Responder al tema

Mensaje: <blockquote data-quote="Delfin" data-source="post: 778625" data-attributes="member: 2582">Comparativa balística (final) entre el .45 ACP y el .40 S&WLo prometido es deuda.Primero una maldición gitana para el software que no permite hacer TABLAS! :boxing_smiley: :boxing_smiley: :boxing_smiley: grrrrrrLo que siguen son valores tomados de las famosas tablas de STOPPING POWER de Marshall y Shanow (de los cuales hablaremos en otro momento y/o lugar)Tabla 145 ACP Casos - Type - Grains - Velocity (fps) - Energy (fpe) - Success %21 - JHP - 204 - 992 - 444 - 88%04 - FMJ - 219 - 888 - 380 - 67%.40 S&WCasos - Type - Grains - Velocity (fps) - Energy (fpe) - Success %35 - JHP - 166 - 1084 - 430 - 87%02 - FMJ - 155 - 1125 - 436 - 79%¿Cómo se interpreta esto? La cosa es mas o menos así. El valor de 80% se puede tomar como ACEPTABLE para los SUCCESS, esto es: un 80% significa que en 8 de 10 casos que una única bala impacta en el TORSO de un agresor armado, se logra la INCAPACITACIÓN más o menos inmediata (cuestión de segundos)Si nos fijamos en los valores del .45 veremos que las municiones con punta FMJ (Full Metal Jacket) las consideradas "LEGALES" en nuestro país... y en la cual muchos usuarios confían... es del 67% de los casos, INACEPTABLE para un usuario preocupado por su seguridad personal o la de su familia.Recién con las puntas JHP (Jacketed Hollow Point = Encamisadas de Punta Hueca) el valor promedio es del 88%. ACEPTABLE valor de Stopping Power (un único disparo al torso)Concentremos nuestra atención ahora en el .40 S&WEn materia de puntas FMJ hay muy pocos datos disponibles, 2 (dos es NADA) asi que dejemos de lado este tipo de puntas porque podríamos llegar a conclusiones erróneas).En cambio con las JHP la cosa se pone interesante, tan interesante que se me ocurrió hacer la TABLA 2 donde desgloso por VELOCIDADES para ver la efectividad (creciente). Fíjense que EN PROMEDIO, las .40 S&W dan resultados SIMILARES (prácticamente son idénticos) al .45 ACP y si hubiese descartado un par de valores muy bajos de la .40 S&W... la cosa hubiese diferente. ¿Cómo se interpreta esto?Sencillito: la EFECTIVIDAD en cuanto a PODER DE DETENCIÓN de las .40 S&W (puntas JHP) es prácticamente IDÉNTICO al del .45 ACP.¿Y entonces? Fácil: entonces me quedo con el calibre que me permite MAYOR PODER DE FUEGO, esto es: mayor cantidad de ammo en mis 3 cargadores :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: es decir: con el .40 S&WTabla 2SUCCESS en % en función de las Velocidades (fps)Calibre 850 a 950 /// 950 a 1050 /// 1050 a 1150 /// 1150 a 1250 /// 1250 a 1350.45 ACP ----- 88% ---- 87% ---- 92% ---- 00% ---- 00%.40 S&W ---- 00% ---- 83% ---- 89% ---- 89% ---- 93%Esta tabla me encanta :yonofui: (modesto el hombre!) porque nos permite desglosar por VELOCIDADES y relacionar VELOCIDAD (de la punta, hombre!) con EFICACIA para el Stopping Power. Interpretación: Salta a la vista que a mayor VELOCIDAD de la punta, mayor EFICACIA en el Poder de Detención. También puede verse que para lograr resultados similares, las .40 S&W tienen que tener 200 fps más que las puntas equivalentes de la .45 ACPDe cualquier modo, si aceptamos un valor de 80% como ACEPTABLE, todas las JHP -de ambos calibres- andan bien.Moraleja: ... que cada uno saque su propia conclusión y tome sus propias DECISIONES con responsabilidad, per evitando los "saberes del sentido común".---------------STOPPING POWERWhere no shootings have occurred, the effectivness has been estimated using Marshall and Sanow's techniques. Actual street figures are shown first, followed by estimates. All figures sorted according to effectiveness.Information Sources: All figures listed under the Marshall & Sanow's Latest Ratings are sourced from the references listed below. Because the database of actual shootings, and the number of new ammunition & bullets being released is continually increasing, a situation occurs where different sources list conflicting figures for the same calibre/load combination. When this occurs, I have used the figures from the