New Service Caliber Handgun Tests

[TGS]

Doc,

Thanks for the data! I'm confused by your conclusions.

I was under the impression that if a bullet penetrated adequately, had a sharp cutting surface like a shoulder or petals, and retained its weight through the wounding process, it was a good bullet; the expanded diameter isn't that meaningful, or you'd carry a .45 since they get at least a little bigger.

If the CD's defect was that it expanded to 0.5ish rather than 0.6ish, who cares? It penetrated way better than the other stuff, and if its supposed benefit on barriers holds up to factory test levels, it would seem to be the best choice among the tested loads.

Further, I don't get why you liked the XPBs. They expanded about like the CDs and didn't penetrate nearly as well.

What am I missing?

I think that optimal penetration is suppose to be 12"-16". These loads went slightly over that, which is unnecessary. The penetration itself is not bad, but it's just not needed......and the bullet accomplished that penetration by trading for a smaller expanded diameter.

So, a more optimal bullet would be expanding slightly bigger while still penetrating anywhere between 12"-16".

That's my take on it. I think the difference is quite small in the grand scheme of things, and although not optimal I don't think the load presents a liability such as something like a 115 Silvertip.

[JAD]

doctorpogo--I am sorry you are confused. To the best of my knowledge, I am not confused. The Hornady CD loads simply do not work as well as other options when looked at in aggregate. Is it better than an FMJ? Yes, but the CD are not as good as many other options, so I cannot recommend them for general use. If I had a pistol that only fed FMJ and CD, then I would carry the CD or better yet, get a more reliable pistol...

Thanks, Doc. I was confused by the fact that you called the Barnes load good (0.52x15) and the CD load bad (0.52*15.7). I assumed there was more to the story, is all. Do you happen to have any comment about the post-glass yaw and failures to expand that were mentioned elsewhere in the thread?

[DocGKR]

I have not put up the glass testing yet, but there were issues with it, as well as some failures to expand during the 4LD testing. The CD loads penetrate deeper than needed, don't crush as much tissue as the could, and are not as sharp on the leading edge as other projectiles.

[JAD]

I have not put up the glass testing yet, but there were issues with it, as well as some failures to expand during the 4LD testing. The CD loads penetrate deeper than needed, don't crush as much tissue as the could, and are not as sharp on the leading edge as other projectiles.

That makes plenty of sense, except for the penetrate deeper than needed part (our felons run thick around here). Thanks for taking the time to respond to my request for clarification.

[jlw]

what was the testing medium? Where the rounds shot through auto glass and sheet metal?

[DocGKR]

10% Type 250-A ordnance gelatin at 4 deg C. Our handgun ammo spec calls for bare gel, 4LD, and auto windshields, so that encompasses the majority of our testing. Almost all service caliber handgun bullets pretty much do the same thing in sheet metal, so I don't get too excited about it.

[Tamara]

(our felons run thick around here)

It's all the feedlots. That there's your problem.

[jlw]

10% Type 250-A ordnance gelatin at 4 deg C. Our handgun ammo spec calls for bare gel, 4LD, and auto windshields, so that encompasses the majority of our testing. Almost all service caliber handgun bullets pretty much do the same thing in sheet metal, so I don't get too excited about it.

I have attended several ballistics demos recently. The auto glass and sheet metal are game changers for folks who make traffic stops. The Critical Duty outperforms the other top rounds when those barriers are part of the test although the Federal HST does very well with them.

For those not conducting traffic stops, the difference doesn't matter much. I fell perfectly well armed with Gold Dot or Ranger SXT when just knocking about, but having seen both separate miserably when going through auto glass I switched out duty rounds.

[Sparks2112]

I have attended several ballistics demos recently. The auto glass and sheet metal are game changers for folks who make traffic stops. The Critical Duty outperforms the other top rounds when those barriers are part of the test although the Federal HST does very well with them.

For those not conducting traffic stops, the difference doesn't matter much. I fell perfectly well armed with Gold Dot or Ranger SXT when just knocking about, but having seen both separate miserably when going through auto glass I switched out duty rounds.

It was my understanding ammo companies were pretty good about futzing with tests to get the results they wanted. I've yet to see anything that would get me to carry hornady handgun ammo in anything other than .44 magnum, and I'm not a hater, I love their rifle stuff.

[ToddG]

For those not conducting traffic stops, the difference doesn't matter much. I fell perfectly well armed with Gold Dot or Ranger SXT when just knocking about, but having seen both separate miserably when going through auto glass I switched out duty rounds.

Any details you can share about the GD failures? I've dealt with a number of agencies that issue it and report great success with car part penetration & performance.