Penetration in Ballistic Gelatin

[sqlbullet]

Based on uz2bUSMC's statements above I would bet he is going to vote more like 180 from a 4.6" Glock 20 barrel.

But, ultimately it is what you would bet your life on when it comes to carry ammo.

I don't view the FBI's testing protocol the same way many people do I think.  I don't see that they really set out to duplicate the results of shooting tissue and bone in a living organism.  I think they set up a standard and repeatable protocol against which different rounds could be measured.  They created the protocol with the types of barriers a bullet may have to breech in mind.  Those barriers are easily replicated, and so the are.  But the gelatin is just a medium which does provide expansion and a basis for comparison.

I carry 180's currently, from Buffalo Bore.  I have some 200's on order that will probably become my defensive load for the next year.  I do load 135's in the safe gun that my wife would use for a threat in the home.  I have a variety of considerations that make my choices unique, and I am sure you do to.

[Panzer]

Does seem that heavier bullets are most favored by this group, good discussion thanks for everyone's input.

[REDLINE]

I am correct in what I say.  Shooting gel, or any other test medium, is only the most basic means of comparison.  It simulates unobstructed animal tissue, but poorly for use as a baseline for practical use.  General live tissue density and composition (muscle vs. fat, for example) vary so greatly, you cannot expect to see the same results.  Gel is only a test medium, and can only be applied to practical use if used for projectile capture after the bullet has passed through the real test medium (obstructions).  The projectiles can then be examined for post-performance, but still in a very basic sense.

A basic means of comparison is a use, which is what I said, and the reason I said ballstic gel is not useless.  That was all I said toward comparison of all loads available anyone might want to compare.  Yes it is basic.  By the same token it is the best we've got until some large group of individuals agree to line up to be shot willingly.  Overall it seems we are in agreement.

I wasn't referring to the 9mm specifically, but the previous, less-powerful calibers available as a whole.  They were inadequate, and yes, they did result in dead agents and innocents.  Stopping power results since the adoption of the .40 greatly improved.  It's a statistical fact, although not entirely attributed to the weapon upgrade alone.  Other changes were made at the same time, such as training and tactics, so how much weight the weapon bares is not specifically known.

Fair enough that you weren't only refering to the 9mm.  But that still doesn't change my main point which is that it is wrong to say that 9mm and other less powerful calibers/cartridges (within reason) as a whole get people killed.  If you're going to say that then you have to say it about all cartridges in existence.  I don't care if it is 9mm Luger or 10mm Auto or 454 Casull or 30-30 Win or 338 Lapua or 50 BMG.....there are ways to circumvent them all.  In the case of the very well know FBI Miami shootout the adversaries were wearing body armor.....the 9mm Silvertip load used was far from the only cartridge involved in the fight which included rifle rounds.  To simply blame the death of FBI agents on the 9mm rounds used because a bullet didn't penetrate an extra inch or so, especially in the given scenario is lame at best.  A whole lot of stuff failed that day, and the 9mm was only a fraction of all failures.  To suggest a 10mm (or any higher powered common LE caliber/cartridge as a whole) would have changed the outcome on its own is simply wrong.

Lastly, I don't know what your definition of "greatly improved" is in regard to you suggesting it being statistical fact that stopping power results have been greatly improved since the adoption of the 40.  I'm calling BS.  If you've got conclusive data to back that up, I'll happily eat crow.  But, you don't, because it doesn't exist, unless you are simply using some small data set of a limited nature not showing the whole picture, that will easily allow me to come back with a different limited nature scenario showing different.

FYI, mostly where you're messing up here is suggesting that every load available in 9mm is equal to all other loads in 9mm, and similarly for 40 S&W.  That is certainly not true.  It is also certainly not true that every load in 40S&W is better than every load in 9mm.  And even to suggest that all loads of 40 S&W overall show greatly improved stopping power results over 9mm and, within reason, other less-powerful calibers available as a whole, is at best a stretch, and possibly not true at all using any honest methodology.

No, they (I) wouldn't have been happy sticking with the .45ACP.

Well obviously, as they chose the 10mm.  But that is not what I said.  And in regard to what I said, they said;  "...the difference between the two (10mm and 45 Auto) is marginal and had the Director said "go with the .45", we would have done so gladly."   

It (45 Auto) was inadequate, according to the test standards.

No, it wasn't, as you will understand further within the link I posted below, and can clearly be seen just in the comment from the FBI that I posted above.   

Only the 10mm (in reduced power form), with the .357 very close behind, succeeded to meet all the test criteria.

The 357 Magnum was never tested, as they already had predermined they didn't want it. 
The loads tested included and were limited to:
.38 - 158gr LHP+P FBI load that was really on in the test as a minimum standard
9mm - 147gr subsonic load (I believe the Hydra-Shok)
.45 - 185gr JHP (best .45 load then available according to them)
10mm 180gr JHP subsonic developed by FBI 

The FBI didn't specify the 10mm, 200 gr. bullet at 1200 FPS.  Norma did.  That's what they developed and offered.

Who in the heck said they did?!?  Nor did the FBI ever consider any 200gr Norma load.

In the end, it wasn't the cartridge that wasn't accepted by the FBI, it was the platform.  The .40 S&W was later developed and introduced in more familiar and reliable platforms, based on the 645/4506.  It was a natural transition, and a no-brainer at the time.

Kind of.


http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi_10mm_notes.pdf

[uz2bUSMC]

I now think a better option would be the 135-155 grain loads, as I don't think they would have over penetrated as the 180 did.

The 135's will basically blow up, you'll have very shallow penetration. Better served as an HD loading if you are living in an appartment perhaps. The bullet has a better chance of detroying itself on the structure should you miss your target.

The 155's can frag badly as well at their velocities from a G20. I personally don't mind a bit of frag but I don't want something that will totally destroy itself on a hard barrier either (SD type scenario). I like the 155grn-165grn out of the G29. If I eventually go to the slightly extened Storm Lake bbl for my G29, and it's reliable enough for carry, the lowest I would go is 165grn because of the velocity gain (SD). It will still probably frag a bit.

I did get three boxes of 155grn, gold dots. In your opinion, these would be a better for (SD) out of a G20sf?

It depends. I do tend to favor middle weight bullets more but in some of my testing, the 155's came apart (blew up) at high velocity. This was on a pork shoulder, no denin, no hard barrier. The reason I would be aprehensive about using those as SD loads is I don't know how they will hold up through a hard barrier. Might be erattic because although velocity helps get through barriers it can destroy the bullet if it's moving too fast depending on what it hits.  Even civilians may have to shoot through their own car, so barrier penetration and the ability for the bullet to do work on the bad guy afterwards is important.

The other possible problem is that the bullet may literally blow up if it were to hit your targets arm leaving no chance for it to reach vitals. I would make a strong guess that the arm will not be even remotely usable afterwards, but you will still need to continue firing if you need to finish the job.

So, I think the 165-180 are your best bet personally. These are still moving way fast for a good temp cavity (yes, I believe a temp cavity contributes) and hopefully will hold together better.

ETA: Man, I typed this post up too fast. Had to change some things I didn't like without more explanation..

This was all that was left of the 155grn gold dot fired from 6" LWD bbl, loading was Double Tap.

[uz2bUSMC]

Panzer,

I also should note that even though the 155grn in my example was shot out of a 6" bbl, since it was Double Tap ammo it will most likely be running a bit slower and most likely comparable to an Underwood load out of a standard length bbl or in the ball park.

[Panzer]

Uz2bUSMC,

Ya, I figured if that happened with the DT load, the Underwood would be just as bad. I agree with the temporary stretch cavity, it is additional blunt trauma in my view. It just hard to figure which is best, many people favore the faster and lighter is better and other go slower and heavy. Not to say a 180 10mm is slow, but I think I like your logic behind the heavier bullet, think it's time to get some 180's from Underwood and develope my skills with that load.

Thank you very much, your picture and logic has given me a more clear view on the heavy bullets.

[uz2bUSMC]

Uz2bUSMC,

Ya, I figured if that happened with the DT load, the Underwood would be just as bad. I agree with the temporary stretch cavity, it is additional blunt trauma in my view. It just hard to figure which is best, many people favore the faster and lighter is better and other go slower and heavy. Not to say a 180 10mm is slow, but I think I like your logic behind the heavier bullet, think it's time to get some 180's from Underwood and develope my skills with that load.

Thank you very much, your picture and logic has given me a more clear view on the heavy bullets.

Not to confuse you, but just so you know... if two given bullet weights do what I want them to do through a barrier, I would choose the lighter of the two i.e. 165 vs 180. The 165 would tend to be more violent upon impact given the same bullet construction. Sometimes these things are hard to explain without the conversation going way off on a tangent. Also, these subjects tend to be discussed with much passion. Since this forum has such a friendly atmosphere, I tend to keep my terminal ballistic discussions on another forum. The nice thing about the 180 grn in 10mm is that it becomes your proverbial cake and eat it too package. It's heavy AND really fast!

[pacapcop]

I do like the UnderWood 165 G/S's.It's my carry round.

[Panzer]

Uz2bUSMC,

Ya, I figured if that happened with the DT load, the Underwood would be just as bad. I agree with the temporary stretch cavity, it is additional blunt trauma in my view. It just hard to figure which is best, many people favore the faster and lighter is better and other go slower and heavy. Not to say a 180 10mm is slow, but I think I like your logic behind the heavier bullet, think it's time to get some 180's from Underwood and develope my skills with that load.

Thank you very much, your picture and logic has given me a more clear view on the heavy bullets.

Not to confuse you, but just so you know... if two given bullet weights do what I want them to do through a barrier, I would choose the lighter of the two i.e. 165 vs 180. The 165 would tend to be more violent upon impact given the same bullet construction. Sometimes these things are hard to explain without the conversation going way off on a tangent. Also, these subjects tend to be discussed with much passion. Since this forum has such a friendly atmosphere, I tend to keep my terminal ballistic discussions on another forum. The nice thing about the 180 grn in 10mm is that it becomes your proverbial cake and eat it too package. It's heavy AND really fast!

No confusion, the information has been great as I am new to the 10mm and it is good to hear from people who have been using the round far longer than I.

[REDLINE]

...the 155's came apart (blew up) at high velocity. This was on a pork shoulder, no denin, no hard barrier.

I'ld like to see that same test you did, but with the Underwood 10mm 155XTP load (rated at 1500fps from a G20), and from a G29.