Friend, are you just using a computer program, or are you testing ANY of the loads with a gun and a chronograph? Keep in mind that such programs are theoretical and often times incorrect, the times when they are correct is when people punch in real numbers for reference, the further you get from established data the further you get from the truth. Gunpowder has more attributes than mere burn rates, there are many dynamics outside of this. Some gunpowders have unique real life oddities, different loading densities, the way you pack a cartridge makes a huge difference in the way the gunpowder burns, that gunpowder burn creating heat and pressure will change the way the rest of the gunpowder burns, ect. Trying to calculate the theoretical power and pressure of a given load for a cartridge and a barrel without real data means you are fumbling in the dark, blind, no real clue if the numbers you generate are viable. Theories based on powder only have a burn rate as a variable are all but worthless. Real reloading manual creators like Lyman or others use specialized test cannon like guns that measure pressure and they shoot over a chronograph into paper to see what's what, they don't punch numbers into a compooter.

When I said that cartridge is more important than barrel length, this is based on REAL LIFE data collected in real guns. Many people have tried to maximize power of handgun cartridges by using different powders than what the big books recommend, only to fail. When it comes to barrel length, many shooters have tried what you suggest and use slower gun powders for rifle barrel loads to increase performance, only to realize that the same powders that maximized power in the handgun maximized the rifle barrel power as well. Work in this vein is old, 44 and 357 Magnum data on this subject is many decades old. Maximizing the cartridge is the ONLY way to maximize performance, the barrel only affects the burn after the cartridge dynamics take place. Your computer programs may or may not show you this fact.

>>666412

This test is horseshit. Ballistics gel is used for a reason, properly calibrated it is a standard medium that can be reused and gives standard results. It is used for many good reasons, and CONTRARY to what the testers say ballistics gel DOES show hydrostatic shock. They specifically used soaked meat because real meat didn't show super huge damage either. They almost certainly sat around testing on mediums until they realized that brined meat would act differently and exaggerate the effect of the rounds. This video is a paid endorsement for the product that is set up to lie about its effectiveness. It has nothing to offer us.

G9 has been making nothing but gimmick rounds since day one. Look past the hype.

>>666504

Instead of a "counter" let's just have an honest statement of things, no more of "sides". I'll address the issue in general, as it should be addressed.

9mm Luger's deficiencies in the past with full metal jacket bullets wasn't just a problem of size, it was also of bullet shape and quality of damage. Most FMJ bullets for 9mm are rather 'sharp" and pointy, the kinds of bullet shapes that reduce resistance and allow bullets to "cut" more than crush and tear, sharper bullet designs are known for "slipping" through tissue causing minimal damage. This made the old 9mm loads potentially poor performers, wounds were small and of poor quality. Elmer Keith and other hunters knew that flatter bullets are better for damage, hunting, killing. 38 police loads eventually switched from round nose to wad cutter and semi wad cutters for this reason.

In non expanding bullets, the 38 wad cutter and semi wad cutter are superior to 9mm FMJ on tissue. 45 ACP is better than 9mm FMJ because bigger size and flatter meplat. Then again, 44 and 45 SWC are better than 45 FMJ hardball. 38 special light loads are potentially superior to 380 because heavier bullets use energy more efficiently and, again, can use big ugly flat bullets.

In comes the age of the hollow point. Early designs often had problems, especially JHP, bullets failed to expand because of being overbuilt, or were so under built to help increase expansion that they fragmented and/or over expanded and under penetrated. Design focus was often on faster and lighter bullets that use kinetic energy less efficiently, leading to even further problems. The 158 SWCHP in 38 Special and the SJHP's of the 357 Magnum were early successes that are still worthy considerations today. Old 9mm Luger JHP were objectively shit, too light, wrong construction, fragmenters, under penetrators, or woulnd't expand at all. In this context the 357 Magnum was such a clear and obvious choice between it and 9mm it wasn't even up for debate.

