9 mm 147 gr duty load testing

[Chuck Haggard]

I still question the HST too...

Here are some facts according to the FBI:

The FBI specifies 18" penetration is ideal; the closer to 18" the better, but not over 18".
The FBI specifically called out penetration requirements, because that was one of the major problems of incapacitation.
The FBI protocol doesn't specify minimum/ideal expansion requirements. So this means the authority, experts, professionals, SME's, don't have expansion criteria...probably for a better reason than anyone else who is not in that group.

Federal's own FBI test results barely pass the test with 12" penetration...the very minimum...in ideal gelatin.
Hard for me to highly recommend this load above all the others.

In this test, the results are inconsistent with Federal's test = yellow flag.
The HST retained bullet weight of 148.4 gr in bare gelatin = yellow flag (not possible, it is an error).

Therefore this test, Federal, and FBI protocol doesn't provide me optimism over other recommendations.

You are getting WAY too hung up in very minor details.

Just as a small quibble, note Doc's post earlier ref how a bullet might be heavier than spec when pulled out of the gel.

I'll note that IMHO the bare gel testing is a good engineering test, to see if a bullet completely over expands or fragments, but that's about it. The fact that nearly every JHP bullet I've recovered at a crime scene, or seen pulled from a body, looks just like the bullets taken from the "heavy clothing"/four layer denim testing is a real clue for me which of those tests I pay the most attention to.

My short version is, look at the heavy clothing and the auto glass test, everything else is academic.

[DocGKR]

snakyjake,

Carefully read what Chuck wrote above.

I was there when the Dr. Fackler was advising the initial FBI BRF standards. I've been to the FBI BRF and lectured there. Likewise, I have frequently collaborated with the FBI BRF. You are badly misinterpreting things and are veering into Dunning-Kruger, anal retentive territory...

[Chuck Haggard]

Then, to really trigger the OCD, I note that the penetration depths in real bodies is even a bit more variable than gel, people being a bit less homogeneous;

http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Fac...hester_9mm.pdf

[Al T.]

I first read that and thought "Man, they shot the bejeezus outta that g...oh, Ballistic Gelatin. Duh

In a perfect world..........

[snakyjake]

I consider the bare gelatin the baseline to normalize the test. If the bare gelatin tests aren't equivalent, then I begin to question.
This test is the ONLY test that I have seen where the bullet is greater than 100% of it's original weight.

I don't consider it anal retentive or OCD. I think testing and research should be scrutinized and debated, else become a sheep. Hornady's web page is a prime example. I don't care about the typo or human error. What I care about is that no one bothered to question it. Even when I first mentioned it in the thread no one cared to investigate. Everyone seemed content with bad information....and that's what concerns me.

[snakyjake]

Then, to really trigger the OCD, I note that the penetration depths in real bodies is even a bit more variable than gel, people being a bit less homogeneous;

http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Fac...hester_9mm.pdf

Yes, and this is why I don't want my load near the minimum penetration.

[ssb]

For what it's worth, thirty seconds on google yielded a page of results where, among other things, bullets being slightly overweight after recovery in BG is rather common. Happened to Barnes, HST, Critical Duty...

https://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Se...Hornady_CD.htm

But hey, I read somewhere that's unpossible.

[DocGKR]

"What I care about is that no one bothered to question it"

Because it was manufacturer data, ie. advertising, perhaps no one really gives it much creedance as its always somewhat suspect...

[GJM]

Question on bullet weights. At a recent match, at the chrono station, they checked my AE 124 grain FMJ match ammo. First, they weighed the bullet, and reported it as 125.0. Then they shot it over the chrono.

Doc, when you test for example, 147 HST, do you first pull a bullet or two out of the lot and weigh it, or just use whatever the manufacturer lists the weight as on the box? Would you expect some variation in weight with a 147 grain JHP LE load, or alternatively expect a 147 to weigh at 147 exactly?

[DocGKR]

"Would you expect some variation in weight with a 147 grain JHP LE load, or alternatively expect a 147 to weigh at 147 exactly?"

There is always some variation.

"Yes, and this is why I don't want my load near the minimum penetration."

As noted in the SDPD study and most other OIS incident reviews, bullets in real world shootings tend to have a wider range of penetration than seen in lab studies, for all the obvious reasons previously discussed. In other words, a lot of the time, bullets used in defensive shootings are going to penetrate DEEPER than noted in gel testing (and a lot of time SHALLOWER). In addition, bullets used in the real world tend to act like the 4LD test results.

We have always recommended picking loads that tend to penetrate around 15" or so. The 147 gr HST penetrates about 15.5" in the 4LD test--the test that most closely replicates an unobstructed defensive shooting result. Hmmm, based on that it appears that the HST offers nearly ideal terminal performance for urban and suburban defensive use...