As if it wasn't bad enough plus extensive discussions!!

[Norfdet]

WHAT!!!!! No Church armory? 

[Preacherman]

Funny you should mention a church armory.  Last Thursday PM at our monthly deacons meeting we were talking about what to do with an unused attic space, and one of our deacons suggested an armory.

Might need one some day, I suppose!  Let's pray that day will be many many years away.

[Danny]

A while ago I promisssed this experiment and it's write up. Here you go. I changed the word quantify to qualify on account of I woukd need to have much more data to get a significant sample size in order ot say the groups got small by an avarage of ?? inches.



Goal:
To quanlify the relationship of shooting accuracy between a first shot and subsequent shots through a cleaned barrel vs. a non - cleaned (fouled) and lubed barrel.

Procedure:
1.) Shoot a five shot group at (target #1) 50 yards using a 17 HMR caliber, Model 93 savage, with a 3 x 9 AO Simmons Scope, in the as is condition. As is condition means as we found it, having put an afternoon amount of rounds through it the day before without recent cleaning.
2.) Cleaning the rifle using a bore snake, cleaning solvent, followed by CLP on the tail of the bore snake
3.) Shooting 5 rounds, 1 each at target # 2, 3,4,5&6
Repeat procedure 1 thru 3 using a 22 Mag, 597 Remington., with a Simmons 6.5 x 18 Scope.
Steps 1 thru 6 being done with the same shooter (me) same bench same distance same ammo. Both rifles are to be tested in parallel. The 17 HMR first then the 22 Mag.

Ammo:
17 HMR               22 Mag
17

[Preacherman]

Nice work.  I believe you and OG may be long lost twins.

[oldgranpa]

Looks like an outstanding job, will take me awhile to study it!

Thanks, Danny!

OK, I've read the report and as best as I can understand it, the CLP actually helped. This says the theory about "conditioning" the bore by shooting is not necessarily true. Which is a big surprise!

I may get a range trip next week with my .22 target pistol and I will sure make a note of what happens with my groups.

Everybody ought to try testing their target guns, rifle or pistol, with CLP in the bore and with the bore "dirty" from firing and check the groups.

og

[twoguns]

Howdy Mr. Danny,

Thanks for your report sir.  It is certainly something to consider in my view (tips my hat).

twoguns

[oldgranpa]

Check the latest tests by box-o-truth, neat deflection test of bullets (deer hunting info), and a fine ballistics test on the RBCD ammo scam...at this link.....
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot38.htm

The one amazing thing about these guys is they only use plain ear plugs to do their shooting. I have to use ear muffs in addition to ear plugs for anything over .22LR. Either they are already deaf or are soon going to be. Their work, however, is outstanding.

og

[flyandscuba]

I've never been a fan of the likes of Glaser safety slugs and other exotics -- that is to say without such "testing".  Wetpack tests I've participated with confirmed that the Pow'Rball was good in 9mm and above -- but the .380 was a poor performer.  The DPX was more consistent in all calibers, but I still think the best load out of a P-3AT and the likes is a good ol' Goilden Saber.

Although I was very impressed with the wetpack results of the DPX in 9mm and 45 ACP -- and I carried the loads for some time -- I have returned to more conventional Winchester Ranger SXT 230 gr +P in .45 and 127 +P+ in 9mm.  Wetpack tests on those loads have been undeniably effective -- and they have the "street success" of extensive law enforcement use.

If it wasn't for the work performed by OG -- and meeting him on these forums that led to participation with him in such ballistic testing, I'd not have the confidence I do at present with my current selection of carry ammunition (hoping that I never have to put it to use).  I feel very confident with my usual belt carry P45 or P7 with Ranger SXT for personal protection.

[oldgranpa]

Granted, target shooting is important to develop marksmanship and confidence in the reliability of our chosen firearm and carry ammo. Without it most of us would just be shooting wild if we ever have to defend ourselves.
But for real 'fun' at the range, some kind of ballistic testing really makes shooting worthwhile. It doesn't matter if it's dry phonebooks, a stack of plywood, or whatever just so it catches the bullet so you can look at it and measure the penetration. The wetpack was invented by someone as a cheap way to do that and at the same time somewhat simulate the effect on an actual BG. Very few can afford the luxury of gelatin testing the way the FBI first started it. So we are content with our "uncertified" method.
For me, the most fun doing this was when flyandscuba first joined me over a year ago and we tried out his little SeeCamp on a wetpack.

 We've done more of these together and then early this year Norfdet joined us for another, even bigger set of tests plus just some fun target shooting.


