[Infernal Ire]

Since misconceptions and misinformation seem to ravage this board sometimes, (examples: birdshot being considered a reliable manstopping round, buckshot only going through 2 walls, and the desert eagle being considered a top quality firearm; all come to mind, and that was just one post) I figured I would try to link to a website that may provide interesting reading material for all those that speak without really knowing or making the attempt to know. This website should help with some questions that many of you may have about the penetrating power of various rounds of ammunition when tested against various materials. (Sorry this website won't help on the issue of the Desert Eagle being a POS. That is just common knowledge and if you don't know then you need to stop watching The Matrix.) Have fun reading and learning. Hopefully this forum can start containing more contributions that are somewhat scientific and contain less knee-jerk anecdotal drivel.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/theboxotruth.htm

[Meatsack]

I didn't check out your link, but I've seen other reports on ballistic penetration of handgun rounds to answer the huge debate over the "best" self-defense round. I think the conclusion was that to be considered an effective self-defense round, it had to penetrate at least 9" or something (could be wrong). Basically, 9-mm +P, .357M, .45 are all good workable rounds. I'm partial to .45ACP myself. Thanks for the info.

[.357magnum]

The BoT site is fun reading and entertaining but provides only some useful information such as shooting through drywall and 2x4's. The rest of the stuff is shooting ammunition into water filled milk jugs....

It really annoys me why everyone on ar15.com kisses his ass for posting such obvious stuff - he thinks he's splitting the atom or something.
Screw him, he's an attention whore

For the most informative and scientific ammunition testing site check out:

this is the best and most important one
http://www.firearmstactical.com/tactical.htm

http://demigodllc.com/~zak/firearms/...l.php?sort=wv2

http://www.tacticalshotgun.ca/ballistics_shotgun.html

ps - i'm a .45acp guy myself
1911 and/or H&K USP stoked with 230gr. Winchester Ranger T [RA45T] OR
230gr. Remington Golden Sabres
230gr. Federal HST [NOT Hydra-Shoks!!]
230gr CCI Gold Dots

[Infernal Ire]

Originally Posted by .357magnum

The BoT site is fun reading and entertaining but provides only some useful information such as shooting through drywall and 2x4's. The rest of the stuff is shooting ammunition into water filled milk jugs....

It really annoys me why everyone on ar15.com kisses his ass for posting such obvious stuff - he thinks he's splitting the atom or something.
Screw him, he's an attention whore

For the most informative and scientific ammunition testing site check out:

this is the best and most important one
http://www.firearmstactical.com/tactical.htm

http://demigodllc.com/~zak/firearms/...l.php?sort=wv2

http://www.tacticalshotgun.ca/ballistics_shotgun.html

ps - i'm a .45acp guy myself
1911 and/or H&K USP stoked with 230gr. Winchester Ranger T [RA45T] OR
230gr. Remington Golden Sabres
230gr. Federal HST [NOT Hydra-Shoks!!]
230gr CCI Gold Dots

I agree that BOT only provides "some" ballistics information, but you drastically understate the importance of having a site that deals with the supposed "obvious" stuff. He isn't splitting the atom of course, but he is providing information through an easily understood picture format for people that claim to know the truth but really don't. If the stuff was so inherently obvious then you would never hear so many people say incorrect things like "buckshot won't go through two pieces of dry wall." But look around, thousands of people think similiar things or things comparable to this in their degree falsity. It is vitally important to have an easy to understand resource that shows them the errors of their thinking rather than leaving people to decipher the truth about car doors or dry wall based on ballistics gelatin testing. Ballistics gelatin testing is truly wonderful for showing the anticipated wound channel as it relates to flesh, but it doesn't provide the end all be all in terms of answers to bullet penetration questions as they relate to other materials.

As for your critique that he is an attention whore, I say who cares? Since when is a critique of a person's character in any way related to debunking that person's testable claims. Science should be approached without prejudice. I will merely choose to assimilate the useful information he provides, be thankful, and fall short at making trite character attacks.

[Friggintitsman]

At the beginning of the war in Iraq most vehicles where not equipped with Armor. My shop (welding & machine) work was tasked with armoring trucks. We pinned the m-16 against the ak-47. Although a human target the ak would typically deal more damage the m-16 has a lot more penetration power almost twice as much as the ak. Although not as reliable the m-16 is more accurate, more deadly, easier to fire in my eyes.

A lil off the subject, but I thought I would add

[Gold182]

Nice website cant buy guns in the UK so i know nothing about bullets, interesting read though for noobs like myself. Also he makes it really simple so someone who knows nothing about guns like me beyond films and games can understand.

[Juanthegrappler]

good read. Im still not sold on using 00 buckshot instead of #4 buckshot for home use but still nice to see that the shotgun is the best for home defense.

[TheGambler13]

He does some interesting tests, but opinions always differ. I use it for some internet reading from time to time. I have based some of my decisions off of what he has done.

[Eugenicist]

Very cool link, I enjoyed it.

[Ryo]

Yea.. that's a great link you got there. I've seen many many of them. Each one of these so called "test" to end all test differing from the next one.

Nobody will ever convince me that number 4 or number 6 birdshot at 10 to 15 feet will not blow a hole in a man the size of your fist. Sorry but I've seen the amount of damage the round is capable of at point blank range, and I realy don't need somebody to try to convince me I'm wrong.