tnoutdoor9's test of Winchester PDX 124+P [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : tnoutdoor9's test of Winchester PDX 124+P


cowboy1964
08-01-2010, 11:46
Very surprising result. And worrisome. It's very rare one sees absolutely NO expansion whatsoever on a premium JHP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-HktsSKV6Q&playnext=1&videos=StNkZxFpWSY

glocknbruce
08-01-2010, 11:47
thats too bad...my wal mart has those in stock, too :(

JBP55
08-01-2010, 12:41
Judging from all the tests available.

PDX1 = More penetration and less expansion.
HST = More expansion and less penetration.
Gold Dot falls between these two.
Ranger T results are similar to Gold Dot.

FLglockdude
08-01-2010, 23:43
I think that is possible in any ammo out there today. It seems to be a rare occurrence, but wouldn't rule it out for any ammo, especially shooting through four layers on denim.

I would like to see it retested.

granitemonkey
08-02-2010, 15:13
This guy isnt quite as scientific or as detailed, but I watch his videos as well. This video shows the 124 gr+p PDX1 expanded: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M283nWhLPmk
I agree, this could happen with any ammo not just the PDX1's. I think we still need to see more testing on this round in the future.

TWS G26
08-05-2010, 14:50
Yes, I was very surprised as well. Too bad you could not hear my off-camera comments when I found the bullet. The ammo donor sent me an entire box, I have a few extra rounds and will retest at some point in August.

jeffreybehr
08-05-2010, 16:18
One sample does NOT a statistically-reliable conclusion make.

Did tnoutdoor9 run out of time? Jugs?

My results of testing mutliple samples of the .40-cal. PDX1 in waterjugs--without denim--is significantly different.

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k220/jeffreybehr/Shooting%20stuff/PDX1close2_1200w.jpg

Preußen
08-05-2010, 16:34
One sample does NOT a statistically-reliable conclusion make.

Did tnoutdoor9 run out of time? Jugs?

My results of testing mutliple samples of the .40-cal. PDX1 in waterjugs--without denim--is significantly different.

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k220/jeffreybehr/Shooting%20stuff/PDX1close2_1200w.jpg
Exactly!
Conclusions cannot be drawn from shooting one bullet▬at least five should be fired from the same lot or box..

DRT
08-05-2010, 18:58
http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=26461&highlight=PDX1

50% (5 of 10) failures to expand with 180gr .40 Ranger Bonded (same as PDX1) after denim. How do those odds sound to you?

DRT
08-05-2010, 19:02
One sample does NOT a statistically-reliable conclusion make.

Did tnoutdoor9 run out of time? Jugs?

My results of testing mutliple samples of the .40-cal. PDX1 in waterjugs--without denim--is significantly different.

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k220/jeffreybehr/Shooting%20stuff/PDX1close2_1200w.jpg

Without denim? Who cares. Just about any bullet will expand in water with no intermediate barrier like clothing in front of it.

hotpig
08-05-2010, 20:28
Without denim? Who cares. Just about any bullet will expand in water with no intermediate barrier like clothing in front of it.Passed the FBI tests and beat out Gold Dot for the largest contract to date.

glocknbruce
08-06-2010, 04:19
Passed the FBI tests and beat out Gold Dot for the largest contract to date.

that speaks volumes.........i wonder how many rounds the feds tested???

TheGrimReaper
08-06-2010, 09:29
Man, this still makes me leary though. I was planning on switching to these too.

DRT
08-06-2010, 10:25
Passed the FBI tests and beat out Gold Dot for the largest contract to date.

A few points:

1) FBI heavy clothing isn't as stringent as IWBA 4 layer denim protocol that was specifically developed when certain large LE agencies experienced failures to expand with loads that met FBI criteria. Loads that reliably expand in the IWBA protocol have proven to be reliable performers in OISs. I'm also not all that impressed with Gold dot's performance after IWBA heavy clothing.

2) Whether a fundamental design flaw, or production quality variability, these various tests give me some doubts. While all designs will have occassional failures, seems like a few too many for me to feel comfortable with this design.

3) http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1250492 hmmmm

Mwinter
08-06-2010, 10:53
On what grounds did it beat out Gold Dot? If something meets minimum standards and is less expensive, then that's a 'win' as far as contracts, etc. go. The FBI did run a reduced-velocity 165gr GDHP for a while.

With regards to tests, I'd like to see 5 or rounds chronied from a lot, then bullet from the same lot fired. When I get duty ammo for my agency, I always chrony, pull bullets, section/tear down sample rounds, etc. to try and find any problems with the lot.

An early lot of 64gr GDSP .223 rifle ammo *sucked* through windshield glass, and was beaten by a lighter more conventionally manufactured JSP in a test I was present for. Later lots of the same product seem to be doing much better through glass in published tests...go figure.

Glockdude1
08-06-2010, 11:43
I recently "tested" the new Winchester 165 .40 PDX1 ammo.

From 10 yards, with my HK USP .40, it took 4, 1 gallon water jugs to stop this rd.
http://i35.tinypic.com/2a7aa8k.jpg
http://i33.tinypic.com/3tpau.jpg

Shooting water jugs is not scientific, but it is fun to do. Many shooters at the range cannot believe you can retrieve a fired bullet.

:cool:

Glock19Fan
08-06-2010, 16:11
Was that denim, or newsprint?

To me it looks more like newsprint, but I cant say for sure.

Just my opinion, but I give newprint/phonebooks, ect absolutely no credit whatsoever. I think clay give a much better representation of what I bullet does. Cellulose is just completely unrealistic.

Would have been much better off using jugs full of water. :upeyes:

Sorry to sound bitter, its just I have noticed that 99% of ALL bullet failures in backyard testing happen through newsprint of phonebooks. I cant recall ANY failures in strait water. YES, bullets expand better in plain water, but at least the dont risk being clogged with paper.

Not only that, but outside of the jug, soaked newsprint and phonebooks dehydrate very quickly. As they are left to drain, and more importantly, as the energy from the bullet pushes the water out, the consistancy goes down.

I regularly test in my own ballistic gelatin. If anyone is interested, send me a few rounds and I would be happy to test them for you.

Mwinter
08-08-2010, 10:48
G19fan,

PM me with a ship-to address....I'll send you some ammo to shoot. What calibers of ammunition can you run?

novaDAK
08-08-2010, 19:07
http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=26461&highlight=PDX1

50% (5 of 10) failures to expand with 180gr .40 Ranger Bonded (same as PDX1) after denim. How do those odds sound to you?

It was concluded it was a bad lot of ammo. The new version (which is also now sold as PDX1 180gr) had some issues with expansion reliability in its early production runs. They had to redesign the 180gr bonded bullet because the old version (which looks like a plain JHP without the jacket "petals" folded over into the cavity) had major issues of expansion reliability through heavy clothing.

BrokenArrow
08-12-2010, 10:59
When the FBI thought the downloaded 165/40 Fed HS was the best, did everybody else?

When the FBI thought the downloaded 165/40 Speer GD was the best, did everybody else?

Why think this FBI pick is better than anything else?

It's the best for them based on how they test and rate ammo. I've got a copy of the RFP, and there's way more to it than meeting min specs and having the lowest price; that's not how they do it. Ammo is tested and scored, ammo w highest score gets the contract if the price is acceptable. You get the contract by being the best value, not the lowest bidder. Ditto pistolas.

Mwinter
08-15-2010, 09:54
My mistake BA.

I don't have the RFP, and I assumed that they might choose the cheaper of 2 equally-well-performing products. I've seen other private and state contracts for equipment/guns/etc that were finalized that way.

I should have written "as far as *some* or *many* contracts go".

With regards to the downloaded 165 GD....I did get some in a while back (thanks in part to info you provided previously) and it ran well. We now issue 165gr Federal Bonded Tactical.

BrokenArrow
08-15-2010, 12:29
IIRC last year the ATF had a pistol solicitation that had options for over 100,000 pistols if fully executed and all the feds who could purchase off it did. There were preferences for things like an adjustable grip and ambi/reversible controls, but no requirements.

Test ammo for that was not the FBI's 180g Win Bonded, but Speer's downloaded 165g GD.

I've heard a pistol selection was made, but not announced yet. Meanwhile the FBI just did a sole source purchase of a few thousand new G23s...

JBP55
08-15-2010, 13:24
Some Federal agencies are considering the Sig P250.

BrokenArrow
08-15-2010, 14:20
I had heard the FAM wanted to go P250 in 357SIG, then a slew of other gun makers filed protests that put a hold on that...

novaDAK
08-16-2010, 17:12
When the FBI thought the downloaded 165/40 Fed HS was the best, did everybody else?

When the FBI thought the downloaded 165/40 Speer GD was the best, did everybody else?

Why think this FBI pick is better than anything else?

It's the best for them based on how they test and rate ammo. I've got a copy of the RFP, and there's way more to it than meeting min specs and having the lowest price; that's not how they do it. Ammo is tested and scored, ammo w highest score gets the contract if the price is acceptable. You get the contract by being the best value, not the lowest bidder. Ditto pistolas.

I'm not saying it's better than anything else, just that it is an acceptable choice. I still prefer Gold Dots, but I carry the 180gr Win. Bonded every day and trust them to work.

TWS G26
09-29-2010, 15:41
Exactly!
Conclusions cannot be drawn from shooting one bullet▬at least five should be fired from the same lot or box..


I agree that one shot should not make a conclusion. Does anyone not see the first 15 seconds of these videos? It is a representation, that is it. With regard to "running out of jugs", it takes 2 hours to make 5. I just don't have the time to spend a full day making jugs for one test. Also, I strongly encourage people to also view other sources for ammo tests. I never intended anything I do to be definitive, especially considering the resources I'm using.

cowboy1964
09-29-2010, 19:21
I'm also not all that impressed with Gold dot's performance after IWBA heavy clothing.

