testtest

Is the .45’s Stopping Power a Myth?

HansGruber said:
These bullets have been around for 10+ years. If they were as good as they claim, there’d be top-tier guys using them. They don’t.

Those neat-o gel test? They ignore one very important, basic fact—that gel is only designed to test expansion/permanent cavity and penetration. These tests are trying to sell you on temporary cavity cracks on relatively inelastic gel as being equivalent as damage in highly elastic living tissue. It’s not, and they know it; that’s why it’s snake oil.

As for feeding reliability…that’s why you test your carry ammo in your chosen firearm; you should do it with these screwdriver tips as well. Never met a (quality) pistol that won’t feed most types of quality JHP; this included several 1911’s, from manufacturers from RIA to Les Baer and Wilson Combat.

Or just carry a revolver.

In .380? I’ll just carry a flat-nosed FMJ for less than half the price and be able to practice with what I carry. Permanent wound channel will be the same (again—not buying the “magic cavitation wave” snake oil).

If it makes you warm & fuzzy to spend a whole lot more for ammo that isn’t proven in street shoots, that’s your call.

Me? I stick with what the pros in the know use.
Click to expand...
I agree. When SOF guys start telling us that's all they use I’ll give them another look.
 
SimonRL said:
This sounds like an elevator pitch for a film I might have seen once. Were you a screenwriter in the early 80s by any chance?
Click to expand...
IMG_3328.gif

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
 
Regarding skepticism about the Lehigh bullets — you have valid points. Until there are field results and/or professional operators migrate over to them, their value is speculative. They should, however, work as least as well as FMJ does in a given caliber.

The issue with HP bullets is that they have to expand correctly in order to function effectively. If they don’t expand much, then you might have over penetration. If they hit bone, they might fragment and penetration stops. If they expand too much, then you have under penetration and possible jacket/core separation.

Ballistic gel (of several types) can be criticized but it is used extensively to demonstrate the benefits of HP bullets all the time (by manufacturers, individuals, and by government agencies). Why is it suddenly invalid when applied to fluted monolith bullets? I will do a search to see if Paul Harrell ever did a “meat target” test of the Lehigh claims. It would be interesting if he did.

This FBI white paper from 1989 concludes that bullet penetration is the single most important factor in achieving Immediate Incapacitation. fbi-handgun-ballistics.pdf (gundata.org)

The same white paper says that conventional hollow points only "work" 60 - 70% of the time. The rest of the time, they fail to expand or over-expand and do not perform as intended inside their target. Of course, that statistic could have easily improved in the time since that white paper was written. Nevertheless, it seems well understood that even the best hollow points do not always expand as intended - or possibly over-expand if velocity is higher than the bullet's design parameters.

The XD (and XP) bullets do not rely on expansion to perform as intended. And, they penetrate better than a HP round that did expand as designed.
 
Tonopah said:
Regarding skepticism about the Lehigh bullets — you have valid points. Until there are field results and/or professional operators migrate over to them, their value is speculative. They should, however, work as least as well as FMJ does in a given caliber.

The issue with HP bullets is that they have to expand correctly in order to function effectively. If they don’t expand much, then you might have over penetration. If they hit bone, they might fragment and penetration stops. If they expand too much, then you have under penetration and possible jacket/core separation.

Ballistic gel (of several types) can be criticized but it is used extensively to demonstrate the benefits of HP bullets all the time (by manufacturers, individuals, and by government agencies). Why is it suddenly invalid when applied to fluted monolith bullets? I will do a search to see if Paul Harrell ever did a “meat target” test of the Lehigh claims. It would be interesting if he did.

This FBI white paper from 1989 concludes that bullet penetration is the single most important factor in achieving Immediate Incapacitation. fbi-handgun-ballistics.pdf (gundata.org)

The same white paper says that conventional hollow points only "work" 60 - 70% of the time. The rest of the time, they fail to expand or over-expand and do not perform as intended inside their target. Of course, that statistic could have easily improved in the time since that white paper was written. Nevertheless, it seems well understood that even the best hollow points do not always expand as intended - or possibly over-expand if velocity is higher than the bullet's design parameters.

The XD (and XP) bullets do not rely on expansion to perform as intended. And, they penetrate better than a HP round that did expand as designed.
Click to expand...
Regarding ballistic gel:

The reason it is invalid as to the ammo manufacturers’ claims is because they (the manufacturers) are trying to say that the gel is measuring something it isn’t designed to do—that is, damage beyond the permanent cavity (what the bullet actually physically touches).

They claim that there are “pressure waves” that cause a temporary cavity that will rupture tissue, and point to cracking in the gel to prove their point.

The problem is, gel was never designed to measure damage from temporary cavity—only permanent cavity; that which the bullet physically touches and damages. The relatively inelastic nature of ballistic gel (when compared to most living tissue) accentuates the temporary cavity damage; it doesn’t expand rapidly and/or far enough, and cracks.

And the designers of the bullets know this…yet they refuse to acknowledge that niggling little fact.

That’s why, while the tests look neat, they basically don’t give any useful information—if you know what you’re looking at. The designers of the bullets are betting that you don’t, and will accept their word.

(By the bye—don’t just accept my word; read Duncan MacPherson’s work on terminal ballistics and really go down the rabbit hole; also suggest reading some of Gary Robert’s (DocGKR) work on the subject)

As for Paul Harrels’ meat targets; with all due respect, that’s not a scientific test. It looks cool, and the reasoning sounds cool, but they don’t—can’t—give consistent data; they’re anecdotal at best; entertainment more.

Additionally, JHP/expanding bullets have made quantum leaps in reliability since the 1980’s; while flukes happen, I’ve yet to see many tests with modern design JHP’s (Federal’s HST, Winchester Ranger-T, Hornady’s “Critical D…” line, for example) that show a 30-40% failure rate, even when facing barriers. They also tend to punch deep; not the bare minimum 12”.

Remember, when that white paper came out, they were basing their ENTIRE premise on ONE bullet that performed precisely as designed—it penetrated through a hand, arm, laterally across the chest cavity, and ruptured the pericardium; a total of 11+ inches…but stopped just shy of Platt’s heart, allowing him to kill two FBI agents.

One instance. One bullet, chosen for its track record of robust expansion, because penetration wasn’t even on the FBI’s radar at the time…but it became a scapegoat for an utter failure in tactics and, quite honestly, preparation by the agents that day.

So, perhaps we don’t want to put all our eggs in that penetration basket.
 
Last edited:
HansGruber said:
Regarding ballistic gel:

The reason it is invalid as to the ammo manufacturers’ claims is because they (the manufacturers) are trying to say that the gel is measuring something it isn’t designed to do—that is, damage beyond the permanent cavity (what the bullet actually physically touches).

They claim that there are “pressure waves” that cause a temporary cavity that will rupture tissue, and point to cracking in the gel to prove their point.

The problem is, gel was never designed to measure damage from temporary cavity—only permanent cavity; that which the bullet physically touches and damages. The relatively inelastic nature of ballistic gel (when compared to most living tissue) accentuates the temporary cavity damage; it doesn’t expand rapidly and/or far enough, and cracks.

And the designers of the bullets know this…yet they refuse to acknowledge that niggling little fact.

That’s why, while the tests look neat, they basically don’t give any useful information—if you know what you’re looking at. The designers of the bullets are betting that you don’t, and will accept their word.

(By the bye—don’t just accept my word; read Duncan MacPherson’s work on terminal ballistics and really go down the rabbit hole; also suggest reading some of Gary Robert’s (DocGKR) work on the subject)

As for Paul Harrels’ meat targets; with all due respect, that’s not a scientific test. It looks cool, and the reasoning sounds cool, but they don’t—can’t—give consistent data; they’re anecdotal at best; entertainment more.

Additionally, JHP/expanding bullets have made quantum leaps in reliability since the 1980’s; while flukes happen, I’ve yet to see many tests with modern design JHP’s (Federal’s HST, Winchester Ranger-T, Hornady’s “Critical D…” line, for example) that show a 30-40% failure rate, even when facing barriers. They also tend to punch deep; not the bare minimum 12”.

Remember, when that white paper came out, they were basing their ENTIRE premise on ONE bullet that performed precisely as designed—it penetrated through a hand, arm, laterally across the chest cavity, and ruptured the pericardium; a total of 11+ inches…but stopped just shy of Platt’s heart, allowing him to kill two FBI agents.

One instance. One bullet, chosen for its track record of robust expansion, because penetration wasn’t even on the FBI’s radar at the time…but it became a scapegoat for an utter failure in tactics and, quite honestly, preparation by the agents that day.

So, perhaps we don’t want to put all our eggs in that penetration basket.
Click to expand...
So are you saying my famous 4x4 in the backyard tests were all for nothing ?:oops::(
 
trader said:
Hans - get some rest buddy....
Click to expand...
No worries. I’ve worked a rotating shift for 20+ years, and am usually up for 24+ hours a couple of days a month. I’m used to it.

I’ve learned that, usually, after 28-30 hours I “hit the wall” so to speak, and basically shut down for 8-10 hours. I feel that coming on.

There are those times, however, where I get that “second wind” and will be up for a total of 36-40 hours; those days hurt; tends to be a 12+ hour reboot time then, and really messes with me.

But your concern is appreciated.
 
HansGruber said:
No worries. I’ve worked a rotating shift for 20+ years, and am usually up for 24+ hours a couple of days a month. I’m used to it.

I’ve learned that, usually, after 28-30 hours I “hit the wall” so to speak, and basically shut down for 8-10 hours. I feel that coming on.

There are those times, however, where I get that “second wind” and will be up for a total of 36-40 hours; those days hurt; tends to be a 12+ hour reboot time then, and really messes with me.

But your concern is appreciated.
Click to expand...
I get you
 
HansGruber said:
No worries. I’ve worked a rotating shift for 20+ years, and am usually up for 24+ hours a couple of days a month. I’m used to it.

I’ve learned that, usually, after 28-30 hours I “hit the wall” so to speak, and basically shut down for 8-10 hours. I feel that coming on.

There are those times, however, where I get that “second wind” and will be up for a total of 36-40 hours; those days hurt; tends to be a 12+ hour reboot time then, and really messes with me.

But your concern is appreciated.
Click to expand...
I don't envy you. I'm in the middle of a 12 day on stretch, but I do 10s except for Friday ( 8) and Sunday (12-13 depending on daylight).
 
Hans Gruber — I respect your point of view and you state it ably. Your conclusion is that for street use purposes, ignore ballistic gel tests and consider Paul Harrell’s “meat target” tests as entertainment only. There seem to be no real world examples of effectiveness of the ARC or Lehigh bullets, or if there are, there is certainly no statistically relevant data as yet.

Paul Harrell did test non-expanding 9mm bullets and he did like the fluted ones but, as you say, not scientific testing:

I am not sure we can know what special operators (government) use as that information is not widely available. They might be using Lehigh bullets for special uses just as they might be using the 6.8 SPC in preference to 5.56mm but, at least I, don’t know. But the absence of data points does not support the effectiveness of the fluted bullet — fair comment.
 
I knew this was going to be a great thread! Think about it. Back in the days when the .45 was developed there was no ballistics gel, no computer programs. There was practical experience and observed results. There are many YouTube commandos who are trying to make names for themselves and they are just too fashionable for old fuddies like many of us here. One of my old Alaska State Trooper buddies referred to the 9mmP as a .380 magnum 😜. I just turned 73 and for years my EDC has been a Colt LW Commander in God’s caliber. In a good leather or Kydex strong-side holster I hardly notice the weight. True it only carries 8 or 9 rounds but the only reason to carry 15 or 17 or 21 rounds of a lesser caliber is if you are planning to miss a lot. For summer attire I like a Ruger LCRx .38 in my right front pocket and in the NW Montana mountains where the grizzlies and I live I carry a SA XDM 10mm stoked with hard cast lead pills. As Elmer Keith so succinctly put it, big bullets let in a lot of air and let out a lot of blood. Prove me wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top