https://americanconcealed.com/reviews/ammo-test-underwood-xtreme-penetrator-and-xtreme-defender/
Thoughts?
Tim, at Military Arms Channel, did a great video on the Xtreme Defender. It was much more scientific and showed the effects on ballistic gel.
That being said, this was a quick write up that did what the author claimed. He said he wasn't trying to be scientific, rather he just wanted to see these bullets performance in real life. I'm always happy to see more videos on these bullets and other types of new bullet designs, so I happily watched.
Morning Intercooler,
Underwood makes some outstanding ammo, my first choice in my G20 for whitetail Hunting. As for my carry weapon, I prefer my G30. I used to carry Underwoods 120 Grain Xtreme Defender, but the more I thought about it, it seemed like a possible liability if it came to a court situation. What's your take on this?
I wonder if their has ever been a case made against ammo?
Quote from: Kenk on March 01 2018 04:10:20 AM MST
Underwoods 120 Grain Xtreme Defender... seemed like a possible liability if it came to a court situation...
I am not sure I am following. Why would this ammo be a liability?
It seems particularly nasty, as well as it looks somewhat nasty, something a district attorney might seize on, or...it may not be an issue at all. Just to be safe, think I'll stick with my 230 +p HST
This is why we test ammo to the FBI protocols. http://www.brassfetcher.com/FBI%20Ammunition%20Protocol/FBI%20Ammunition%20Protocol.html
We select ammo that performs well on these tests for two reasons. First, we reasonably believe that ammo that performs better in these tests will perform better in real world situations. This is supported by years of field analysis.
Two, this indemnifies us against the "sought out extra deadly ammo" prosecution.
This ammo performs well in the defined test protocols. That is kinda it.
But then you have the gimmicky stuff like G2 Research's RIP, don't think that would go well in a court situation
The RIP rounds take a different path to results. They have smaller permanent wound cavities than more traditional JHP rounds. And the would cavity tends to be very shallow. But, the base does very consistently reach a good penetration depth and the ammo performs very consistently across a wide variety of tests, which are points in it's favor. It also delivers that consistency with relatively low recoil, which might make it a great choice for certain people.
At the end of the day a good defense attorney is not going to have an issue in a clean shoot re-focusing the court on the fact that pulling the trigger was justified. Once that hurdle is passed, not much else matters. The few cases on the books where ammo selection became a factor were due to incompetence of the defense counsel more than any other factor.
Absolutely... Thanks!
These rounds do not "perform well in the defined test protocol". Penetration and expanded diameter of the thing that penetrated are all that is measured in the protocol. So called stretch cavities and fluid transfer and the deformation in gel YouTube testers decided must be some wound cavity are nonexistent. Read the actual protocol people! If the projectile does not physically expand, it will rate VERY low as the "wound" will not be larger than bullet diameter. So for human defense, they are poor choices no better than FMJ rounds. For barriers they may have uses, but many of the modern HP rounds penetrate most barriers well, and have been tested through barriers far more than the Lehigh projectiles.
Yeah..It is true that points are awarded for projectile expansion.
It is also true that a FMJ 308 Win that doesn't expand at all does much worse damage than ANY 9mm +P hollow point.
Bullet expansion is a reliably measured metric, which makes for good tests. Permanent would channels are difficult to measure accurately with makes for bad tests. So, the designers of the protocol decided against measuring the primary desired factor since there aren't reliable methods to measure that factor.
Whether the xtreme defender does a better job, same job, worse job than a JHP in the real world is not yet defined.
The round hits with the same or more energy than traditional JHP rounds. None of that energy gets dumped into deforming the bullet, but it stops in 16-18" similar to the better JHP rounds (14-15" for 9mm). If none of that energy goes into expanding the bullet, but it still stops at the same distances as a normal fully expanded JHP, then that energy had to go somewhere else. And that has to be either heat or tissue disruption.
I am not fully sold on the Xtreme Defender. I still carry XTP's or HST's in 10mm that I roll myself. I carry Golden Saber +P in my 9mm, and Gold Dot in my 40's.
