-  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 108235)
Message
File
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 300x300 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 1071 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2017-02-04 Show/Hide Show All

Patches and Stickers for sale here



No. 108235 ID: 6affc4
  Bummer they don't let you use tungsten and teflon for boolits.
Expand all images
>> No. 108240 ID: 9dcda2
File 155006620364.jpg - (199.84KB , 1500x777 , Seismic-Ammunition-2.jpg )
108240
>>108235
Meh. Guys who look at terminal ballistics have all kind of come up with the same conclusion that all handguns suck equally, finding no huge difference between 9 and 45.

> The 185-grain 9 mm +M round is listed as having a muzzle velocity of 950 FPS out of a 4.5-inch Glock G17 Gen 3. Seismic currently has its ammo out for testing at an independent lab, but is confident that they are achieving this velocity while maintain a safe chamber pressure. (1)

So 950 fps is a little slow. Me and the boys were doing some 200 yard handgun shooting and you have to aim about 12 feet high with .45 AARP at that range. With 9mm, hold on the top of the target. The drop on the 45 was probably due to drag than just straight velocity, I would expect.

> MSRP will be about $1.38 per round (2)

Defensive ammo prices. Hornaday Crit-D is $1 / round.

(1) https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2019/1/27/seen-at-shot-show-2019-seismic-high-mass-ammunition-quakemaker/

(2) https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/01/21/shot-2019-seismic-ammunition-high-mass-loads/
>> No. 108244 ID: 6affc4
>>108240
What I don't get is why go mass instead of velocity if you're going to increase the rounds pressure anyway.
>> No. 108245 ID: 6fe1bd
>>108244
I think they're catering to the "I carry a 45 because they don't make a 46 STOPPAN POWUUUUURRRRR" crowd, aiming to sell them a 9mm they'd agree with on their stoppan powur fuddlore knowledge base. The guy even says "stopping power" in the sales pitch, that's kinda where my snake oil detector goes off.

As previously mentioned in this thread, all pistols kinda suck, any good quality defense ammo from a reputable manufacturer is about as good as it gets from a regular handgun, a couple extra grains aren't really going to do that much. This isn't a 500 gr 45-70 flying brick and the proven track record of aforementioned good defense ammo on the market doesn't hurt.

It could possibly go through windshields a bit better, but that's usually a bit more dependant on bullet construction/jacket retention than just weight.

I'm still curious to see gel tests or Paul Harrell with his simulated target before completely writing it off. I prefer 147gr 9x19 for recoil impulse, usually lower muzzle flash, and for having no sharp supersonic crack, so I'm already biased towards heavier bullets in 9x19 but still I'm not sold on this stuff.
>> No. 108247 ID: 6affc4
>>108245 Why do people dislike "stopping power" so much? Isn't it basically the same thing as "terminal ballistics"?
Also, I saw somebody in the comments mention that this soft lead would expand well at low velocity which, I'd imagine would make for a devastating round but yeah, having a track record on a round is the most important in proving that it actually works. And while gel tests an PH's vids are cool, wouldn't hunting boar or deer with it actually be a better test?

Oh, and if they're going for high mass low velocity rounds wouldn't the next logical step be caseless volcanic style ammo in the same dimensions as a cased 9mm? Shit would be worth it just as novelty if nothing else and having no case would probably make it quite cheap.
>> No. 108248 ID: 9dcda2
  >>108247
> Why do people dislike "stopping power" so much?

Because that sounds like a damage value from a vidya gaems. Humans don't have hit points and the number of joules of energy doesn't equate to a dmg value. And a bullet with twice the energy doesn't do twice the damage. (Or it may, who knows.) "Stopping power" tries to quantify and over-simplify things without understanding what's really happening.

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

Brass Fetcher: Discussion on Simulated Shot Lines
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6noiXAFHAE8

https://www.ammoland.com/2013/06/firearm-stopping-power-fact-fiction-and-anecdotes/

http://snubnose.info/docs/no_faith.htm

One of the articles I read discussing "stopping power" talked about a story where the defender pulled his revolver and shot the attacker, except that the round failed to discharge and the gun went CLICK. The attacker decided to reconsider his life choices and stop attacking. So was a one... click... stop?

And that's where you get into "psychological stops" versus "physiological stops". Did the attacker give up after being shot, not wanting to be hurt anymore? Or did the nerve impulses from his brain fail to reach his muscles because they were severed? Or did he run out of blood? Was a bone broken and couldn't support weight anymore?

I think Massad Ayoob had an article discussing the merit of shooting for the pelvis. I came to the realization that "you go where your pelvis goes," after studying how seat belts work for mounting a racing harness in my car. The lap belt is the important one and keeps you from flying out of the car. If your pelvis is broken by a bullet, it doesn't matter how many drugs you're on, you're not taking another step.

