I get the obvious difference but discussing the minute difference between this and other similar projectiles at similar velocities without any detailed information about said projectiles other than diameter doesn't justify a separate thread but enjoy speculating.Originally Posted by the Schwartz
Not that I've seen (yet).
The 115-grain HST JHP has a sectional density (0.169) that is slightly greater than that of the 9mm 147-grain HST (0.167) and the .45 ACP 230-grain HST (0.161) so the potential to defeat hard barriers, given a solid design, exists. Sectional density is important in addressing the erosive/ablative effects seen in hard/ductile barrier penetration so the 0.312'' 115-grain HST certainly has the potential to pass the FBI test protocols if the correct materials and engineering is pursued.
For example, applying common projectile material parameters to the .30 Super 115-grain HST JHP to the A-T model used here—
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....id-penetrators
—the .30 Super 115-grain HST at 1,250 fps should be able to defeat the two 20-gauge hot-rolled steel panels used in the FBI ''automotive car door'' test protocol with a residual velocity of 965 fps and a residual mass of 93.3 grains.
Last edited by the Schwartz; 01-05-2022 at 06:47 PM.
''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein
Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.
I see the question asked, that if its performance is similar to 9mm, then what is the point?
Well wasn't the same question asked about the relationship between .40 and 9mm? If you can get the nearly the same performance but with less recoil and more rounds, why stick with the larger caliber?
Now 9mm had other things going for it beyond just those factors, but those are the ones I've seen given the most emphasis.
It definitely has an uphill climb, but I hope this concept pans out.
327 Federal Magnum 115 Gr. GDHP @ 1363 fps
https://le.vistaoutdoor.com/download...dDotPoster.pdf
Ignore the velocity error/typo on the Speer poster.
30 Super Carry should have less velocity.
Not bad terminal performance, but no better than 9X19mm.
But in a smaller cartridge that can get more pills in the equivalent size package.
Expansion to 1.5x caliber with terminal penetration in the 12 - 18 inch range, as seen in Federal's heavy clothing test [0.53''/115 grains/1,250 fps = 15.50''], is typical performance of 9x19 115-grain JHPs. Thinking about this, your point is well taken. I can see the appeal that it might have to some but, I am not sure that current market forces won't kill it off. Maybe it'll survive.
I'd really like to see more extensive testing of the .30 Super though, especially against tempered auto glass.
''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein
Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.
I wonder if a lighter bullet of around 80 grains would make some sense in the 30 Super Carry.
Less loaded magazine weight, possibly lower recoil and/or ammo cost, and still have decent terminal ballistics.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/con...ed-32-magnums/
I would have said that the bullet would lack enough momentum to penetrate to published depth after expanding to .53.
In the event expansion failed to occur, the tiny bullet would be a needle passing through its target.
The only positive that I can think of is that this round may offer 9mm equivalent performance for use in places where "military cartridges" are forbidden for civilian use.
If we have to march off into the next world, let us walk there on the bodies of our enemies.
With Italy doing away with that law what other countries have prohibited military calibers and handgun ownership of significance?
Reply With Quote