steve@gumby.Altos.COM (Steve Scherf) (05/25/91)
In article <34470@mimsy.umd.edu> decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well!tmi@uunet.UU.NET (Peter Kasler) writes:
] Dux-Seal, for example, yields large wound cavities that bear little or no
] relationship to temporal or permanent wound cavities in human tissue.
] Likewise,
] recovered bullets do not necessarily deform the same in such media as they
] deform in human soft tissue, whereas wounding potential and bullet
] deformation
] in human tissue is well-correlated to ballistic gelatin.
Why go to all this trouble? Won't a side of beef work well for testing
"wounding potential"?
--
Steve Scherf
steve@Altos.COM ...!{sun|sco|pyramid|amdahl|uunet}!altos!steve
These opinions are solely mine, but others may share them if they like.tmi@uunet.UU.NET (Peter Kasler) (05/28/91)
steve@gumby.Altos.COM (Steve Scherf) writes: #In article <34470@mimsy.umd.edu> decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well!tmi@uunet.UU.NET (Peter Kasler) writes: #] Dux-Seal, for example, yields large wound cavities that bear little or no #] relationship to temporal or permanent wound cavities in human tissue. #] Likewise, #] recovered bullets do not necessarily deform the same in such media as they #] deform in human soft tissue, whereas wounding potential and bullet #] deformation #] in human tissue is well-correlated to ballistic gelatin. #Why go to all this trouble? Won't a side of beef work well for testing #"wounding potential"? #-- #Steve Scherf #steve@Altos.COM ...!{sun|sco|pyramid|amdahl|uunet}!altos!steve #These opinions are solely mine, but others may share them if they like. A side of beef, or any other non-living flesh for that matter, is of no greater value in wound ballistics testing than any of the other various media people have tried over the years. It simply doesn't correlate well to living human flesh. (The FAA used to use live chickens to test the integrity of jet aircraft windshields until they were stopped; now they use freshly-killed chickens that are no more than a few minutes (I forget the parameter) dead. The concern here is the same: flesh that has been dead long enough for lividity to occur does not correlate sufficiently well to living human soft tissue to be of much value). Joe Zambone used to (he may still, for that matter) test his MagSafe Ammo in corned beef, still in the plastic wrapper, obtained at the grocery store, but alas results just weren't close enough to living human flesh to be very valuable. The last I heard, Joe was experimenting with ballistic gelatin, but I don't know if he actually switched or not.
U16244%uicvm.uic.edu@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU (05/28/91)
Joe Zambone has done extensive testing in gelatin. He's even produced videos showing his work to police departments who might be interested in ammunition for less than optimal calibers (.380, .25, .38 Special...) Also, Ed Siemon has done lots of testing on the MagSafe's and the jello blocks. He's recorded penetration around 9 inches. Ed Sanow has also done the same, and got similar results. Regarding Marshall, he and Sanow have worked together on a book about stopping power. Together, they have recorded shooting data, and Sanow has done extensive gelatin research in comparison to these tests. (Sanow has also worked with Fackler in his gelatin testing, or so I've heard from Ayoob.) Perhaps this expert who has confronted Marshall was accosting Marshall in a blowhard manner. Maybe if we asked him in all politeness, instead of an accusing manner, he'd answer nicely. Would you answer some dickhead who says he thinks you're full of shit, and then wants your data on a subject? I thought not. BTW, the Kansas City Police Department is extremely satisfied with 125 gr. SJHP's in .357 Magnum. I don't have the numbers here, but they've had fairly heavy successes with it since the inception of the round. (Ayoob did an article on this, and he included data for 1,2, 4, and 8 shot stops.) It sounded very close to Marshall's numbers, in fact. However, now everyone's bitching at Ayoob because he said something about Brad Steiner and point shoot practice in a mirror something like what most people do with a Playboy, not a gun, in their free hand. (I wish they'd grow up, Steiner and Ayoob. I mean, there's a time to just point and hope for the best, and a time to get behind cover and drive tacks on the bad guy...) Dougster.
webdw@mvutd.att.com (Bruce D Woods) (05/28/91)
In article <34882@mimsy.umd.edu> steve@gumby.Altos.COM (Steve Scherf) writes: # #In article <34470@mimsy.umd.edu> decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well!tmi@uunet.UU.NET (Peter Kasler) writes: #] Dux-Seal, for example, yields large wound cavities that bear little or no #] relationship to temporal or permanent wound cavities in human tissue. #] Likewise, #] recovered bullets do not necessarily deform the same in such media as they #] deform in human soft tissue, whereas wounding potential and bullet #] deformation #] in human tissue is well-correlated to ballistic gelatin. # #Why go to all this trouble? Won't a side of beef work well for testing #"wounding potential"? #-- Some gun writers use duct seal media (Dean Grennell for one).
andy@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) (05/29/91)
In article <34958@mimsy.umd.edu> U16244%uicvm.uic.edu@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU writes:
#Perhaps this expert who has confronted Marshall was accosting Marshall in a
#blowhard manner. Maybe if we asked him in all politeness, instead of an
#accusing manner, he'd answer nicely. Would you answer some dickhead who
#says he thinks you're full of shit, and then wants your data on a subject?
