Why do people hang on to old ways?

When there is evidence that something is superior in every way of the old way?

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Post the evidence then.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah I'm also going to need some evidence that Lehigh FTM Monolithics are better than JHPs in handguns.

      Gel does not capture the permanent wound channel of a bullet - it's a common misconception. It does fairly well for measuring penetration, expansion, and fragmentation in muscle tissue. It doesn't capture the actual *hole*. You can see this if you cut a gel block widthwise and the damage track looks like a tiny icepick pinhole in the middle with exaggerated stellate/cruciform cracks radiating outwards; aside from maybe surface skin splitting or shots to livers and other inflexible organs, where the damage pattern might bear some resemblance (but still generally less extreme), I've never seen a picture of a gunshot wound that actually looked like that.

      The "2016/2017 Joint Agency Ballistics Test" does not count, it is using an invalid medium (dead flesh which does not behave like living flesh) and, according to Dr. Roberts, very likely wasn't even any kind of formal agency project at all.

      A blurry hunting video or two isn't helpful - these bullets often yaw on their side so they can certainly make crush wounds larger than their front face, but without proper tissue handling (to avoid additional manual tearing of flesh), measurements, and any large amount of evidence for consistency, it really isn't much to go off of. I've probably seen more people say it behaves like an FMJ.

      I am aware of its armor penetrating capabilities, that's a relatively niche use though and does not make it superior in *every* way.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        on this topic, what about those "ballistic soap" blocks? would they not be better for measuring cavities from this type of ammo?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Ballistic soap hasn't been correlated to effects in living tissue to my knowledge and, from my observation, the media pushed aside by the temporary cavity doesn't rebound back like real tissue often would. Of course there are probably different kinds of ballistic soaps out there but I haven't heard of one that's well-regarded by the SMEs.

          Another thing to keep in mind is that lung is less dense than muscle tissue, and can presumably be expected to see narrower maximum temporary cavitation wounding; so there's at least theoretically a possibility that a bullet which damages muscle tissue will not do the same at equal velocities in lung.

          Really, the only semi-reliable ways to get a ballpark assessment of temporary cavitation damage (that I know of) are:

          1. Shoot a living animal (sedated for ethical reasons) under test conditions and acquire a decent amount of information that we can extrapolate from.

          2. Shoot a living (or a very recently deceased) animal in the field, and acquire a large sample size/unambiguous results.

          #1 is difficult and also often unpopular, and many people can't be assed with documenting #2, so we're usually left with some pretty limited data and unevidenced claims that are often hard to draw confident conclusions from.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Realistically, you would only need one 68gr XD shot out of a .357 Sig to confirm the very basic theory. Hit a nice, big muscle on a moose and cut into the wound to see if it made ANY extra damage. If the basic theory is confirmed, you can get into the finer details. If there's no major damage with an extremely high velocity iteration in a perfect medium, you can discount it as a meme.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >1. Shoot a living animal (sedated for ethical reasons) under test conditions and acquire a decent amount of information that we can extrapolate from.
            >2. Shoot a living (or a very recently deceased) animal in the field, and acquire a large sample size/unambiguous results.

            just playing doubles advocate here; but has this been done for hollow points?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >just playing doubles advocate here; but has this been done for hollow points?
              Yes, lots of animals have been shot with JHPs in common service calibers and the results are well-known.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Depends on what you define as "animal"; but, while specific wound diameter measurements for each individual bullet brand are often not made available, there are enough different terminal ballistics authorities who have seen a great enough number of wounds with various rounds that I'm inclined to believe them when they say service caliber JHPs don't usually produce meaningful TSC damage in flexible tissues. They don't necessarily all agree on every other topic but this seems to be something they are in general consensus on, and moreover something which can be more directly observed.

              There are also the odd cases where a service caliber handgun is used to bag game and the wound channel is shown - doesn't necessarily prove it in and of itself, especially given the lack of controlled information gathering, but they at least tend to be consistent with the prevailing theory or don't provide much evidence against it. There are also tests and reports where much faster rifle rounds that cause enormous TSC damage in inflexible tissues, caused little or relatively moderate temporary cavitation damage in flexible tissues. When we combine it all, I feel it's safe to say that there's more than a preponderance of evidence.

              (On that note - while ballistic gelatin is not a good way of determining the permanent damage from the TSC, we do see that the size of the momentary temporary cavity is a rough match, and in that regard those aforementioned rifle rounds e.g. 7n6 do generally produce larger temporary cavities than service caliber handgun JHPs.)

