Springfield XD Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,428 Posts
waste of money not penetration tests just the useless foot pounds of energy. Foot pounds of energy does not predict if round will be good for SD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
waste of money not penetration tests just the useless foot pounds of energy. Foot pounds of energy does not predict if round will be good for SD.
Terminal ballistics is the next level of testing. Don't have the time to test them all so this was the first pass to ID the picks of the litter.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,428 Posts
Yes but picking the ones that scored high on foot pounds doesn't necessarily give you the pick of the litter. Bullet shape and design is much more important than foot pounds when it comes to terminal ballistics. Don't dismiss a low foot pound score as a bad choice.
In .380 fmjs the bullet shape is the most important since most fmjs already penetrate 16" or more. Energy dump is a myth, wound channel is what's important and that is cause by projectile shape.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
503 Posts
Will you follow this data with a blue jean and ballistic gel test. Would make a nice addition to your your current data. Thanks for the work.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,790 Posts
Terminal ballistics is the next level of testing. Don't have the time to test them all so this was the first pass to ID the picks of the litter.
Terminal ballistics? as in you plan on shooting live critters? I started my testing of various handgun projectiles more than 20 years ago from pistols. It takes a loooong time to do that kind of testing.

Over the course of 20 years I learned that the Winchester OSM round (the current Winchester personal protection 147 grain that can be bought at walmart in 50 round boxes) is one of the best I have tested in 9mm. The super fast high foot pounds Ranger load with a 115 JHP and a +P+ on the case is a miserable failure. In critters it gave me an average of 5" of penetration. 20 pound raccoons would need several shots before they realized they were shot in most cases. the Federal 9BPLE with the same ballistics and weight of projectile gives me a little more penetration at 8" and fragments more than the Ranger load, and it kills ten times better. Even the S&B POLICE 115 JHP loaded to CIP full spec and gets more than 1300fps works far far better than the Ranger load.

With the limited penetration you get from 380 hollowpoints dont expect nothing but miserable failures on the smallest of critters. I would use ball in a 380 on a rabid raccoon before I used any 380 hollowpoint.

I aint knocking what you are doing. Just dont expect results based on FPE or expansion diameter. If you really test terminal ballistics expect it to take a long time to get results you can trust. Even in the same weight dont expect two different brands to perform the same. Even ball loads wont perform the same. Winchester 115 ball uses their 124 grain jacket with a punted base, Remington and Federal 115s are shorter with a flat base. Some brands use bimetal jackets. Winchester uses softer lead and thin jackets, they deform before Remington FMJs will.

FWIW in 380 fired from a P3AT, S&B ball works the best terminaly. Tested enough rounds from my brothers. the range you gotta get at to connect accurately is closer than I like to get. Another FWIW, we did the same test with my P32. there aint a lick of difference in how a 380 ball load kills and a good 7.65Br ball load kills. Fiocchi and S&B loaded to full CIP spec, as in 5,000psi more than SAAMI 32ACP, puts that slightly smaller round into the same class as the 380. I aint talking in gello or on paper.

Go find yourself a few farmers with Raccoon, woodchuck, coyote, feral dog and feral cat or any other vermin problems and shoot them for about a decade. Let us know how the data stacks up.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Boris and Agalindo, I appreciate the feedback and agree with your points. I was hoping to skirt the whole issue of terminal performance and just focus on the data I could reasonably collect with some degree of accuracy.

I tried very hard to report the facts and maybe drop a few hints about my own personal beliefs on FMJ vs. HP and also flat nose vs. round nose FMJ rounds. Under no circumstances did I want to recommend that one round was better than another for personal protection. In reality, I wouldn't want to be hit by any of them.

My terminal ballistics testing will indeed be done on wet newspaper filled gallon jugs and will do nothing more than provide me with a rough comparison of how the sample rounds perform when shooting wet newspaper filled gallon jugs.

I also really appreciated the comments about the P-32 as that's another test that I've started. I've got data from 10 loads complete and hope to have data from 15 or so when I'm done.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
669 Posts
My terminal ballistics testing will indeed be done on wet newspaper filled gallon jugs and will do nothing more than provide me with a rough comparison of how the sample rounds perform when shooting wet newspaper filled gallon jugs.
You're going to fill gallon jugs with wet newspaper and shoot them?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
503 Posts
My terminal ballistics testing will indeed be done on wet newspaper filled gallon jugs and will do nothing more than provide me with a rough comparison of how the sample rounds perform when shooting wet newspaper filled gallon jugs.
When funding these hobby projects out of one's own pocket that is about as good as can be expected. I wouldn't expect more from Ljutic.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
669 Posts
Well I've seen:
- wet newspaper/phone books shot
- gallon jugs filled with water shot

....just not gallon jugs filled with wet newspaper. I'd actually like to see the how-to on that. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
Discussion Starter #12

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top