most recently dated publication. Many thanks to the following publications, people, and organisations for the actual figures, and much of the information about handgun stopping power provided by this site:FBI Wound Ballistic EvaluationFederal Cartridges (Product info and brochures)Guns & Ammo Magazine (September 1992)Guns & Ammo Magazine (October 1992)Guns & Ammo 1994 Annual for the Strasbourg Test InformationHandguns Magazine (February 1995)Handguns Magazine (December 1995)Hornady 1995 Catalog (Pictures)Handgun Stopping Power (Marshalll & Sanow) for most of the figures and background informationLarry Ellision for pointing out errors, for constructive criticism, and useful suggestions.Magsafe Ammo Company (Product info and brochures)Marshalll & Sanow for all their fantastic work, and regular updatesRick Dixon (D&D Omega Star Bullets) for figures, photo's, bullets and other interesting informationStreet Stoppers (also by Marshall & Sanow)Criteria for Determining a Bullets Stopping Power[Marshall and Sanow, pages 43-45]The bullet must strike the torso (excluding the head and neck) of a person. It seems obvious that a bullet that strikes a hand, leg, arm or foot, will almost certainly never bring about instantaneous incapacitation. Secondly, a successful one-shot stop occurring in the neck or head owes its success to shot placement, rather than calibre or bullet design.Multiple hits have to be discarded. We are interested in the effect of a single bullet. Again it is obvious that multiple shots will be more effective, however it is impossible to determine some measure of bullet performance based on multiple shots.Figures are provided (by Marshall & Sanow) only when a minimum of five instances of shooting with a particular load/calibre combination have occurred. In addition, some of the following information must have been available: police reports, evidence technician reports, homicide reports, autopsy results, and photos (among other things). In addition, the actual recovered bullets or photographs of the bullets must have been available for examination.Marshall & Sanow have developed a method of estimating a bullets performance based on correlating the results of the performance of new bullets fired into 10% ballistic gelatine with the results of bullets with known performance on the street, also fired into 10% ballistic gelatine. (Read the book - you'll find out that their method of estimating is the most thorough and likely to represent reality as you could possible get). All figures that are estimated are marked with a "*". Reality shows that frequently the estimated figure turns out to be a little below the actual figure when it becomes available.Validity of the Bullet Effectiveness Estimation Theory[Marshall and Sanow, pages 187-196]Marshall and Sanow make use of four areas of a bullets performance in 10% ballistic gelatine to predict a bullets effectiveness. In each case the bullets known performance on the street is compared to the performance in the ballistic gelatine. The results allow a new bullets street effectiveness to be estimated based on its performance in ballistic gelatine. The correlation coefficients for each area of bullet performance in ballistic gelatine with actual street results are:Penetration. The correlation coefficient for penetration is -0.37. Recovered bullet diameter. The correlation coefficient is 0.82 for bullets under 1300 fps, and 0.68 for bullets over 1300 fps. Permanent crush cavity volume. The correlation coefficient is 0.87 for bullets under 1300 fps, and 0.60 for bullets over 1300 fps. Temporary crush cavity volume. The correlation coefficient is 0.80. Of course, the closer each correlation coefficient is to 1.0, the more accurate the prediction. In practise, Marshall and Sanow's method has shown itself to be very accurate, and has become the standard by which many bullet manufacturers and knowledgeable publications compare and estimate new bullets performance. - All rights reseved by Marshall and Sanow</blockquote>

Verificación: Libertador de Argentina