New Duty Load

[Velo Dog]

So what I'm gathering is that I'm sitting on 1500+ rounds of ammo that probably won't expand when fired through the 4LD test, despite all the consistent recommendation for this load from the SME types which continued even after the production change in 2017 or so?

Since the main problem with the new 147 seems to be unreliable expansion it is easy enough to test whether yours reliably expand by shooting some old jeans laid over some gallon water jugs (water is roughly the same density as the average human tissue). The SMEs look down on me for doing so, but aside from water I'll also shoot into a mixture of 3 parts water to 2 parts 70% rubbing alcohol - a concoction with about the same density as body fat (and a more difficult medium for bullet expansion).

This won't tell you precisely what kind of penetration you'd get in ordnance gel, but it is an easy pass/fail test of expansion.

This is the reason why I'm less critical of amateur ballistic testing than many knowledgeable posters.

Good service caliber handgun ammo tends to work as expected almost regardless of the test medium.

This 2018 test of the redesigned 147 grain HST was done with Clear Ballistics Gel.

https://www.ammunitiontogo.com/produ...-ammo#gel-test

Although 10% ordnance gelatin would be more definitive, I found the inconsistent expansion troubling.

This less-than-perfect test protocol result combined with reports of lower velocity than past loadings were enough for me to question whether the current offering would still expand reliably from a short barrel.

[the Schwartz]

Since the main problem with the new 147 seems to be unreliable expansion it is easy enough to test whether yours reliably expand by shooting some old jeans laid over some gallon water jugs (water is roughly the same density as the average human tissue). The SMEs look down on me for doing so, but aside from water I'll also shoot into a mixture of 3 parts water to 2 parts 70% rubbing alcohol - a concoction with about the same density as body fat (and a more difficult medium for bullet expansion).

This won't tell you precisely what kind of penetration you'd get in ordnance gel, but it is an easy pass/fail test of expansion.

That (the determination of penetration depth in a human soft tissue simulant) is kind of the point, is it not? Sure, anyone can assign an arbitrary pass/fail value in any material that you choose, but other than what happens in that unknown/unproven test medium, what significance does it have to how it will expand and penetrate in the human body?

This is the reason why I'm less critical of amateur ballistic testing than many knowledgeable posters.

Good service caliber handgun ammo tends to work as expected almost regardless of the test medium.

This 2018 test of the redesigned 147 grain HST was done with Clear Ballistics Gel.

https://www.ammunitiontogo.com/produ...-ammo#gel-test

Although 10% ordnance gelatin would be more definitive, I found the inconsistent expansion troubling.

This less-than-perfect test protocol result combined with reports of lower velocity than past loadings were enough for me to question whether the current offering would still expand reliably from a short barrel.

By admitting that one is relying upon a test protocol (and an absolutely unproven test medium) that has no basis in scientific rigor, how can anyone expect to see anything other than inconsistent expansion?

At this time, there are two—and only two—valid test mediums that have proven to correlate to terminal ballistic performance in human soft tissue; BB-validated 10% ordnance gelatin and H₂O. Relying upon upon an unknown/uncorrelated test medium produces data that is comparable only within that unknown/uncorrelated test medium and has NO predictive value for performance in human soft tissues.

In other words, anything worth doing is worth doing right.

[0ddl0t]

That (the determination of penetration depth in a human soft tissue simulant) is kind of the point, is it not? Sure, anyone can assign an arbitrary pass/fail value in any material that you choose, but other than what happens in that unknown/unproven test medium, what significance does it have to how it will expand and penetrate in the human body?

It relies on the assumption that *if* it expands in water or alcohol/water, a "good to go" bullet from Doc's list will probably perform as expected and penetrate a reasonable amount in human tissue. If it doesn't expand, it probably won't perform as expected and you should probably pick something else given that plenty of other options do expand (unless motivated to go through the hassle and expense of verifying with ordnance gel).

For example, if you shoot some "good to go" critical duty from a Kahr PM9 or Sig P365 into 4 layers of denim over water or alcohol/water you'll find that it often fails to expand (or just barely expands). That is useful information inexpensively obtained, no?

Surely you wouldn't declare totally worthless a layman's function test of shooting a box of carry ammo into a paper target, so why not have him expend 5 or 10 of those rounds into inexpensive, widely available media approximating human tissue density to check if the ammo is reasonably likely to expand at the velocities obtained from his carry gun? Just consider it 1 additional function check almost any layperson can perform - not an end all, be all, test of terminal performance.

[JAD]

That doesn’t make any sense. If something is properly tested and you have results, testing it improperly yourself has no value and is in fact negative if results contradict appropriate test results. If something isn’t properly tested and you don’t have the means and experience to properly test it yourself, don’t use it.

[the Schwartz]

It relies on the assumption that *if* it expands in water or alcohol/water, a "good to go" bullet from Doc's list will probably perform as expected and penetrate a reasonable amount in human tissue. If it doesn't expand, it probably won't perform as expected and you should probably pick something else given that plenty of other options do expand (unless motivated to go through the hassle and expense of verifying with ordnance gel).

For example, if you shoot some "good to go" critical duty from a Kahr PM9 or Sig P365 into 4 layers of denim over water or alcohol/water you'll find that it often fails to expand (or just barely expands). That is useful information inexpensively obtained, no?

Surely you wouldn't declare totally worthless a layman's function test of shooting a box of carry ammo into a paper target, so why not have him expend 5 or 10 of those rounds into inexpensive, widely available media approximating human tissue density to check if the ammo is reasonably likely to expand at the velocities obtained from his carry gun? Just consider it 1 additional function check almost any layperson can perform - not an end all, be all, test of terminal performance.

That doesn’t make any sense. If something is properly tested and you have results, testing it improperly yourself has no value and is in fact negative if results contradict appropriate test results. If something isn’t properly tested and you don’t have the means and experience to properly test it yourself, don’t use it.

JAD hits it outta the park!

[Velo Dog]

If something is properly tested and you have results, testing it improperly yourself has no value and is in fact negative if results contradict appropriate test results.

I mostly agree with your sentiment, but consider an "improper" test that is now widely regarded as equal or superior to the proper test - the IWBA 4-layer denim test.

The FBI heavy clothing test is still the standard and represents typical clothing layers that actual people are likely to wear. The 4-layers of denim test was a cheap and easy way to test the potential for robust hollow-point expansion, but does not represent the simulation of specific clothing. The 4 layers of denim are more apt to plug a hollow-point cavity, therefore, ammo that does well in the 4-layer denim test should also perform well in the FBI heavy clothing test. The IWBA test was devised because an excessive number of "good" hollow points were not expanding in real shootings.

I would not choose to rely solely on unprofessional testing, but I have noticed that the best modern hollow points tend to expand well in both organic and synthetic gel blocks, as well as, water jugs, watermelons, wet newsprint, etc. When that no longer happens, more proper testing may reveal a design change or poor quality control.

[the Schwartz]

I mostly agree with your sentiment, but consider an "improper" test that is now widely regarded as equal or superior to the proper test - the IWBA 4-layer denim test.

The FBI heavy clothing test is still the standard and represents typical clothing layers that actual people are likely to wear. The 4-layers of denim test was a cheap and easy way to test the potential for robust hollow-point expansion, but does not represent the simulation of specific clothing. The 4 layers of denim are more apt to plug a hollow-point cavity, therefore, ammo that does well in the 4-layer denim test should also perform well in the FBI heavy clothing test. The IWBA test was devised because an excessive number of "good" hollow points were not expanding in real shootings.

I would not choose to rely solely on unprofessional testing, but I have noticed that the best modern hollow points tend to expand well in both organic and synthetic gel blocks, as well as, water jugs, watermelons, wet newsprint, etc. When that no longer happens, more proper testing may reveal a design change or poor quality control.

I can't help but wonder, Velo Dog, but why would anyone—including an ammunition manufacturer—care about what a JHP design would do in any non-standardized/uncorrelated terminal ballistic test medium so long as it performs correctly in the two known valid terminal ballistic test mediums?

[Velo Dog]

I can't help but wonder, Velo Dog, but why would anyone—including an ammunition manufacturer—care about what a JHP design would do in any non-standardized/uncorrelated terminal ballistic test medium so long as it performs correctly in the two known valid terminal ballistic test mediums?

The question I would ask is "Does that JHP still perform correctly in the two known valid terminal ballistic test mediums?"

If the answer is "yes" then the ammo should still perform as designed in actual shootings.

If the answer is "no" then some non-standardized testing also indicated a change in performance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrIiclxyKKI

[the Schwartz]

The question I would ask is "Does that JHP still perform correctly in the two known valid terminal ballistic test mediums?"

Well, that was the predicate (underlined below) of the question that I asked here, in my prior post above:

I can't help but wonder, Velo Dog, but why would anyone—including an ammunition manufacturer—care about what a JHP design would do in any non-standardized/uncorrelated terminal ballistic test medium so long as it performs correctly in the two known valid terminal ballistic test mediums?

So, all you've done is rephrase the question that I posed above.

The answer to the question that I posed to you is really quite simple.

There is no need to confirm the improper (or proper) terminal ballistic performance of ammunition in an uncorrelated, non-standard test medium—as you suggest below—

If the answer is "yes" then the ammo should still perform as designed in actual shootings.

If the answer is "no" then some non-standardized testing also indicated a change in performance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrIiclxyKKI

—because any data obtained through testing in any uncorrelated, non-standard test medium is incomparable to data obtained in existing correlated test mediums. Accordingly, data obtained through testing in any uncorrelated, non-standard test medium is also incomparable to data taken from actual shootings where human soft tissue(s) is involved.

[blues]

This calls for a philosophical discussion of epistemology.

How we know what we know, and how we know we know it.