Ballistics Research

[Pain103]

So my google-fu isn't cutting it. Can anybody provide me a link to ballistics research or provide a copy of any official research regarding handgun ballistics comparing handgun calibers? I know at one time the FBI did some official stuff but I can't find it. The employer is considering a new caliber that many aren't initially thrilled about and I want to make sure rangemasters and armorers have more than enough information to make the final decision.

Thanks for any help.

[Jamie Jackson]

I don't know if the following will be any benefit or not. Goo luck to you.

 

 

 

http://gundata.org/blog/post/fbi-handgun-ballistics/

 

1989 pdf at the end of article.

 

 

Dr. Gary Roberts:

 

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf

 

http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm

 

 

 

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power

[Jonnin]

let me recommend as well ballistics by the inch (http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/).

 

which mostly can be summed up with "barrels under 6 inches compromise the selected round a lot". 

 

if you pick the same bullet brand/design and the same barrel length,  for example cor-bon, you can get a good sense of the actual comparison between calibers in terms of momentum.  

 

I HIGHLY recommend you IGNORE "energy" and focus on momentum for handguns.  Energy matters less in a handgun and the squared velocity skews the numbers which can confuse people who are not strong at physics.    Only a few handguns have enough energy to be "interesting" in terms of energy transfer, and most of those are either overly potent magnums (usually with a small bullet, like a lightweight 44 mag round out of a long barrel revolver)  or specialty rounds (the FN 55 thingy, 22 mag, those sorts of things). 

[Jamie Jackson]

Interesting site Jonnin.

 

I agree with you.

Marshall and Sanow, Computer Man, even Hatcher have (hopefully) been replaced with more useful and "real world" information.

 

The FBI studies are sometimes followed by agencies, but are not always the most up to date as far as useful information goes.

[Jonnin]

Interesting site Jonnin.

 

I agree with you.

Marshall and Sanow, Computer Man, even Hatcher have (hopefully) been replaced with more useful and "real world" information.

 

The FBI studies are sometimes followed by agencies, but are not always the most up to date as far as useful information goes.

 

Up to date?  Nothing has "really" changed in over 100 years.  Mass and velocity.  Deformation/expansion/tumbling.  We knew all that stuff in WWI or earlier.  Browning knew that in 1900, and his .45 acp has proven the theory time and time again.  Since then we have tried all kinds of stuff, and still the 45 is as good as anything modern science has produced (not gonna caliber war here but its at least equal to anything standard autos use).   Same is really true for rifles --- my 1909 mauser fires a round that was made for an 1890s model.  Decades of science, research, and just fooling with it later, the military uses a virtually identical round --- the .308.   Nothin's changed a bit.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Jonnin

[Jamie Jackson]

Yes Sir...nothing's change except our perspective on the data.

 

But bullet technology, and actual experiences to use that data wisely vs following dogma has given us better choices than in the past.

 

I still have a few Super Vel rounds...while they were cutting edge in their day, there is certainly better choices available at this time.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with point and I'm not trying to be contrary in the least. "Caliber wars", "bullet wars" are legendary on the interweb.

 

 

Believe me, I'm a fan of John Browning. I've read Hatcher. I've talked to Jeff Cooper face to face.

But I'll carry a modern HP round for self defense any time I have a choice.

I am not a believer in the latest and greatest "gadget" round, but appreciate the quality and performance of the ammo available to us these day Good Sir.

[E4 No More]

Up to date?  Nothing has "really" changed in over 100 years.  Mass and velocity.  Deformation/expansion/tumbling.  We knew all that stuff in WWI or earlier.  Browning knew that in 1900, and his .45 acp has proven the theory time and time again.  Since then we have tried all kinds of stuff, and still the 45 is as good as anything modern science has produced (not gonna caliber war here but its at least equal to anything standard autos use).   Same is really true for rifles --- my 1909 mauser fires a round that was made for an 1890s model.  Decades of science, research, and just fooling with it later, the military uses a virtually identical round --- the .308.   Nothin's changed a bit.

I believe that Marine Snipers have moved to 6.5, Jonnin, but that's more about ballistic efficiency than anything else.

[Jonnin]

right, right, I just meant the basics have not changed in 100+ years and my main point was that the "outdated" fbi/cia/etc studies are still going to be "mostly valid".    

 

Certainly we can make better expansion JHP rounds.  And certainly we can make more aerodynamic rounds.  Its like building a better mousetrap though.   A round ball out of a civil war revolver at self defense range is just as good --- at the end of the day, if you poke a goodly sized hole in vital machinery first, you win.  It does not take modern rocket science to accomplish *that* :P   Am I recommending using antique tech?  Not at all.  I am just saying don't over think it.

[E4 No More]

right, right, I just meant the basics have not changed in 100+ years and my main point was that the "outdated" fbi/cia/etc studies are still going to be "mostly valid".    

 

Certainly we can make better expansion JHP rounds.  And certainly we can make more aerodynamic rounds.  Its like building a better mousetrap though.   A round ball out of a civil war revolver at self defense range is just as good --- at the end of the day, if you poke a goodly sized hole in vital machinery first, you win.  It does not take modern rocket science to accomplish *that* :P   Am I recommending using antique tech?  Not at all.  I am just saying don't over think it.

I dunno: those lead balls made quite a wound. :)

[Patton]

I HIGHLY recommend you IGNORE "energy" and focus on momentum for handguns. Energy matters less in a handgun and the squared velocity skews the numbers which can confuse people who are not strong at physics.

I do agree with this, I used to get all caught up on kinetic energy before I started comparing the percentages of one shot stops and how they coincide with momentum and not kinetic energy.

http://www.stoppingpower.net/

Also, use these tables. http://www.handloads.com/misc/stoppingpower.asp?Caliber=0