The Evil Black Talon vs good Mr Kevlar

[Boltgun]

So little is known about how a bullet penetrates, that most people just take a bit of what they think they know and try to apply it to a situation about which they don't know. Usually it comes off sounding reasonable but is not correct.

I would disagree here. Most people perform tests that have no connection with real world results and sit back while they "eww and ahh" at their results. There is a significant amount of study in this field by very qualified people.

I would suggest that anyone interested in this field read this book:

http://pw2.netcom.com/~dmacp/index.html

Boltgun

 

[Suputin]

Yes, 158gr IMI Subsonic. See middle bullet with blue tip.

 

[Suputin]

There is a significant amount of study in this field by very qualified people.

Not to specifically put down Dr Fakler, cause I haven't read his book but a lot of the terminal ballistics testing done by "qualified people" have been nothing more than shooting holes in cadavers or live farm animals or other equally gruesome but unscientific testing.

So I don't see how the testing we did is any less relevant. I understand the limitations of the media we used but I also noted that media produced quite consistent results from test to test. And thus as a comparitive tool I feel it is quite relevant.

As to the kevlar vest tests specifically, I fail to see how the tests we performed are not relevant to "real world" results. The vest was backed by an unmoving yet pliable media, much like a person would be. Either the bullet can penetrate the vest or it cannot.

This entire thread has been focused on the performance of a 9mm bullet against a kevlar vest. People need to stop reading more into it.

 

[slicknick]

Maybe I missed it, but at what distance were you shooting?

 

[Boltgun]

Not to specifically put down Dr Fakler, cause I haven't read his book but a lot of the terminal ballistics testing done by "qualified people" have been nothing more than shooting holes in cadavers or live farm animals or other equally gruesome but unscientific testing.

So I don't see how the testing we did is any less relevant. I understand the limitations of the media we used but I also noted that media produced quite consistent results from test to test. And thus as a comparitive tool I feel it is quite relevant.

As to the kevlar vest tests specifically, I fail to see how the tests we performed are not relevant to "real world" results. The vest was backed by an unmoving yet pliable media, much like a person would be. Either the bullet can penetrate the vest or it cannot.

This entire thread has been focused on the performance of a 9mm bullet against a kevlar vest. People need to stop reading more into it.

Actually it isn't Fackler's book, it's Macpherson's, Fackler wrote the forward and commentary. The testing isn't done into Cadavers and that method is discounted. I pointed this book out for those that want to dig deeper into the subject because of your line that said "so little is known about how a bullet penerates". On the contrary, plenty is known and can be matematically predicted to a certain degree (when specifically talking about soft tissues).

Also in terms of the body armor, the testing is good. Once again though, there is plent of understanding on how bullets act when hitting both soft and hard armor. It has been scientifically tested for decades. Most testing protocols and detailed results are not readily available or published because for the average end-user they are not interested in it. They just wanna know if it "met standard". Hence the NIJ and European V50 stnds and the pass/fail requirement.

Keep up the good work, just remember that there isnt a lot of mysticism in terminal ballistics though.

Boltgun