"Terminal Ballistics" while sounding more scientifical looks more at what happens when the bullet hits something. That's some science you can work out. How it will change the attacker's behavior, is another issue.
>> No. 108249 ID: 9dcda2
File 155011855155.png - (427.62KB , 621x467 , gunshot-wound3.png )
108249
>>108248
https://www.shadowspear.com/2016/06/why-id-rather-be-shot-with-an-ak47-than-an-m4-contains-graphic-images/

Rifles and shotguns, on the other hand, really fuck shit up.
>> No. 108250 ID: 5435b6
  An example of stopping power that I witnessed was on one deer hunt, a friend shot a whitetail deer with a .30-30 lever-action rifle, but the shot went high, missed the heart by about two inches and hit the lungs. That deer ran for almost two miles before it collapsed. On another hunting trip, years later, a whitetail deer about the same size was hit in nearly the same location, but it was hit with a twelve gauge slug and the deer dropped almost immediately, but not like the ground opened up beneath him and swallowed him up effect you get with slug heart-shots. Stopping power or call it whatever you like. The .30-30 Winchester (7.62x51mmR but it's cartridge case is narrower than a .308) generally has a 150-grain bullet zipping at 2,390 feet per second, but a typical 1-oz. (437.5 grain) slug travels much slower at 1,800 fps, but hits with the energy of over 3,100 ft-lbs (4,200 J) compared to the .30-30's 1,903 ft-lbs (2,580 J).

Shotgun Deer Hunting - Perfect Shot! https://youtu.be/9j1Dj5dAGCc
>> No. 108251 ID: bbee29
>>108247
Because it's inherently misleading at best. To anyone without much actual knowledge in terminal ballistics, it gives the impression that the target will be stopped as if they've hit a wall or even thrown backwards like in the movies. We here all know that's ridiculous, but the amount of people that think "assault weapons blow deer in half" or "45 has so much stopping power it'll knock you down if it hits you in the hand" is just astounding.

It's basically the "clip" of terminal ballistics.

Stopping power or knockdown power is straight up nonsense that attempts to boil down not only what happens when a projectile hits a living creature, but also that creature's response to the damage caused by the projectile. Unless you're launching a honda civic at your target, the term is meaningless. Even if you understand the physics, and know that it won't make you fly off into the wall like in the movies, unless you obliterate CNS of your target, anything can either have 0% stopping power or 100% stopping power, from a .22LR to whatever supermagnum you fancy.

>>108250
This type of anecdotal stuff can be just as misleading as the terminology you're using to describe it. There have been plenty of deer anchored on the spot by lead round nose 38 specials and plenty of deer that have run off for hundreds of yards when their hearts and lungs got hamburgered by weatherbyton winchestingter megacaliber of the week. One might be less likely than the other, but animals/people are complex organisms and there's nothing actually stopping anyone or anything from moving (if the CNS hasn't been damaged/destroyed) for ~10 or so seconds until the brain has consumed all the available oxygen even if it's a perfect shot with a perfect stoppan powur caliber.
>> No. 108252 ID: bbee29
>>108251
Oh and yeah obviously if you destroy the bones/muscles/pelvis, then sure a guy will fall over, but he could still move his arms and everything.

I think you all know what I'm saying at this point and not being pedantic on the "but obviously if you destroy the shoulder he won't be able to move his arm that's stopping power right" side of things.
>> No. 108253 ID: 5435b6
File 15501662559.jpg - (38.11KB , 1092x693 , bullets, muzzle energy is the kinetic energy of a .jpg )
108253
>>108251
How is the terminology of stopping power (expressed in foot-pounds or joules of kinetic energy) misleading? What is a better way of expressing the effect when it transfers its velocity and mass into a target when it hits?

Another practical example in hunting (or killin' folks in war) is the difference of wounds from an American Civil War .58 caliber musket and a modern .223 rifle. The 5.56x45mm NATO 4 g (62 gr) SS109 FMJBT has a velocity of 948 m/s (3,110 ft/s) and hits with 1,797 J (1,325 ft-lbf) of kinetic energy. But the 500 gr .58 (15mm) MiniƩ ball has a much slower muzzle velocity of 1,000 to 1,300 ft/s (300 to 400 m/s), but hits with 900 to 1200 ft-lbf of energy. And the people researching bullet wounds from Civil War muskets are amazed how these fat slugs would shatter bones where a modern jacketed bullet may just clip the bone. That being stated, a modern high velocity round will smash bones effectively if the placement is good and troops aren't giving up their M16s for slug shotguns unless they need door-openers, but the effective stopping power of heavy projectiles cannot be dismissed.

Projectiles, Kinetic/Muzzle Energy and Stopping Power
http://wredlich.com/ny/2013/01/projectiles-muzzle-energy-stopping-power/
http://whitemuzzleloading.com/long-range-muzzleloading/
>> No. 108254 ID: bbee29
File 155019478148.gif - (526.66KB , 150x150 , 1343148685130.gif )
108254
>How is the terminology of stopping power (expressed in foot-pounds or joules of kinetic energy) misleading?

That very sentence describes the issues with the term "stopping power", if you can't see the problem as you typed out those words I don't how else to explain it. If you want to discuss energy, use foot-pounds or joules. If you want to describe terminal effects, use penetration, permanent cavitation and temporary cavitation. Even saying "it kills more gooder" is better than saying "stopping power" since it doesn't carry all the baggage of the latter nor does it help perpetuate misconceptions, fuddlore, myths, or hollywood gun mistakes. What terms should we use?

>velocity
>weight
>energy
>temporary cavitation
>permanent cavitation
>penetration in X medium
>expansion
>fragmentation
>weight retention

The rest of your post continues to compare apples to oranges, conflating various terminal ballistic effects in an attempt to describe them in an overly reductive way with a colloquialism.
>people researching bullet wounds from Civil War muskets are amazed how these fat slugs would shatter bones where a modern jacketed bullet may just clip the bone. That being stated, a modern high velocity round will smash bones effectively if the placement is good
Do I need to post that picture of the guy that got hit with a .223 and his leg turned into hamburger, femur broken despite the bullet never hitting the bone? Can you still not see that the very articles you linked below all spend thousands of words trying to say "it's more complicated than hollywood dead before hit ground"? We see big slow lead bullets being described as having "stopping power" but then just the same a lighter faster bullet is said to have more "stopping power" be cause it has more ft-lbs as velocity squares energy. See how stopping power being used to describe both makes it useless on top of being a bullshit word?

We know the correct words to use when talking about bits of metal flying around, how about we use them for a change.

>but that's too many words I want something quick and easy like some buzzword
How about "it's got good terminal ballistics". How about "it's got more ft-lbs" or "it's got more energy". How about "it makes a big fucking hole".
>> No. 108256 ID: 6affc4
>>108254
While you are correct aren't there rounds that have a track record of achieving one shot stops much more often than others. Like .357 magnum, for example? Isn't it the same for shotguns? Or is it just hearsay?

>How about "it's got good terminal ballistics". How about "it's got more ft-lbs" or "it's got more energy". How about "it makes a big fucking hole".

Some guy actually combined "big fucking hole" and "it's got more energy" to make a more convenient buzzword which also gives you gun's power level as if it was vidya gaems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_KO_Factor

I also remember reading some article on african game cartridges where the guy tried to determine what's more important in a bullet, mass or velocity. I think despite energy growing with the square of velocity he concluded that rounds work better only if you increase both mass and velocity. No shit, right?
>> No. 108258 ID: bbee29
>>108256
>While you are correct aren't there rounds that have a track record of achieving one shot stops much more often than others. Like .357 magnum, for example? Isn't it the same for shotguns? Or is it just hearsay?
I remember reading statistics about the .357 Magnum on one-shot stops and I think there are a few factors that may be present in this issue that could help explain why across thousands of people being shot, the 357 seems to have an edge.

First, it does have more power than most of the other pistols like 9x19, 40S&W, and 45ACP, and this can translate into better effect. After all, pistols are all rather limited in power, so having more isn't a bad thing when only considering the "one shot stop" statistic and not other factors related to defensive shooting. Second, it could be that the people that carry a 357 could more likely be of the mentality of "I only have six shots, I better train more so I can hit properly". If your sample base of 357 shooters has a higher amount of better trained shooters, it isn't impossible that it could translate to better shot placement versus the more common spectrum of skill in pistol shooters using semi-autos. This is point is obviously speculation on my part, and more information on these statistics is needed, but I wonder about what firearm/caliber choice means about the shooter's habit, statistically speaking. Third, it's hard to see those "one shot stop" statistics state what were the most common load or even bullet used. What if a significant percentage of people shot with [certain calibers] were using FMJ or a cheaper hollow point that could be more likely to expand poorly or expand too much, fail to penetrate deep enough, or otherwise not work as intended, while the majority of [some other caliber/357] shooters simply had good enough quality defense ammo? Finally, as I'm not an expert in terminal ballistics, could it be possible that the extra power in the 357 allows for any shortcomings in the load itself, all else being equal? Say in the previous point, a cheaper bullet is used, one that doesn't hold its jacket well. In the 357, that extra ~200ft/s might very well mean that the bullet still does what it needs to do despite shedding it's jacket. The vast majority of defensive loads for 9x19/40/45 seem to ride the line of "acceptable" in standard gel tests, it could be that they just need that extra little bit to make up for some factor that would otherwise prevent a bullet from doing its thing.

Oh and yeah I forgot sectional density in the previous list of terminal ballistics factors. That shit actually does matter a LOT for big/dangerous game.

>I think despite energy growing with the square of velocity he concluded that rounds work better only if you increase both mass and velocity. No shit, right?
Pretty much, but I think it's important to consider desired effect on target more than looking at just numbers. What gun/caliber/load and what do you want to do with it? Vaporize gophers? Get through the gristle plate of boss nigga wild boar? Not get trampled by Dumbo? Kill Bamby's mom for steak, or kill Bamby's mom for sausages? Far away or close up?

>shotguns
Shotguns can be in this sweet-spot of throwing a lot of stuff just fast enough. Who'd a thunk getting shot nine times with a 32 ACP simultaneously would suck? Again I'd like to see more info on the statistics of one-shot stops comparing rifles to shotguns. At what range did it happen, buckshot or slugs or other, what rifle bullet was used (JSP, FMJ, all copper?) and stuff. It would really shed light on what exactly is doing the oneshottery.
>> No. 108259 ID: 9dcda2
>>108253 >>108254 >>108258

Here's my unfinished response. I started working on it then realized I would spend more time on it than I cared to. In short: WPR and I are on the same page and it's complicated. You can't just put a number on it. Different bullets are for different applications.


>>108253
> How is the terminology of stopping power (expressed in foot-pounds or joules of kinetic energy) misleading?

Because joules of energy doesn't equate X amount of tissue damage. A shot in the bicep with a .22 (168 j) and a 9mm (467 j) will hurt but kill. In either case the muscle is out of action. A shot in brain stem from either is instant incapacitation. The only difference is whether the bullet will penetrate deeply enough to da

> What is a better way of expressing the effect when it transfers its velocity and mass into a target when it hits?

By using joules of energy as one factor when discussing what a bullet does when it hits a target or "terminal ballistics".

> ...how these fat slugs would shatter bones where a modern jacketed bullet may just clip the bone... [or] smash bones effectively if the placement is good

Right. I contend that both need to actually hit to break bones. You would have a better chance of a glancing hit with a light bullet, but the bullet still needs to hit bone. Getting grazed by a MiniƩ ball or a .223 would suck probably equally, but probably not be fatal. What it really comes down to is destroying something important that keeps the animal / badguy alive, and there are different ways to get there.

The bullet has to: 1. Hit the target. 2. Penetrate deeply enough. 3. Destroy tissue.

1. Hit the target. Higher velocity rounds reach the target in less time and as such, drop less. High velocity is preferred but you can work around it.

2. Penetrate. Think about shooting a bear or a rhino. The bullet would have to get through a couple of feet of muscle to reach something important. This is where energy comes in, but more biased towards mass.
>> No. 108260 ID: 9dcda2
File 155020368192.png - (129.25KB , 868x734 , muzzle-energy.png )
108260
>>108256
> While you are correct aren't there rounds that have a track record of achieving one shot stops much more often than others. Like .357 magnum, for example? Isn't it the same for shotguns? Or is it just hearsay?

Now we're not saying energy isn't important, but that it's only one factor. Shotgun energy is on a different order of magnitude. It's got a shitton of mass and some decent velocity.
>> No. 108261 ID: 9dcda2
  Here's a video I did 10 years ago. (Holy fuck.) Notice that not much happens until you get to real rifle rounds and the back gets blown out of the paper. And then the two shots with the Mosin, the first with FMJ just punched a .30 caliber hole. The second round was a soft points blew the fuck out if it.

Same muzzle energy, different effect on target.
>> No. 108296 ID: 9dcda2
File 155087944950.jpg - (107.41KB , 1280x960 , pcsx2-r5875 2015-08-09 13-43-10-49.jpg )
108296
>>108235
Speaking of fucked up ballistics...

Franklin Reformation gimmick or useful?
Military Arms Channel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jMmIWgA1f8
https://youtu.be/7jMmIWgA1f8?t=1304
>> No. 108297 ID: 5d76a7
Major gimmick. I guess 950fps isn't THAT much slower than the 147 grain RA9Bs I like that tend to push just right at or under 1000fps, but I don't see these +M hollow points (although that's a pretty clever name from a branding perspective) expanding wider, penetrating deeper, fragmenting widely, shattering pelvises or magically exsanguinating bad dudes faster than the RA9Bs that I pay under $.50 a round for. Handguns suck pretty equally. If the expected use case for these is to penetrate deeper for dangerous game or something, I wouldn't choose 9mm to begin with.

We used to use heavy bullets because we were limited by black powder. Then the entire world, with all of its empirical data and real life experiences, transitioned to lighter bullets pushing higher velocities for just about every purpose.

I'm only interested in these as a testing ground for two-piece cartridge casing. That seems neat.
>> No. 108298 ID: 6affc4
>>108296
Funny how all these weird NFA regulations spawn guns that are tailor-made for massacring civilians and just about useless for anything else.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason