-
ODT Gun Show this Saturday! - Click here for info and tickets!
Handgun Self-Defense Ammunition - Ballistic Testing Data
- Thread starter cmshoot
- Start date
This guy is a pretty good resource as well :0)
That's a lot to digest.
Yep, bookmarked this page. Liked what I saw on the Federal 9mm 147gr HST. That's what I'm planing on using in my suppressed SBR when I get it back from Dobb's. Damn these long stamp wait times!
That round remains one of the most recommended duty loads by Dr. Gary Roberts and is what I use in my carry guns.
If you've never seen his research, it's well worth the effort. Dr. Roberts (DocGKR on the forums) is the nation's leading expert on duty ammunition and terminal ballistics. He is the guy that the FBI and law enforcement agencies all over the country turn to when seeking out a new duty load. And he developed the FBI testing protocols. He does this testing for 5.56 & 7.62 rifle loads as well. If you're interested in his testing, search around the web for DocGKR, Dr. Gary Roberts or Roberts & Fackler. There's a ton of info out there.
A lot of the luckygunner results mirror some of his findings. In general, bonded or solid copper (Barnes) loads fare better when all criteria are considered. Including performance through various barriers, weight retention, expansion and penetration depth (not too shallow and not too deep).
It's important that bullet selection is not the sole factor. Different loads using the same bullet may or may not perform equally as well. For example, one weight of Critical Defense may suck and another weight may do very well. So, pay close attention to the results before jumping to any conclusions.
What's really fascinating is that this is a clear representation of why the caliber wars are silly. Ammunition development and bullet design have come a long way in 30 years. This also explains why we are seeing so many departments and agencies are switching back to 9mm. Not only do they get a more shootable round and cheaper training, but since most bullets are developed around the FBI standards, the good ones all perform about the same, regardless of caliber.
I know some of you are thinking, but what about muzzle energy? The 40 or 45 hits harder, right? Well, I'm sure they do. But does it matter? Probably not. Let's face it, we carry handguns because they are small, compact, concealable and convenient. But in a gunfight, handguns basically suck and a rifle is always the better answer. Statistically speaking, no handgun round has ever been proven to be better than another and short of a CNS hit, the one shot stop is a myth.
Just my $0.02. This article and Doc Roberts research are well worth our time and a lot of good information can be gleaned from them.
Obviously I agree with a lot of what you say, however, I do believe that a higher energy round has better stopping ability if all other factors are the same. When that extra energy is efficiently transferred to the target it does make a difference and I think that the emphases on blood loss in modern testing is a mistake. Blood loss it what kills, but it sucks at actually stopping an attack quickly. I firmly believe that in time testing will come back around to examination of energy transfer. I used to carry 45 exclusively for that reason, but when I chose a SHTF weapons system I went with 9mm for the extra capacity it provides and the interchangeability of magazines in my weapons.
My SHTF sidearm is a Glock 17, my "Get Home" long gun will be the 9mm carbine that I'm waiting for the stamp on (it takes Glock mags) and my EDC is a Glock 19. However, my nightstand gun is still a 45 (Glock 41).
In a SD situation individual round energy is a high priority because the outcome of most SD encounters is determined with the first 2 or 3 rounds fired, but in a combat situation capacity takes a higher priority.
Thanks for the link. there's a buttload of data to digest. Thanks again
I get where you're coming from, I really do. But real world studies on handgun mortality have shown statistically that it doesn't really work that way. 45 is not more effective than 9, 9 isn't better than 40, in terms of rounds to stop. Like I said, pistols sorta all stink. The only way to stop a fight fast is with a CNS hit. Meaning we all should practice failure to stop drills a lot more than we probably do. If I put two in a guy's torso and he's not in the dirt, it's time to turn his lights out. And his medulla doesn't care if it's a 38 caliber or 45. Shot placement is by far the greater factor versus caliber choice in real world shootings.
And please don't take this as me saying 9 is the best. I only wanted to point out some of the reasons why federal and local agencies are reverting back to 9 after years and years of running larger calibers. Cost & performance are both factors for them.
In short, carry what you like. BUT be sure that whatever you're feeding it is your best option for good on target performance. All bullets are not created equal and it's good for us all to know which ones are proven performers and which ones are literally a waste of money.
A lot of times we see guys ask for a recommendation here. And the response is very predictable. Some say HST! No, Critical Defense! Golden Sabre! And then there's that guy that chimes in with, I run dem BLACK TALONS! But we should be looking a layer deeper. Which load? +P or standard? Bonded, solid copper or jacketed? That's what I love about the ballistic tests. Because they can show you that even with the same bullet, different weights and velocities may perform differently.
HST is legit
Again, I mostly agree. Especially when talking about terminal ballistic performance of specific bullets in particular loads and shot placement. With that said, your post points out the flaw in current studies I spoke about.
"real world studies on handgun mortality"
Mortality is almost irrelevant when considering who wins the fight. It's nothing more than a byproduct of the real goal of a SD round, which is stopping the attack. As many people are fond of pointing out, a 22lr will kill you, but it is a terrible round for SD because it's very inefficient at stopping the attacker. The harder a round hits, the better it is at stopping the attack. That's just plan logical. Current research is having a problem with seeing the forest for the trees.
Would you rather be hit with a Nerf ball thrown at 90 mph or a baseball at 90 mph? The obvious answer is the Nerf ball because it will hurt much less due to the fact it will transfer less energy to you on impact. I'll also point out that the baseball has a good chance of disabling you, at least temporarily, without creating any permanent wound channel at all. Think about that for a second.