Once modern JHP's began to really develop things closed up quite a bit. 9mm is seeing heavier JHP bullets, bonded bullets, far superior designs. Controlled expansion designs mean less expansion, but also high rates of expansion, more importantly no more fragmentation and over expansion and resultant under penetration. The things that disqualified many, if not most, 9mm JHP of the past have been resolved in many designs. Because the modern JHP fit the criteria 1. expands and creates larger size and better frontal shape over sharp ogive for reasonable damage 2. FINALLY can demonstrate adequate qualifying penetration in gel tests its advocates will say that it is good enough (justified) and then some will say just as good as 357 magnum or Sig (not justified).

The other thing to consider against the 357 Magnum, because you mentioned it, is that bullet design is difficult for it. Some designs have been too under engineered and have their own over expansion/fragmentation issues with resultant under penetration, still others have issues with being over engineered and won't expand at all. Many successful expanding bullets for 357 Magnum eventually reach a point where their final expanded diameter is not much different than 9mm Luger expanded diameters; 9mm Luger advocates claim that since penetration is qualifying for their rounds they are "the same" and actually deride 357 Magnum for over penetration, while others say the 18+ inches of penetration of the 357 Magnum is a feature, not a flaw, and that the over penetration is a sign of sub optimal expansion, the actual deep penetration may be useful in many gun fights. This is the tl;dr point of your post, 9mm Luger man says his 0.55 expanded face bullet averaging ~13 inches in gel is as good as a 0.57 expanded face bullet averaging ~22 inches in gel.

>>666504

Things to consider even when maximum expansion being close to equal 9mm/357 Magnum are these: 1. total expansion, not just maximum expansion and the total shape, a round mushroom is far better than a jagged uneven sharp face, also just because a few petals stuck out far doesnt' mean that the center and rest of the bullet expanded very well, a bullet with smaller maximum expansion may actually be far superior in total damage potential because it expanded universally and flatter, duller. 2. Barrier penetration, a 357 magnum will still kick 9mm +p+ to the floor and stomp on it in terms of barriers, both punching through to hit a target and still having enough energy on the other side to expand and cause damage, penetrate. 3. Despite the 18 inch maximum, some still consider a few inches over to be a good thing, not terrible thing, over penetration is heavily a myth, and even in the 12-18 inch area deeper is better, 357 magnum's penetration with expanded bullets is something to consider and keeps giving it an edge 4. when punching through bone and not just soft tissue, the extra power, and also the heavier bullets of 357 Magnum can be vastly superior.

Is 9mm Luger on equal terms with 357 Magnum in real world terms? Not at all. False comparison, false equivalence. Is 9mm Luger an acceptable choice, do some think that its good enough for the trade off of firepower for less recoil and capacity, yes.

>>666516

There is truth in this. The difference between medium and high power rifles and handguns is night and day, shotguns with the right loads are incredibly effective and compete with rifles. The weakest of handguns have difficulty penetrating in some shots even without hollow points slowing them down in tissue. You want a radical change in potential and performance, you have to move a long ways up to see HUGE differences. By the way, some rounds will cause hydrostatic shock below 2,200 FPS, look up solid soft points for 357 and 44 magnum rifles. These are examples of cartridges going from high end handgun performance to medium power devastating rifle performance because of barrel length.

>>666525

>>666528

If you shoot well and don't mind the recoil, indeed, there is something to be gained from choosing a more powerful cartridge. The fact that deeper penetration doenst' play a roll in some shootings means nothing in the shootings where the extra couple of inches of penetration made the difference between life and death. The extra damage from a 45 hollow point may or may not make a difference in a shootout, then again the extra bleeding/breakage might be what makes the difference between life and death. Since every shootout is different and who and what the bullets hit, how they hit them, at what angles, what's in the way, there is no "perfect' handgun cartridge or bullet choice. We can only look at the factors and values and make our best choices, there is no "one".

>>666529

Statistics are of the least value in things and subjects that have the least commonality and control in them. Fighting is such a subject, every situation is different, as I mentioned before. The round that worked in this shootout got the next guy who used it killed because it failed in a different way. With so many variables hard numbers are utterly worthless, what is a common shoot, why are you guaranteed a common "average" shoot, at whom, where, how? The problem with betting on these certain situations happening is that in the low chance you do get into a shootout, there is a good chance that your fight won't be 'average" and the "average" best performer will be a poor performer in your individual circumstance. That's why the study is about performance of rounds and not anecdotes. All the times a 22 lr pistol killed a guy are worthless to you if your 22lr doesn't kill the guy trying to attack YOU.

Capacity has been overblown for a long time as well, in many fights it hasn't been a factor, the old problems with police using revolvers were also in large part due to reloading before speed loaders and wider acceptance of moon clips (there was once upon a time police departments forbid officers from using speed loaders, too militaristic) so many tragedies weren't from a lack of capacity but inability to reload quickly. The idea that 16 rounds automatically makes that cartridge better than one with 15, or 12, or 10 is approaching autism. In many situations where officers or civilians have 15+ round magazines they miss after the first 5 or so anyways, adding more rounds means often just more missed shots, or at best cover fire. There is great truth in the reality that if 13 isn't enough 16 wont' be either. We also live in a tactical reality where we reload under cover regardless of wither we shot 5 or 10 rounds. Capacity is a consideration, its not the primary focus or the most important factor. As departments and militaires stay/switch to 9mm Luger their PR focuses lazer like on capacity because its the one obvious strength it has. Don't let the fact some guy with a 6 shot revolver and no speed loaders got killed 50 years ago as an argument that a 16 round magazine is better than a quick loading 10 rounder.

>>666543

160 grains is awfully small for a 45. Even if it could reach that velocity it may not perform as well as you might think.

>>666624

Rigged tests teach us little to nothing. Theories on the same type of bullet G9 is selling this time have been tried before and are well known as gimmicks. They purposely soaked the meat to distort and exaggerate results to the point the information has no valid bearing on real tissue. Its not an interesting design when you study it in depth and objectively, its a gimmick with a worthless test to sell it.

As far as "hydrostatic shock' it is the colloquial term for permanent stretch. And, yes permanent stretch exists and is very real. People who deny it are truly ignorant. Hunters are well aware of this reality, its commonality is widespread and well known. Damage of tissue of a diameter in far excess to the size of the bullet, tearing of tissue, the incredible terminal effect of high power rifles using SOFT POINTS and other expanding bullets built for terminal effect is radically different than handgun rounds, and it is night and day. People who assume all rifle bullets act exactly like their Hague Convention non expanding bullet brothers don't understand anything. The difference between M80 ball and any cheap off the rack 150 grain soft point in 308 IS night and day difference.

There is incredible permanent stretch with soft points in 357 and 44 magnum with full length rifle barrels. I've killed things with my 357 magnum 20 inch barrel rifle, its damage far exceeded soft points in 223. Soft point 223 far exceeds the damage of 55 grain ball 5.56 when it fragments. High power rifles with soft points are limb breakers, if the expanded edge of the bullet misses the heart by and inch it can still tear parts of it to shreds, its permanent stretch damage often vastly exceeds its direct crush cavity. It is night and day, handguns are no where in the same league as full power rifles with the right bullets.

Indeed permanent stretch/hydorstatic shock leads to huge problems in understanding of terminal performance. The effect has been falsely attributed to handguns, party by mistake and also possibly on purpose to defend the military's choice to switch to smaller calibers and lighter bullets, which resulted in the bad 20% gel tests of the late 70's and early 80's. When it became apparent that velocity in handguns did no good and the new standards had to be figured, the problem became the REVERSE: now handgun specialists claimed that permanent stretch not only didn't occur in handguns, but also magically now doesn't exist in high power rifles. Ever since, we've had the endless problem of each specific school making false attributions of this effect to handguns and denying the real attribution to rifles which do have it.

I'm thinking you are the Rus poster who does all those computer programs on handloads and this and that and is a non gun owner whose never killed anything and observed it what happened in real life and has never actually handloaded cartridges. Those who have handloaded know a few things about real handloading, not just programs and books. Those of us who have turned small game inside out, into clouds of mist with high power rifles, blown deer legs off, put our hands into the goop that was once its vital organs know more than people who just read the books.

1. Velocity alone is not magic. Energy, resistance, how the bullet uses its force, how the tissue resists, Bullet weight, shape, its construction. This is probably the MOST misunderstood thing in terminal ballistics. By and far the most misunderstood. A solid sptizer at 3500 fps can icepick, a large flat nose soft lead bullet will cause massive damage at 1850 fps.

1. Energy is not magic. Energy is more important than velocity in how much damage is done, especially in permanent stretch once the dynamics for permanent stretch happens. High energy bullets that don't expand, don't resist, don't use their energy correctly might just slip through, a low energy bullet might be more efficient than you think and damage more.

1. Just because handguns don't create permanent stretch doesnt' mean high power rifles with the right bullets don't. Just because your 30-06 turns deer hearts to jelly doens't mean your handgun is capable of anything that resembles that. Just because your handgun only creates crush cavities doesn't mean that's how all projectiles will work.

1. Military ball is designed to do minimal damage in accord to Hague Convention, just because they are poor at damaging tissue doenst' mean that improved bullets are anywhere near the same realm. 303 British dum dums killed the absolute fuck out of savages, all while the same rifles firing solid bullets ended up getting troops killed because they just ice picked through bodies of attacking spear chuckers. Just because modern miltiary bullets suck doesn't speak for the whole caliber.

>>666828

>>666781

>>666832

Take a rubber tarp strap. Stretch it slightly, put minor pressure on it, it will stretch without damaging it. This is akin to temporary cavitation in soft tissues, their elasticity means it can stretch and distort to a certain extent without damage, otherwise people and animals would be broken just from walking, running, jumping, moving, falling down. Slap your belly when at rest, move someone's muscle when they are relaxed. They can handle a great deal of stretching and contortion without tearing and being harmed. People get punched and hit with blunt things, even by accident, and watch how the tissue just DISPLACES and moves Temporary cavity in gel and soft tissue is merely the material safely rippling and moving with the force of the blow, the man in the video didn't have his skin, abs, organs turned into mush even though they did flap and move with the force of the blow.

Now, take that rubber tarp strap. Put it between two trucks, or keep adding weight to one end until it keeps stretch, eventually the tarp strap will become damaged because it suffers too much force, stretches too much, and/or stretches far to fast and the tarp strap can't expand and flex fast enough to meet the speed of the force and it will eventually snap and break apart. This is permanent stretch cavity, also called hydrostatic shock by many and is an incorrect but common term for it. Both velocity and force can be very important in this, velocity can force the tissue to stretch faster than the tissue can stretch, the amount of time the flesh has to stretch and how much force per time is important. If the force is delivered too slowly, if the monentum can't keep pushing energy, the tissue will have enough time to dissipate energy, enough time to stretch, enough time to move. Even if you hit the tissue fast enough that it has difficulty keeping up with the speed of the impact, without enough FORCE to tear it apart the damage will be minimized if not completely mitigated. The faster we stretch the tarp strap the harder it is for the rubber to stretch and dissipate, but we still need enough force to actually stretch and tear it. If the factors in play with kinetic energy and tissue arne't right the effect will not be seen and will not be maximized.

The hit must be fast enough to overcome the speed at which the material expands and stretches and dissipates (velocity minimum) as well as have enough force and a way to deliver it to actually overcome the strength of the material (energy and resistance).

That's the best explanation I can give. I hope such information doesn't fall into the wrong sort of hands, but at the same time worry about such things is a way of breeding endless ignorance. Anyways, shitposting and cancer will obscure any real information on sites like these anway. I hope.

