TexasCHLforum.com

I have heard people talk about info from the FBI about a given calibers effectiveness.
The question is where can I find this info

Most people are referring to a highly debated 1989 paper that some agree with and some don't. I won't go into the various arguments, but you can see the paper here:

http://www.thegunzone.com/quantico-wounding.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ok is said information based on testing and research of not

Here is a FBI manual on Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness

FBI Academy Firearms Training Unit

-geo

All due respect to FBI employees, but the FBI has not had a very good record over the years recommending a handgun round. In the 1970's and early 1980's before the Miami shootout, the FBI was telling attendees of the National Academy that the .38 special was sufficient. Those on the job who relied on their revolvers knew better. Then the FBI changed to 10mm. That was short lived.

Throughout the years the FBI has tried most handgun calibers, .38 special. .45 ACP, 10MM, 9MM, .40 S&W, .38 super to name a few. They are guessing like the rest of us.

What works in a scientific study or with ballistic gelatin is no guarantee that it will have similar results in real life. Because every shooting is different.

Have you ever read any of Evan Marshall's books, I have the "Handgun Stopping Power: The Definitive Study" which has a lot of good information, but, as LaUser stated...there really is not a silver bullet, or caliber, that is the best. Stopping power is all about bullet placement, not caliber.

-geo

I am reminded of a film produced by the FBI that supposedly proved that bullets ricocheting from hard surfaces travelled parallel to the surface after reflecting off it.

Of course this would violate all of the laws of Newtonian physics.

In the latest round of tests, the FBI tried to design tests that would reflect what they thought were real life scenarios. So, the protocol involved the standard ballistic gelatin, but they added a variety of different materials in front of it. For example, they have a light cloth covering for simulating summer clothes, a heavy cloth covering for winter clothes, a metal covering simulating a car door, and a glass plate simulating windshields. IIRC, they even try the glass at several different angles. These test protocols have almost become a standard in the police field for new tests since then.

The biggest flaw with the tests, IMHO, is the desired results. The FBI started the tests after the Miami Shootout. One of the reasons for the testing was the conclusion that the 9mm round did not perform in a satisfactory manner during this fight. So, the minimum desired penetration was set at limits that made some conclusions foregone.

Other problems with the testing are inherent in the testing protocols. Ballistic gelatin is a fair simulation of flesh and blood, but it is not perfect. It has uniform consistency simulating the average density of the body, which does not have uniform consistency. A second flaw to testing is that humans react differently to being shot. A person on drugs, a person with the right mindset, and a person who just stopped caring all will react differently to being shot.

We know bullet placement is the most critical factor you can control, but the mindset and physiological characteristics of the target also affect the effectiveness of the round striking him. No test can take this into account.

So, when considering a new bullet, do not take the testing as a guarantee of anything. It may be a good way to compare two different rounds for possible effectiveness but it is not a sure thing.

jimlongley wrote:I am reminded of a film produced by the FBI that supposedly proved that bullets ricocheting from hard surfaces travelled parallel to the surface after reflecting off it.

Of course this would violate all of the laws of Newtonian physics.

I saw Rob Pincus demonstrate the same thing in one of his videos. No, it does not violate the laws of physics.

bdickens wrote:No, it does not violate the laws of physics.

I think Jim is thinking of an elastic collision, which a bullet striking concrete is not.

I was watching an old episode of COPS last night, and the officer was responding to a gang-related shooting. The officer arrived on the scene, and despite valiant efforts by paramedics to resuscitate him, he died. What was he shot with? He was shot with a .22 LR pistol, but the bullets went right through his t-shirt and struck his heart.

I agree with the folks that say shot placement is the #1 factor. It's better to be a dead accurate shot with a lighter cartridge (e.g., .380, 9mm, or even a .22!) than a lousy shot with a .45 or .357 magnum.

Just my opinion of course...

MojoTexas

good point MojoTexas,
but if you only manage to put a round in their leg ,i would think being hit by a .45 would keep them incapacitated more so than a .22 round in the leg.

MojoTexas wrote:I was watching an old episode of COPS last night, and the officer was responding to a gang-related shooting. The officer arrived on the scene, and despite valiant efforts by paramedics to resuscitate him, he died. What was he shot with? He was shot with a .22 LR pistol, but the bullets went right through his t-shirt and struck his heart.

I agree with the folks that say shot placement is the #1 factor. It's better to be a dead accurate shot with a lighter cartridge (e.g., .380, 9mm, or even a .22!) than a lousy shot with a .45 or .357 magnum.

Just my opinion of course...

MojoTexas

wile I agree I dont want to have to count on making a heart shot in a critical situation that allows milliseconds to react I want any hit to hurt em bad

my primary weapon...my hands, as they are registered as deadly weapons..
my secondary weapon... my .45

usa1 wrote:my primary weapon...my hands, as they are registered as deadly weapons..
my secondary weapon... my .45

Im to lazy to fight I cant reason with someone Im just shooting forget taking a chance with a fist fight