A caliber comparison question.

[MaxP]

I don't disagree. But the problem is, and was, what was being read, was not learned papers, but thinly disguised advertising in the popular in print gun press. Dr. Fackler rails against this in one of his papers. Police departments, even the military, seriously believed what they read in the popular in print press, and good Cops and Military died because of it. The book, The Gun, by Shivers, outlines the Colt AR15 psuedo science in the popular press about the lethality of the 5.56. The gun writers of the era were publishing all sorts of Colt stories about arms, legs, heads being blown off by the 5.56, and people took it seriously, and it helped in the adoption of the M16.

I am going to contend that the firearms industry has not needed to conduct lethality research when all they had to do is get some in print writer to sell their bullet in a popular periodical. These guys rummage through their garage and garbage cans, and what is cheap and waste, becomes a tissue stimulant. Two of the most popular test media were wet newspapers and phone books. Free stacks of newspapers have long disappeared since no one reads "old news". I have not seen a phone book in a while. So those "gold standards" are gone. The inprint crowd also shot wood, clay, soap, ducseal, and steel. All of which they claimed calibration against living things by some experience. I have no doubt the media was "adjusted" to give the result the bullet maker wanted. Today, the in print gold standard is water filled milk jugs. When an author gets $400 for an article, it can be understood that he is not going to spend thousands for a ballistic dummy. Rather, these guys have to be driving around on recycle day, robbing the street containers of their plastic waste.

(milk is declining as a beverage, maybe the availability of empty milk jugs will decline. Can someone predict the next in print gold standard for lethality?)

Maybe you know the history better, but it seems to me that the current tissue standard of ballistic gelatin was not established until Dr Fackler, a Government paid researcher, did the publicly funded work to find a decent tissue standard.

And that is why we test on bovine flesh (and bones). It’s extreme, but it’s eye opening.

 

[d2wing]

I don't disagree. But the problem is, and was, what was being read, was not learned papers, but thinly disguised advertising in the popular in print gun press. Dr. Fackler rails against this in one of his papers. Police departments, even the military, seriously believed what they read in the popular in print press, and good Cops and Military died because of it. The book, The Gun, by Shivers, outlines the Colt AR15 psuedo science in the popular press about the lethality of the 5.56. The gun writers of the era were publishing all sorts of Colt stories about arms, legs, heads being blown off by the 5.56, and people took it seriously, and it helped in the adoption of the M16.

I am going to contend that the firearms industry has not needed to conduct lethality research when all they had to do is get some in print writer to sell their bullet in a popular periodical. These guys rummage through their garage and garbage cans, and what is cheap and waste, becomes a tissue stimulant. Two of the most popular test media were wet newspapers and phone books. Free stacks of newspapers have long disappeared since no one reads "old news". I have not seen a phone book in a while. So those "gold standards" are gone. The inprint crowd also shot wood, clay, soap, ducseal, steel and even into dirt embankments. All of which they claimed calibration against living things by some experience. I have no doubt the media was "adjusted" to give the result the bullet maker wanted. Today, the in print gold standard is water filled milk jugs. When an author gets $400 for an article, it can be understood that he is not going to spend thousands for a ballistic dummy. Rather, these guys have to be driving around on recycle day, robbing the street containers of their plastic waste.

(milk is declining as a beverage, maybe the availability of empty milk jugs will decline. Can someone predict the next in print gold standard for lethality?)

Maybe you know the history better, but it seems to me that the current tissue standard of ballistic gelatin was not established until Dr Fackler, a Government paid researcher, did the publicly funded work to find a decent tissue standard.

This is well working looking at, the link to the Wound Ballistic Journals created by @Hummer70

Why are slow moving heavy bullets considered to be effective?

even in the first issue, a lot of space is dedicated to debunking the kinetic energy theory of lethality, because, the popular press had promoted that theory for decades. Promoted it, because kinetic energy made it easy to sell new cartridges and the firearms chambered for those new cartridges. It is a lot easier to push a bullet faster than it is to increase momentum or design a better expanding bullet.

LOL. The exact opposite is true. Fackler is the biggest quack and liar in gun writing ever. For one. He is totally un qualified on ballistics period. He was part of a cadre in the Army that hated the M-16. So he used his position as coroner to publish a paper that claim all sorts of false and misleading things.
From there he claimed to be an expert, although he had no training, had never done a real study or experiment by his own someone told him about gelatin tests and claim all sorts of lies, like his claim that the military went by gun writers instead of scientists, that Roy Weatherby invented modern ballistics and lied about Colonel Moores battle reports and more. Anyone that believes any of it is a fool and spreads lies. If the shoe fits.
Quoting Fackler brands you as knowing nothing. Your claims, like his are ridiculous.

 

[CDW4ME]

The answer is: you need a better question.

Such as this:

'What's a more effective Self Defense round, .45 ACP or .357 SIG?'

