No, it’s not the FBI standard.Originally Posted by feudist
The reason why it’s important is because it’s rare to have a table of actual, comparable data done in the same medium by the same people under repeatable conditions. That’s why it matters.
No, it’s not the FBI standard.
The reason why it’s important is because it’s rare to have a table of actual, comparable data done in the same medium by the same people under repeatable conditions. That’s why it matters.
FWIW, my understanding is the synthetic gel understates expansion somewhat and overstates penetration by about 20 to 30%. This is both from gel testers here at P-F and comparing organic tests at places that use organic, like Ballistics By The Inch, to synthetic tests from Lucky Gunner and others.
This, and it's also the only data we have for old school ammo like the FBI loads, Remington's SJHPs, and Hornady's XTPs. I chose the R-P 158-grain load as my .357 Mag carry load based on this test and the fact that it hits POA from my 681.
Yes. I think it is useful for comparing one load to another, but not for comparing it to the FBI standard.
It's still useful to know "X will penetrate more than Y"
I was into 10mm Auto before it sold out and went mainstream, but these days I'm here for the revolver and epidemiology information.
Dozens. At least.
It absolutely can be. Two things holding it back, likely. One is that there isn't the competition for LE agency contracts that will move tens to hundreds of thousands, even millions, of rounds to a single customer. The other is that there are still legacy 158gr loads available that likely work just fine. Also, there are 130-145 grain bonded loads from major manufacturers that are pretty comparable to their best bottom-feeder loads. They just already don't sell that many of them, so where is the payback to justify investing in slightly betterizing them?
I need to try some of that. Bet it would be nice from the GP MC.
But is it halal?
.
-----------------------------------------
Not another dime.
Based on the Lucky Gunner tests, it looks like you could add ~20 grains to the 130-grain HST Micro design, still stay within +P pressures and get decent expansion, at least from a 4" barrel. As noted above, the market for them would be a tiny niche and they'd never recoup their investment. The main improvement of such a load over the R-P and Winchester FBI loads would be intermediate barrier performance...maybe. The development the ammo companies have done was on 125-135-grain bullets at snubby velocities and most of them seem to work pretty well and have produced good ROI for the companies that make them.
I think .38 is not all that underserved, I think .357 is the stepchild. A few years ago I found some of the Gold Dot Short Barrel stuff and it was still just nasty. All I want is 9mm performance without the flashbang concussion. Probably what I actually want is to get my 340 reamed...
The .357 golden sabers are probably the closest. 125 @ 1200fps. Very mild to shoot.
A lot of the talk about improving 38 Special terminal performance amounts to so many angels dancing on the head of a primer. Pat Rogers and DB have both noted in the past that 38 Special, even the shitty LRN loads, worked just fine when shot people in the bits that matter. To steal a phrase from Jared Reston, if you guy a kill in a gunfight, he doesn't get to come back just because you used the wrong load on him.
Thanks for the tip. Now the hunt starts for not just ammo, but REMINGTON ammo... Hahahaha
Reply With Quote