Having lots of experience with precisely this situation, namely, some
dickhead doesn't like my conclusion and demands my data, I've found
that the most effective response is to provide the data. Doing so is
both good science and great for my ego. Then again, my data
withstands hostile scrutiny.
The wound ballistics field is in desparate need of good science. A
good start would be to eliminate no-brain bozos who think that
"Hydro-Shok ammo expands reliably" is inconsistent with "The post in
Hydro-Shok ammo doesn't affect its expansion characteristics." (Hint:
Hydro-Shok ammo may expand reliably both with and without the post.
Reliable expansion is demonstrated by testing Hydro-Shok ammo. The
post's effects are demonstrated by comparing the expansion of
Hydro-Shok ammo with the post with Hydro-Shok ammo without the post.
Coming up with the latter is left as an exercise for the reader.)
-andy
--
UUCP: {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!neon.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA: andy@neon.stanford.edu
BELLNET: (415) 723-3088U16244%uicvm.uic.edu@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU (05/29/91)
In article <34977@mimsy.umd.edu>, andy@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says: # #In article <34958@mimsy.umd.edu> U #U16244%uicvm.uic.edu@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.ED #writes: ##Perhaps this expert who has confronted Marshall was accosting Marshall in a ##blowhard manner. Maybe if we asked him in all politeness, instead of an ##accusing manner, he'd answer nicely. Would you answer some dickhead who ##says he thinks you're full of shit, and then wants your data on a subject? # #Having lots of experience with precisely this situation, namely, some #dickhead doesn't like my conclusion and demands my data, I've found #that the most effective response is to provide the data. Doing so is #both good science and great for my ego. Then again, my data #withstands hostile scrutiny. # #The wound ballistics field is in desparate need of good science. A #good start would be to eliminate no-brain bozos who think that #"Hydro-Shok ammo expands reliably" is inconsistent with "The post in #Hydro-Shok ammo doesn't affect its expansion characteristics." (Hint: #Hydro-Shok ammo may expand reliably both with and without the post. #Reliable expansion is demonstrated by testing Hydro-Shok ammo. The #post's effects are demonstrated by comparing the expansion of #Hydro-Shok ammo with the post with Hydro-Shok ammo without the post. #Coming up with the latter is left as an exercise for the reader.) # #-andy #-- #UUCP: {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!neon.stanford.edu!andy #ARPA: andy@neon.stanford.edu #BELLNET: (415) 723-3088 I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The Federal Bureau of Investigation did extensive testing of the Hydra-Shok in .45 ACP, 10MM and 9MM both with and without the posts. The FBI discovered (after removing the post with a drill press) that Hydra-Shoks penetrated deeper, went through hard targets and expanded in gelatin better (without the post, the hollowpoints didn't do to well, as they weren't supposed to), and they didn't get gummed up with plaster or clothing when the rounds were fired through clothing or drywall. Ed Sanow is a Facklerite and he's done similar tests on Hydra-Shoks. Now, why don't you actually get a lathe and spend the time to test whether Hydra-Shoks do better without the posts or not, or just listen to the FBI and chill out? Dougster.
tmi@uunet.UU.NET (Peter Kasler) (05/31/91)
Don't know where/from whom you heard that Sanow had ever worked with Marty Fackler, but it's not true. They've never worked together; Sanow has never been in a wound ballistics lab with Fackler, let alone in the Army's lab. The person who challenged Evan Marshall to make his sources available to any ligitimate researcher is Alex Jason, among other things President of the International Wound Ballistics Association. He made the challenge at the 1990 SOF convention during a presentation he was giving. He's since repeated it several times. Marshall has never responded directly and of course refuses to provide his source infor and related data to any legitimate wound ballistics researcher. They all agree that Marshall is nothing more than another opportunistic gun writer, except that he's using his former cop position for a little extra mileage. Obviously, it works with the majority of uninformed gun rag readers. I won't comment on your remarks about Bradley Steiner and Mas Ayoob for several reasons, including that it's unprofessional and Mas is a good friend. But as to your own remark that there're times when one must "point and hope for the best", I can't resist commenting: While it is true that many poorly-trained individuals do that under stress, a well-trained person will do considerably more than that. "Point shooting" is a rather ambiguous term at best, but there are valid, effective techinques that some people mistakenly call point shooting. -- Pete
jamaass@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Jeffrey A. Maass) (06/01/91)