That'll stir up some opinions.

Good luck getting people to stick to that topic, terminal ballistics.
If you started a thread with the premise they already had both pistols and 10,000 rounds of factory HP for each and they shoot them equally well ...
Somebody would reply about local ammo availability or cost favoring the 45 acp, guaranteed.
Also, invariably someone would say whichever you shoot the best, IME.

 

[danez71]

After reading it a few times I think it is just a wordy way of saying that the .357 is more powerful but that an automatic usually holds more cartridges.

Me too.

I think it's a wordy attempt to intellectually to say 'capacity beats power'.

 

[Slamfire]

Quoting Fackler brands you as knowing nothing. Your claims, like his are ridiculous.

Ouch!

So, where is the information that refutes Fackler?

He was part of a cadre in the Army that hated the M-16. So he used his position as coroner to publish a paper that claim all sorts of false and misleading things.

So is this the pea (a M-16) , under the 20 mattresses, that kept the princess tossing and turning all night? Well I don't like the M-16 either. Nor the 5.56mm. I do like the 7.62mmm, the M14, and I am of the opinion, that if the Army had adopted the .276 Pedersen, we would still be using it as it would have been a dandy intermediate power round. It was the right round, at the right time.

 

[.38 Special]

...Elmer Keith also believed, and promoted the momentum model. Since momentum is conserved in collisions, down to the sub atomic scale, I believed it was a good predictor of lethality, and if truth be told, still do. Even if the experts say it is not, there is just something about big and huge that feels like it has to be bad.

I once read something from Keith along the lines of "It makes a big hole all the way through and lets plenty of blood out both sides". I believe he was talking about his SWC in the .44 Magnum, but regardless, I always liked the simplicity of it and found it to be true in my own hunting. Obviously we can make it a lot more complicated, but I'm not sure if we need to.

 

[.38 Special]

Beyond that, I had kind of hoped that the apocalypse would, if nothing else, put an end to "jello junkies vs. morgue monsters". Guess not.

 

[d2wing]

I have read quite a lot about Fackler and many pages of stuff he wrote. I have also read reports that critique his writing. His attacks on real scientists are ridiculous and untrue. He made up much of what he says. But like I said before, folks believe what they want. It seems there is so much disinformation out there that you would thing some one wants us to believe that we should have stuck with Custer's carbines.

 

[d2wing]

As you can see I was an M-60 gunner in Vietnam. I am a big fan of the M-14, but the M-16 was a great weapon too. I used them all. They are tools that I was happy to have.

 

[d2wing]

Internal ballistics is pretty much everything that happens before the projectile leaves the muzzle. That would certainly include recoil (which is based on conservation of momentum) and any considerations surrounding recoil, for example, how to utilize it to perform some function, such as ejection, extraction, or feeding of the next round.Kinetic energy and momentum are both scientifically valid concepts. People get into trouble when they try to either dismiss them, or try to make them mean more than they do.

Sorry, I meant terminal ballistics You are correct.

 

[MaxP]

As you can see I was an M-60 gunner in Vietnam. I am a big fan of the M-14, but the M-16 was a great weapon too. I used them all. They are tools that I was happy to have.

With a grunt unit or on a helicopter?

 

[d2wing]

With a grunt unit or on a helicopter?

On a Guntruck on convoys. You might be able to make out a few S&P trailers and tractors behind me in this picture. I also drove truck and had to use my M-16 in ambushes.

 

[MaxP]

On a Guntruck on convoys. You might be able to make out a few S&P trailers and tractors behind me in this picture. I also drove truck and had to use my M-16 in ambushes.

Very cool. Thanks for indulging me. Too young for Vietnam, but many of my NCOs were Vietnam vets.

 

[d2wing]

Thank you for asking. This morning on the AHC channel they showing "Rescue at Dogshead" That happened 50 years ago. I had a long talk with my close friend who was there. April 1st is the 50th anniversary of the battle at Firebase Illingworth. That was in a story in this months VFW magazine. He was in that too. He was a Sniper and used a special built and scoped M-14. Some dates are very hard on Vets. Sorry for going off topic.

 

[murf]

LOL. The exact opposite is true. Fackler is the biggest quack and liar in gun writing ever. For one. He is totally un qualified on ballistics period. He was part of a cadre in the Army that hated the M-16. So he used his position as coroner to publish a paper that claim all sorts of false and misleading things.
From there he claimed to be an expert, although he had no training, had never done a real study or experiment by his own someone told him about gelatin tests and claim all sorts of lies, like his claim that the military went by gun writers instead of scientists, that Roy Weatherby invented modern ballistics and lied about Colonel Moores battle reports and more. Anyone that believes any of it is a fool and spreads lies. If the shoe fits.
Quoting Fackler brands you as knowing nothing. Your claims, like his are ridiculous.

you, sir, have stepped over the line.

murf

 

[MaxP]

Thank you for asking. This morning on the AHC channel they showing "Rescue at Dogshead" That happened 50 years ago. I had a long talk with my close friend who was there. April 1st is the 50th anniversary of the battle at Firebase Illingworth. That was in a story in this months VFW magazine. He was in that too. He was a Sniper and used a special built and scoped M-14. Some dates are very hard on Vets. Sorry for going off topic.

