Filed under: Ballistics, Guns, RKBA | Tags: .25 ACP, ammo, ammunition, ballistics, BBTI, Beretta, Bernadelli, Brass Fetcher, cartridges, data, Discussion., firearms, guns
[For the AI’s own inscrutable reasons, Facebook considers my ballistics blog “spam”. Unable to get it resolved, I’m going to post partial info about new blog posts over there, here, so people can link it off FB. Please just ignore if shooting stuff isn’t of interest.]
Last year Buffalo Bore came out with two loadings of what they called HEAVY 25 ACP Pistol and Handgun Ammo, saying that it was standard pressure but heavy-for-caliber and which met the FBI penetration criteria. We got some, and decided to do an informal test recently to see if it performed as promised.
[The entire post can be found here.]
Filed under: Ballistics, Failure, Guns, tech | Tags: .32 ACP, .32 H&R, .327 Magnum, ammo, ammunition, ballistics, BBTI, blogging, Buffalo Bore, cartridges, data, Discussion., failure to feed, firearms, guns, jim downey, Revolver, technology
[For the AI’s own inscrutable reasons, Facebook considers my ballistics blog “spam”. Unable to get it resolved, I’m going to post partial info about new blog posts over there, here, so people can link it off FB. Please just ignore if shooting stuff isn’t of interest.]
I’m not a fan of the .32acp for self-defense. But the .32 H&R mag or the .327 Federal mag are both respectable options, even out of a short barrel revolver. Since the 100gr Buffalo Bore Heavy 32 H&R Magnum +P ammo load wasn’t available when we did the .32 H&R tests, we weren’t sure how it would perform. And we decided to do some informal testing to find out, learning another lesson in the process that I thought I’d share.
[The entire post can be found here.]
Jim Downey
Filed under: Ballistics, Uncategorized | Tags: ballistics, BBTI, data, testing
[For some reason, Facebook is having problems with my ballistics blog being considered “spam”. Until I get it resolved, I’m going to post partial info about new blog posts over there, here, so people can link it off FB. Please just ignore if ballistics isn’t of interest.]
So, I have some important news to share.
After months of discussion, and soliciting the opinions and suggestions from a number of people involved in the firearms/shooting community, we’ve made some decisions about BBTI going forward.
[The entire post can be found here.]
Filed under: Ballistics, Guns, Humor, RKBA, Society | Tags: ballistics, BBTI, blogging, data, firearms, free, guns, humor, jim downey, research
Cross posted from the BBTI blog, just to give you an idea of what my day has been like.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Blimey. Just got the following email:
Someone directed me to this page from your site: http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html
Now, I appreciate what you are doing, but how you are presenting it is not very helpful.
What a useless page that is. Hey, look, columns of unlabeled numbers! How exciting!
Is that velocity? Muzzle Energy? Momentum? Power factor? Drop over distance? What are the units?
It’s labeled at the top as “.357 Mag Results”. Why not “.357 Mag Muzzle Energy in ft-lbs”?
My response? This: “Sorry to disappoint you. We’ll be happy to completely refund your money.”
The guy wrote back, protesting that he meant it as “constructive criticism.” And then went on to protest that he *still* didn’t know what the data represented (in spite of the fact that it is listed on the Y-axis of every ammo graph and indicated elsewhere on the site).
Sigh. I wrote back the following:
From the homepage of the site, and also referred to in multiple locations elsewhere on the site: “Since we first launched BBTI three years ago, it has become a primary reference tool for firearms enthusiasts of all stripes and from around the globe. Our initial research data covered the relationship between barrel length and velocity for some 13 common handgun calibers/cartridges.”
But you’re absolutely correct, we didn’t spell out that the numbers were velocity in feet-per-second (the standard velocity measurement in the US). We’ll correct that to make it more explicit. The funny thing is that you are the very first person in 3.5 years to not understand that this was what was indicated. Probably because you came at it from someone else’s link direct to that one results page. At least that’s the most charitable conclusion I can come to.
And that, dear friends is why now each caliber/cartridge page now says .22 Results in fps. (or whatever the caliber/cartridge is). Never let it be said that we won’t go the e x t r a inch for the dimwitted and deliberately dense.
People really will always find something to bitch about, won’t they? Even if it is free & unencumbered research data that they can’t get elsewhere.
Blimey.
Jim Downey
Communion Of Dreams 