Eliminators

**killzone** · 24-12-2015, 22:46

Originally Posted by BigT

I knew a dude who took a 9mm ball round in the arm that ricocheted down the bone until it hit his heart and killed him. Doesn't make that the ultimate load.

Same here. Deceased was shot once in his right fore arm fending against an attacker. Bullet travelled all the way to his torso and killed him. Not even a teaspoon of blood on the scene. Sorry, back on topic.

**Wanderin' Zero** · 25-12-2015, 08:39

Originally Posted by BigT

Really? Dude I'm glad they worked for you. But unless you've shot a few hundred people with them your observations aren't particularly statistically noteworthy either. I knew a dude who took a 9mm ball round in the arm that ricocheted down the bone until it hit his heart and killed him. Doesn't make that the ultimate load.

In fairness though, I've also never seen statistical data of a few hundred real life shootings for any particular model of current premium SD ammo either. I'm not suggesting eliminators are any good. What I am saying is that of necessity people often take a lot of stuff on faith. I take my Hornady SD HPs on faith. I hope and believe that they will perform as promised when I really need them. But I won't really know until I get there.

**BigT** · 25-12-2015, 08:46

Originally Posted by Wanderin' Zero

In fairness though, I've also never seen statistical data of a few hundred real life shootings for any particular model of current premium SD ammo either. I'm not suggesting eliminators are any good. What I am saying is that of necessity people often take a lot of stuff on faith. I take my Hornady SD HPs on faith. I hope and believe that they will perform as promised when I really need them. But I won't really know until I get there.

Which is why we use the gel tests. Because the comparisons have actually been made and the results are worthwhile. That doesn't exist with eliminators. The point I was making, one I thought you would've understood pretty easily in fact , was that this single incident doesn't prove nor disprove anything really. And shouldn't be used as the basis for a sweeping statement regarding their efficacy. Kinda like the famous NYPD polar bear incidence doesn't prove that a 158gr LSWC isn't generally superior to a modern JHP even though it was a better choice in that particular incidence.

**Wanderin' Zero** · 25-12-2015, 09:00

Yes, but you never referred to gel tests, now did you? Your stated benchmark was having shot a few hundred people.

**madhatter** · 25-12-2015, 09:09

There were some tests done into "ballistic clay," an illustration of which can be seen here: http://www.dansammo.com/nga.asp

**Wanderin' Zero** · 25-12-2015, 09:23

Interesting. While the experience of one or two shootings is not a great deal of evidence of the effectiveness of the bullet in question (and certainly not enough to persuade me to use them), it is nevertheless still evidence.

**HvR** · 21-11-2018, 15:11

Reviving the old thread as I found an interesting study after a THV/Eliminator thread on Facebook popped up and I decided to google a bit, stumbled upon a recent study done by 2 gentleman from University of Kwazulu/Natal.

The 80gr NGA eliminator did damage 26 layers of 200GSM kevlar vs 10 layers that 9mm FMJ damaged. So it MIGHT penetrate level IIa body armour but definitely not go through level II (my own derivation).

So it seems the .38 special 78gr NGA eliminator as the same (or slightly better as it was at the max of their testing capabilities) capability of passing through kevlar as Winchester .357 magnum 158gr hollowpoint.

So will probably go through level IIa but will be stopped by level II and level IIIa (again my own opinion)

Here is a link to the paper for those that are interested:
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...LLETPROOF_VEST

Just some nice black on white proper tests that the Eliminators (and probably THV since the same basic physics principals apply) is not the magical body armour penetrators as myth makes them out to be.