Short barrel 9mm defense ammo

[jh9]

I'll take the additional data seeing that 147 hst bullets from 3" barrel pistols are very likely just above the expansion threshold in the "properly calibrated test" and reasonably conclude they may not expand:

• Against increasingly fatter perpetrators with much lower average tissue densities than the average 1970s-1990s soldier for which 10% ordnance gelatin was calibrated (the whole reason the IWBA came up with the 4 layers of denim test was because CHP was seeing failures to expand when shooting 80s & 90s fat guys. 2020s fat guys are much fatter).
• At distances greater than 10 feet (Elijah Dickens neutralized a threat at 120 feet which may lower 9mm bullet velocity as much as 10%)
• With ammunition that has been stored under less than ideal circumstances: carried for years in sweaty & humid conditions, left in the trunk of a car in subzero weather and suddenly called to action (there is a ~50fps difference between 135°F ammo and 20°F ammo), etc.

I think the point people are driving at is that it doesn't actually test those edge cases you mention, because it still doesn't map to human physiology. That change in expansion or penetration doesn't correspond to what a bullet does in the body of a violent human. No matter how fat or cold or hot they are. It just... isn't data. It's a carny trick that presents well.

It's unfortunate that clear gel even remotely looks like organic gel because it invites comparing the two. Which is about as useful as comparing the expansion/penetration numbers in a block of ice. If that's wrong I'm happy for someone like DocGKR to clarify.

[RJ]

Anecdote not data, but I have shot Speer Gold Dot 115, 124, 124+p, and Federal HST 124 and 147, all with no issues to speak of in my P365X, since Nov '21 / 1,187 rounds (not all hollow points, maybe half that.)

[the Schwartz]

I think the point people are driving at is that it doesn't actually test those edge cases you mention, because it still doesn't map to human physiology. That change in expansion or penetration doesn't correspond to what a bullet does in the body of a violent human. No matter how fat or cold or hot they are. It just... isn't data. It's a carny trick that presents well.

It's unfortunate that clear gel even remotely looks like organic gel because it invites comparing the two. Which is about as useful as comparing the expansion/penetration numbers in a block of ice. If that's wrong I'm happy for someone like DocGKR to clarify.

Well said.

You're probably already aware of this, but Dr. Roberts has spoken to the issue before:

TISSUE SIMULANTS:

Currently, a variety of equally important methodologies are used for terminal performance testing, including actual shooting incident reconstruction, forensic evidence analysis, and post-mortem data and/or surgical findings; properly conducted ethical animal test results; and laboratory testing--this includes the use of tissue simulants proven to have correlation with living tissue. All of these areas provide important information. As noted earlier, the tissue simulant that has proven to most closely correlate with living muscle tissue is Type 250A ordnance gelatin at 4 deg C.

Other simulants fail to provide accurate replication of various facets of projectile terminal performance that occur in shots to living human tissue. Cadaver tissue lacks elasticity, tends to be disrupted by pressures that would simply push living tissue aside, and demonstrates exaggerated projectile effects leading to far more extensive damage than that produced in living tissue. Animal testing in cattle uses living tissue, but normal anatomic and physiological differences between individual animals leads to substantial differences in terminal effects; in addition, there are substantial differences in animal anatomy compared to human, animal testing is quite expensive and time consuming, and accurate data collection and comparison is difficult. Water is a good simulant to show maximum projectile upset, but penetration is 1.6-2 times deeper than in tissue and stretch effects are not visible. Inelastic simulants such as clay, duxseal, and soap can provide good estimates of penetration depth and bullet upset, but exaggerate stretch effects from the temporary cavity. Perma-gel and other synthetic polymer simulants can provide a reasonable result for bullet penetration and expansion, but under-represent bullet yaw, fragmentation, and stretch effects. Computer modeling may one day provide the best opportunity to study projectile effects outside the human body, however to date, the current models are overly-simplistic, use too many excessively averaged assumptions of anatomic and physiological factors, and fail to fully and accurately represent the complex dynamics of the interaction between living tissue and penetrating projectiles.

It's a carny trick that presents well.

What an awesome line. With—or without—your permission, I just might need to steal it.

[Lyonsgrid]

We are currently using this round. Can't seem to find much info online about it. I'm sure it's quality stuff but just curious if anyone here has done or reviewed any testing?

[Default.mp3]

We are currently using this round. Can't seem to find much info online about it. I'm sure it's quality stuff but just curious if anyone here has done or reviewed any testing?

Huh, I would assume that's just a +P version of Gold Dot G2, with the higher velocity to help it with expansion given the lower velocity of the shorter barrel; IIRC, the FBI had prohibited standard G2 to be used in 43/43X/26, and had to use the Critical Duty 135 gr +P, though I know others have said that it was also an issue with the Glocks having reliability issues in general. On the civilian side, they do make a Gold Dot G2 Carry Gun, but that's a 135 gr +P (specs claim to be a fair bit faster out the muzzle than the Critical Duty 135 gr +P at 1120 FPS versus Hornady at 1070 FPS, both out a 4" barrel), rather than the 147 gr.

But yeah, I would definitely be curious to hear more about this particular ammo.

[03RN]

Huh, I would assume that's just a +P version of Gold Dot G2, with the higher velocity to help it with expansion given the lower velocity of the shorter barrel; IIRC, the FBI had prohibited standard G2 to be used in 43/43X/26, and had to use the Critical Duty 135 gr +P, though I know others have said that it was also an issue with the Glocks having reliability issues in general. On the civilian side, they do make a Gold Dot G2 Carry Gun, but that's a 135 gr +P (specs claim to be a fair bit faster out the muzzle than the Critical Duty 135 gr +P at 1120 FPS versus Hornady at 1070 FPS, both out a 4" barrel), rather than the 147 gr.

But yeah, I would definitely be curious to hear more about this particular ammo.

[richiecotite]

I did some velocity testing a few weeks ago in various calibers. I’m currently using 124 hst in my 3.1” 365 and it chronos 1165 fps.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Outpost75]

I really wish he actually tested the 3" barrel.

I think I might need to shoot some from my 2" m10 into water @900fps to test out the bottom end of velocity.

This is Federal 147-grain 9MS fired from 1-7/8" S&W Model 940 at 900 fps with bullets recovered in 4th gallon water jug at 10 feet.

[Default.mp3]

The problem with that video is that it is from 2015, which was before Speer had their Gold Dot G2 recall, which I believe specifically dealt with the issue of not expanding properly. In more recent years:

Should work fine in barrels 3.5-5".

[jandbj]

This is Federal 147-grain 9MS fired from 1-7/8" S&W Model 940 at 900 fps with bullets recovered in 4th gallon water jug at 10 feet.

If ever I saw a centennial begging for a high horn grip, it’s every 940.
@rhamre looking right at you! 😉

These help too:


https://a.co/d/hRMKK2b