 Most of us are tied down right now with lots of work and obligations so we probably won't have another get-together until next springtime.
But I'm thankful for the times we spent together doing this.
And you should know this, fly and Norf, our little tests have been more than just fun for us. I'm amazed at the number of LE agencies that have used our test results for ammo selection. And others have done some excellent tests too, like ELB and Josh who have posted here. So if we've helped others, then that is a great reward in itself.

So thanks, everybody for your support. As Proverbs 15:22 says.."Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed." NIV.

og

[Preacherman]

Thanks for the photos.

You is a bunch o handsome guys, fer sure!

[unit1069]

I carry the .380 ammo I do because of your wetpack tests and reading that LE has followed your tests confirms that our confidence in you and your methodology was well placed.  The simulated "bone" test was excellent and I look forward to reading your new test results next Spring.

[oldgranpa]

What to do when there are no ballistics test reports to read here.....well, just go to mouseguns.com and clik on the ammunition and ballistics section. There you can catch up on the entire spectrum of what's been going on.
After reading several of the links to blogs, autopsy histories, various test methods, etc. you know what??
I came to the conclusion that the best handgun caliber is the .357sig. A good enough sized bullet at better velocity than others and multiple rounds available from a pistol. Since the old .357magnum is not very popular anymore, big recoil, heavy revolver, etc. but was at one time rated the best.....the .357sig is the next best thing. (Not talking about rifles or shotguns, just handgun.)
Of course it's not a 'pocket gun' as such, which is a whole 'nuther subject. But what do you all think? What's your favorite 'primary' handgun??
og..........not looking for a caliber war, just opinions

(I know we already did a sort of poll on this, but just felt we needed something for a discussion again.)

[oldgranpa]

On the H&A site, Jim Higginbotham just made this profound statement:
"But then anyone who has hunted a lot of deer or other medium sized game realizes that "knock down power" is a pipe dream anyway."

After all the books, gelatin and wetpack test reports, and "caliber wars" that have gone on for years, finally someone has the wisdom to say it and set the record straight. Even with a rifle round that produces the "wound pattern" in the following picture, a "stop" or "knock down" might not happen. I hope if I ever have to use my handgun in SD the perp just stops out of fright. Otherwise I'm afraid I might be in big trouble waiting for my 'perfect placement' to take effect.



What's your opinion?

og

 

[Preacherman]

A man would be a fool to argue against such an array of well-informed gents!

[oldgranpa]

There hasn't been a comment on this thread in awhile. Using gelatin to evaluate 'contact' wounds was discussed and being valid or not. Maybe and maybe not. Anyway, I came across this related thread on GlockTalk.....

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=920957

You have to read it for yourself, but it shows gelatin tests used to evaluate the so-called 'temorary cavity', which is a subject of tremdous argument by 'Ballistic Experts', and I'm not one of them.
Anyway, reading the articles and conclusions is interesting as it causes me to re-evaluate wetpack test results as well.
We have been closed minded about this as we went along with the original FBI protocol of 12" gelatin penetration as the basis for our wetpack requirements of 2/3, or roughly 8" of wetpack equivalent to 12" gelatin as "good" ammo results.
All the time, when we took the wetpacks apart to recover the bullets, we noted severe 'disruption' of the wet paper at about 3 inches to 5 inches into the wetpack. Then the rest of the penetration was only about the diameter of the final bullet size. The 'disruption' was noted but never deemed significant in 'qualifying' a particular round for adequate self defense.
Now, the articles in the link are showing that the disruption, or evidence of a 'temporary cavity' might be just as important as the final, total penetration. And you get the most disruption with hollow point ammo. Most FMJ just zip right through at the same diameter as the bullet.
So what does this mean? Since I'm not an LEO with actual shooting experience, and don't have access to much of any actual shooting results or autopsy data, I find it hard to quantify what it all means.
One thing that came out of the articles that did catch my attention was the high rating for some .357magnum ammo in this respect. And frangible ammo or ammo that lost it's jacket didn't do as well. They had no .357Sig ammo then to compare. But what you read is there is a range of energy transfer that produces a more severe "wounding" result.
So when I look back at some of the pictures of our wetpacks showing disruption patterns it interests me that perhaps we need to pay more attention to that in the future.
We can't afford gelatin here to duplicate any of the tests. But, in general, they used only about 6 inches of gelatin to obtain their energy dump numbers. That equates to only about 4 inches of wetpack, where we are seeing the disruption patterns.
This seems to be saying just because a certain ammo doesn't make it all the way to the 8" of wetpack penetration doesn't disqualify it if there is heavy disruption along the way.
I'll give this more thought. Hope you haven't been bored by my verbal outburst.
In the meantime any comments you have will be welcome.
I always remember the old Proverb: "Proverbs 15:22 says.."Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed." NIV.
og.....who needs all the help he can get!