HST 147gr +P chrono data [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : HST 147gr +P chrono data


ABNAK
09-25-2010, 17:25
9mm, 147gr +P HST from a Glock 19 (fired 5 but only 4 registered):

1030fps
1027fps
1016fps
1036fps

1027fps average

Not too shabby as far as 147 grainers go. Recoil was, as expected, a little more than standard pressure 147 HST's. I'd say about like the 124gr +P loads.

It is now my G19 carry load!

mastrbloata
09-25-2010, 18:04
Pretty impressive stuff, that HST. Did you get that from Kyle's?

ABNAK
09-25-2010, 20:36
Pretty impressive stuff, that HST. Did you get that from Kyle's?


Yep, Kyle is da man!

cowboy1964
09-25-2010, 23:38
That's the only place I've ever seen it in stock.

BOGE
09-25-2010, 23:49
...It is now my G19 carry load!

You might just want to rethink that as one of our posters here on GT posted some dramatic photos of 147 gr. GD's that completerly failed to mushroom.

cowboy1964
09-26-2010, 00:04
You might just want to rethink that as one of our posters here on GT posted some dramatic photos of 147 gr. GD's that completerly failed to mushroom.

So you're against ANY 147gr? Anyone have the link to that thread?

I prefer 124+P myself. The 147 HSTs are inaccurate for me for some reason, and they have a funky ejection in my PM9.

338 lapua
09-26-2010, 01:42
You might just want to rethink that as one of our posters here on GT posted some dramatic photos of 147 gr. GD's that completerly failed to mushroom.

And a Ford V8 performs just the same as a Chevy V8. :sigh:

We're talking about 147gr Federal HST and not 147gr Speer Gold Dot. They are different. Duh.

Check out the many, many photos and videos of 147gr HST expansion tests with water, bare gelatin, denim, etc. that are everywhere. Expansion is just fine. Btw, Ranger T 147gr expansion is fine as well.

BOGE
09-26-2010, 10:44
...We're talking about 147gr Federal HST and not 147gr Speer Gold Dot. They are different. Duh...

I posted that late last night and was asleep at the wheel. I read ``Gold Dot``. :whistling: My mistake.

Nonetheless, yes I am adamantly against 147 gr. in a 9mm which basically turns it into a lumbering .38 Spcl. I remember the fiasco that was during the 80`s with 147 gr.: they didn`t work.

Before you sound off about how great the 147 gr. HST is, show me at least 10 documented shootings that you know of involving this round. ``Jello Men`` and shooting wet phonebooks are one thing but street cred is EVERYTHING.

cowboy1964
09-26-2010, 13:33
Before you sound off about how great the 147 gr. HST is, show me at least 10 documented shootings that you know of involving this round. ``Jello Men`` and shooting wet phonebooks are one thing but street cred is EVERYTHING.

I'm sure there are some out there and hopefully someone can post some links. The old 80's 147gr fiascos are long behind us. It appears Portland PD is one agency that uses 147 HST. I also read that they went with 9mm after two G21s blew up. Hadn't heard that one before.

My theory is, if 147 HSTs have similar test results to "street credded" rounds then they should perform as well in actual shootings. I just personally am not using the 147 HSTs because of inaccuracy issues I've experienced and I prefer to keep my velocities > 1100 fps in 9mm (and better yet > 1200).

drc767
09-26-2010, 16:27
You might just want to rethink that as one of our posters here on GT posted some dramatic photos of 147 gr. GD's that completerly failed to mushroom.

Not sure what that has to do with the HST 147 +P round. The HST is probably one of the more consistently expanding rounds out there right now, including the 147g HST. It is my preferred SD load in 9mm and .45, although the .45 has become nearly impossible to find.

albyihat
09-26-2010, 16:37
those lumbering .38 spl. rounds have quite a bit of "street cred" just ask any LEO from 1930-1990's

Dreamaster
09-26-2010, 17:20
LOL 1027 FPS out of a compact Glock isn't exactly "lumbering" either.

Good velocity for the weight, amazing expansion and fantastic penetration in jello.

They WILL do the job.

jason.223
09-28-2010, 17:56
not to bad of numbers...I remember maybe 15 years back I chrono'ed some cor-bon 147 out of my glock 19. I dont have my data here but I recall they went over just over 1100 fps...now that was a 147 +P load!

Jason

FLglockdude
09-28-2010, 20:11
When I can afford to snag some of these I am going to.

They should get moving pretty good out of my 5" M&P.

ABNAK
09-29-2010, 07:32
Nonetheless, yes I am adamantly against 147 gr. in a 9mm which basically turns it into a lumbering .38 Spcl. I remember the fiasco that was during the 80`s with 147 gr.: they didn`t work.


I have to say that I'm not in total disagreement with you at all; however, I do believe that advances in bullet technology over the last 15 years have made possible good expansion from heavy-for-caliber loads that do not have screaming velocities. In fact, until the advent of these "newer" loads I was never a fan of heavy loads in each caliber, instead preferring a mid-weight loading with a little "oomph" behind it, i.e. 124gr +P in 9mm, 155gr in .40, and 185gr +P or 200gr in .45.

I too would like to see some links to street data. Until then, however, I will continue to surmise that the 147gr +P HST may in fact be the "Uber" 9mm loading (at least to date).

cowboy1964
09-29-2010, 09:11
The problem with 147gr back then was jams. They don't jam any more, not in decent firearms. Testing shows they are very effective.

pochis
09-29-2010, 09:16
i remember reading something writton about 147hst from ayoob and at that time there were some shootings in oregon i remeber it being said that even in the early stages they were impressed.:whistling:

The Retired Sarge
09-29-2010, 12:48
Any one have the expansion/penetration specs on the HST 147gr +P shot through calibrated gel and also heavy clothing? Federal/ATK does not have this loading listed on their test charts. Thanks-Bill

ABNAK
09-29-2010, 13:08
Any one have the expansion/penetration specs on the HST 147gr +P shot through calibrated gel and also heavy clothing? Federal/ATK does not have this loading listed on their test charts. Thanks-Bill


Granted, it wasn't gel and wasn't denim, but I fired a standard pressure 147gr HST through 4 layers of a bath towel into my swimming pool and it expanded to ~.69 caliber. This was from a Kahr P9 (3.5" barrel). So I'd imagine the +P variant and an extra 1/2" of barrel from the Glock 19 should yield even better results.

Berto
09-30-2010, 17:08
I posted that late last night and was asleep at the wheel. I read ``Gold Dot``. :whistling: My mistake.

Nonetheless, yes I am adamantly against 147 gr. in a 9mm which basically turns it into a lumbering .38 Spcl. I remember the fiasco that was during the 80`s with 147 gr.: they didn`t work.

Before you sound off about how great the 147 gr. HST is, show me at least 10 documented shootings that you know of involving this round. ``Jello Men`` and shooting wet phonebooks are one thing but street cred is EVERYTHING.

Things do change in 20years (1) and the 'lumbering' .38sp established a very good reputation with good loads like the FBI load...and not with jello.

I have lumbering .38sp loads in my guns that well exceed the chrono numbers of HST +p 9mm using a heavy soft lead hollowpoint- from a snubby.:wavey:

I you truly think you have the antidote load for every situation, guaranteed, you're fooling yourself. The HST is about as solid as any load in 9mm can promise.

Berto
09-30-2010, 17:12
those lumbering .38 spl. rounds have quite a bit of "street cred" just ask any LEO from 1930-1990's

It amazes me how people bash the .38sp without paying any attention to how it performed with a quality HP load, only when it was issued as RNL-which didn't fare well in any caliber back in the day.
The round is pushing 100years in LE use, it still works fine.:supergrin:

esminbritt
04-29-2011, 17:23
I have a new Gen 4 G17. I chose Rem Gold saber 147 for my first hundred rounds. At about round thirty, it jammed. I may have been limp wristing it. Do y'all think it's more likely that I should've been shooting a different round (i.e. HST 147 +P or maybe a 124 +P?) or do you think I just need to hold the gun better. I shot 4" groupings at 15-20 yards. Maybe the gun just needed to be broke in. I shot the 70 remaining GS 147's fine and I put another 100 FMJ 115 gr without a hitch. Any suggestions are welcome. Thanks.