andy@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
# good start would be to eliminate no-brain bozos who think that
# "Hydro-Shok ammo expands reliably" is inconsistent with "The post in
# Hydro-Shok ammo doesn't affect its expansion characteristics." (Hint:
# Hydro-Shok ammo may expand reliably both with and without the post.
# Reliable expansion is demonstrated by testing Hydro-Shok ammo. The
# post's effects are demonstrated by comparing the expansion of
# Hydro-Shok ammo with the post with Hydro-Shok ammo without the post.
# Coming up with the latter is left as an exercise for the reader.)
#
I just read an article which described recent FBI tests in
which Hydra-Shok with and without the post were compared!
I believe it was in _GUNS_, but I left that magazine and
the one other it could have been at work. I'll look today.
This is from
jamaass@bluemoon.uucp
jamaass%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com
who doesn't have their own obnoxious signature yetjamaass@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Jeffrey A. Maass) (06/01/91)
# The wound ballistics field is in desparate need of good science. A
# good start would be to eliminate no-brain bozos who think that
# "Hydro-Shok ammo expands reliably" is inconsistent with "The post in
# Hydro-Shok ammo doesn't affect its expansion characteristics." (Hint:
# Hydro-Shok ammo may expand reliably both with and without the post.
# Reliable expansion is demonstrated by testing Hydro-Shok ammo. The
# post's effects are demonstrated by comparing the expansion of
# Hydro-Shok ammo with the post with Hydro-Shok ammo without the post.
# Coming up with the latter is left as an exercise for the reader.)
#
There is an article in the June 1991 issue of "Handguns for Sprot and
Defense" ( a Petersen publication) which describes FBI tests of
Hydra-Shok with and without the post (in 10mm). Conclusions were
that the post helped in every evaluation category.
Oooops, I see now that they evaluated it in 9mm, 10mm, and .45
calibers.
The article describes the methodologies applied.
This is from
jamaass@bluemoon.uucp
jamaass%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com
who doesn't have their own obnoxious signature yetbae@uunet.UU.NET (Brian Ehrmantraut) (06/06/91)
In article <35001@mimsy.umd.edu>, U16244%uicvm.uic.edu@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU writes:
#
# Ed Sanow is a Facklerite and he's done similar tests on Hydra-Shoks.
# Now, why don't you actually get a lathe and spend the time to test
# whether Hydra-Shoks do better without the posts or not, or just listen to
# the FBI and chill out?
Chill out yourself...
I observed Mr. Freeman performing just the test you suggest, quite
some time ago. We were testing 10mm/.40 S&W loads. We used Fackler's
methodology.
The 10mm Hydra-Shoks performed poorly with the post in place - they
usually opened up too quickly. Without the post, they performed better.
(There was a high shot-to-shot variance in velocity noted as well. Testing
was a bit interesting - the Hydra-Shok with the post tended to behave "funny"
at times, once exiting the block of gelatin sideways after only minimal
penetration. Several posts broke/deformed without doing their job. Shots
through intervening materials seemed to indicate the post didn't really
help/hinder things.)
Who knows - perhaps due to the attention the Hydra-Shok has been
getting recently, Federal has altered the design/composition slightly.
It is certainly possible that the results we got months ago would not
be reproducible with a new lot of ammo, but you're going to have a devil
of a time getting Federal to release any information about the composition
of any particular lot of ammunition. (This is why it is a good idea to
test the lot of ammunition you are planning on using for defense, and
stay with that lot. Lot-to-lot variations from a single manufacturer can
sometimes be greater than differences between manufacturers. Of course,
currently almost nobody releases any lot-specific data...)
Until I see otherwise, I'll continue to believe the post in the
Hydra-Shok is just a marketing gimmick, as I have seen Hydra-Shoks perform
poorly far too often in testing to bet my life on them in the real world...
