Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 59 of 59

Thread: Jacket skiving variations between different lots of Federal 9mm 147gr HST (P9HST2)

  1. #51
    Regardless of Federal's bare gel numbers, when you combine Doc's account of cumulative OIS and gel test results with the old HST with the fact that most live target recovered bullets resemble 4LD test bullets, I believe the preponderance of the evidence points to the older HST putting its energy to better use (greater expansion with sufficient penetration) in more scenarios of target clothing, not to mention the higher average velocity slightly benefitting hard barrier penetration. I suspect Federal was chasing test results more than street results as test results are harder to debate when they're treated as binary decision points. I'd definitely be buying 147gr +P if new stock.
    Last edited by Schmetallurgy; 08-02-2017 at 05:39 PM.

  2. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmetallurgy View Post
    Regardless of Federal's bare gel numbers, when you combine Doc's account of cumulative OIS and gel test results with the old HST with the fact that most live target recovered bullets resemble 4LD test bullets, I believe the preponderance of the evidence points to the older HST putting its energy to better use (greater expansion with sufficient penetration) in more scenarios of target clothing, not to mention the higher average velocity slightly benefitting hard barrier penetration. I suspect Federal was chasing test results more than street results as test results are harder to debate when they're treated as binary decision points. I'd definitely be buying 147gr +P if new stock.
    To be clear, are you implying that typically in human soft tissue JHP expansion is generally less than in bare standard ordnance gel (same JHPs at same velocities of course) --- and therefore penetration is generally more in human soft tissue than in bare gel?

  3. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by QED View Post
    To be clear, are you implying that typically in human soft tissue JHP expansion is generally less than in bare standard ordnance gel (same JHPs at same velocities of course) --- and therefore penetration is generally more in human soft tissue than in bare gel?
    I'm saying that state of the art JHPs recovered from humans typically have expanded profiles more like 4LD test bullets than bare gel test bullets, i.e., with less expansion, which I suspect is due to human bodies rarely presenting a sufficiently homogeneous and gel-equivalent soft tissue wound path during the expansion phase, combined with instances of there being sufficient clothing to play a role in limiting expansion. There has to be some mechanical explanation for this tendency in recovered bullet profiles observed by Doc and others, and I suspect that is it.

    There are earlier comments in this thread referencing some rare instances of jacket separation by HSTs in auto-glass tests. I suspect that is as much to blame for the change as anything, because Federal's gel numbers haven't seemed to be a topic of concern here, and thus I suspect more broadly, until now-- something I attribute to high quality independent test data and street results supporting the old design.

    As for such jacket separations, I suspect they're rare enough, and of limited enough functional significance with 147gr, especially when part of a volley of non-shedding bullets, so as to be outweighed by the benefits of greater max expansion increasing the likelihood of a critical vascular or nerve structure being damaged by a passing bullet. To me it's not just a question of total surface area, thus "volume of meat crushed," but odds of severing or crushing something especially efficient at causing rapid incapacitation. You don't have to take a chunk out of a large vessel to rapidly dump blood pressure, you just have to reach it and cut for a reasonable distance of contact; the blood pressure will ensure rapid outflow.

    Therefore, I place more value on the area of the polygon produced by connecting the extreme edges of the petals (the area inside which contact will be nearly guaranteed) than I place on actual frontal area of the petal and core material (the area of direct displacement). I'm just trying to clearly illustrate my general preference, not to say I'm sitting here with calipers sketching out polygons from test bullets. However, this conceptual difference is also relevant because the gaps between the petals lower the resistance to penetration while, in my opinion, only minimally reducing critical wounding capacity-- within reason of course. HST has always appeared to exemplify this concept very well until now. HST likely also was able to penetrate sufficiently while expanding unusually large due to the prevalence of sharp frontal surfaces, when well expanded, which more efficiently cut through tissue thus retaining more energy for penetration.

    Of course there are other ways to prevent jacket separation. Locking bands and bonding come to mind. I've always thought the ideal bullet would be a Ranger-T with bonding flux only applied in the shank, so the petals and "talons" could unfold broadly while still ensuring the jacket stays intact, and internal scoring to produce the lead wedges apparent on the petals of the HST. This of course assumes Winchester can maintain general QC.
    Last edited by Schmetallurgy; 08-02-2017 at 08:24 PM.

  4. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmetallurgy View Post
    I'm saying that state of the art JHPs recovered from humans typically have expanded profiles more like 4LD test bullets than bare gel test bullets, i.e., with less expansion, which I suspect is due to human bodies rarely presenting a sufficiently homogeneous and gel-equivalent soft tissue wound path during the expansion phase, combined with instances of there being sufficient clothing to play a role in limiting expansion. There has to be some mechanical explanation for this tendency in recovered bullet profiles observed by Doc and others, and I suspect that is it.
    There certainly is; impacting bone or other "hard" solid that partially plugs the cavity and thus reduces stagnation pressure and expansion; also impacting fat, not muscle. However, impact with muscle is most likely NOT going to result in smaller average diameter than impacting bare gel. Anyway, more modern JHPs are less and less sensitive to the cavities being plugged and thus experiencing expansion reduction -- unlike the days when Wolberg published his findings where expansion in soft tissue was all over the place -- including a finding that there can be more penetration in soft tissue, but as a result of much less expansion than in bare gel (especially if lung tissue and fat are substantial part of the wound track). There are very good mechanical reasons why, short of substantial wound track in the lungs, penetration in the body soft tissues (same frontal area and velocity) is typically a few inches LESS than in SOG (even without any bones).

    There are earlier comments in this thread referencing some rare instances of jacket separation by HSTs in auto-glass tests. I suspect that is as much to blame for the change as anything, because Federal's gel numbers haven't seemed to be a topic of concern here, and thus I suspect more broadly, until now-- something I attribute to high quality independent test data and street results supporting the old design.
    There's better for windshields than HST, but that's another issue.

    As for such jacket separations, I suspect they're rare enough, and of limited enough functional significance with 147gr, especially when part of a volley of non-shedding bullets, so as to be outweighed by the benefits of greater max expansion increasing the likelihood of a critical vascular or nerve structure being damaged by a passing bullet. To me it's not just a question of total surface area, thus "volume of meat crushed," but odds of severing or crushing something especially efficient at causing rapid incapacitation. You don't have to take a chunk out of a large vessel to rapidly dump blood pressure, you just have to reach it and cut for a reasonable distance of contact; the blood pressure will ensure rapid outflow.
    More tissue disruption is fine -- but not at expense of penetration so that vital tissue is reached AND disrupted.

    Therefore, I place more value on the area of the polygon produced by connecting the extreme edges of the petals (the area inside which contact will be nearly guaranteed) than I place on actual frontal area of the petal and core material (the area of direct displacement). I'm just trying to clearly illustrate my general preference, not to say I'm sitting here with calipers sketching out polygons from test bullets. However, this conceptual difference is also relevant because the gaps between the petals lower the resistance to penetration while, in my opinion, only minimally reducing critical wounding capacity-- within reason of course. HST has always appeared to exemplify this concept very well until now. HST likely also was able to penetrate sufficiently while expanding unusually large due to the prevalence of sharp frontal surfaces, when well expanded, which more efficiently cut through tissue thus retaining more energy for penetration.
    Yes, HST bullet design is fine -- as long as it doesn't overexpand and thus underpenetrate.

    Of course there are other ways to prevent jacket separation. Locking bands and bonding come to mind. I've always thought the ideal bullet would be a Ranger-T with bonding flux only applied in the shank, so the petals and "talons" could unfold broadly while still ensuring the jacket stays intact, and internal scoring to produce the lead wedges apparent on the petals of the HST. This of course assumes Winchester can maintain general QC.
    Not impressed with R-T, R-B is better AS LONG AS EXPANSION IS CONTROLLED (1.5 caliber ideal, 15.5-16" pen.)

  5. #55
    Soooo, Doc. Do we have any test data yet with the new HST2 and HST4 loads? It's been a while, just sayin'.

  6. #56
    So... does anybody have real data on the "new" stuff? @DocGKR seemed to use it as a comparison/control load historically, so I figure he'd at least have seen the new stuff in gel by now.

    TFB put up some pretty disappointing results from a Shield recently. Unfortunately they used ClearGel this time around and that carries questionable validity, but as I recall HST was a consistent expander in that medium. I'm curious if the velocity change and reduced skiving diminish this load out of the sub-3.5" barrels.

  7. #57
    Member Moonshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    earth
    Asking again. Its been about 3 1/2 years since the last post. Considering all the negative reviews, I know many are wondering if the newest iteration of 147gr HST is a step forward or backward.

    Inconsistent expansion and minimal penetration seem to be the new norm for what was once the gold standard (or at least one of the gold standards).

    Sometimes I wonder if I should just carry my Federal AE 147gr FMJFP. I average around 3500 rounds of this stuff per year in training (maybe half this amount the last year), but it's still way more than the amount of HST I put through my G26. It has a flat meplat similar to the WCs in my airweight and plenty of penetration.

    Not really thinking of switching to FMJ, but there is something to be said for the number of rounds I shoot in training of one vs the other, and if the 147gr HST is simply a good round (but no long one of the best out of a 3.5" barrel), it may be time to look for something else to carry.

  8. #58
    I've been wondering when it will be time to re-evaluate all the common loads again for service calibers.

    We're getting close to a decade on DocGKR's "List" and with recent variations with the 147 HST, it begs the question what other loads may have deviated.

    Hell I'd donate to a gofundme to get an updated comprehensive list even if its just for 9mm and I'm sure others would as well.

  9. #59
    Site Supporter Hambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Behind the Photonic Curtain
    The last post from Doc in 2017 said that no agency has had any issues with penetration. He hasn't said anything else, which I take to mean nothing has changed.

    Don't obsess about minor ammo changes. It won't be the most important thing if you're in a shooting.
    "Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA

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
  •