Originally Posted by tgace
You may want to check out http://www.firearmstactical.com/brie...To%20Be%20True for a second opinion on the Marshall / Sanow data.
Originally Posted by daddykata
That sounds like an excellently laid out home defense system to me. There's an exception to every rule, and if you can be positive that your rounds aren't going through the walls then more power to you.
Originally Posted by devil
Good info - this is along the lines of questions that were forming in my head, like:
Originally Posted by kanegs
1) Are one or two hundred instances, given so many variables, enough to build a true statistical profile? This turns into 30 or 40 discrete questions, if explored...
2) Are better-educated shooters likely to use better ammo (and probably be better shots), skewing the results towards a particular conclusion? Likewise, is thrift a factor possibly skewing results in the other direction?
3) Did the study enter with a potentially preconceived notion, and were data drawn (inadvertently or not) that overwhelmingly supported that conclusion?
4) Again with the variables - there are so many - but I'm not convinced that an over/under 4" barrel segmentation is detailed enough considering the wide range of firearms available in the many calibers. It's a curious distinction to draw when the data shown don't segregate by things like entry wound location or vector.
I recognize that these results are hard to get to without, ya know, basically maiming/killing a bunch of people in the name of science. But, I shudder to think that my evangelism of hollow points could possibly be based on what (without reading) I perceive as a potentially weak study - hence my interest.
I don't doubt for a second that .45 HP's do more damage to a soft target than the FMJ's.
Originally Posted by daddykata
I was just pointing out that particular calibers well earned reputation for ruining an otherwise healthy individual with monotonous regularity. As it has demonstrated since it's adoption in 1911, long before hollow points were even an issue.
7.62 x 51mm NATO? Or 7.62 x 39mm SOV? Because if we're talking 7.62 x 39 I would have to disagree. Foot-pounds of kinetic energy from a Federal .223 Match (5.56) at 200 yards is 925. Foot-pounds of energy from a typical Soviet 7.62 x 39 (AK-47) at 200 yards is 913. A negligible amount, but still in favor of the 5.56 (and the difference only widens from there). I sourced those figures from Ray Plasterer's Ultimate Sniper; a bit out of date to some people, but it's still a solid resource. Feel free to double check my numbers. Here's a video (2 of 5 in a series) that touches on 5.56 x 45 vs 7.62 x 39 (within the context of discussing M4 vs. AK-47). This guy knows his ****, and his other videos are VERY informative.
Originally Posted by chainpunch
YouTube- AK-47 vs AR-15 Part 2, by Nutnfancy
Edit: There IS a difference between .223 and 5.56, but not still not enough to merit saying the 7.62 x 39 hits harder.
Last edited by Mutt; 7/13/2010 7:05pm at .
Nor do I. Well, at least not until I started re-thinking things after cursory review of the stats from that Marshall / Sanow nutrider website. I have put a lot of faith in second-hand accounts of bullet wounds: my regular gun shop is a father+sons operation; the younger son is a full-time EMT and has many eyewitness tales of GSW's. While I recognize that they have a vested interest in selling more expensive ammo, I believe these gentlemen to be honest and trustworthy. The way the son tells his stories, you pretty much get convinced to not shoot anybody ever, let alone pick the goriest, deadliest way to do so. But, those stats, while supporting my position, seem too good to be true. So, I question them.
Originally Posted by Mr. Machette
I've heard the hollow point vs. ball argument several times, from people that should be qualified to elicit an opinion on the subject. Hollow point always wins. I'm just hoping that the argument isn't based solely on Marshall / Sanow, which I'm beginning to suspect is just flawed enough to be irresponsible, even if it does come to the correct conclusion.
At any rate, my third clip (the "storage" mag) is loaded with Hydra Shoks. Here's hoping I never have to find out first-hand how good (or bad) they are.
hey daddy i can make this real easy for you. Once i find another property that will let me shoot boar on it, you can go with me. You can go ahead and take down a boar or two with regular ball and I'll shoot it with JHP hunting rounds, and then compare. Then while were cleaning it you can get a nice clear view of the different wound channels and internal damage.
Hollow point ammunition is "overrated" in the sense that there are many conditions that prevent it from opening as designed, which essentially turns it into a blunt-nosed FMJ equivalent.
Notice, however, that this is NOT a problem that is solved by FMJ, and that's why FMJ is still not taken seriously. JHP fixes some of FMJ's shortcomings when it works correctly (when it's going fast enough, when it doesn't get plugged with cloth, when it hits enough fluid to expand, etc. etc.) But FMJ shares all those shortcomings no matter what happens.
Let me make this easy for you, because you still don't seem to understand that I'm a proponent of hollow point, despite me saying it multiple times.
Originally Posted by mad_malk
BUY HOLLOW POINTS - BALL AMMO IS ONLY BETTER FOR SHOOTING PAPER TARGETS.
There, is it clear where I stand, now? I'm not questioning the validity of the claim; I have concerns about the Marshall / Sanow study's ability to support the claim in a scientific manner.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO