Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Handgun Discussion
.
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JD8" data-source="post: 3124931" data-attributes="member: 24"><p>Go back and review post #21, I'm not sure how else your post could be received. </p><p></p><p>Glad you're up to speed on Fackler, was reading him 15+ years ago (and all the rebuttals.) But guess what he used to come to his initial conclusions? That's right.... 10% ballistic gel..... of which he developed. Of which you say is insufficient in predicting any results. He also speaks of my energy question, and subsequently other individuals address it also, but I think we are getting too deep there. Finally, one of the things you seemed to have scanned over is that the round I chose and posted test of, had superior penetration (not expansion because it's not a HP) for a .380. Of which, that round exceeds Fackler's initial minimum 12" requirement. </p><p></p><p>Point is, if you come and want tell everyone about ballistics, you might want to realize that others may have done their homework.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JD8, post: 3124931, member: 24"] Go back and review post #21, I'm not sure how else your post could be received. Glad you're up to speed on Fackler, was reading him 15+ years ago (and all the rebuttals.) But guess what he used to come to his initial conclusions? That's right.... 10% ballistic gel..... of which he developed. Of which you say is insufficient in predicting any results. He also speaks of my energy question, and subsequently other individuals address it also, but I think we are getting too deep there. Finally, one of the things you seemed to have scanned over is that the round I chose and posted test of, had superior penetration (not expansion because it's not a HP) for a .380. Of which, that round exceeds Fackler's initial minimum 12" requirement. Point is, if you come and want tell everyone about ballistics, you might want to realize that others may have done their homework. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Handgun Discussion
.
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom