An End To The Caliber Wars . . .?

[Aqeous]

Pt 1. of 3

1.) First if we accept the fact that no matter what gun, caliber or loading you use, shot placement will ALWAYS be key. Accept this first, and we do away with the general argument of “placement over caliber.” Placement is key over caliber, this obvious. 2.) Secondly let us define stopping power not necessarily as an instantaneous stop “bang your dead” but more of a proportion of how much fight and cognitive thought is taken out of the target upon receiving a hit from a bullet. “Stopping power” then can be perceived as more of a percentage then as an actual instantaneous event. (For instance people who have not shot a gun while winded and out of breath have no idea how much that can effect your shot performance and thought processes. If a bullet impact achieves similar results then it has achieved a proportional “incapacitation“ as oppose to a complete stop that can in fact work in the shooters favor and be a significant and deciding handicap against the person who had received the bullet impact)

Now . . . bare with me for a moment . . .

That being said there are presently two, readily accepted, deciding factors of how a bullet creates a wound .

We have all heard of them . . .

1.) the permanent crush cavity., and 2.) the temporary crush cavity. It is common belief that, especially from a handgun, that ONLY the permanent cavity has the potential to create both “stop” and death, by permeating either 1.) blood baring organs and/or 2.) the CNS.

O.K. modern ballistics in a nut shell right??
However, few of us have ever heard a THIRD possible variable of wound ballistics . . . have you ever heard of something called the Ballistics Pressure wave? (and no that is not just another name for the temporary cavity) It is a completely different phenomenon, one that is both disputed, in terms of its wounding potential, and also is hardly ever mentioned in ballistics research notes. This is do to the fact that primarily this pressure wave is known to effect mainly the nervous system as well as the overall pressure of blood bearing structures. Though it's existence is well known, because of this, its effects on wound generation is disputed and hard to prove--mainly by individuals who do not entirely understand how such compressive waves effect nerve tissue and the “pressure systems” of blood baring organs.

Quote:

“Physics of the ballistic pressure wave
The origin of the pressure wave is Newton’s third law. The bullet slows down in tissue due to the force the tissue applies to the bullet. By Newton’s third law, the bullet exerts an equal and opposite force on the tissue. When a force is applied to a fluid or a visco-elastic material such as tissue or ballistic gelatin, a pressure wave radiates outward in all directions from the location where the force is applied. It is the local rate of kinetic energy loss per unit of penetration depth. Losing 100 ft-lbs of kinetic energy in 0.02 feet of penetration would create a force of 5,000 lbs because 100 ft-lbs/0.02 ft = 5,000 lbs.” (The instantaneous magnitude of the force, F, between the bullet and the tissue is given by F = dE/dx, (Where E = ½ mV2 is the instantaneous kinetic energy of the bullet, and x is the instantaneous penetration distance. dE/dx is the first derivative of the energy with respect to the penetration depth.)

A radiating wave of force equal to 5000 pounds is huge . . . Once again this is NOT a result of the temporary cavity. It is a result of the “displaced” wave at the front of the bullet when it impacts a fluid medium. (observe Jpeg image below.)


End of Pt 1.)

The Handguns On Dear PDF file below strongly suggests not only the existence of the Ballistics Pressure wave but also that it may play a SIGNIFICANT ROLE in wound generation in a real world.

Here are some quotes from the study: If you don't want to read it through SKIP to pages 4,5 and 6. That's the really good part, the results are very surprising.

This is said about the wound generated in a dear via a .40 Nosler JHP at .40 S&W velocity:

"According to the view of handgun bullet wounding that asserts direct crush is the only mechanism [PAT89, MAC94, FAC88a, FAC96a], the bullet wound should be roughly cylindrical in shape, (picture provided in PDF file) and have a diameter roughly equal to the recovered diameter of the bullet. The volume of this expected wound channel is widely known as the permanent cavity (PC) and given by the frontal area of the recovered bullet times the penetration depth (12”). This gives an expected wound volume of 3.17 cubic inches. What we actually observed is closer to a truncated cone region of pulverized tissue with a diameter of 1.5” on the entrance side, and gradually narrowing to 0.58” on the exit side of the rib cage. The actual volume of this truncated cone of pulverized tissue is an estimated 12.18 cubic inches, or nearly 4 times the volume predicted by the PC-only view of wounding via handgun bullets."


