Springfield XD Forum banner
1 - 20 of 48 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
667 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
recently did some bullet testing (unscientific) on 4 phone books taped together. Tried 5 different rounds, 1 cast lead rounded flat nose, 1 factory FMJ, 1 silver-tipped HP, 1 Corbon HP, and 1 expandable FMJ (guard dog).
Out of all these rounds, the guard dog held it's shape better than anyone of them. the other HP did expand but were mangled going thru the second phone book leaving a cavity about the size of my thumb, the guard dog stayed "mushroom" shaped and produced a cavity big enough to put 3 fingers in it. I was impressed. anyone else use this?:)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,428 Posts
HPs will not expand until they hit a medium that has water (tissue). They are designed to act this way so you got the results that were expected. The EFMJ did what it's designed to do, expand as soon as they encounter resistance. That's why EFMJ under penetrate and are a bad choice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Try some Critical Defense the will expand! I have used phone books before for testing, that is why I got rid of my LCP the little 380 has not penetration compared to the 9mm. I now have a LC9.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,575 Posts
You can get really close to ballistics gell by using wet newspaper inside plastic jugs.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,428 Posts
Try some Critical Defense the will expand! I have used phone books before for testing, that is why I got rid of my LCP the little 380 has not penetration compared to the 9mm. I now have a LC9.
Yep Hornady CD just like EFMJ will expand as soon as they hit something and again they under penetrate especially when encountering intermediate barriers.

Shoot water. You'll get about 1/3 to 1/2 penetration to that of ballistics gel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
667 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Since human torso is not that "thick", do you really need 16inches of penetration? Hunting, iunderstand but a SD situation?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,428 Posts
You have to take into account odd angles and having to shoot through an arm or forearm. You need a minimum of 12". I've seen some pretty hefty people that would go more than 16".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,540 Posts
Sure the human torso is not that thick. Till you got a fat guy. Or a guy with a hoodie and jacket. Or you are shooting through a wall/door/window.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,876 Posts
Since human torso is not that "thick", do you really need 16inches of penetration? Hunting, iunderstand but a SD situation?
Sure the human torso is not that thick. Till you got a fat guy. Or a guy with a hoodie and jacket. Or you are shooting through a wall/door/window.
Simple, real world check--measure from the OUTSIDE of your right bicep to your left nipple.

Unless you are quite petite, it's likely 12" or more.

Now picture your future opponent standing bladed, right arm extended as if holding a weapon. See how you can need 12"?

Real life doesn't look like a silhouette target.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,197 Posts
Since human torso is not that "thick", do you really need 16inches of penetration? Hunting, iunderstand but a SD situation?
It can actually be way more than 16" in the wrong person. Like Cuda said, measure for worst case scenario. I am only 5-10/186#, from shoulder to heart is almost 12". Front to back, almost 9". Add a decent size forearm & that quickly goes to 13", so even a casual obseervation & one can see where the FBI comes up w/ 16". Consider the possibility that the guy shooting at you will NOT take a round cleanly thru the front of his chest & again, 12" is a bare min. We won't even talk about intermdediate barriers.
BTW, dry paper is a TERRIBLE test of a bullets ability to do anything. Soak em for 6-8hrs & they act a lot like balistic gel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
667 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
have some Winchester Ranger T ammo on the way, will try all these rounds again next weekend with the water jug method, we will see how it goes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,197 Posts
have some Winchester Ranger T ammo on the way, will try all these rounds again next weekend with the water jug method, we will see how it goes.
Keep in mind that penetration in water is about 1.5X + that of gel & water will almost always get a bullet to expand when gel or wetpack won't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
667 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
How then do you accurately test a round?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,428 Posts
Accurately? Calibrated ballistics gel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,197 Posts
Accurately? Calibrated ballistics gel.
Yep, even then, it's still a guide, not an exact science. Seldom will gel test equal real world shooting results. All test media is homogenous, living tissue is not. SO what one is doing by testing is comparing one bullet to another. THis gives you an idea what will happen if the bullet is used on living tissue. There are far too many believers in the gospel of ballistic gel.:rolleyes: Take it for what it is, a guide to a bullets performance. You can get sim results in wetpack to gel as far as expansion, but penetration is about 75% of that in gel. The bullet on left wase taken from a large African antelope, the one on right from wetpack. The distances were not identical, 20yds vs 120yds, but perfromance was sim. Penetration in wetpack, about 17", in the animal, about 30"+. SO I am quite happy using cheap wetpack & just doing the math for penetration, but it is still a guide.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
667 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
So I guess you do the test, look at the results, and then hope for the best in a SD situation. Kinda a crapshoot!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
667 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Was thinking, what about filling the jugs with paper from your shredder, then fill the jugs with water, letting the water soak into the paper. Any opinions?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,197 Posts
Was thinking, what about filling the jugs with paper from your shredder, then fill the jugs with water, letting the water soak into the paper. Any opinions?
Done all the time, but IMO, messy. Jugs are one shot & toss. You need 4 min to guarantee a recovery. A 12" thick stack of wetpack can be shot 5-6 times w/ expanding handgun rounds & get good results.
So I guess you do the test, look at the results, and then hope for the best in a SD situation. Kinda a crapshoot!
In a word, YES! Even the best lab tested gel test aren't going to tell the true story in a shooting. Plenty of bullets "fail" during the event. They don't expand, over expand, most never react exactly like the shots taken in gel. Living tissue is soft, hard, stretchy, bones, cartlidge, just too many variables that are NOT represented in any test media substitute. So again, regardless of the testing done, it only compares one bullet to another & gives an idea of what may happen when shooting at a live target. Ideal test medi would probably be 200# live pigs in a slotter house setting where shots could all be placed the same. That is NOT likely to ever happen, but it would make for interesting testing & then comparison to gel shots ro wetpack. The other would be realsitic molded gel torsos w/ rib cages & sternums, shoulder bones & the cav filled w/organs from say a pig. Doable,but messy.
I have never really liked water testing alone, just too hard a substance & requires too much setup & hassle for multiple shots.
 
1 - 20 of 48 Posts
Top