But the physicist in me is aware that a non-expanding bullet that carries the same energy into the target and stops the same point inside that target had to expend its energy more fully in target disruption rather than bullet deformation/expansion.
It may be that this bullet reveals a defect in the protocol, which incorrectly assumes a bullet MUST expand as a part of it's terminal effect. As I said above we know that is false once you reach a certain velocity from the behavior of rifle rounds.
Quote from: sqlbullet on March 01 2018 02:19:27 PM MST
Yeah..It is true that points are awarded for projectile expansion.
It is also true that a FMJ 308 Win that doesn't expand at all does much worse damage than ANY 9mm +P hollow point.
Bullet expansion is a reliably measured metric, which makes for good tests. Permanent would channels are difficult to measure accurately with makes for bad tests. So, the designers of the protocol decided against measuring the primary desired factor since there aren't reliable methods to measure that factor.
Whether the xtreme defender does a better job, same job, worse job than a JHP in the real world is not yet defined.
The round hits with the same or more energy than traditional JHP rounds. None of that energy gets dumped into deforming the bullet, but it stops in 16-18" similar to the better JHP rounds (14-15" for 9mm). If none of that energy goes into expanding the bullet, but it still stops at the same distances as a normal fully expanded JHP, then that energy had to go somewhere else. And that has to be either heat or tissue disruption.
I am not fully sold on the Xtreme Defender. I still carry XTP's or HST's in 10mm that I roll myself. I carry Golden Saber +P in my 9mm, and Gold Dot in my 40's.
But the physicist in me is aware that a non-expanding bullet that carries the same energy into the target and stops the same point inside that target had to expend its energy more fully in target disruption rather than bullet deformation/expansion.
It may be that this bullet reveals a defect in the protocol, which incorrectly assumes a bullet MUST expand as a part of it's terminal effect. As I said above we know that is false once you reach a certain velocity from the behavior of rifle rounds.
Yea, ^^ what he said^^
I'm not ready to go all in on Xtreme Defender either... Still rely on Ranger T, HST, TAC-XP, Gold Dots in my carry pistols. However, I've seen enough to be interested in the Xtreme Defender and I too look forward to seeing more testing in ballistics gel & real world. I've done enough hunting to see what fmj pistol wounds in feral hogs look like vs. some recent images of the Lehigh Xtreme projectile wounds that're coming out. I don't have any equity in Lehigh and don't particularly like the price point but I do have eyes and see differences.
I think most very light and fast rounds tend to lose steam faster, so I don't know if the design has much to do with it. In 10mm, the videos seem to show that Defenders, Hunters and Penetrators all do nearly identical- all around 25 or so inches of Clear-type gel, with the heavier ones a little over and the lighter ones a little under. As they get lighter/faster, the penetration seems to go down incrementally.
I suppose the biggest downside to the Lehigh rounds from my perspective is the lack of solid knowledge regarding them. With little to no remotely scientific testing Lehigh and Underwood started cranking them out. Several years later they are adding more variations to them, and still have not tested their own rounds properly. I've contacted both on several occasions and both admitted to never really testing the rounds aside from a few outings with ClearBallastics gel. They both recommended watching the MAC videos that illustrate the "science" behind the round. Then responses stop when you reply with how in the world do you offer some "breakthrough" new design and you haven't invested thousands and thousands of dollars into testing? It just has half a** and non-researched oozing all over it.
I still have yet to find a single YouTube video with these rounds in handgun calibers in hunting scenarios or any similar use that could be partially informative. The few I found were hunting rifle calibers that would be equally effective with almost anything. One of them even still did not do well.
I figured by now YouTube folks, Lehigh, Underwood, someone would have some more credible information on what these things may offer. As it still stands, all we have in common calibers is some non-pro internet videos that suggest these rounds penetrate well, but not as well as heavy cast or FMJ, they tend to veer off course in some examples and stay straight in others, sometimes they yaw sometimes not, and they may penetrate certain barriers very well.
There just hasn't been any credible research, testing or even hunting with these it seems.
SPDSR, they revised the Defender shape and they no longer overpenetrate to 25", at least for the calibers I have seen tested.
I agree we need more testing and more field results. The later probably will never come unless a major department adopts the round.
But, the physics of the premise putting all the energy into the target instead of a part of it into deforming the bullet sounds good to me.
99% of the "research" on almost any handgun projectile I can think of is anecdotal. Certainly formal studies like Dr. Gary Roberts have contributed greatly. However, speaking for myself, work published over last 5 or 6 years by people like TNOUTDOORS9, SHOOTINGTHEBULL410, POCKETGUNSANDGEAR, LUCKYGUNNER, and our own member Andrew at THECHOPPINGBLOCK & TFB have been incredibly beneficial in shedding light and comparing how different projectiles perform in standard media. Most of the useful information I've learned about Federal HST, Gold Dots, XTP, ect, ect. came from these sources.
It'd be fantastic to finally see someone dedicated to adhering to strict scientific methodology for testing terminal ballistics of handgun projectiles (of my choice) freely publish their work.
Until then, for better or worse we're largely left with YouTube.
I think some of the YouTube testing is very informative. The main issue is people do not seem to comprehend how to interpret shots in gel. It measures penetration, final diameter and final weight. If the round does not expand, it measures penetration and final weight and nothing more. There are no wound track measurements or stretch cavities. Basically ignore anything other than the final projectile.
An interesting thread. So often we speak as though there were a direct relationship between ballistic gel and people. But ballistic gel is easy to replicate and visualize so it's gets all the video time. The fact that the FBI set the standards means no more than if Mickey Mouse did it. After a while it is easy to forget there is ZERO direct relationship between ballistic gel and making bad guys stop being bad. Before the ballistic gel we went thru the same mental "leap" with water jugs. Before that was wet newspaper. Way before that the test medium was live animals and cadavers. Just what is considered "best" has become more like a religion than science. Every generation has their "new improved theory" as to what works best. If there were any definitive hard direct relationship science with what makes bad guys stop it would be a lot clearer. But what stops one guy seems to only speed up the next guy. Humans are profoundly more complicated than any test medium. It makes fantastic conversation mostly because everybody has an opinion that can be supported in some way.
I applaud Lehigh for their nerve to enter a very difficult market as an upstart company. They are great marketers and are responsive to the interests of the shooting/reloading community. They make a good and very interesting line of products. Making use of both the forward energy and the rotational energy of a bullet in tissue is brilliant. It has long been a balance in handguns that the limited energy of a bullet needs to be reduced even more with energy required for expansion. Hard cast bullets don't have these problem (they have their own problems). The Lehigh Defense Extreme bullets go one step further and use their petals to dig into tissue and use rotational energy to open the wound. Or so it would seem. I have no idea how it works in the real world but nobody with first hand knowledge seems to be complaining about them.
But again, I do not know what is best. I have opinions too and don't really care for the Extreme bullet thing. It is an impressive read though.
They don't use rotational energy or dig anything into anywhere lol. It doesn't work that way. The bullet doesn't spin differently. And while certainly not perfect, proper testing protocols with real ballistic gel actually does have a strong correlation to human wounding, in penetration and expanded diameter.
Quote from: SPDSR on March 03 2018 11:33:02 AM MST
They don't use rotational energy or dig anything into anywhere lol.
Are you a Scientist, Physicist, Ballistian, MD, Dentist or just naturally that much smarter than everyone else that your opinion trumps others? If so, please share your credentials so we'll all know to extend your deserved deference.
Your kinda new here and it may have escaped your attention this is a pretty civil forum where admirers of the 10mm come to share information, seek feedback, give perspective and learn. You'll find members generally stay respectul of each other. There are a hell of a lot of pretty experienced and sharp people frequent this site.
You've more than clearly outlined your opinion.... These particular projects hold no interest for you. Got it, now please let the merits of your views stand up to scrutiny without being dismissive or argumentative of other members perspectives.