WWB HPs 230gr... how are these rated ? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : WWB HPs 230gr... how are these rated ?


josey88
08-30-2010, 13:31
I recently bought 3 boxes of 50 rds .45 cal WWB hollow points , 230 gr . How are these , say, compared to the HST Tacticals ? Are they any good for home defense ? I will apreciate some info , if possible on it . Thanks

fredj338
08-30-2010, 14:06
I don't think they have been officially tested. I have run wetpack test, they actually do wuite well against "premiums" for epxansion & penetration. I socked some away for SHTF ammo, the price is right & they do work.

Agent6-3/8
08-30-2010, 14:21
Like Fred said, I've never seen any official testing on them. However, in the backyard test I've seen, they seem to do pretty well. I carried them for a while before going to Fed HST.

cowboy1964
08-30-2010, 15:01
At least they're JHPs. But they're not premium JHPs. It's really as simple as that.

Search YouTube for WWB JHP. Not sure if there are .45 tests on there but there are certainly 9mm ones.

Jager1
09-02-2010, 14:25
I originally purchased the same bullet in bulk for reloading and was impressed with the accuracy and performance in relative testing into 2 liter bottles and 1 gallon jugs when loaded to about 825-850 fps velocity.

I don't know what velocity they are loaded to by Winchester, but I can't imagine they are much outside of that range.

The thin jacket and soft lead allows the round to mushroom readily. I have no problem carrying these rounds in moderate to warm weather where heavy clothing was not prevalent. For carry in cooler environs, I switch to Gold Dots, or other loadings that demonstrate a bit more velocity and penetration, typically in 185-200 grain configurations - or simply use FMJ. In Florida, for the most part, and especially indoors (typical HD), you'll be good to go.

One caveat - go shoot a few boxes of them to ensure they feed reliably in your firearm and hit where you are pointing. If they don't do both, you should try something else.

fastbolt
09-02-2010, 14:55
When I've seen them used in hosted gel shoot events they've usually exhibited decent expansion in bare gel blocks. They don't seem to be as consistent when it comes to the 4-layer denim tests. Then again, they weren't designed when the need to demonstrate consistent & robust expansion in the difficult 4-layer denim/gel testing was being used as a standard, either. Remember when Winchester marketed this bullet as the Subsonic DP (deep penetrator) some years ago?

I remember thinking that USA45JHP loads were fairly 'dirty' ... until we bought thousands of rounds of the low cost Remington Express loads for a while. :whistling:

Anyway, I've carried them in issued & off-duty weapons when it was what we had available for issue. I didn't lose sleep. I've seen some variable muzzle blast & flash when others have been using the ammunition on some occasions, but you have to keep in mind that when you're talking about a bulk/contract load we went through many tens of thousands of rounds of it in some years, and some occasional variance among the less costly budget lines isn't exactly surprising.

The last time I spoke with a Winchester rep he said that while they did in-house gel testing of their various loads, they obviously focused their attention on the big selling product lines that were in demand by their LE/Gov customers. This was by way of explanation of why he hadn't brought any of their STHP .45 loads to a gel event. He said that it simply didn't sell well to LE customers so they didn't push it in gel events or do the same amount of gel testing. Another time when I casually asked for some info about the then-recent revision among the SilverTip line, the rep said that he didn't have the info off the top of his head, but he could locate it and forward it to me if I really wanted it. I wasn't that interested so I told him not to bother. (That's how I got a list of some factory in-house gel testing done with ALL of their .38 Spl loads back about 2002, though.)

Naturally, I've preferred to carry more modern loads, like the Winchester T-series or Remington Golden Sabre when they were the issued issued loads. I've carried a few other brands and bullet designs when authorized for personal purchase, as well. It's just that some of the newer bullet designs have been created to offer more consistent and robust expansion under a wide range of conditions which have come to be requested under LE/Gov use.

Given my druthers, I tend to prefer using the more modern designs which have been designed to satisfy these newer performance testing standards. While I'm not overly interested in "bonded' bullets as a general rule, I have used the Speer Gold Dot with success in many of my guns over the years, and I think I still have some 230gr GD's in my ammunition collection against the time I may find myself running low on available issued rounds. I've used other brands of old-style & newer designs, as well, though.

As long as it feeds & functions well in my .45's, and exhibits acceptable QC and tolerances, I prefer to focus my attention on maintaining my shooting skills and making sure the gun is up-to-spec, clean & lubricated ... and keep my knowledge up to date and my mindset focused.

CanyonMan
09-02-2010, 17:05
I've shot the WWB 230gr JHP's for fun, and they penetrate very well (at least through water media). Expansion, depending on media fired into is not to bad. I never expect much or worry about that part to much over the penetration results.

I bought A bag full of the WW 230gr JHP's at a gun show a while back (see pics below) and will run them with 7.7 grs Power Pistol and see what this does.

I know one thing, you can bury a mule in the hole in these boys ! :wow: Ha.



Winchester 230gr JHP

http://i869.photobucket.com/albums/ab256/yrag5951/GT%20stuff/0822000935a.jpg


230gr FMJ, 230gr GS, 230gr Winchester JHP.

http://i869.photobucket.com/albums/ab256/yrag5951/GT%20stuff/0822000933a-1.jpg

Winchester 230gr JHP

http://i869.photobucket.com/albums/ab256/yrag5951/GT%20stuff/0822000934.jpg




CM

BOGE
09-02-2010, 18:19
FWIW, I think there is technological ``overflow``. In other words I highly doubt that someone one on the assembly lines yells ``hey, itīs Friday!! Time to make the sh%& HP`s!!`` :supergrin:

IMO 90% of the better HP`s today are light years ahead of what was available 20 - 25 yrs. ago. Even the vaunted Speer ``Flying Ashtray`` didn`t always mushroom, especially under 1,000 fps.

CanyonMan
09-02-2010, 19:29
FWIW, I think there is technological ``overflow``. In other words I highly doubt that someone one on the assembly lines yells ``hey, itīs Friday!! Time to make the sh%& HP`s!!`` :supergrin:

IMO 90% of the better HP`s today are light years ahead of what was available 20 - 25 yrs. ago. Even the vaunted Speer ``Flying Ashtray`` didn`t always mushroom, especially under 1,000 fps.


Your pretty much correct. That still leaves 10% 'according to your figuring' that are old but good. I'd probably kick in another few % of oldies but goodies. Kinda like me. Old but still kickin real well. :supergrin:

I agree with ya, JHP's have come a long way, but there are (as you've noted) still some oldies around that work really well. I do not know how this WW JHP will do at 900+fps (more than factory vel) when I load some up, but for fun and out of interest we'll see.


481 or Bob (Glolt20-91), did a test on these (I think) back on our threads Furniture penetration test, and the MacPherson thread by 481. I don't recall which one.




CanyonMan

FatBoy
09-04-2010, 00:01
Well, back when I shot more and could actually hold a group, I would use these in my G30 and SA TRP/OP. Never a misfire of any kind. I know they are not the uber best out there, but I could hit what I was aiming at. Here is a nice 10 shot group at 25 yds off hand(no support) w/ my SA.....

http://a.imageshack.us/img66/2002/trpgroup32904002smallnp5.jpg (http://img66.imageshack.us/i/trpgroup32904002smallnp5.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

The 10th hole is behind the "FT." on the tape.

I'd use them if it was what was available in my guns, YMMV.

FB