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Hunting and defense industries hold very different opinions on humane killing.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >playing doubles advocate
              czech'd

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          who knows. ballistic gelatin went through a lot of testing to verify and calibrate it so that the results for penetration and expansion correlates reasonably well to muscle. nobody has yet done similar work to find and calibrate a medium that correlates to wound channel size and shape in tissue. using ballistic gelatin for this is no more valid than using wet newspaper or modelling clay in a bucket, the fact that you can "see" the wound cavity makes it extremely seductive, but that does not make it valid.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Am anon before you, well put in fewer words.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >correlates reasonably well to muscle
            No. It's a consistent medium for comparing bullets to each other. It doesn't correlate to living tissue in any defined way. It was observed that rounds that performed well in the real world performed a certain way in gelatin. Then it was assumed that other rounds that performed similarly in gelatin would perform well in the real world. This assumption isn't necessarily valid. It's just all we have to go on unless we bring back firing squads.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              No man. There has been extensive documentation by the IWBA that bullet penetration roughly matches gel penetration. Eugene Wolberg's 9mm 147 gr Subsonic study is probably the single largest collection for a but there are dozens of other individual cases for other bullets that they documented, compared, and released notes on publicly.

              Afaik the creation of the 10% gelatin standard itself was also done after matching projectile penetration in swine flesh to ballistic gelatin.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >No
              nope, the bb calibration standard wasn't something picked out of thin air, it was picked because it corresponds to bullet penetration in muscle as well with some caveats, such as the first 4 inches corresponding to penetrating the skin, so a bullet that consistently gets 12" of penetration in calibrated ballistic gelatin would be expected to penetrate 9" of muscle in an actual shooting.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >such as the first 4 inches corresponding to penetrating the skin, so a bullet that consistently gets 12" of penetration in calibrated ballistic gelatin would be expected to penetrate 9" of muscle in an actual shooting.
                um ackshually

                There are 2 major factors resisting bullet penetration in flesh, inertial resistance (correlated with density) and shear resistance. Shear resistance is basically a constant, while inertial resistance increases with velocity.

                The result is that shear strength matters a lot at low velocities, but is practically irrelevant for bullets when they're travelling above 400-600 FPS (800-900 FPS for BBs as I recall) since shear resistance is such a small percentage of overall resistance at that point. It's not until the bullet slows down in the flesh that it starts mattering.

                Skin is roughly as dense as muscle but has considerably greater shear strength IIRC. Thus, the layer of skin on the entrance side makes little difference as the bullet is still traveling very fast, but the layer of skin on the exit side may offer considerable resistance when the bullet has slowed down.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >bring back firing squads
              No need to go that far, shooting goats was enough. I honestly like Paul Harrell's meat target far more than ballistic gel, even though I understand my lungs aren't made of oranges.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah I'm also going to need some evidence that Lehigh FTM Monolithics are better than JHPs in handguns.

      Gel does not capture the permanent wound channel of a bullet - it's a common misconception. It does fairly well for measuring penetration, expansion, and fragmentation in muscle tissue. It doesn't capture the actual *hole*. You can see this if you cut a gel block widthwise and the damage track looks like a tiny icepick pinhole in the middle with exaggerated stellate/cruciform cracks radiating outwards; aside from maybe surface skin splitting or shots to livers and other inflexible organs, where the damage pattern might bear some resemblance (but still generally less extreme), I've never seen a picture of a gunshot wound that actually looked like that.

      The "2016/2017 Joint Agency Ballistics Test" does not count, it is using an invalid medium (dead flesh which does not behave like living flesh) and, according to Dr. Roberts, very likely wasn't even any kind of formal agency project at all.

      A blurry hunting video or two isn't helpful - these bullets often yaw on their side so they can certainly make crush wounds larger than their front face, but without proper tissue handling (to avoid additional manual tearing of flesh), measurements, and any large amount of evidence for consistency, it really isn't much to go off of. I've probably seen more people say it behaves like an FMJ.

      I am aware of its armor penetrating capabilities, that's a relatively niche use though and does not make it superior in *every* way.

      It literally has the word "Xtreme" in the name so idk what other evidence you could need

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    good performing round but hard to measure the true effect plus no real world examples plus I like rounds that fragment

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Meh... I prefer my shit to bounce around instead of relying on some fragmentation that only happens like 10% of the time.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >plus no real world examples
      There probably have been, but anti-gun doctors aren't going to support weapon innovation by telling anyone what they've seen. We might get some real-works performance info from the FBI under a based administration. Maybe PrepHole could found a charity to identify based EMTs and ER staff and supply local gangbangers with ammo to test.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Also, the FBI historically relied more on an imperfect translation and trickle-down of what the SMEs were saying, and even the SMEs likely weren't correct all the time. If you look at the FBI scoring rubric for handgun ammo selection (and also the previous versions that have been since revised), it's surprisingly arbitrary. I like 9mm considerably more than .40 S&W for the record but their press release about the switch contains a number of rather dubious/seemingly disingenuous claims.

        Maybe they're privy to some useful data and conclusions that no one else can mention, I don't know. But what I've seen from them so far doesn't instill a lot of confidence as far as trusting them as a wound ballistics authority.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    68gr phillipshead shot wayyyyy off out of my g43. let me guess u never ran these rounds through anything?

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    the likelihood of me getting attacked by gelatin blocks is low enough that I feel comfortable with my hollowpoints, despite the foibles of current fashion.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'd love to get my hands on some, but I can't find any solod copperrounds in 9mm for sale in Australia.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      cutting edge bullets makes copper solids but not designed like these

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        http://www.meplat.com.au/index.php/premium-projectiles/ceb-projectiles
        forgot link

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, I've seen those, I don't reload so even if they did have fluted bullets, I'd have to invest in that whole system.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'd imagine cost. Just pop more cheap ball rounds for the cost of a penetrator. You poke more holes into people that way.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You really think it's going to blow jets of air through muscle and rib bones like it does to that fucking depth test jello? It won't, it's just a harder round than lead. I would still rather be shot with that than a soft lead hollowpoint.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You drive a tesla right!

    Lead is the cheapest and heaviest metal perfect for bullets
    Copper is expensive, needs to be machined and is a base metal that will fluzuate with the stock market.
    >Meaning one day a bullet cost $1 then next $10, and when there is a shortage, kind of like raw Lithium, well then your walking and getting shot at by bad guys carrying LEAD!
    Its niche ammo, I wouldnt mind shooting a few boxes, but my gun stops all with Ball so I dont really need it unless Im hanging out with a few gays like (YOU).

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's not like the "wound channel" in human tissue represents actual tissue damage in the first place. Do you really believe that a bullet has to physically pass through e.g. an artery to rupture it, even one going relatively slowly? How the fuck do people get bruises without breaking the skin? So I don't buy this nonsense with "only crush cavity matters" especially seeing wounds from animals hunted with slow and heavy projectiles that dont deform very much, which are far more gruesome than the FBI ballistics tests would have you believe.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Bruh no one here is saying that bullets cannot inflict temporary cavitation damage. Not all of them consistently do so that is what we are skeptical of for this bullet here, and would like to determine.

      >especially seeing wounds from animals hunted with slow and heavy projectiles that dont deform very much
      If this is something like a .45-70 or .44 magnum hardcast, or a 12 Gauge Brenneke slug, then yes we already know that those rounds cause significant damage outside of the crush cavity. The extremely high drag coefficient coupled with good velocity maintenance and non-insignificant frontal area even without expansion, compensate for the fact that it's only moving kinda fast. This doesn't mean that a 9mm Xtreme Defender will do the same thing.

      >which are far more gruesome than the FBI ballistics tests would have you believe.
      We spent several posts explicitly discussing the fact that ballistics gel is *not* a good medium for determining the extent to which a bullet inflicts temporary cavitation damage. Yet those same tests comprise the bulk of the "evidence" most frequently used to support claims of enhanced Lehigh FTM wounding.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    what evidence

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Posts Phillips bullets instead of the superior Canadian Robertson bullets.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Canadian

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Probably bc stuff like that looks like it was developed by an MBA in marketing that's looking for yet another shiny trinket for you to spend money on.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Defensive ammo is a balance between penetration and expansion/wound cavity. For a handgun, I’ll stick with a bonded JHP that will penetrate and expand with various layers of clothing and turn the viral organs into a slushee. I’m fond of the sharp edged Ranger T’s.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Defensive ammo is a balance between penetration and expansion/wound cavity
      Not really; while criminals nowadays are often in excess of 18" thick, when the FBI came up with their wounding standards that was intended to be enough penetration to go through a perp's arm and entire torso

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >criminals nowadays are often in excess of 18" thick

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They should just set aside sick farm animals that are gonna be executed anyway for ballistic testing
    ez

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >posting while hanging onto old ways himself

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why aren't there sabots yet for these to be fired from a 9mm?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        because the cost to manufacture a torx bit is probably ten times the cost to manufacture a normal 9mm projectile and PrepHole already bitches about ammo prices

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >xtreme penetrators over penetrate
    >xtreme defenders under penetrate
    >this shill thread again
    Yawn

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The overpenetrating version is more believable. Like, yes, it's a hard copper solid projectile, even if phillips bit part doesn't do anything, it will go far.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because "superior" is always a subjective idea. Everyone says that hollow points are "superior" to FMJ because of theoretical testing, but no real world data. Everyone says that a semi auto subcompact with 10 rounds is "superior" to a 5 shot J frame, despite nobody being able to cite a single situation in which an average Joe died or was seriously injured due to running out of ammo after 5 shots. So many people worship pistol red dots on carry guns today, but there is no evidence that they provide any measurable advantage within the context of CCW shootings.

    Facts show that effectiveness of a carry gun hasn't really changed in 100 years. You don't have any evidence that your meme round demonstrates any sort of superiority over any other ammo on the market.

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Can choke some guns, as well as cause damage to feed ramps ... and they don't do anything a truncated cone can't do for a third the price.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *