06-11-2011, 07:25 PM
JASmith Wrote:Returning to post #18 of this thread, we can infer that proving the superiority of one caliber/bullet/cartridge poses a significant challenge...Yes, indeed it do. I don't know if quantifying gel test results can even be done satisfactorily.
Quote:...consider the posts by bwaites: Stopping power by Caliber (http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthrea...by-Caliber) and http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthrea...ber-Part-2.IMO, his one-shot-stop % is a rather meaningless figure.
Consider this extract of percentage of one-shot stops:
[INDENT]Rifle 58%[/INDENT]
It's hard to get better than the 50-60% suggested by the rifle and shotgun statistics.
A better measure is his % actually incapacitated by one shot:
[INDENT]Rifle 80%[/INDENT]
Quote:This data may suggest we recast the gelatin test to reflect the performance of a the FMJ 9mm at the muzzle as the threshold and that of the 7.62X51 M80 as the objective.I think I see your reasoning, but it seems to me that 9mm FMJ is much too low for threshold. Wound profile of 9mm FMJ is not even as good as that of .30 Carbine, which can easily be exceeded by most military rifle calibers.
This combination would allow some differentiation based on the statistics presented and possibly avoid an arbitrarily high threshold on cartridge lethality.
FWIW, I consider his stopping power data too flawed -- or at least incomplete -- for this purpose. For one thing, it does not tell us what the difference in performance is between FMJs and JHP/JSP expanding bullets. Since this thread is concerned with military rifle Ball ammo, the numbers for JHP/JSP rounds would have to be deleted, something we can't do with the posted summary.
Also, he does not tell what % actually incapacitated by one shot weren't fatal, which (IMO) would be a far more reliable indicator of effectiveness. Any bullet will "incapacitate" by killing; it's when a torso hit is not immediately fatal that incapacitation becomes important.