Thanks again for going above and beyond. It’s an era that shaped much of my thought process, that deserves to be preserved and never forgotten.

Sorry for the thread hijacking!

 

[Electricmo]

Caliber, ballistics and mass= power.
Easy comparison here. Let's say you hit a smart car head on at 45 mph in your SUV. Ouch!
Now let's say your in that same SUV and hit a train at 35.7 mph. Dead..
Now for the greatest symbol of power ever. The Browning hi-power. To bad it's a 9mm. Has almost the same diameter as a .357... But a lot more powerful. Strength in numbers you might say.

 

[d2wing]

you, sir, have stepped over the line.

murf

Nope. Truth is truth. Fackler is a fake. Just read his material. Red flags everywhere. Read what real scientists say. Read about his phony tests. I rest my case. I have no tolerance for liars and con men. He was both.
Like I said folks believe what they want to hear, and refuse to even investigate. If you don't like me on here you would hate me in real life. My job was to find crooks. Just the things Fackler says gives him away.

 

[murf]

Nope. Truth is truth. Fackler is a fake. Just read his material. Red flags everywhere. Read what real scientists say. Read about his phony tests. I rest my case. I have no tolerance for liars and con men. He was both.
Like I said folks believe what they want to hear, and refuse to even investigate. If you don't like me on here you would hate me in real life. My job was to find crooks. Just the things Fackler says gives him away.

i'm talking about the ad hominems in your last two sentences. i'm a truck driver and go low road a lot. but here i go high road. it's quite the challenge.

i value your opinion as i do other's here.

murf

 

[d2wing]

i'm talking about the ad hominems in your last two sentences. i'm a truck driver and go low road a lot. but here i go high road. it's quite the challenge.

i value your opinion as i do other's here.

murf

I misunderstood you. Sorry.

 

[Viper1357]

As mentioned through out this this thread no question the .357 mag (FPS/FPE) is more powerful than the .45 ACP typical standard factory loadings. Also then ammo capacities of 'typical' guns used by the masses shows that 'fire power' leans towards the .45 ACP.
Like some others here, I too have a strong fondness for the .357 Mag going all the way back to when I first got into handguns. While I do have shorter barreled. 5-6 round .357s which is I guess 'typical', I've always tried (since the 80's) to have as large a capacity .357 mag as commercially available as I used to shoot a lot of informal bowling pin and falling plates competitions back then. So I've had my fair share of Coonans through the 80s-90's but only have one left today. Since that time S&W and then Ruger have come out with 8 round revolvers that increased capacity for the .357 as well. Of course I had to get one of those as well.

So for me (opinion wise) I don't think the 'firepower' of the .45 ACP truly beats the 'FPE' of the .357 mag when it hinges on only one round in my example here. Plus, to really mess up the bell curve the Coonan not having a B/C gap typically adds some extra FPS/FPE power (depending on the load) more than an equal sized revolver. I like and trust the .45 ACP just fine, but my reasoning and comfort lies more with the .357 Mag.
And as always, 'Power Is Fine But Accuracy Is Final'.

 

[Viper1357]

So now to contradict my last post, and in all fairness regarding capacity nowadays you can ring out near double capacity with many models of .45 ACP with Glock, CZ, EAA Witness, and multitudes of double stack 1911's. My high capacity .45 ACP is a Sarsilmaz SARK2 which is a 14+1, which is a lot of .45 ACP firepower. So in the end it might just be a question of Energy Power vs. Fire Power?

 

[Eddietruett]

Here is an interesting article
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power

 

[Riomouse911]

What I think it boils down to is that the answer was saying that he’d rather have a .45 pistol rather than a .357 revolver in a gun fight.

I don’t disagree. For me, the most effective .357 round out of a revolver of a size that I could comfortably carry is much less controllable than a similar package in .45 acp.

I love my little SP101, but I’m far more effective with a commander or officer sized 1911.

Unless you’re sporting a ,45 ACP revolver like a 625 Smith vs. a Coonan .357 auto......

Stay safe.

 

[wagonburner]

The military and laboratories around the world have actual scientists, many belonging the Society of Ballistic engineers. Those folks since artillery was invented have been doing studies, experiments and observations and study physical and chemistry and other sciences. Those folks are the real scientists and experts..

Well that’s not an opinion shared by all. The M16 and 5.56 adoption has more to do with politicking and greasing the the right palms than science. Remember the M16 was touted as to not require any cleaning or routine maintenance; pure pseudo science. “Militarily scientist” is an oxymoron.