Originally Posted by
rsa-otc
TGS, have you seen any paper on GD2 being approved by the NJSP or AG's office. When I last talked to my FFL who is Ex LEO and well connected to the NJSP Firearms unit nothing official had been handed out with regards to GD2, which is why we went Hornady CD. He was still entering GD2 on his Hollow Point Log, something that was no longer required for Hornady CD, Federal EFMJ or Corbon Power Ball. Now I know it would make logical sense that GD2 would fall in the same category as the rest BUT this is NJ and logic doesn't work here all the time. Until I heard it officially from the NJSP or saw paper on it I wouldn't use GD2. Why risk it? While we are too small to do any significant ballistic testing I can tell you that the 9mm 135 grain plus p Critical Defense has been super accurate out of our M&P's @ 25 yards. I will touch base with my FLL and see if there has been any movement on the GD2 front.
If memory serves me right the ILSP used the 95 grain JSP ammo in their S&W 59's waaaay back when, late 60's through the 70's. From what I recall they were not happy, having had several spectacular failures with that round. Again if I recall correctly the problem was lack of penetration. Also ammo quality control could have been a factor as well.
With regards to JSP's in general... At one time we carried the old 38spl 158 SWC Nyclads. These rounds were dead soft lead with a nylon jacket to limit lead exposure on the range. Some of the first lead free rounds if you will. When fired into fence posts they no longer looked like a SWC but there was little to no expansion. For the last 25 years we have carried 125 SJP in our revolvers. I do not expect them to expand on impact. What I am looking for is a reduction in the potential for ricochet should my personnel miss or the round over penetrate. That is the only benefit I see over a FMJ round. That and I don't have to worry about leading fouling the gun during a fight, something us revolver shooters need to consider even if it is a small consideration.