Firstly, I would like to thank you for finally presenting a cogent argument. I'm about to meticulously deconstruct it but I'm proud of you for crafting it. You could have asked questions about the purpose of the testing but you decided to just find random ways to dump on it. I will respond with that in mind. I also appreciate you using your book education as a weapon. I'm about to do the same with experience, logic, deductive reasoning and a liberal application of common sense. I would also think that one who believes himself to be so smart would use the spell checker. :roll:
BearBio said:
"This is the last serious response you'll ever get from me. Enjoy it."
That was for the troll, pay attention.
BearBio said:
BTW: You "research" is as laughable as your comments. It is non-existent. You have to eliminate as many variables as possible in order to test your null hypothesis.
For the purposes of my test, which was to compare the .44Mag to the .45Colt, I eliminated as many variables as possible. Which included the use of identical guns, of identical barrel length, of identical manufacture, both with factory barrels and cylinders, both tuned by the same gunsmith.
BearBio said:
1. You have no sample size. Sample size is the number of specimens collected MINUS the Degrees of Freedom. A sample of one is not a sample (Because the sample size is 0).
This is terminal ballistic testing, not statistics class. By using ballistic testing media, which is consistent from test to test, I eliminate the need to test the same load more than once. Although if you had asked, I would've told you that some loads were tested more than once and the result was the same. Your point here might be valid if living critters were the test medium.
BearBio said:
2. Velocities are all over the place, even within caliber. Maybe if you DID have an ACTUAL sample, you could average velocities but as it is, they vary over 100 fps. I could just as easily argue penetration was the effect of velocity. What is the SD (Standard Deviation, NOT sectional Density) of your "sample"? Variance? Statistical tests? Maybe a Chi-square?
The loads tested were published maximums, which is what best served the purpose of the test. Nothing would be gained by testing loads of the same velocity. YOU would introduce a meaningless variable that would be contrary to the purpose of the test. Further, anyone who is knowledgeable and experienced with handgun hunting, particularly with cast bullets, knows that nothing is gained beyond ~1200fps. So you could argue that the penetration was the effect of velocity but you would be easily proven wrong.
BearBio said:
3. Same argument concerning bullet weight. Also, you compare a light 338 mag load to heavy pistol loads. Unbiased testing?
Why not? There's no reason not to. Especially in discussions like this, the uninformed commonly expresses that a rifle would be more effective. It was a medium weight .338 load, with a sectional density slightly higher than a 180gr .30cal. The .338 test told me two things. That I need a better bullet for elk and that rifles are not automatically better medicine for big, dangerous critters.
BearBio said:
4. Hollowpoints versus solids? Very fair and unbiased!
Again, why not? It serves two purposes. First, it gives us a reference point. We can compare the heavy hardcasts to known performers, both a heavy JHP and a standard weight Keith bullet. Big error, are you serious? It's simply more information for reference.
BearBio said:
What about equal Brinnel's for the slugs versus hardcast? Oops=Another BIG error.
The point was to test commonly available and commonly used commercial cast bullets. Most the heavy cast bullets used were of similar hardness. Some were not as hard as advertised. The results are still highly relevant. Same for the slug tested, the vaunted Brenneke Black Magic.
BearBio said:
5. Test media? All you prove is which works better on ballistic jell IN THIS VERY LIMITED CASE! Real animals (ever cut one open? Or even cut your own meat? Next time ask mommie if you can do it for yourself!) are made up of muscle (different types), bones, liquid filled cavities and gas-filled cavities==all of which react differently. Ever hear of hydrostatic shock=bet your car mechanic understands and how your car brakes work.
It's not ballistic gel. It's Sim-Test and it's made from animal protein. It's designed to replicate muscle tissue and would have to be diluted with 30% water to equal ballistic gel. So it's a lot tougher than ballistic gel. Highly rated .45ACP defensive loads penetrated only 4". The use of this material is to ELIMINATE VARIABLES. One might compare loads using 100 live critters for each load and still not have a usable number. The testing results in much more viable numbers, for comparing the loads to each other and are in no way meant to predict or calculate how much penetration would be achieved in living tissue. I would think someone so astute as yourself would understand that. But your intent is just to argue, mine is to learn something meaningful. I'm ignoring the idiotic and unnecessary snark.
BearBio said:
6. Not to beat a dead (and decaying horse) but bullet shape varied, as well as hardness, jacketed or not, bullet weight, and velocity.
It's supposed to, it varies in real life. That's kinda the point, to test different weights, LFN's, WFN's and SWC's against each other. You're really grasping here. :roll:
BearBio said:
In short, you do not have an experiment and you certainly do not have data. I MIGHT give you a C- for a high school science project but if one of my students presented this to me when I taught college level science..............
Now you're really getting desperate and your uninformed opinion just proves it.
BearBio said:
Also: I went back to look up where I asked you for your "data" but when I ran "CraigC=obnoxious posts" I got SO MANY pages, I threw up my hands in futility!
That's because it never happened. Have an open relationship with the truth???
