Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 104

Thread: Speer Gold Dot G2: Too Soon To Buy In?

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by DocGKR View Post
    List is in alphabetical order. Any of the loads will work fine.

    As noted by Paul, for agency purchase, it is best to use a load that is in continual production; I suspect that will not be an issue for 147 gr G2, nor for 124 gr +P GD, 147 gr RA9T, 147 gr HST...
    124 +P GD always USED to be the one I could always find in stock. For the past few months I can't find it anywhere...

  2. #12
    I don't know if they have had any shootings with it yet, but given what I know about the FBI's DSU and that Doc was involved in the testing... I trust the G2. It's been their issued 9mm duty ammo since at least October.

  3. #13
    New Member BLR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Left seat in a Super Viking
    I never cease to be amazed at the eagerness companies stuff their hollow points with material. To include posts, rubber, and plastic, without actually understanding what it is they are doing from a fluid mechanics and dynamics perspective.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Riehl View Post
    I never cease to be amazed at the eagerness companies stuff their hollow points with material. To include posts, rubber, and plastic, without actually understanding what it is they are doing from a fluid mechanics and dynamics perspective.
    Wait... Are you suggesting Speer and the FBI don't understand the ramifications of their new ammunition?

  5. #15
    New Member BLR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Left seat in a Super Viking
    Quote Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
    Wait... Are you suggesting Speer and the FBI don't understand the ramifications of their new ammunition?
    Oh yes. That's exactly what I'm saying.

    And the post in the Hydra Shok "Redirected forces."

    I'm out.

  6. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    East Greenwich, RI
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Riehl View Post
    I never cease to be amazed at the eagerness companies stuff their hollow points with material. To include posts, rubber, and plastic, without actually understanding what it is they are doing from a fluid mechanics and dynamics perspective.
    Because Marketing...

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Riehl View Post
    Oh yes. That's exactly what I'm saying.

    And the post in the Hydra Shok "Redirected forces."

    I'm out.
    Not sure if you're being serious or sarcastic. I was asking a genuine question - not being a smart-ass.

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Riehl View Post
    Oh yes. That's exactly what I'm saying.

    And the post in the Hydra Shok "Redirected forces."

    I'm out.
    So, if you would be willing to be dragged back in for a moment, I seem to recall that there was a test done back in the 90's where the Federal Hydrashok round was tested with post, and with the post removed by manual machining, and that there was found to be a difference in expansion characteristics (the post allegedly did improve expansion performance....)

    Wish I had the old test report, but just for the sake of asking, marketing may suck and fail but I was under the impression that this actually was an engineering choice?

    As far as polymer inserts for hollowpoints, I was under the impression that this was all an attempt to replicate wallboard and sheet metal performance seen in the EFMJ designs with the bare / clothed gel performance of the conventional / advanced hollowpoint designs.

    I have wondered if some of the test failures now that it is leaving the labs may be temperature related changes to polymer characteristics... but I have no insights here, and real test data seems maddeningly difficult to actually come by.
    Sort of like we are back to the bad old days...

  9. #19
    Site Supporter DocGKR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    1. I have had nothing to do with any FBI DSU testing of the Speer G2.

    2. Depends on which generation/version of the Hydrashok one is discussing. An FBI test documented a slight improvement in performance with the post in place vs. bullets where the post was deliberately removed prior to testing. Testing at LAIR showed no significant differences whether the post was present or not when shot. In our testing, we discovered that in about a third of shots the post stated upright, about a third of the shots the post bent over, and in about a third of the shots the post broke off; in no cases was terminal performance altered--in short the post was irrelevant.
    Facts matter...Feelings Can Lie

  10. #20
    I think they know exactly what they're doing from a fluid dynamics perspective.

    I think the idea is to fill the cavity with something that will prevent any sort of loose solid from filling the cavity, but has the same compression characteristics as water (meaning it will flow under pressure, but not compress.) If the bullet hits water (or a high water content substance, like living tissue), the pressure exerted on the interface of the cavity filler will be carried though it and exerted on the walls of the cavity, as if the water in the tissue itself had filled the cavity on impact, and was exerting the pressure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Riehl View Post
    I never cease to be amazed at the eagerness companies stuff their hollow points with material. To include posts, rubber, and plastic, without actually understanding what it is they are doing from a fluid mechanics and dynamics perspective.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •