Lehigh Defense Xtreme Defender Terminal Performance

[Nightvisionary]

I have seen several gel tests on the Lehigh Xtreme Defender bullet. The gel tests seem to demonstrate good performance for this bullet. Some YouTube testers have stated the bullet won't actually perform well on live tissue despite good performance in gel. Since ballistic gelatin is the standard by which bullet performance is judged; keeping the scientific method in mind, what evidence can be used to arrive at this conclusion without data derived from actual shootings? Could the performance of a new bullet design fall outside the accepted reliance on the permanent crush cavity in determining a pistol bullets effectiveness?

[ack495]

The way I look at is, I can't do any worse or better in my glock 42 by carrying the Lehigh Xtreme defender rounds.

I know they don't magically turn my 380 into a 9mm because of this bullet and it's flutes. For what it is I haven't seen a bad test result yet. It penetrates better than hollowpoints and doesn't drastically over penetrate like typical fmj.

If you decide to carry a 380 or 32, then in my opinion, if these rounds feed reliably in your gun, then they are the best of the bunch.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[SecondsCount]

Even if it is better, it isn't worth the miniscule difference in performance to me.

[HCM]

I have seen several gel tests on the Lehigh Xtreme Defender bullet. The gel tests seem to demonstrate good performance for this bullet. Some YouTube testers have stated the bullet won't actually perform well on live tissue despite good performance in gel. Since ballistic gelatin is the standard by which bullet performance is judged; keeping the scientific method in mind, what evidence can be used to arrive at this conclusion without data derived from actual shootings? Could the performance of a new bullet design fall outside the accepted reliance on the permanent crush cavity in determining a pistol bullets effectiveness?

The 12-18" penetration requuremrnt is pretty well validated.

What was the performance of the Lehigh round ?

Also who did the tests. Ballistic testing is easy to do but hard to do properly. As Doc GKR has mentioned not all gel tests use proper ballistic gelatin. Clear gel for example will give inaccurate results.

In .380. I agree with LAPD - Speer Lawman FMJ. The juice usually isn't worth the squeeze with .380 hollow points.

[NerdAlert]

I have seen several gel tests on the Lehigh Xtreme Defender bullet. The gel tests seem to demonstrate good performance for this bullet. Some YouTube testers have stated the bullet won't actually perform well on live tissue despite good performance in gel. Since ballistic gelatin is the standard by which bullet performance is judged; keeping the scientific method in mind, what evidence can be used to arrive at this conclusion without data derived from actual shootings? Could the performance of a new bullet design fall outside the accepted reliance on the permanent crush cavity in determining a pistol bullets effectiveness?

I would look into how the round did in the FBI protocol, and of course make sure they run reliably in your pistol for 2-300 rounds. It's not perfect but it's a standard that rounds meant for defense should be able to pass. Until there is a .380 round that can do both I would not consider carrying one for self defense, especially with all the great options in 9mm and 38 special. That's just my personal standard, and partially the FBIs, your expected level of performance may be different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[El Cid]

If I was going to carry a .380 for some bizarre reason, the Extreme Penetrator would be the bullet I'd consider. Not the Defender.

[DocGKR]

"Could the performance of a new bullet design fall outside the accepted reliance on the permanent crush cavity in determining a pistol bullets effectiveness?"

No.

[Sigfan26]

I have seen several gel tests on the Lehigh Xtreme Defender bullet. The gel tests seem to demonstrate good performance for this bullet. Some YouTube testers have stated the bullet won't actually perform well on live tissue despite good performance in gel. Since ballistic gelatin is the standard by which bullet performance is judged; keeping the scientific method in mind, what evidence can be used to arrive at this conclusion without data derived from actual shootings? Could the performance of a new bullet design fall outside the accepted reliance on the permanent crush cavity in determining a pistol bullets effectiveness?

No.

Agreed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnO]

Effective shot placement is far more important than designer ammo.

[Flintsky]

Friends don't let friends carry .380s.........unless NOTHING else is available. Then, I would pick a deep penetrating, AFFORDABLE, FMJ/TMJ/HC round that I could shoot at least 200rds(minimum) a month, and do some relevant training.