--
Brian A. Ehrmantraut
BELL: voice:(408) 492-0900 fax: (408) 492-0909
USnail: Auspex Systems, 2952 Bunker Hill Lane, Santa Clara, CA 95054 tmi@uunet.UU.NET (Peter Kasler) (06/11/91)
Everything Brian Ehrmantraut said in that previous message is correct. I was also there at Fackler's lab when Ehrmantraut and Freeman were, in fact I took them there. I have tested Hydra-Shoks many times, some even before the name and rights were purchased by Federal, and know for a fact why Marty Fackler and others feel as they do about them. I for one would not use them in my carry or other defense guns. One of the chief problems all tested Hydra-Shoks are burdened with, with or without the post, is a severe tendency to fragment shortly after entering tissue or gelatin. Once a bullet fragments, penetration is greatly attenuated, and that's very bad for a defense round. As Brian said, it's possible that all the heat Fedreal's been getting over these rounds has caused them to quietly improve them in some much-needed ways, but until that is demonstrated in credible testing, and until their stability can be assured to the same extent as other viable defense ammun- ition can be, it would seem wise to avoid this ammunition. There's other good stuff available that's not controversial, or in some cases not nearly so, that it seems foolish to go with something like Hydra-Shoks. Peter Alan Kasler Threat Management Institute 415-777-0303
gmk@falstaff.mae.cwru.edu (Geoff Kotzar) (06/13/91)
In article <35457@mimsy.umd.edu> decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well!tmi@uunet.UU.NET (Peter Kasler) writes:
#
#
#
#Everything Brian Ehrmantraut said in that previous message is correct.
#I was also there at Fackler's lab when Ehrmantraut and Freeman were, in
#fact I took them there. I have tested Hydra-Shoks many times, some even
#before the name and rights were purchased by Federal, and know for a fact
#why Marty Fackler and others feel as they do about them. I for one would
#not use them in my carry or other defense guns.
#
#One of the chief problems all tested Hydra-Shoks are burdened with, with
#or without the post, is a severe tendency to fragment shortly after entering
#tissue or gelatin. Once a bullet fragments, penetration is greatly
#attenuated, and that's very bad for a defense round.
#
#As Brian said, it's possible that all the heat Fedreal's been getting over
#these rounds has caused them to quietly improve them in some much-needed
#ways, but until that is demonstrated in credible testing, and until their
#stability can be assured to the same extent as other viable defense ammun-
#ition can be, it would seem wise to avoid this ammunition. There's other
#good stuff available that's not controversial, or in some cases not
#nearly so, that it seems foolish to go with something like Hydra-Shoks.
#
#Peter Alan Kasler
#Threat Management Institute
#415-777-0303
I have been watching this discussion on the Hydra-Shoks develop with
a great deal of fascination. About a year ago I purchased three boxes
of the .357 Hydra-Shok load and of the 60 rounds about nine of them
had missing or vestigial posts. The posts in the .357 are much thinner
than those in the .45's I purchased at the same time and I just assumed
that they could not stand up to the rigors of the manufacturing process.
I set them aside to find out for myself if the posts were really necess-
ary for proper expansion. Other projects had priority so I never got
around to conducting the tests.
Following what you have been saying, my questions are is the post really
necessary, and how much of the post has to be present for the bullet to
perform as claimed? And IF the post really is required and IF I used one
without a complete post in a self defense situation and IF it failed to
achieve a proper stop, just how liable could Federal be held? It looks as
if the conflict between marketing claims and quality control could have
put their corporate ass in a sling.
I do not have the ammo here so I cannot tell you which lot it was but
all three boxes were of the same lot. I may be able to post the lot
number tomorrow. Has anyone else seen this in the smaller diameter
Hydra-Shoks? I would not expect it to be as common in the larger
calibers with their beefier posts.tmi@uunet.UU.NET (Peter Kasler) (06/15/91)
#From everything that we've been able to determine in the lab, the posts in Hydra-Shoks are not necessary. Indeed, except for another serious problem these bullets have, Hydra-Shoks absent posts perform more like other similar bullets in other cartridges. Federal purchased the idea and the name from a small outfit that was building and marketing ammunition under the Hydra-Shok label. It seems as if Federal's adamant refusal to abandon the post stems at least partly from a desire to recoup its investment in acquiring the above- mentioned rights. Whether or not Federal would incur any liability because of their acts or failures to act is not an easy or straight-forward answer. Much of it could turn on how thoroughly it could be demonstrated what and how early they knew about the so-called problems, and what, if anything, they attempted to do about them. Dr. Fackler would very much like to see something happen because he believes Federal is acting in bad faith, knowing it is marketing an inferior and possibly dangerous product but failing to warn potential consumers about it or take other action to prevent tragedy. When there's other better, proven ammunition available in comparable price ranges for any viable defense caliber, why risk so much on a gimmick, and one that is not only definitively proven to function acceptably, but about which there is so much controversy? If what you're interested in is the controversy, or if you insist on having something that you or one of the jerk gun writers claims is the next best thing to a magic bullet, then be my guest. But if what you want is something upon which your like or those of others you care about may depend, don't bother with nonsense and crap like these gimmics. Get one of the reliable and effective cartridges that are available. Peter Alan Kasler Threat Management Institute 415-777-0303