many shootings since, they've found it to be as effective as any handgun caliber could be".

And then this - "Some folks have bought into the theory that the 147-grain subsonic has been so widely recommended by authority figures, it must be good.  The fact is, there's a new generation of 147-grain subsonic that is pretty darn good.  It utilizes new-generation high-tech expanding bullet technology expressly engineered to make the bullets open up at velocities below the speed of sound.  These include CCI Speer Gold Dot, the Federal HST, and Winchester Ranger".

"Amarillo, Texas Police report excellent results with their issue load for those officers who choose 9mm pistols, the 147-grain Gold Dot".

And he sums it up - "still, the faster bullets seem to be the way to go.  There is much more corollary tissue damage around the wound channels with the faster 9mm's, with medical examiners documenting "mascerated" flesh, that is, tissue chopped up like burrito filling.  You don't see that with subsonic rounds, even though a high-tech modern 147-grain may actually expand very slightly more than a lighter 9mm bullet, simply because it has "more lead to spread".


« Last Edit: May 12, 2009, 03:06:12 PM by DaninVA »
R9S and R9SF - Not For Sale

Offline Bill_in_TX

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: Bullet weight discussion
« Reply #17 on: May 12, 2009, 02:57:41 PM »
In terms of defensive loads, I often times agree more with Ayoob than with Dr. G. B. Roberts (who IMO places too much emphasis on penetration depth without regard for velocity) and very much agree with that last quote.

That's why my normal carry is 357Sig and the 9MM R9 is more of a back-up or intermittent, when-I can't-carry-the-full-size pistol for me.

The dilemma for me in the R9 is it seems that we get a bit of the worst of both worlds (so to speak) ammo-wise.  On the one hand, we can't use +P ammo for strength reasons and the short barrel really limits the velocity of any standard load, which negates the velocity advantage of the lighter loads.   However, on the other hand, the heavier bullets -- these days designed for expansion and effectiveness at the slower speeds -- may not shoot well in the R9 because of the barrel twist.

Offline DanR9SF

  • Expert
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
Re: Bullet weight discussion
« Reply #18 on: May 12, 2009, 03:12:00 PM »
Which is why I'd like to see an R9 offered in a steel frame, capable of +P ammunition.  Sure it would weigh more but it would be so much more versatile.
R9S and R9SF - Not For Sale

Offline ACP

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 842
Re: Bullet weight discussion
« Reply #19 on: May 12, 2009, 05:49:24 PM »
Once again, Richard is the Answer Man. I saved the document to my Favorites and have read it.

This is not light reading but it is compelling and ought be read by anyone who responsibly carries a weapon capable of severely wounding or terminating another being.
Those who turn their guns into plowshares end up plowing for those that do not - Thomas Jefferson

Offline kjtrains

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 8107
Re: Bullet weight discussion
« Reply #20 on: May 12, 2009, 06:22:16 PM »
Good information!
Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.  Abraham Lincoln

Offline tracker

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 5398
Re: Bullet weight discussion
« Reply #21 on: May 12, 2009, 08:31:50 PM »
My short take on all of this excellent information is that there are
only a few things that are important in disabling an opponent with
a firearm; viz.,

1. Shot placement.

2. Penetration depth.

3. A measure of mass to get the job done.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2009, 08:54:58 PM by tracker »

Offline ACP

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 842
Re: Bullet weight discussion
« Reply #22 on: May 12, 2009, 09:40:51 PM »
All of which is covered in Richard's attachment, thank you very much.

As to the posts calling for stainless frame and +P cartridge, I have seen these type of "wish list" posts over the years and while I concur with the desire, I don't think they are realistic.

The R9's role, as I understand it, is limited and supported by  staff and owners who can only do so much.

Rohrbaugh is not a large entity like S&W and they do what they can do, within limited parameters, and they do a supurb job within those limitations.
Those who turn their guns into plowshares end up plowing for those that do not - Thomas Jefferson

Offline tracker

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 5398
Re: Bullet weight discussion
« Reply #23 on: May 12, 2009, 09:49:18 PM »
And I would add that the Rohrbaugh quality leaves the present day
S&W in the dust.