Carry ammo

[enfield]

Oh Gawd, now they'll whip out their sliderules to see which one is bigger!!

 

[Stephen A. Camp]

I'm sure we all have our own views of the "truth" in the wonderful, never-ending
discussions concerning "carry ammo/stopping power."

One can express a divergent opinion or view without comments telling the reader not to pay attention to a specific poster's words. Why don't we do it that way and let the reader decide what he wants to believe or explore?

Thank you in advance.

 

[Sean Smith]

Most of the people that criticize his work seem to have very little or no appreciation of statistics or experimental design.

On the contrary, many of us do. That's why we consider it worthless junk. It's not our fault if you slept through part of Probability & Statistics.

Quoting myself from an eariler topic:

Here is a re-print of the M&S figures, there used to be a cooler website endorsed by M&S that published the same M&S figures in a neat tabular format, but it went down for whatever reason.

http://www.powernet.net/~eich1/sp.html

You will note that the % figures for rifles and shotguns overlap those for handguns. In other words, the study can't reliably resolve differences in stopping power between handguns on one hand, and high-powered rifles and shotguns that are orders of magnitude more powerful on the other.

Put another way, based on the OSS % numbers M&S came up with, a 135gr .40 caliber bullet at 1,300 feet per second produces essentally identical on-target effects to a 438 grain 12ga slug at 1,600 feet per second (96% vs 98%). That's about 500 foot-pounds versus almost 2,500 foot-pounds.... fully QUINTUPLE the muzzle energy. To belive a study that produces a statistical dead heat when comparing those two projectiles is to appeal to magic. We are really at the point where basic physics doesn't allow M&S to be correct.

At this point it shoud be abundantly clear that M&S are full of crap. This would be like a study of diet pill effectiveness that can't tell the difference between 100 pound and 400 pound test subjects.

The OSS methodology applies the exact same (defective) standard for determining one shot stops across cartridges. It isn't a relative comparison within a given caliber; it is a uniform (if uniformly bad) system applied to a wide variety of calibers. They didn't create subgroups and apply different standards to each one. In this case, a % is a % is a %, based on how they themselves describe it. So the fact that their method can't tell a 12ga slug from a .40 S&W tells us a great deal about how useful their results are.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthre...02&perpage=25&highlight=Marshall&pagenumber=1

 

[Brigrat]

Although I do completly disagree with Evan Marshalls theories, the point of my post was not to say it is junk, but to encourage the origional poster to do his own research, if you want to look at Evans stuff, fine, but please look at both sides of the issue, do your research, and make your own decisions. Blind faith in flawed numbers can kill!!!

 

[Bravo11]

Wow, lots of info to digest. It's looks like I've got some reading and research to do.
I can't really render an opinion on those studies that are being debated.
I think a well known actor put it best when he said.

"Beer from a can always tastes 2 degrees cooler than beer from a bottle, even if they're the same temperature. I don't know why that is, I'm not a physicist. But I am a beer drinker."

Hank Hill, King of the Hill.

Thanks all.

 

[kimbernut]

CCW Ammo

IMHO Speer Gold Dots have been wonderful stuff for all my handguns.Nothing against any of the aforementioned brands as I have used most of them. The Gold Dots just seem to be more consistant for me.I would recommend from personal experience that whatever CCW ammo you choose seal both bullet and primer yourself.It's amazing what a little moisture can do at just the wrong time.

 

[SavannahSteve]

Sean, I appreciate the link. The numbers for both the 40-cal Cor-Bon (96 %) and the 12-ga slugs (98 %) are pushing 100 %, so that is not a lot of room for them to be different. However, if you look at the data from the prospective of 1-stop failures rather than 1-shot stops, the 40-cal pistol failed to stop 4 % of the time with one shot which is twice the 2 % failure rate of the shotgun slug.

The thing that I noticed most, however, is that were only 24 shooting in 40-cal Cor-Bon universe and so a single success or failure in either direction would result in a percentage change of 4 %. You don't have nearly the universe you need to be drawing conclusions about the stopping power of the Cor-Bon. I also noticed that no other 40-cal round was higher than 94 % and most were less than 90 %.

 

[Ky Larry]

"There are lies,damn lies and statistics." Mark Twain

 

[Dave R]

Veering back from the Marshall hijack...

If you reload, Speer's Gold Dots are pretty reasonably priced. You should be able to reload Gold Dots for the price of cheap FMJ blaster ammo.

I'm still working on the right load, but that will likely be my carry ammo. Groups on some of my loads are the best I've seen so far from the pistol in question.

Of course, now we have to have the obligatory hijack on "if you use your own reloads in a defensive shooting then the prosecuting attorney will crucify you for manufacturing eeevil super-lethal ammo."

 

[Stephen A. Camp]

Hello, Dave R. I appreciate your post and getting back on topic. My results with Speer Gold Dots have been positive as well.

Best.

 

[Mannlicher]

With each of my various CCW handguns, I strive first to find a load that is reliable. In many cases, such as 9mm, and .45 ACP,this choice is Federal Hydroshock. In some cases, particularly with revolvers, I wind up handloading. I am very partial to Speer .38 caliber LSWC, an duse them in both .38 Special and .357 mag.
I like CorBon, in both .45 Colt and .44 Mag for carry ammo. In .40S&W, my Browning works best with Gold Dots.

I have found that you need to shoot a lot, and do some of your own testing, to determine what works best for you , in your guns.