>>667154

Right on the money. Bullet shape eventually becomes more important, and how the bullet expands and changes the dynamics of resistance is extremely important, than the velocity by itself. The complicated dynamics when bullets expand in tissue makes the entire understanding extremely difficult as so many different dynamics are occurring at the same time, with the tissue and the bullet changing in state constantly. It makes a simple understanding, or any true attempt at a formula, virtually useless or impossible. Change the bullet's shape and damage will decrease, change the bullets' composition it will radically change damage and cavitation both permanent and temproary and penetration in many cases with expanding bullets. Drag, resistance, plastic deformation of the bullet, the changing frontal area of the bullet as it deforms, the constant shift of tissue/gel and the constant change of state of the bullet in velocity/energy/momentum makes it a very complex study.

A great example of the role of weight and momentum in cavitation, as well as bullet shape and build, is the 30 caliber rifles, such as 30-30 and 30-06. Many people who misunderstand terminal ballistics often assume that if one trades bullet weight for added velocity that there is some magic basic idea that cavitation will automatically increase while penetration decreases, as if its a simple straight equation (bullet shape and build remains the same). One need only look at data on the effects of light weight bullets in 30-06 or 308 to see that not only does one end up with less penetration with 125 grain bullets vs. lets say 150 grain soft points of similar build and shape, IT ACTUALLY CAUSES LESS CAVITATION. As you say, momentum is incredibly important in terminal ballistics, because without it the bullet will not keep pushing forward and keep the force stretching and tearing tissue up. The faster lighter bullet eventually "loses" much earlier in this violent impact and shifting and resistance of forces, it loses its energy/velocity incredibly rapidly, the force and potential is LOST, it is NOT TRANSFERRED to the target in many cases. Or in the case of handgun bullets, even if the lighter faster bullet causes more temporary stretch that accomplishes nothing, its essentially wasting energy to no extra effect. In hydrostatic shock situations, the lack of momentum means it can't keep pushing the tissue till it breaks. One loses everything and gains nothing from lighter weight bullets in 30 caliber, as one can see in gel tests, the velocity cult's theory that it will have a tradeoff is a fallacy. Keep firing lighter bullets of the same energy and you will see diminishing returns constantly, the force is lost quickly to no benefit.

The 30-30 has far less power than a 30-06, yet at close range it can do incredible damage simply because of the flatter nose, or better yet flat nose, soft points of light construct. They require very little engineering, the meplat allows for high initial resistance and drag, which helps to expand the face of the bullet rapidly as well as causing high initial resistance and thus stretch of tissue. The lightly constructed bullets require little energy on their own part to expand, force is quickly and effectively being used. Initial drag coupled with rapidly increasing drag, it is stupid simple effective. Same can be applied to flat nose soft points in 357 Magnum out of a rifle or 44 magnum out of a rifle. Change the shape of those bullets for the pistol caliber carbines and watch their terminal performance plummet.

If we change from a flat nose 170 grain light construct bullet in our 30-30 we can get very impressive performance from a 170 grain soft point spitzer in our 30-05. But we must keep in mind, the shape of the bullet makes it less efficient in drag and resistance in tissue, it will require more force to open up, hopefully rapidly, to cause the drag and resistance desired. What we see is a bullet shape that both requires better engineering and more force to be as effective as its more efficient counterpart. In both cartridges at full loads, mid weight to certain heavy weight bullets will far outdamge the lighter bullets in either rifle because of the momentum, sectional density and related dynamics.

Both the bad science of the 1970's and early 1980's plays a major role in the velocity myths, perhaps more than any other. We have a 220 Swift here that I've handloaded and hunted with, it too is a part of the vaunted velocity myth, the great terminal performance lauded from the rifle caliber. Yet whenever you compared it side to side with bigger calibers using heavier bullets, the bigger calibers were often far more impressive, the only times it might fail is when blowing prarie dogs into pieces, otherwise on anything bigger the hype was just hype. Between marketing and myth of such high velocity calibers we see continued ignorance into today.