"In addition, we observed a region of severe to moderate hemorrhaging along the wound channel that was 5” in diameter at entrance, narrowed to roughly 3” in diameter at the medial surface of the left lung and gradually shrank in size to the bullet diameter where the bullet exited the rib cage. This region of hemorrhaging has an approximately truncated cone shape with a volume of 119.3 cubic inches. We believe that the ballistic pressure wave [COC06b, COC06c] is responsible for this hemorrhaging, though we cannot rule out the temporary stretch cavity (TSC) for some regions. However, the 5” diameter of hemorrhaging of the muscular tissue surrounding the entrance wound is much larger than the expected TSC at this point. This is the effect that hunters associate with high-velocity rifle bullet wounds and refer to as bloodshot meat. Since the pressure wave is more strongly directed backward than the TSC, it makes sense that this hemorrhaging is due to the pressure wave."



Interesting isn't it?? I urge you to read it through . . . it flies in the face of almost everything we have ever been taught about handgun wounding mechanisms.


(Please no posts until you see the end of Pt 3. More information Links and PDF files are on the way)

[TNFrank]

Shot placement has always been key. A hit with a 22lr between someones eyes will end a fight a lot faster then a hit with a 44Mag in the leg.

[Aqeous]

I will attempt to bridge some of the more crucial peaces of information located in these PDF files. (Observe PDF file below entitled TBI vs Ballistics pressure waves ---TBI stands for traumatic brain injury)

1.) The Ballistics Pressure wave IS NOT the Temporary Stretch cavity. The thing about the temporary stretch cavity, in regards to handguns, is that it does not extend elastic living tissue past its tolerance to create any real damage. This is academic, and so it is assumed that only the permanent cavity alone creates a real wound. However this is not taking into account the effects of the Ballistics Pressure wave upon both nerves tissue and arteries. Studies have demonstrated (see PDF files and links provided) that Ballistics Pressure waves are capable of 1.) causing nerve damage. 2.) propagating through the body. 3.) reflect off of the bodies hard surfaces (like bone) similar to light waves creating focal points of pressure even greater then that generated by the impact of the bullet itself. 4.) can causing massive blood pressure spikes that can propagate up and through the likes of the coronary artery, just like a fiber optic cable.

Studies have suggested that the effects of these pressure waves are difficult to identify utilizing average autopsy and forensic techniques implemented by some of the finest minds in the study of ballistics. Studies even suggest that these shock waves are capable of creating brain injury even when the bullet had impacted a significant distance from the brain itself (in the extremities or torso).

It should be noted that blunt force trauma is the ONLY other means of near to instant incapacitation outside of a direct CNS impact. So when an organism takes a non CNS hit from a bullet, and it falls instantly dead before it has a chance to bleed out, the only other conceivable means for its imitate incapacitation is how the ballistics impact itself had been translated through the organisms nervous system. The Ballistics Pressure wave is equivalent to significant blunt force trauma.

The big argument against the wounding potential of the Ballistics pressure wave is this

The single major argument against the potential wounding effectiveness of a Ballistic Pressure wave lies in a medical devise known as a Lithotriptor. This device utilizes high energy shockwaves to break up kidney stones in patients. However people who site this as an argument against the wounding effects of the Ballistics shock wave are not taking into account that 1.) this technique is relatively new and 2.) already reports like the quote below are starting to come out regarding Lithotriptor procedures. (Plainly treatments of this kind are ENTIRELY capable of creating internal damage, and thus this argument against the wounding potential of the Ballistics Pressure is mostly void at this time.)

“The group previously developed a pre-treatment protocol to reduce tissue damage from shock wave lithotripsy. During the treatment, blood vessels break and internal bleeding develops in the kidney. Drs. Evan, Willis and Lingeman determined that administrating 100 to 500 low-level shock wave doses allows the blood vessels to constrict more rapidly, thus protecting the kidney and reducing internal bleeding before a clinical dose of shock wave is administered.”


I once again urge you to read the PDF files and links that I have supplied. They are somewhat lengthy but there lies a wealth of information that is far to much to go into in any thread. However, they make an excellent case that there are in fact THREE possible wounding effects of a bullet impact. 1.) the effects of the permanent cavity as it passes through vital structures. 2.) the temporary stretch cavity should the bullet impact a inelastic organ such as the liver or brain. And 3.) the Ballistics Shockwave that can drastically impact both the bodies nervous system as well as the bodies blood pressure by creating massive instantaneous spikes that can be translated up and through arteries to the BRAIN and HEART like a fiber optic cable.


To be completely unbiased and fair here is a link against the Ballistics pressure wave (fackler is no doubt a smart man):

http://www.btammolabs.com/fackler/shock_wave_myth.pdf

However equally, here is an unbiased review and rebuttal of Facklers criticism, as well as a general unbiased review of a number of other ballistics wave experiments.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701268.pdf

Here is a quote from page 3:

The methodology of Fackler’s pig experiments [FBC89] is significantly different from that of Suneson et al., whoreport that the neural damage is not easily observable, but rather depends upon examination with light and electron microscopy. The effects that Suneson et al. report “were evident a few minutes after the trauma and persisted even 48 hr after the extremity injury.” In Fackler’s experiments, autopsies were not performed until weeks or months later. With such great differences in experimental methodology, it is unfounded to assert that Fackler’s swine experiments contradict the conclusions of Suneson et al.

Fackler continues:
A review of 1400 rifle wounds from Vietnam (Wound Data and Munitions Effectiveness Team) should lay to rest the myth of
“distant” injuries. In that study, there were no cases of bones being broken, or major vessels torn, that were not hit by the penetrating bullet.

It is unreasonable to refute modern observations (using new methods) of microscopic damage to nerve cells by referring to the absence of observations of broken bones or torn blood vessels in Vietnam-era observations from
trauma surgeons. The Vietnam-era study was not looking for distant nerve damage and did not employ the methods used by Suneson et al. Distant injuries are not a “myth” as Fackler claims. The most prominent ultrastructural changes observed at 8 hours after impact were myelin deformation, axoplasmic shrinkage, microtubular diminution, and reactive changes of large neurons in the high-speed trauma group. These findings correspond well to the results of Suneson et al., and confirmed that the distant effect exists in the central nervous system after a high-energy missile impact to an extremity. A high-frequency oscillating pressure wave with large amplitude and short duration was found in the brain after the extremity impact of a high-energy missile . . .


Here is the much debated Stragbourg goat tests of: ballistics wave contributions to rapid incapacitation.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701267.pdf


Relative Incapacitation contributions of pressure wave and wound channel in the marshal and Sanov data set.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701266.pdf



End of (PT 2.) (no posts yet please)

[Aqeous]

O'K someone posted and obviously did not read the PDF . . . no one reads that fast. Pt 3 is coming up, please no post UNTIL AFTER I POST IT

[Aqeous]

A possible conclusion:

What does all this mean . . .

Well, bigger caliber, heavier, faster moving bullets generate 1.) a larger permanent crush cavity. 2.) an relatively insignificant increase in the temporary stretch cavity. And 3.) a SIGNIFICANT increase in the Ballistics Pressure wave. Read over these PDF files and you will find STRONG evidence supporting that within reason, bigger, faster moving bullets, even when fired out of a handgun are proportionally more effective then smaller, lighter, slower moving bullets.

NOTE: that caliber alone does not accomplish this increase in the Ballistic Pressure wave, it is a combination of caliber, weight and velocity. Simply firing a bigger bullet, or even a bigger heavier bullet will not accomplish this desired effect. If this theory holds true then this could represent an end of the caliber wars. If there is a THIRD wounding mechanism of bullet impacts then it is about fining a balance of all three factors when one is looking for the fabled “best of the best” that handguns have to offer.


It should also be noted that the magnitude of the Ballistics Pressure wave generated by higher-velocity, handgun-caliber, JHP’s is very similar to the Ballistics Pressure waves generated by high velocity rifle rounds. This is do mainly to the fact that JHP’s expand and deaccelerate faster and thus displace more “fluid/tissue” as they open and slowdown, where as often times, a rifle round will pass through and through (deaccelerate less) and thus will not deliver as much “displacement” of fluid/tissue as will a slower moving expanding projectile. (this is not speaking to fragmentation but your basic high powered rifle impact that passes through an object and passes out the other side with little to no fragmentation)




Are 9mm's ineffective . . . NO. That is not what all of this is about. This is about whether or not choosing a caliber, velocity, and/or grain weight can afford the shooter a notable and decisive advantage of any kind as oppose to other calibers and loads.

PLACEMENT IS ALWAYS KEY! that is not what this about. What it s about is whether or not a somewhat more effective projectile could add to the overall Incapacitateing effects of a good to moderate hit on your target IN A WAY THAT CANNOT BE EASILY QUANTIFIED.

IF it can, then every conceivable advantage should be sought after by those who want to get the MOST out of their handguns.


These studies demonstrate that there is a real and significant, REPEATABLE, (yet as of yet non-conclusive--but what about present day ballistics is at present entirely "conclusive" ) benefit to using faster, heavier, higher caliber, JHP bullets, that open wider then others.


Will a .22 to the head kill you . . . YES. BUT THE POINT IS that when you are shooting and running one way, and the BG is firing back and running the other way--it is hard to make perfect "center mass hits". The BG is not just going to stop and stand in the anatomical possition so you can place your shots perfectly. THUS, any advantage, particularly one that may impede "blunt force equivalent" shock on the nervous system, brain and blood baring organs could very well be the DECISIVE advantage that CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE when push come to shove.


AND THAT . . . is the idea behind the "caliber wars."

Up until now I have seen no data even remotely suggesting that a 160 gr P+ 45 ACP JHP was any better then a 147 gr 9mm JHP. That is up until now . . . Ballistics Pressure waves could effectively prove the notion---NOT THAT bigger is better---but that BIGGER, FASTER AND HEAVIER is better.

Placement will still be key, if you can't handle a 45 ACP P+ as accuratly as you can shoot a 9mm you probably should go for the 9mm. (or you could suppress the 45) but that does not negate the fact that all of this still might be VERY true . . . (And this is not to even to mention the added benefits of using magnum high caliber loads out of revolvers.)



O.K I've got to run . . . This is the end of PT 3 so feel free to post.

BUT PLEASE READ some of the links and PDF's I provided before you present your arguments. You have to see it to believe it . . .

[NGIB]

Science, ballistic pressure waves, penetration, expansion, etc. Wow.

The bottom line is the best caliber for each of us to use is the biggest we can control with accuracy - and afford ammo to practice.

Since shot placement is paramount, the key is to practice until you are very proficient with your weapon of choice. Doesn't do much good to pack a .44 magnum if you can't hit what you're aiming at - or get the follow up shots off accurately and quickly as well.

I have carry type guns in .380, 9mm, .40, and .45 and I'm confident I am good enough with each of them to do whats necessary to protect me and mine. I generally favor for larger calibers; however, I don't feel naked packing my Sig .380 or my Kahr 9mm. Like everything else on this subject - this is just one old guys opinion...

[freakshow10mm]

That doesn't end it, it just opens it right back up.

[nate45]

BIGGER, FASTER AND HEAVIER

In regard to handgun projectiles slow and heavy is better than light and fast and heavy and fast beats them all hands down.

Aqeous look at this test of the .44 Mag 240 gr Gold Dot nothing of lesser caliber and weight performs like that.

Given the same placement location the fast, heavy projectile will always do more tissue damage there are no two ways about it.

If you want rifle like effects from a handgun heavy and fast is only way to get them.

[Aqeous]

O.K . . . NOBODY IS READING . . .


With regards to the statement:

"In regard to handgun projectiles slow and heavy is better than light and fast . . . "

Slow and heavy guarantees penetration over light and fast---that by no means leads to the conclusion that it is better by any means.

[nate45]

Ballistic Pressure wave, it is a combination of caliber, weight and velocity.

I read alot of the theory Aqueous and that sentence pretty much sums it up.

Now tell me what about my post conflicts with the theory or any other except the discredited light and fast theory.

Show me a handgun round that fires a projectile of lesser caliber, weight and velocity that is the equal of the one I posted a link to.

[bbrian]

The point please?

[Aqeous]

Your previous post does not conflict by any means . . .

It is only that to say slow and heavy is better then fast and light marginalizes the caliber argument as a whole. DO you go light .357 magnum JHP or a heavier .45 acp FMJ in standard loading??

[The Tourist]

I believe that theories and cutting-edge design are important in pointing the way. But I also feel that energetic real life tests actually tell the tale.

I have great respect for the tests done after the 1984 Miami FBI shoot-out. I do not believe that the testers had an agenda. I believe that they were simply trying to find real world answers.

We are passionate about firearms, so that starts a debate. But consider this as a parallel argument.

For example, everyone *knows* that Harleys are big, antiquated, slow, unsophisticated, troublesome and easy to beat. We couch this observation in what hobbyists feel is "conventional wisdom."

How then do you judge my bike, "Black Betty"? Unless you secure the most radical top-shelf bikes like a Hyabusa, I'll take your money. Why? Because Betty has a completely re-built, dyno tuned engine and a customized suspension.

"No fair, Chico, your bike is a ringer!"

So let's get back to the Miami shoot-out. I believe that the testers were trying to equipment future field agents with "ringers."

That is, no matter what could be perceived by tests and raw data, they wanted to equip their people with the best firearms and cartridges working in tandem to save their people.

Now, the idea that a SW 1076 firing a full power 10mm Auto is the "ultimate" is an entirely separate debate.

However, consider this. Wasn't the tests surrounding the shoot-out a totally different application and information gathering work to identify a system that was an end to caliber wars?

So here's my opinion. I believe your treatise is sincere and accurate. I believe the FBI search is sincere and accurate. I know Betty is fast. However, the criteria and end data (including a preference and personal slant) is always going to keep this debate going.

I think that's good. If we found the "magic bullet," this forum would have the bandwidth of a single page.

[Aqeous]

To incredibly simplify . . . it seems that the shockwave generated by a bullet impact (a shcokwave that is greater in larger caliber, heavier, faster moving, expanding bullets) my in fact be able to imped the equivalent of BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA upon the nervous system AND create an tremendous, instantaneous spike in blood pressure that can be translated and amplified through our blood filled arteries (like a fiber optic cable) to the brain and heart. Thus, these two concepts combined may in fact aid in the bullets over all effect of incapacitation over bullets that do not do this as good . . . More then than if your read these "novels" you will find that studies have demonstrated this to be a reality. . .

There . . . super-simplified.

[nate45]

DO you go light .357 magnum JHP or a heavier .45 acp FMJ in standard loading??

I like the 158gr and 180gr in .357 and the 230gr JHP +P or standard in .45 ACP.

It could be argued that a 230gr FMJ and a 125gr .357 are about the same in terminal effectivness given a choice I personally would take the .45.

[Wildalaska]

Supersimplified...

Im still going to carry a .32 Seecamp when I can find it.

You guys can knock yourselves out carrying .50 Desert Eaglets to increase shock waves. Too much change in my pocket annoys me.


Wild32tothenoseAlaska ™

[Aqeous]

I highly respect your argument . . . I to love troublesome Harley's.

I believe that the effects of the .40 S&W that I quoted in part two of my original post is a direct result of THAT FBI investigation. The 10 mm didn't fly mainly do to the brisk recoil and smith and wesson realized at some point they could get about the same results (though anemic) with the .40.

So . . . its the same exploration . . . And both seek to "end the myths" one way or the other. For the longest time I believed that 9mm JHP's could just about do everything that other calibers could do . . . I believed that the difference would be nominal.

Obviously I no longer believe this . . .




EDIT: I recalled correctly:

"The subsequent FBI investigation placed blame for the deaths of their agents on a perceived lack of stopping power exhibited by their 9mm service pistols. They soon began the search to adopt a more powerful caliber. Noting the difficulties of reloading a revolver while under fire, they specified that agents should be armed with semiautomatic handguns. The Smith & Wesson 1076, chambered for the powerful 10mm Auto round, was chosen as a direct result of the Miami shootout. The recoil of the 10mm Auto later proved too much for some agents to control effectively, and a special reduced velocity loading of the 10mm Auto was developed, commonly referred to as "10mm Lite" or "10mm FBI". Soon there after, Smith and Wesson realized the large case of the 10mm Auto was not necessary to produce the reduced ballistics of the FBI load. Smith and Wesson developed a shorter cased cartridge based on the 10mm that would ultimately replace the 10mm as the primary FBI service cartridge, the .40 S&W. The .40 S&W became far more popular than its parent, the 10mm Auto, due to the ability to chamber the shorter cartridge in standard frame automatic pistols designed for the 9 mm Para. Other than a .142" reduction in overall case length, resulting in less gun powder capacity in the .40 S&W, the 10mm and .40 S&W are identical, both using the same .400" caliber bullets."

[Aqeous]

"I like the 158gr and 180gr in .357 and the 230gr JHP +P or standard in .45 ACP."

"It could be argued that a 230gr FMJ and a 125gr .357 are about the same in terminal effectivness given a choice I personally would take the .45."



You see their is a little more to it . . . that all that I meant.

[Aqeous]

No one says that you shouldn't carry your preference . . . just like no one said we should all go DE platform chambered in 50 AE.

[Boris Bush]

I am with Wildalaska on this one. I always 100% of the time have a pistol on me and since I got a P-32 it is that and when I leave I strap on one of the CZs.

BUT

We must all realize that hanguns are weak. not 9mm not 45, ALL of them. A 55 grain V-max at 3000+ fps on the other hand will generate quite a wake in the fluid in a living animal. I have shot 30 pound 'coons with that load and they are instant gello inside! Same sized 'coon shot with Winchester 115 +P+ Ranger shook it off and charged me! Second shot to the chest knocked it over, it got up and continued the charge! Third shot, and he shook like he was soaking wet and shaking off the water and turned around, ran about 15 feet and quivered violently flopping all over before he died about 30 seconds later. All three shots wee in the chest, expanded, and destroyed the heart and lungs. This round is supposed to be a 91% one shot stopper on much larger human animals. I do not load it for that purpose any more!

'Coons are tough animals, and from the many I have killed over many years I find that no matter the caliber or the type of round. Expanding bullets that exit stop them faster than anything else.

This theory does not apply to weak hangun calibers. One must concentrate on placement quality and repeat placement quality until the threat is down and out.

[Aqeous]

"Expanding bullets that exit stop them faster than anything else."


Confused . . . that IS what I am talking about . . . If you have to use your handgun to kill coons use larger caliber, higher velocity, heavier, JHP's in service caliber (or) do the same with magnum loads out of a revolver (taking into account as much recoil as you can handle) I am not sure where you are disagreeing with me . . .

A 115 gr +p+ load is fast, light and low caliber. It does not fit the criteria as specified above. In a service caliber go with .40 or .45 +P loads JHP Speer gold dot penetration 12-15 inches; if that don't work you need a shotgun or rifle.



If pistol size is an issue one could always go this route: http://www.gunblast.com/SW329PD.htm

No "heavy change" in your pocket, and yet here lies a ton of bang for your buck . . .

[Boris Bush]

For 'coons I found that Hornady 124 XTPs do very well at just about any velocity, as well as Winchester 147 subsonics (my carry load).

FWIW I have used 40s and 45s on 'coons and there is no noticable difference in how they die when shot with ANY of the big three. Subsonic, standard, hyper velocity, you name it I have tried it on the critters all seem to be very inconsistant unless I got an exit, nothing scientific about my "tests" (not realy a test, I just wanted the never ending plague of 'coons gone from the farm).

The 9mm was easy to carry on the hip and did a good job at critter elimination and when the chance came about I would (legaly) put a deer or two down for table scraps. When I shot deer it was with 147s and I used 124 +P bonded Golden Sabers a couple of times. I shot deer with the other two also and as one could guess, I noticed no real difference in how any of them killed.

So I would say that I am not confused. I can only report what my pistols did when shot into living flesh. I am not someone writing down long math problems and declaring I know how a bullet kills by ending up with number X being better than number XY.

I've already done all the "trying" and concluded what you see above. In a pistol penetration along with accuracy kills.

[Aqeous]

I meant no disrespect, I meant I was confused not you . . . you misunderstand.


So, according to you an actual exit is the most important factor in dropping something. Is this correct??

[Boris Bush]

None taken

I, from my shooting animals (with pistols) have made an observation. That is about it.

All that thinking about the 'coons that met their maker because of me made me chuckel. (story time) Some 'coons would run like hell at the first glimps of me, some froze, some just looked at me, some looked at me and went about their business. One time I had a 'coon walk from the field to enter the barn. Bang, didn't even flop. the grass rustled a little and anotherone came out and just stared at the dead one. BANG, smoked him. The grass rustled some more and another one just stood ther looked at the two dead coons stack on top of each other, then looked at me, BANG! I got 3 in about 15 seconds, all with one shot of 9mm exiting loads (I don't remember what I used that day). To this day I have never seen coons come to the gun shots.

[BAGTIC]

Whenever I read these discussions where someone with a personal opinion tries to support it with 'evidence' from one or anothet so called 'expert' I am reminded that ...:

They can not ALL be right;

They can ALL be wrong;

If the explanation is not obvious to even educated people the preponderance of the evidence must be rather slight.

If for example the results show an advantage either way of say 10% but with an extreme variability of 50% the issue becomes irrelevant.

It reminds me of people with chronographs comaprinf different loads. One says his load produces 20 fps greater velocity. The other says yes but it produces 40 fps greater variation which off sets the average velocity advantage. Meanwhile both are ignoring that there can be more difference than that in the ballistics when fired from different guns.

All the while they ignore that the perceived advantage that exists when measured at a certain distance could vanish at a different distances.

It seems to me that the entire exercise is ego driven. It seems more important that one or the other be justified than whether the differences have any practical significance.

"Mirror, mirror on the wall who is the fairest one of all".