Some examples please?

datnvan
09-29-2010, 19:42
does the fbi have any expansion requirement? to me when they test they value penetration (including thru barriers, of which the typical chl'er will never care to do).

Mwinter
10-03-2010, 16:41
1. I don't have a copy of their test protocol with me, but I do know expansion is measured in FBI shoots. Dunno if it's rated/averaged/etc....I'm betting Dodson or BrokenArrow can respond. If memory serves the USBP/ICE and some USSS tests did rate expansion/fragmentation (?).

2. As for the 'typical CHLer'....carjacking scenarios are something I'd consider a very viable CHL encounter, and I certainly won't take the time to roll down my window or lean out of it around the windshield if someone outside needs an immediate lead injection. Plus, how a round performs on plywood or drywall (also FBI test events) should be noteworthy for home-defenders. The FBI tests are tedious, but as far as I'm concerned they are a go-to to see how your chosen bullet will perform...or better yet, which bullet will best meet your own requirements.

Tomac
10-04-2010, 06:56
Here's a cut'n'paste of my recent test of the Fiocchi 92gr 9mm EMB (Expanding Mono-Block), notice the variation in the results including one that zipped right through all the jugs and was never recovered:

Just got back from the range, here are the results, all fired from 10' through 1 layer of lined leather and 2 layers of denim and correlate to how you see the bullets in the pic from left to right:

1) (Not shown) 3.6" bbl, EMB, bullet passed through leather, denim and all 4 jugs and was not recovered (I have no idea what happened here).
2) 3.6" bbl, EMB, this is the bullet from the first test last week, no leather or denim, Exp = .64", Pen = 18".
3) 3.6" bbl, Fiocchi 115gr XTP JHP, Exp = .52", Pen = 18".
4) 3.6" bbl, EMB, Exp = .69", Pen = 15".
5) 3.6" bbl, EMB, Exp = .74", Pen = 18".
6) 4.25" bbl, EMB, Exp = .65", Pen = 18".
7) 4.25" bbl, EMB, Exp = .70"*, Pen = 18". * = shed 2 petals in the 2nd jug.

After the first unrecovered shot, following bullets penetrated wet leather/denim, I have no idea what effect if any it might have on expansion/penetration. Remarkably consistent penetration despite different bbl lengths or prescence/lack of leather/denim.
Also tested for comparison (but not shown):
8) Federal .40 180gr Hydra-Shok, 4" bbl, Exp = .61", Pen = 24".
9) Speer .40 155gr Gold Dot, 4" bbl, Exp = .61", Pen = 24".

Test setup:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v465/Tomac/ResizeofEMBAmmoTest2001.jpg
Recovered bullets:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v465/Tomac/ResizeofEMBAmmoTest2002.jpg

ETA: Here are some other 9mm water jug tests for comparison: http://stevespages.com/page8f9mmluger.html

Just goes to show that you can't rely on a single test.
Tomac

BrokenArrow
10-04-2010, 10:51
FBI?

It's a complicated process that goes beyond meet the specs/low bidder wins. It involves pass/fail items as well as points awarded on a sliding scale.

"Upon successful completion of phase II, contract award will be made to the vendor whose sample(s) demonstrated superior performance, technical merit, and best value based on Phase I and Phase II evaluation results."

Phase 1

Penetration 500 points max
-Overall penetration avg .50
-Avg % of retained bullet wt .16
-Avg bullet expansion .17*
-Number of shots less than 12 inches .17
Accuracy 100 points
Pressure 90 points
Muzzle Velocity 80 points
Ammunition Malfunctions 70 points
Muzzle Flash 60 points
Defects/QCI 50 points
Cleanliness 40 points
Enhancements 10 points

Total 1000 points

Phase II

Ammunition Velocity Performance in FBI firearms
Environmental Evaluation
-Sustained immersion of ammunition in water
-High/Low temperature exposure
Ammunition function and field suitability evaluation

*Average bullet expansion is awarded a corresponding point value which is multiplied by .17, representing approximately one-sixth of the penetration score.

expansion/points

>.643/10 points
.617-.643/9
.590-.616/8
.563-.589/7
.536-.563/6
.509-.535/5
.482-.508/4
.455-.481/3
.428-.454/2
.400-.427/1
<.400/0

FWIW, the 115 9mm Silvertip penetration avgs:

Bare 10/.62
Cloth 11.8/.58
Steel 12.7
Wboard 12.9
Pwood 13.1
Glass 9.2
Cloth at 20 yds 10.5
Glass at 20 yds 10.5

cadillacguns
10-05-2010, 06:53
Well so far we all now know how to kill water jugs!
I was a rube back in the day of "Black Talon" solves everything days, then tested my own .45 and most did not expand...............(sound of balloon deflating). I like the GD and HST loads in 180, and "if" I ever have to shoot anybody with one or the other, I am sure they (Bad Guy) would be a hurting.
There is no "Majic Bullet".