Snapper2
04-29-2011, 17:47
I tested a few into a wetpack. The test was to make them lose jackets. Pulled the 147gr bullets and loaded with 6.9gr of 3n38 to over 1100fps. The bullets only expanded more without losing any weight. Great design, acts like a bonded bullet but expands more.

Berto
04-29-2011, 17:49
Every gun can have an ammo preference, and while the G17 is known for being fairly solid out of the box, I'd give it a few hundred before making any hardfast conclusions on it's reliability.
When a gun is new and tight, it can be more grip sensitive and will often loosen up and be more forgiving after a little bit of shooting.

Jeff82
04-29-2011, 18:13
I get 1013 fps out of my G19 with standard pressure 147 gr HSTs. (ten round avg, P9HST2)

They are very close to one another.

sandman77
04-29-2011, 18:33
147gr HST, Winchester Ranger, and Speer Gold Dot are all street proven loads. They are issued by Portland, Ore PD, LAPD, and Amirillo, TX PD respectively. There have been numerous shootings with all three loads and all have performed very well. When Mas Ayoob was asked on the GATE forum what he reccommends in a standard pressure 9mm load these are the ones he mentioned, favoring the HST and Ranger loads. It isn't 1990 anymore and these modern 147gr loads work.

unit1069
04-29-2011, 18:39
I get 1013 fps out of my G19 with standard pressure 147 gr HSTs. (ten round avg, P9HST2)

They are very close to one another.

That's a pretty good velocity for a standard pressure 147-grain 9mm round. I've never shot any heavy 9mm rounds but I may have to give the heavy HST
a try.

cole
04-29-2011, 19:03
I prefer heavy-for-caliber loads. And, I've likewise read HST moves 1000+fps. Nice. Good loads. I have Gold Dots, but I'd be more than fine with HST. Good info. Thanks.

esminbritt
04-29-2011, 19:12
Every gun can have an ammo preference, and while the G17 is known for being fairly solid out of the box, I'd give it a few hundred before making any hardfast conclusions on it's reliability.
When a gun is new and tight, it can be more grip sensitive and will often loosen up and be more forgiving after a little bit of shooting.

OK. That is very helpful feedback. Let's assume that it will loosen up. And my grip will obviously improve. But these Federal HST 147 +p rounds are not bonded. Is that a big deal, realizing that I may or may not need to shoot through glass, etc.?

paragon1
04-29-2011, 21:18
I posted that late last night and was asleep at the wheel. I read ``Gold Dot``. :whistling: My mistake.

Nonetheless, yes I am adamantly against 147 gr. in a 9mm which basically turns it into a lumbering .38 Spcl. I remember the fiasco that was during the 80`s with 147 gr.: they didn`t work.

Before you sound off about how great the 147 gr. HST is, show me at least 10 documented shootings that you know of involving this round. ``Jello Men`` and shooting wet phonebooks are one thing but street cred is EVERYTHING.

Not HST, but San Jose PD has had excellent results with 147gr. Ranger-T. I will try to find it, it was some technical paper. The first six incidents they had the Rangers penetrated and expanded as advertised. The department seemed very happy with them.

cowboy1964
04-29-2011, 21:39
But these Federal HST 147 +p rounds are not bonded. Is that a big deal, realizing that I may or may not need to shoot through glass, etc.?

HSTs hold together almost as well as a bonded. They are pretty amazing.

hunter won
04-30-2011, 11:22
The 9mm 147 grain ammo that was subsonic had mixed results with police shootings back in the 1990's.Some caused jams to failure to stop.One shooting in L.A. a Deputy fired into a BG and the round exited his body and went thru a window killing an innocent person.The old CorBon 147 +P was a good round that did expand but was discontinued.

AWESOMO 4000
05-07-2011, 20:38
Still don't get the 147gr for a 9mm. It's proven time and time again to work best with 115-127gr +P/+P+ configuration. 147gr were designed for use in suppressed guns. It's not a .45. It is neither big, nor heavy...so what you have is something medium weighted and medium sized, going medium speed. I don't nessecarily want to get in front of one, but there also seems to be some better choices. The .357 Magnum didn't become famous by firing under 1000fps. 9mm basically same size...speed makes it work.

Jeff82
05-08-2011, 21:33
Still don't get the 147gr for a 9mm. It's proven time and time again to work best with 115-127gr +P/+P+ configuration. 147gr were designed for use in suppressed guns. It's not a .45. It is neither big, nor heavy...so what you have is something medium weighted and medium sized, going medium speed. I don't nessecarily want to get in front of one, but there also seems to be some better choices. The .357 Magnum didn't become famous by firing under 1000fps. 9mm basically same size...speed makes it work.

Bunk.

esminbritt
05-10-2011, 16:06
So, for what it's worth, i put 300 rounds or so of the HST 147 +p through my G17 without incident. It only had slightly more recoil than the 115 standard pressure rounds i put through on the same trip. I even used 115's and +P 147's in the same mag. I wanted to do an immediate comparison. I found it interesting that the 147 hollow points put a smaller, cleaner hole in the paper. I would've guessed the opposite. I also ran a couple hundred 147 gr FMJ American Eagle rounds too. Someone told me that if I'm gonna choose 147's as my SD ammo, I should practice with 147's as much as possible.

esminbritt
05-10-2011, 16:14
Still don't get the 147gr for a 9mm. It's proven time and time again to work best with 115-127gr +P/+P+ configuration. 147gr were designed for use in suppressed guns. It's not a .45. It is neither big, nor heavy...so what you have is something medium weighted and medium sized, going medium speed. I don't nessecarily want to get in front of one, but there also seems to be some better choices. The .357 Magnum didn't become famous by firing under 1000fps. 9mm basically same size...speed makes it work.

Alright, I'm gonna tread carefully here because I'm a newbie and I respect the fact that you have more experience than me. I feel like I have wrapped my feeble brain around this debate pretty well. I see the pro's and con's to both sides of the 9mm weight debate. I have chosen to go with the heavier round for now. It just seems to make sense somehow. I am curious as to one of debatable points: the lighter round obviously goes faster, but what about initial barrier penetration? Doesn't the heavier round go through glass, heavy clothing, etc? When you say "It's proven time and time again to work best with 115-127gr +P/+P+", what exactly do you mean by "work best". Are you talking feeding well, penetration, expansion, or something else? I ask this not to argue, merely to understand more fully.

pisc1024
05-18-2011, 05:49
147gr were designed for use in suppressed guns.

Key term: were....

happyguy
05-18-2011, 07:40
There are plenty of departments using 147's with good results.

There are also some departments using 115 +P+ with good results.

Hmmmmmm

Regards,
Happyguy :)

cowboy1964
05-18-2011, 11:06
I even used 115's and +P 147's in the same mag. I wanted to do an immediate comparison. I found it interesting that the 147 hollow points put a smaller, cleaner hole in the paper. I would've guessed the opposite.

Probably the faster rounds tear the paper a bit more. This is one reason I prefer mid-weights (124-127gr) for 9mm. Weight is great but I don't think gaining 20-23 grains is worth losing 250-300 fps.

AWESOMO 4000
05-21-2011, 23:01
I'm not sure what was "bunk" about what I wrote. The most potent and field-proven 9mm loads of the last 30 years have been:

115gr +P+ 9BPLE (Indiana State Police)
127gr +P+ Winchester Ranger T
124gr +P Gold Dot (NYPD)
115gr +P CorBon

....I just think the 147gr is an answer looking for a question. If you want a slow bullet, why not just get a .45 or 180gr .40? At least then you have some true weight/size increase.

To each his own, I guess it's probably a moot point...since you're probably going to have 12-19 of them on tap anyway.

glock2740
05-21-2011, 23:49
I'm happy with my 124+P Gold Dots. :cool:

JW1178
05-22-2011, 23:46
Oh wow... such bickering over a few grains as though one is great and the other is junk. Maybe the 147 is the best or maybe not, it's still a very GOOD round. There are probably different instances where one weight would be better than the other, but they will probably BOTH get the job done if you do your's first.

The 147+P is still rather soft shooting, as most heavy for caliber usually are. Some of the older 147's really were "lumbering" to the point they hardly cycled the gun. I doubt would be able to dependably expand the hollow point. Some of the cheap ammo is like this, as it caused a FTE in my G19. However, premium 147's and especially 147+P HST is a different and much meaner animal yet still tame. It's got enough velosity to expand, and enough weight to drive it home, with low recoil but enough to cycle the weapon's action. For someone needing the low recoil, I say the 147+P is an excellent choice as you get low recoil without the problems from the past.

BleedNOrange
05-26-2011, 09:34
Bunk.
:rofl:agreed

Berto
05-26-2011, 18:13
I'm not sure what was "bunk" about what I wrote. The most potent and field-proven 9mm loads of the last 30 years have been:

115gr +P+ 9BPLE (Indiana State Police)
127gr +P+ Winchester Ranger T
124gr +P Gold Dot (NYPD)
115gr +P CorBon

....I just think the 147gr is an answer looking for a question. If you want a slow bullet, why not just get a .45 or 180gr .40? At least then you have some true weight/size increase.

To each his own, I guess it's probably a moot point...since you're probably going to have 12-19 of them on tap anyway.

First we need to determine the quality of your data, and how such data is compiled (I have a hunch..), then wait and see how the 147gr HST compares when there is enough a track record to tap.
Heavier bullets can do things lighter bullets can't, like hold together better and penetrate while expanding vs shallow penetration and fragmenting as those two 115gr loads do.
THe middle weights are a solid choice, but it may turn out 147gr works better...or not.

esminbritt
05-26-2011, 20:56
First we need to determine the quality of your data, and how such data is compiled (I have a hunch..), then wait and see how the 147gr HST compares when there is enough a track record to tap.
Heavier bullets can do things lighter bullets can't, like hold together better and penetrate while expanding vs shallow penetration and fragmenting as those two 115gr loads do.
THe middle weights are a solid choice, but it may turn out 147gr works better...or not.

I agree with the need for documented back-up of "stats". For people like me who are new to handguns, it is important to not get lost in the sea of opinions. I have followed the advice of those of you who have common-sense approaches to ammo selection as well as a general consensus as far as how to start off in general. I chose 9mm due to cost and availability.
I chose the 147gr HST +P because it felt right. I put a bunch through my G17, it fed and shot flawlessly. I stocked up and I'm not investing any more on SD ammo. If 500 rds. doesn't do the trick, another 500 probably wont either. And as you all have pointed out, 2000 rounds wont do squat either if I don't do my part. As for practice, I found 147gr. Federal flat point JHP for 2Ę more per round than the cheapest 115 gr they sell at walmart. I shoot the 147's for plinking so i get used to the heavier round.
I'm not saying that a lighter faster bullet wont do the trick as well. I just liked the initial barrier (i.e. glass) penetration of the 147.

esminbritt
05-26-2011, 21:03
And please, let's end the banter concerning non-expansion on 147 rounds. I haven't seen one single person who tested modern, good quality147 rounds show that there is any lack of expansion. I will promise not to go back in time and get sub-standard 147 gr 9mm ammo if everyone will agree that the new, high-grade stuff does reliably expand. Not in theory, but in actuality. You can argue velocity, penetration depth, all that other stuff. I can see you point there. But enough with the failure to expand. And if it don't I want to see photos. Thanks again to you all for helping me make an informed decision.

glock20c10mm
05-26-2011, 23:23
9mm, 147gr +P HST from a Glock 19 (fired 5 but only 4 registered):

1030fps
1027fps
1016fps
1036fps

1027fps average

Not too shabby as far as 147 grainers go. Recoil was, as expected, a little more than standard pressure 147 HST's. I'd say about like the 124gr +P loads.

It is now my G19 carry load!
I'm surprised from a G19. Makes me curious what they manage from a G26. Thanks for sharing.

glock20c10mm
05-27-2011, 00:50
I prefer 124+P myself.
...yes I am adamantly against 147 gr. in a 9mm which basically turns it into a lumbering .38 Spcl. I remember the fiasco that was during the 80`s with 147 gr.: they didn`t work.
Still don't get the 147gr for a 9mm. It's proven time and time again to work best with 115-127gr +P/+P+ configuration. 147gr were designed for use in suppressed guns. It's not a .45. It is neither big, nor heavy...so what you have is something medium weighted and medium sized, going medium speed. I don't nessecarily want to get in front of one, but there also seems to be some better choices. The .357 Magnum didn't become famous by firing under 1000fps. 9mm basically same size...speed makes it work.
Probably the faster rounds tear the paper a bit more. This is one reason I prefer mid-weights (124-127gr) for 9mm. Weight is great but I don't think gaining 20-23 grains is worth losing 250-300 fps.
I'm not sure what was "bunk" about what I wrote. The most potent and field-proven 9mm loads of the last 30 years have been:

115gr +P+ 9BPLE (Indiana State Police)
127gr +P+ Winchester Ranger T
124gr +P Gold Dot (NYPD)
115gr +P CorBon

....I just think the 147gr is an answer looking for a question. If you want a slow bullet, why not just get a .45 or 180gr .40? At least then you have some true weight/size increase.
I'm happy with my 124+P Gold Dots.
:agree:to all of the above.
Things do change in 20years (1) and the 'lumbering' .38sp established a very good reputation with good loads like the FBI load...
Really? Well let's see what SSA Urey W. Patrick, of the Firearms Training Unit, from the FBI Academy, in Quantico, VA, had to say when asked; Are you saying the 9mm is no good?

Answer: No. We are saying it is as good as the .38 Special, which has served us for a long time. It has severe limitations, which we are not willing to accept. It is woefully inadequate for shooting at people in cars, for example, and over half of our shootings involve vehicles. It is a marginally adequate wounding agent. We have had a number of 9mm shootings over the past couple of years, and if you define a good shooting as one in which the subject stops whatever he was doing when he gets shot, we have yet to have a good one, and we are hitting our adversaries multiple times. We have shot half a dozen dogs in the past year and have not killed one yet, although we have run up a significant veterinary bill. The 9mm with proper ammunition is not a bad round. It is just nowhere near as effective as the 10mm and .45 offerings, and the disparity between it and the larger calibers has remained a constant throughout all the testing we have done over the past two years.

Hey Berto, you think it's just that your's and my definitions of "very good reputation" vary by a whole lot?:whistling: Maybe you'ld like to rephrase at least?
147gr HST, Winchester Ranger, and Speer Gold Dot are all street proven loads. They are issued by Portland, Ore PD, LAPD, and Amirillo, TX PD respectively. There have been numerous shootings with all three loads and all have performed very well. When Mas Ayoob was asked on the GATE forum what he reccommends in a standard pressure 9mm load these are the ones he mentioned, favoring the HST and Ranger loads. It isn't 1990 anymore and these modern 147gr loads work.
Mas also says he'ld prefer the Winchester 9mm 127gr +P+ load before any of them. Hmmmm. Also, speaking of lighter over heavier, Mas also says the 40 S&W 135gr loads produce some of the widest wound tracks he's ever seen from service cartridge/caliber loads. I'm sure that doesn't help anything, just saying.:upeyes: Note also that Winchester representatives have been heard saying that the 127gr +P+ load has a serious cult following of LE behind it.
Bunk.
Bunk.
Heavier bullets can do things lighter bullets can't, like hold together better and penetrate while expanding vs shallow penetration and fragmenting as those two 115gr loads do.
You forgot to say, except for hard barrier penetration.

As for the 115gr loads, the Gold Dots are an exception and are not known for framentation for those that want a 115gr load that doesn't fragment. As for fragmenting being good or not, the Illinois state police used 9mm from 1968 - 1999, when they switched to 40 S&W. During their play with the 9s, they mostly used 115gr +P+ by Federal and Winchester and were a big part in the design of those bullets which are well know fragmenters. They liked those bullets, those bullets fragmented, and, those bullets supposedly worked really well for them. The 115gr +P+ Corbon load also supposedly has top notch street credentials and was far from immune to fragmentation.

So maybe you can tell me, what's so bad about fragmentation again?
...it is important to not get lost in the sea of opinions.
Very well said! Don't take this the wrong way, but it would appear you got lost.
And please, let's end the banter concerning non-expansion on 147 rounds. ...enough with the failure to expand. And if it don't I want to see photos.
Now that is 100% true! Not sure that it matters in the bigger picture, but it is true.
Thanks again to you all for helping me make an informed decision.
I'm trying.

As to those bringing up more or less recoil, one 9mm load to another, PLEASE STOP, you're going to make me pee my pants! Seriously.:rofl:

Too bad these aren't a tad easier to holster;
http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s271/glock20c10mm/Facepalms%20and%20Such/selection_188_14.jpg


Good Shooting,
Craig

esminbritt
05-27-2011, 14:27
:agree:to all of the above.

Really? Well let's see what SSA Urey W. Patrick, of the Firearms Training Unit, from the FBI Academy, in Quantico, VA, had to say when asked; Are you saying the 9mm is no good?

Answer: No. We are saying it is as good as the .38 Special, which has served us for a long time. It has severe limitations, which we are not willing to accept. It is woefully inadequate for shooting at people in cars, for example, and over half of our shootings involve vehicles. It is a marginally adequate wounding agent. We have had a number of 9mm shootings over the past couple of years, and if you define a good shooting as one in which the subject stops whatever he was doing when he gets shot, we have yet to have a good one, and we are hitting our adversaries multiple times. We have shot half a dozen dogs in the past year and have not killed one yet, although we have run up a significant veterinary bill. The 9mm with proper ammunition is not a bad round. It is just nowhere near as effective as the 10mm and .45 offerings, and the disparity between it and the larger calibers has remained a constant throughout all the testing we have done over the past two years.

Hey Berto, you think it's just that your's and my definitions of "very good reputation" vary by a whole lot?:whistling: Maybe you'ld like to rephrase at least?

Mas also says he'ld prefer the Winchester 9mm 127gr +P+ load before any of them. Hmmmm. Also, speaking of lighter over heavier, Mas also says the 40 S&W 135gr loads produce some of the widest wound tracks he's ever seen from service cartridge/caliber loads. I'm sure that doesn't help anything, just saying.:upeyes: Note also that Winchester representatives have been heard saying that the 127gr +P+ load has a serious cult following of LE behind it.

Bunk.

You forgot to say, except for hard barrier penetration.

As for the 115gr loads, the Gold Dots are an exception and are not known for framentation for those that want a 115gr load that doesn't fragment. As for fragmenting being good or not, the Illinois state police used 9mm from 1968 - 1999, when they switched to 40 S&W. During their play with the 9s, they mostly used 115gr +P+ by Federal and Winchester and were a big part in the design of those bullets which are well know fragmenters. They liked those bullets, those bullets fragmented, and, those bullets supposedly worked really well for them. The 115gr +P+ Corbon load also supposedly has top notch street credentials and was far from immune to fragmentation.

So maybe you can tell me, what's so bad about fragmentation again?

Very well said! Don't take this the wrong way, but it would appear you got lost.

Now that is 100% true! Not sure that it matters in the bigger picture, but it is true.

I'm trying.

As to those bringing up more or less recoil, one 9mm load to another, PLEASE STOP, you're going to make me pee my pants! Seriously.:rofl:

Too bad these aren't a tad easier to holster;
http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s271/glock20c10mm/Facepalms%20and%20Such/selection_188_14.jpg


Good Shooting,
Craig
OK. maybe I am lost. But I have a VERY hard time believing someone who says a 9mm JHP cant take down a dog. And as far the sizeable difference between the 9mm and the .45, I would like to see proof. the only actual photos I've seen showed very little difference between the two rounds, both in penetration and in wound path. I am not saying I KNOW this to be true. I'm just saying that before I believe that the photographs I've seen aren't true, I would like to see photographs to the contrary. I truly don't mean to be a smart *****, but if I'm lost, then SHOW me the way, don't just tell me. The page I found the photos on is: http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm
The actual photos are about half way down the article, past the drawings.

WiskyT
05-27-2011, 16:19
Really? Well let's see what SSA Urey W. Patrick, of the Firearms Training Unit, from the FBI Academy, in Quantico, VA, had to say when asked; Are you saying the 9mm is no good?

Answer: No. We are saying it is as good as the .38 Special, which has served us for a long time. It has severe limitations, which we are not willing to accept. It is woefully inadequate for shooting at people in cars, for example, and over half of our shootings involve vehicles. It is a marginally adequate wounding agent. We have had a number of 9mm shootings over the past couple of years, and if you define a good shooting as one in which the subject stops whatever he was doing when he gets shot, we have yet to have a good one, and we are hitting our adversaries multiple times. We have shot half a dozen dogs in the past year and have not killed one yet, although we have run up a significant veterinary bill. The 9mm with proper ammunition is not a bad round. It is just nowhere near as effective as the 10mm and .45 offerings, and the disparity between it and the larger calibers has remained a constant throughout all the testing we have done over the past two years.



Cite?

glock20c10mm
05-27-2011, 16:56
Cite?
http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi_10mm_notes.pdf
Bottom of page 9, and top of page 10.

pisc1024
05-27-2011, 17:01
:As for the 115gr loads, the Gold Dots are an exception and are not known for framentation for those that want a 115gr load that doesn't fragment. As for fragmenting being good or not, the Illinois state police used 9mm from 1968 - 1999, when they switched to 40 S&W. During their play with the 9s, they mostly used 115gr +P+ by Federal and Winchester and were a big part in the design of those bullets which are well know fragmenters. They liked those bullets, those bullets fragmented, and, those bullets supposedly worked really well for them. The 115gr +P+ Corbon load also supposedly has top notch street credentials and was far from immune to fragmentation.

So maybe you can tell me, what's so bad about fragmentation again?



Dr Gary Roberts;

It is definitely an advantage for handgun bullets that crush more tissue. With handgun bullets, fragmentation is a BAD thing, as bullet mass and surface area is reduced, causing a smaller permanent crush cavity. In addition, most handgun bullet fragments are usually found within 1 cm of the permanent cavity track and do not produce the synergistic effect found with rifle bullet fragmentation and temporary cavity stretch

Hey man,
This is what's wrong with fragmenting in pistol bullets...

glock20c10mm
05-27-2011, 17:08
OK. maybe I am lost. But I have a VERY hard time believing someone who says a 9mm JHP cant take down a dog. And as far the sizeable difference between the 9mm and the .45, I would like to see proof. the only actual photos I've seen showed very little difference between the two rounds, both in penetration and in wound path. I am not saying I KNOW this to be true. I'm just saying that before I believe that the photographs I've seen aren't true, I would like to see photographs to the contrary. I truly don't mean to be a smart *****, but if I'm lost, then SHOW me the way, don't just tell me. The page I found the photos on is: http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm
The actual photos are about half way down the article, past the drawings.
I wouldn't say you're lost, just that you still have loose ends to tie together.

Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but the dogs could have been anything from Rat Terriers to Bull Mastifs. Also, these dogs were probably intent on taking someone out no matter what the cost. Similar to a bear with it's cubs. They won't go down easy, and either way, it shouldn't be too much of a jump for you to understand that a 9mm would not generally be the best tool against determined attackers, like dogs can be. I'm pretty sure they weren't plugging Golden Retrievers exaggeratively wagging their tails for attention.

Your want of photographs will not prove quickness, or lack of, incapacitation. That is what we're after. Still, you are correct in that not all wound tracks created by different cartridges/calibers are created equal. Though they practically appear so with most loads in service calibers outside of load in 357 SIG and/or 10mm Auto.

I recall Dr. Courtney's wife, after seeing the damage done to a deer shot with 357 SIG, and after having seen deer shot with other "lesser" service cartridges/calibers, she said she wanted to carry the load that did "that". In other words she hadn't seen service caliber/cartridge damage done like she did with the 357 SIG. Seems to me there was a picture floating around, around the time that was posted.

pisc1024
05-27-2011, 17:11
I recall Dr. Courtney's wife, after seeing the damage done to a deer shot with 357 SIG, and after having seen deer shot with other "lesser" service cartridges/calibers, she said she wanted to carry the load that did "that". In other words she hadn't seen service caliber/cartridge damage done like she did with the 357 SIG. Seems to me there was a picture floating around, around the time that was posted.

Oh my god, not this crap again!

glock20c10mm
05-27-2011, 17:20
Dr Gary Roberts;

It is definitely an advantage for handgun bullets that crush more tissue. With handgun bullets, fragmentation is a BAD thing, as bullet mass and surface area is reduced, causing a smaller permanent crush cavity. In addition, most handgun bullet fragments are usually found within 1 cm of the permanent cavity track and do not produce the synergistic effect found with rifle bullet fragmentation and temporary cavity stretch

Hey man,
This is what's wrong with fragmenting in pistol bullets...
Generally, for bullets producing at or under 500 ft-lbs, I loosely agree, particularily in heavy for caliber bullets.

That's part of the reason I prefer 10mm Auto with full power loads, where all this trivial stuff gets laid to rest by the way side. 357 SIG would be a good second choice.

Here's something for you to think about. Let us say 50 fragments from a bullet ended up 1 centimeter off the path of the "main" permanent crush cavity. Do you now not realize that all 50 of those fragments also EACH crushed ~1 cm worth of flesh too? And not only that, but they probably did it through the course of a large portion of the beginning to middle of the wound track where it would be wanted most. And on top of that actually added to the permanent crush cavity overall? Dr. Roberts is correct to an extent. But if you take it too literally, then I guess we'ld all better be switching right now to 45 Auto with HSTs. Otherwise, you really have no arguement with this anyway. Right? Right.

glock20c10mm
05-27-2011, 17:22
Dr Gary Roberts;

It is definitely an advantage for handgun bullets that crush more tissue. With handgun bullets, fragmentation is a BAD thing, as bullet mass and surface area is reduced, causing a smaller permanent crush cavity. In addition, most handgun bullet fragments are usually found within 1 cm of the permanent cavity track and do not produce the synergistic effect found with rifle bullet fragmentation and temporary cavity stretch

Hey man,
This is what's wrong with fragmenting in pistol bullets...
Generally, for bullets producing at or under 500 ft-lbs, I loosely agree, particularily in heavy for caliber bullets.

That's part of the reason I prefer 10mm Auto with full power loads, where all this trivial stuff gets laid to rest by the way side. 357 SIG would be a good second choice.

Here's something for you to think about. Let us say 50 fragments from a bullet ended up 1 centimeter off the path of the "main" permanent crush cavity. Do you now not realize that all 50 of those fragments also EACH crushed ~1 cm worth of flesh too? And not only that, but they probably did it through the course of a large portion of the beginning to middle of the wound track where it would be wanted most. And on top of that actually added to the permanent crush cavity overall? Dr. Roberts is correct to an extent. But if you take it too literally, then I guess we'ld all better be switching right now to 45 Auto with HSTs. Otherwise, you really have no arguement with this anyway. Right? Right.

Doctors opinions are not always correct, nor always correct for every circumstance, not to mention the fact that plenty of folk around here don't care about maximum crushed tissue and choose to carry 9mm anyway. Kind of like you, huh.

glock20c10mm
05-27-2011, 17:23
Oh my god, not this crap again!
What crap?

pisc1024
05-27-2011, 17:25
What crap?

You know...

glock20c10mm
05-27-2011, 17:28
You know...
I'm haven't brought up what you're trying to insinuate. Therefore, maybe you should be saying it to yourself.

pisc1024
05-27-2011, 17:37
Here's something for you to think about. Let us say 50 fragments from a bullet ended up 1 centimeter off the path of the "main" permanent crush cavity. Do you now not realize that all 50 of those fragments also EACH crushed ~1 cm worth of flesh too? And not only that, but they probably did it through the course of a large portion of the beginning to middle of the wound track where it would be wanted most. And on top of that actually added to the permanent crush cavity overall? Dr. Roberts is correct to an extent. But if you take it too literally, then I guess we'ld all better be switching right now to 45 Auto with HSTs. Otherwise, you really have no arguement with this anyway. Right? Right.

Doctors opinions are not always correct, nor always correct for every circumstance, not to mention the fact that plenty of folk around here don't care about maximum crushed tissue and choose to carry 9mm anyway. Kind of like you, huh.



I honestly think you’re getting too much in the weeds here, 50 fragments? Rifle bullets don't even do that, how would you expect a pistol to do it?

I don't see much room for wiggle in there. I guess maybe the word "most" might give you some. But as I've said before I want something that I can count on. If you count on your round fragmenting, then you can count on less penetration!
As for me and the 9mm, I carry it because that is the weapon I feel most confident with in a shoot out. I don't have a problem with .40, or 45, I just feel that I shoot a 9 a little better on any given day. That to me is the number one priority followed closely by sufficient penetration of my chosen round.

WiskyT
05-27-2011, 17:38
http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi_10mm_notes.pdf
Bottom of page 9, and top of page 10.

Thanks. I wanted to read the thing in context as I thought I might have a better opinion of the guy when I did. I read the doc and another one of his on the net and the guy is a classic goofy bureaucrat picking and choosing his footnoted info to come to the inevitable conclusion..."We need to spend money".

The people he cites in his reports conclude the opposite of what he says in the section you quoted.

I've seen the same thing many times used to replace radios and guns that worked, with radios and guns that don't work, only to be replaced again when that guy retires with more radios and guns that don't work by the next guy.

pisc1024
05-27-2011, 17:40
I'm haven't brought up what you're trying to insinuate. Therefore, maybe you should be saying it to yourself.

You were trying to sneak it in.

Berto
05-27-2011, 18:06
Hey Berto, you think it's just that your's and my definitions of "very good reputation" vary by a whole lot? Maybe you'ld like to rephrase at least?


:rofl:

Um, where did I state that the FBI .38sp was as good as 10mm or .45acp?
Is this like some default mechanism for you?:supergrin:

Oh, and this "Mas" guy you refer to seems to agree, "FBI,RCMP, Metro Dade Police in Miami, St Louis, Chicago PD and a great many others used this round in countless gunfights, out of snubbies and service revolvers alike. They all HAD EXCELLENT RESULTS WITH IT." (emphasis mine).:wavey:

This was from his Combat Handgunnery, Vol 6.

Rephrase that.:honkie:

So maybe you can tell me, what's so bad about fragmentation again?

First, lets stick to the loads being referred to, instead of the ones you're advancing (Gold Dots, etc).

Yes, the 9BPLE and Corbon (Sierra) 115gr +P fragged. So did the 125gr Rem .357mag load, also considered a great stopper, and the +P+ 110gr Supervel .38sp.
I agree, barrier penetration was an issue- auto bodies would be one. Shallow penetration can also be a problem, at least if you buy into gel testing and the 12" FBI minimum....which I'd assume you do since you're quoting the FBI ninja. Sometimes the 115gr would make the 'minimum', sometimes they blew up early and only get 8-10" depth.
That could be considered "what's wrong".


I do agree that 9mmand .38sp are pretty similar with their best loads, the original 147gr 9mm was modeled to perform like the FBI load...tough to do with copper jacketed jhp's of the time.

esminbritt
05-28-2011, 10:07
You were trying to sneak it in.

I'm obviously missing something and you have peaked my interest. Please do tell.

pisc1024
05-28-2011, 10:24
I'm obviously missing something and you have peaked my interest. Please do tell.

edit to delete

esminbritt
05-28-2011, 10:25
Thanks. I wanted to read the thing in context as I thought I might have a better opinion of the guy when I did. I read the doc and another one of his on the net and the guy is a classic goofy bureaucrat picking and choosing his footnoted info to come to the inevitable conclusion..."We need to spend money".

The people he cites in his reports conclude the opposite of what he says in the section you quoted.

I've seen the same thing many times used to replace radios and guns that worked, with radios and guns that don't work, only to be replaced again when that guy retires with more radios and guns that don't work by the next guy.

I truly mean no disrespect to glock20c10mm, but this post confirms my suspicion that this SSA Urey W. Patrick was off the mark. I suspected he might be selling 10mm rounds, but WhiskyT is probably more on point. I am not arguing that the 9mm is better than the 10mm or the .45 cal. I didn't choose it because it was better, I chose it because the photos I saw showed that it was almost as good if not as good. I mainly chose it due to ammo availability and cost. I would like to see photos that back-up SSA Patrick's opinions. And I also want to point out that his comments were made 21 YEARS AGO. New ammo tech may render some of his points invalid.

pisc1024
05-28-2011, 10:35
And I also want to point out that his comments were made 21 YEARS AGO. New ammo tech may render some of his points invalid.

^^^^ good point!

esminbritt
05-28-2011, 11:06
I wouldn't say you're lost, just that you still have loose ends to tie together.

Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but the dogs could have been anything from Rat Terriers to Bull Mastifs. Also, these dogs were probably intent on taking someone out no matter what the cost. Similar to a bear with it's cubs. They won't go down easy, and either way, it shouldn't be too much of a jump for you to understand that a 9mm would not generally be the best tool against determined attackers, like dogs can be. I'm pretty sure they weren't plugging Golden Retrievers exaggeratively wagging their tails for attention.

Your want of photographs will not prove quickness, or lack of, incapacitation. That is what we're after. Still, you are correct in that not all wound tracks created by different cartridges/calibers are created equal. Though they practically appear so with most loads in service calibers outside of load in 357 SIG and/or 10mm Auto.

I recall Dr. Courtney's wife, after seeing the damage done to a deer shot with 357 SIG, and after having seen deer shot with other "lesser" service cartridges/calibers, she said she wanted to carry the load that did "that". In other words she hadn't seen service caliber/cartridge damage done like she did with the 357 SIG. Seems to me there was a picture floating around, around the time that was posted.

OK. I am starting to see you point more clearly. And I do genuinely value your input. My next gun will be a big game hunting rifle (probably a Savage .30-06) followed by an tactical assault rifle (probably an AK-74). But after considering your input (and you're not alone in the 10mm camp), the next gun after that will be a Glock 10mm or .45 ACP.

That being said, I really think that people should stop dogging the 9mm. EVERY post I've read that REALLY made sense agrees that modern 9mm JHP ammo is extremely effective at destroying tissue when fired accurately.

And as far as Dogs are concerned, if I'm being attacked by a dog (any dog) and i have my G17 in my hand, that pooch is toast. If one can't take out a dog at point blank range with a round that expands to .60", then that person's opinions become slightly less valid to say the least. I am not referring to you, I am referring to SSA Patrick.

pisc1024
05-28-2011, 11:43
OK. I am starting to see you point more clearly. And I do genuinely value your input. My next gun will be a big game hunting rifle (probably a Savage .30-06) followed by an tactical assault rifle (probably an AK-74). But after considering your input (and you're not alone in the 10mm camp), the next gun after that will be a Glock 10mm or .45 ACP.

That being said, I really think that people should stop dogging the 9mm. EVERY post I've read that REALLY made sense agrees that modern 9mm JHP ammo is extremely effective at destroying tissue when fired accurately.

And as far as Dogs are concerned, if I'm being attacked by a dog (any dog) and i have my G17 in my hand, that pooch is toast. If one can't take out a dog at point blank range with a round that expands to .60", then that person's opinions become slightly less valid to say the least. I am not referring to you, I am referring to SSA Patrick.

Dogs are a hard target to hit. They move quickly, and are a pretty small target. Plus they are pretty tough. I know of a time during a raid where the team shot a gold retriever several times (I don't remember the exact number) with a UMP45. The dog stopped what it was doing, but it survived the encounter.

glock20c10mm
05-28-2011, 11:54
I honestly think youíre getting too much in the weeds here, 50 fragments? Rifle bullets don't even do that, how would you expect a pistol to do it?

I don't see much room for wiggle in there. I guess maybe the word "most" might give you some. But as I've said before I want something that I can count on. If you count on your round fragmenting, then you can count on less penetration!
As for me and the 9mm, I carry it because that is the weapon I feel most confident with in a shoot out. I don't have a problem with .40, or 45, I just feel that I shoot a 9 a little better on any given day. That to me is the number one priority followed closely by sufficient penetration of my chosen round.
I'm with ya. Ok, lets say there are 4 fragments then. Probably at least 2 of them being a tad more than a sliver, with one possibly being a full "petal" of a JHP, and maybe the whole jacket on a non bonded bullet. And they are penetrating ~1cm off the main permanent crush cavity track. Either way, they crushed a little extra tissue and added to the permanent crush cavity wound volume. And lets say to heck with it. Probably too small an amount of extra damage to matter too much of the time.

Ok, so what about penetration depth when a bullet fragments? Well back when they were loading up short jacket JHP in 357 Magnum, yeah, the bullet will probably shed the jacket the majority of the time, along with loosing ~25% to over 50% of it's mass, and penetration depth will greatly suffer.

But now, even as far back as the beginning of Hydra Shoks and XTPs, they can shed their jacket and still penetrate very well (still FBI spec) because they generally only loose 0% - less than 10% of their mass from the lead core.

Bottomline, fragmentation is ONLY bad when the bullet looses so much that it can't reach, for example, "FBI minimum spec". And unless you're simply using some old school bullet that we've clearly known for over a decade now just simply won't cut the mustard (extreme fragmentation) in terms of penetration depth, you're more than likely the vast majority of the time to not have a negative issue with bullets that are known to only fragment a little some of the time or even loose their jacket some of the time. In other words, there's no reason to shy away from an XTP because it looses it's jacket some of the time. XTPs will penetrate great, jacket or no jacket. Non bonded Golden Sabers are the same way, and so are Hydra Shoks.

You make it sound as though the universe will collapse on itself if we choose a SD bullet that virtually never looses more than 10% of weight somewhere throughout a wound track, which I say isn't an issue at all. I personally have no problem with any amount of fragmentation to the extent the bullet still always penetrates to "FBI minimum spec". There is no reason for Dr. Roberts to go to the extreme he has on nonfragmentation for any given SD bullet.

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s271/glock20c10mm/Facepalms%20and%20Such/divide-by-zero-blog-safeiydrer.jpg

glock20c10mm
05-28-2011, 12:11
Thanks. I wanted to read the thing in context as I thought I might have a better opinion of the guy when I did. I read the doc and another one of his on the net and the guy is a classic goofy bureaucrat picking and choosing his footnoted info to come to the inevitable conclusion..."We need to spend money".

The people he cites in his reports conclude the opposite of what he says in the section you quoted.

I've seen the same thing many times used to replace radios and guns that worked, with radios and guns that don't work, only to be replaced again when that guy retires with more radios and guns that don't work by the next guy.
Obviously you will twist it till your mind will willingly make sense of it. Either way, the facts were the facts, reguardless of the way he worded some of it. By your way of thinking, maybe they shouldn't have switched to smokeless powder. Maybe neither the 9 or 45 should ever have been invented. Maybe the revolver was good enough. Just bureaucratic thinking, and the need to spend more money. Whatever. If you want to choose to believe 9mm 147gr loads are as good as anything else for sidearm SD, I know anything I could possibly post from any source in current existence will be twisted by you and those like you, that wear blinders 24/7. You're only hurting yourself.

BTW, if you can cite a source showing that Urey Patrick outright lied about anything I quoted from him please do. I know you can't, just saying.

WiskyT
05-28-2011, 12:20
Obviously you will twist it till your mind will willingly make sense of it. Either way, the facts were the facts, reguardless of the way he worded some of it. By your way of thinking, maybe they shouldn't have switched to smokeless powder. Maybe neither the 9 or 45 should ever have been invented. Maybe the revolver was good enough. Just bureaucratic thinking, and the need to spend more money. Whatever. If you want to choose to believe 9mm 147gr loads are as good as anything else for sidearm SD, I know anything I could possibly post from any source in current existence will be twisted by you and those like you, that wear blinders 24/7. You're only hurting yourself.

BTW, if you can cite a source showing that Urey Patrick outright lied about anything I quoted from him please do. I know you can't, just saying.

Honestly, I don't know, or care, WTF you are talking about. You try to be clever and I've read your posts and being of reasonable intellignece, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

As for "SSA Patrick", spend enough time in the LE world and you will see the same crap he does in just about everything you end up being told to do. That's all I was interested in seeing. That is exactly what he does. According to the same Drs. he cites in his report, there is no material difference in any of the main pistol rounds as long as you use a propperly constructed bullet.

I especially like the way he tried to sell the whole project by claiming agents would be able to be issued one gun that would last their career. How many times has the FBI changed guns since then? So they still even approve SW metal pistols?

I don't give a crap what his title is, the FBI is full of typical government clowns, as well as highly skilled and dedicated people. That report is representative of the former.

glock20c10mm
05-28-2011, 12:30
Hey Berto, you think it's just that your's and my definitions of "very good reputation" vary by a whole lot? Maybe you'ld like to rephrase at least?


:rofl:

Um, where did I state that the FBI .38sp was as good as 10mm or .45acp?
Is this like some default mechanism for you?:supergrin:

Oh, and this "Mas" guy you refer to seems to agree, "FBI,RCMP, Metro Dade Police in Miami, St Louis, Chicago PD and a great many others used this round in countless gunfights, out of snubbies and service revolvers alike. They all HAD EXCELLENT RESULTS WITH IT." (emphasis mine).:wavey:

This was from his Combat Handgunnery, Vol 6.

Rephrase that.:honkie:

So maybe you can tell me, what's so bad about fragmentation again?

First, lets stick to the loads being referred to, instead of the ones you're advancing (Gold Dots, etc).

Yes, the 9BPLE and Corbon (Sierra) 115gr +P fragged. So did the 125gr Rem .357mag load, also considered a great stopper, and the +P+ 110gr Supervel .38sp.
I agree, barrier penetration was an issue- auto bodies would be one. Shallow penetration can also be a problem, at least if you buy into gel testing and the 12" FBI minimum....which I'd assume you do since you're quoting the FBI ninja. Sometimes the 115gr would make the 'minimum', sometimes they blew up early and only get 8-10" depth.
That could be considered "what's wrong".


I do agree that 9mmand .38sp are pretty similar with their best loads, the original 147gr 9mm was modeled to perform like the FBI load...tough to do with copper jacketed jhp's of the time.
Above, you typed; "(emphasis mine)"

I'm not getting your meaning? Was "mine" supposed to be one of the words you quoted from Mas, or are you suggesting something was yours, and if so, what?


You showed where Mas said; "EXCELLENT RESULTS"

Excellent results compared to what? Excellent results in terms of all officers returned home alive? Excellent results, meaning it was better than what they used to carry? Excellent results across the board with all different loads chosen by each dept listed, or they all carried the same load? Excellent results reguarding only 38 Special by itself? And just what year did that Volume 6 come out in print? Did it come out in print before either Glocks or bonded bullets existed? Seriously, just what exactly do you know that would lead you to believe "EXCELLENT RESULTS" meant anywhere near what another might call the same? Maybe "EXCELLENT RESULTS" in those days simply means a threat was stopped before everyone ran out of bullets.

As for fragmentation, near as I could tell, we agree, at least between what we both actually posted. Am I missing something? If so, what?

Glolt20-91
05-28-2011, 12:34
I'm not sure what was "bunk" about what I wrote. The most potent and field-proven 9mm loads of the last 30 years have been:

115gr +P+ 9BPLE (Indiana State Police)
127gr +P+ Winchester Ranger T
124gr +P Gold Dot (NYPD)
115gr +P CorBon

....I just think the 147gr is an answer looking for a question. If you want a slow bullet, why not just get a .45 or 180gr .40? At least then you have some true weight/size increase.

To each his own, I guess it's probably a moot point...since you're probably going to have 12-19 of them on tap anyway.

Since there is no national repository of OIS data, what is the source of your above post?

Bob :cowboy:

pisc1024
05-28-2011, 13:16
I'm with ya. Ok, lets say there are 4 fragments then. Probably at least 2 of them being a tad more than a sliver, with one possibly being a full "petal" of a JHP, and maybe the whole jacket on a non bonded bullet. And they are penetrating ~1cm off the main permanent crush cavity track. Either way, they crushed a little extra tissue and added to the permanent crush cavity wound volume. And lets say to heck with it. Probably too small an amount of extra damage to matter too much of the time.

Ok, so what about penetration depth when a bullet fragments? Well back when they were loading up short jacket JHP in 357 Magnum, yeah, the bullet will probably shed the jacket the majority of the time, along with loosing ~25% to over 50% of it's mass, and penetration depth will greatly suffer.

But now, even as far back as the beginning of Hydra Shoks and XTPs, they can shed their jacket and still penetrate very well (still FBI spec) because they generally only loose 0% - less than 10% of their mass from the lead core.

Bottomline, fragmentation is ONLY bad when the bullet looses so much that it can't reach, for example, "FBI minimum spec". And unless you're simply using some old school bullet that we've clearly known for over a decade now just simply won't cut the mustard (extreme fragmentation) in terms of penetration depth, you're more than likely the vast majority of the time to not have a negative issue with bullets that are known to only fragment a little some of the time or even loose their jacket some of the time. In other words, there's no reason to shy away from an XTP because it looses it's jacket some of the time. XTPs will penetrate great, jacket or no jacket. Non bonded Golden Sabers are the same way, and so are Hydra Shoks.

You make it sound as though the universe will collapse on itself if we choose a SD bullet that virtually never looses more than 10% of weight somewhere throughout a wound track, which I say isn't an issue at all. I personally have no problem with any amount of fragmentation to the extent the bullet still always penetrates to "FBI minimum spec". There is no reason for Dr. Roberts to go to the extreme he has on nonfragmentation for any given SD bullet.

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s271/glock20c10mm/Facepalms%20and%20Such/divide-by-zero-blog-safeiydrer.jpg

Well you are right, there are bullets that have fragmented from time to time, and worked. All I'm saying is that you don't want to pick a bullet that has a tendency to fragment. The small pieces you are speaking of probably don't do much to decrease penetration, but on the flip side of that, they also do very little, if anything to help in the wounding characteristics of said bullet. I personally feel that 1 CM off the wound track is of no help at all to the wounding capability of a bullet.
Also I might add, that if a bullet tends to fragment in bare jell, then what is it going to do when it comes into contact with an intermediate barrier such as a windshield?

glock20c10mm
05-28-2011, 13:25
That being said, I really think that people should stop dogging the 9mm.
Nobody is outright dogging it the way you make it sound. It is understood by all the it meets FBI minimum spec with most loads available today. The point of those of us "dogging" it is that it doesn't wound or incapacitate as well as other service cartridges available. THIS CANNOT BE ARGUED JUST BY GOING BY THE BASICS ALONE.

For example; There are loads in all of 40S&W, 10mm, and 45 Auto/GAP, that will always crush more tissue throughout the permanent crush cavity assuming equal shot placement, than 9mm will ever be capable of. Period! Do you question that?

Even 357 SIG, being the same caliber, raises the velocity enough to create a more devastating wound track, similar to the difference between 38 Special and 357 Magnum. Do you question that?

It's also been shown on plenty of accounts that a higher energy round, much of the time, will incapacitate quicker than another with less energy, particularily with bullets of medium to lower weight for caliber, but that still penetrate at least the "FBI mimimum" suggested. Do you question that?
EVERY post I've read that REALLY made sense agrees that modern 9mm JHP ammo is extremely effective at destroying tissue when fired accurately.
And now here you go with the word "extremely". What do you mean "extremely"? When a 147gr 9mm bullet expands and pokes a hole, yes, it effectively will crush tissue through the full length of penetration depth, and the better the bullet expands, the more tissue it will crush if it penetrates enough. And the word "enough", as I just used it at the end of the sentence before this one, will have a different meaning depending on who you ask, which is perfectly rational, as we all plan for different risk assessments depending on our personal surroundings and what we think we might be up against. So tell me, why did you exaggerate a simple fact with the word "extremely"? It does it. Nobody questions it can do it. Why are you suggesting anyone posting here doesn't think 9mm is perfectly capable of poking a hole through tissue, through the vitals, except for some 115gr loads some of the time?
And as far as Dogs are concerned, if I'm being attacked by a dog (any dog) and i have my G17 in my hand, that pooch is toast. If one can't take out a dog at point blank range with a round that expands to .60", then that person's opinions become slightly less valid to say the least. I am not referring to you, I am referring to SSA Patrick.
That line of thinking simply proves your lack of experience and knowledge with such issues. Maybe you don't even realize part of a pit bull's genetics allows it to disreguard a whole lot of pain other dogs would succumb to. Maybe you also don't realize many dogs bred as guard dogs, depending on how they are treated and trained will not give up till blood loss or CNS damage forces them to. Maybe you don't even simply realize how fast a guard dog can be latched onto you. And once he is, if he didn't sound an alarm letting you know he was coming from about a mile off, you may find yourself trying to figure out how to shoot the dog without shooting yourself, while it's latched onto you and shaking you around best it can, particularily anywhere worth shooting it to INCAPACITATE it, let alone kill it.

Understand the only reason I left out the first paragraph you said was because I agreed with it. Not an attempt to ignore anything you said.

glock20c10mm
05-28-2011, 13:44
Well you are right, there are bullets that have fragmented from time to time, and worked. All I'm saying is that you don't want to pick a bullet that has a tendency to fragment. The small pieces you are speaking of probably don't do much to decrease penetration, but on the flip side of that, they also do very little, if anything to help in the wounding characteristics of said bullet. I personally feel that 1 CM off the wound track is of no help at all to the wounding capability of a bullet.
Also I might add, that if a bullet tends to fragment in bare jell, then what is it going to do when it comes into contact with an intermediate barrier such as a windshield?
I'ld say we're at more/less 100% agreement.

As for your last question reguarding windshields, most light very fast bullets like 115gr 9mm don't seem to care, even if they do frag in gel or human anatomy. Beyond that, there is no reason to not choose a bullet that generally doesn't frag, particularily if windshields could be part of the days risk assessment.

As for when I step out of my vehicle to hike the surrounding mountain ranges, relatively minimal frag or less doesn't bother me at all. Besides all that, with most modern JHPs, bonded or not, they pretty much just seal the JHP nose closed or ball up anyway, rarely hindering penetration depth after barriers like windshields anyway. Some of the old school bullet designs really couldn't handle windshields at all, but again, I'm talking really old school stuff like short jacket...

Even the not so old school (shall I say middle school?:supergrin:) Hydra Shoks that we pretty much ignore around here these days, will get the job done most of the time, windshields or not.

glock20c10mm
05-28-2011, 13:52
Honestly, I don't know, or care, WTF you are talking about.
I knew you didn't before you posted. Exactly the reason there's little to no sense trying to reason with you.

Hey, get this. You ask me to cite something I referenced. I did. You come back and say you read something in addition to what I cited, but don't cite it, as if there's no importance for you to cite anything (just me), because if you say it, it has to be true. And then beyond that you throw around nothing but your own OPINION as fact. And only laid out heresay as fact beyond that. Yeah, you're the man.:woohoo:

Here's a question for ya;

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s271/glock20c10mm/Facepalms%20and%20Such/demotivationals_32.jpg

pisc1024
05-28-2011, 14:25
I'ld say we're at more/less 100% agreement.



I just don't see how you can pull that from our last exchange when you just posted this a page back.

As for the 115gr loads, the Gold Dots are an exception and are not known for framentation for those that want a 115gr load that doesn't fragment. As for fragmenting being good or not, the Illinois state police used 9mm from 1968 - 1999, when they switched to 40 S&W. During their play with the 9s, they mostly used 115gr +P+ by Federal and Winchester and were a big part in the design of those bullets which are well know fragmenters. They liked those bullets, those bullets fragmented, and, those bullets supposedly worked really well for them. The 115gr +P+ Corbon load also supposedly has top notch street credentials and was far from immune to fragmentation.

So maybe you can tell me, what's so bad about fragmentation again?




As for your last question reguarding windshields, most light very fast bullets like 115gr 9mm don't seem to care, even if they do frag in gel or human anatomy. Beyond that, there is no reason to not choose a bullet that generally doesn't frag, particularily if windshields could be part of the days risk assessment.



So then you’re saying the only reason to choose a bullet that doesn’t frag is if you feel you may be engaging someone through a windshield?


As for when I step out of my vehicle to hike the surrounding mountain ranges, relatively minimal frag or less doesn't bother me at all. Besides all that, with most modern JHPs, bonded or not, they pretty much just seal the JHP nose closed or ball up anyway, rarely hindering penetration depth after barriers like windshields anyway. Some of the old school bullet designs really couldn't handle windshields at all, but again, I'm talking really old school stuff like short jacket...



That is simply not true with modern HP's. They are designed with intermediate barriers in mind.

glock20c10mm
05-28-2011, 14:53
I just don't see how you can pull that from our last exchange when you just posted this a page back.As to what you quoted me on and underlined; Yes, correct. If a bullet sometimes is known to fragment some, yet only in the rarest circumstance to the extent it would hinder penetration depth to less than FBI suggested minimum (which in the rarest circumstance is possible with any JHP currently manufactured, outside of just windshields), it is fine for overall use, reguardless the barrier being encountered that a bullet has any chance at all of penetrating in the first place.

I don't know how to spell it out much different than that. Do you agree, or not? If not, at this point, I'm thinking the only bullet design(s) you deem worthy of use would HAVE TO BE bonded. Yes? No? Why? At this point I'm just not getting where your disagreement is.
So then youíre saying the only reason to choose a bullet that doesnít frag is if you feel you may be engaging someone through a windshield?
I'm saying, reguardless the barrier, windshield or whatever, it doesn't matter if a bullet frags if it still reaches FBI suggested minimum penetration depth most of the time, barrier or not. And just to be clear, I also believe no bullet design can be relied upon to do that 100% of the time, as the exceptions to the rule appear to be endless, even if uncommon for some designs, including some that are well known fragmenters overall that still meet minimum FBI recommended penetration depths.
That is simply not true with modern HP's. They are designed with intermediate barriers in mind.Ok, what is the oldest bullet design that fits YOUR definition of a modern HP? And, what are at least two bullet designs that don't fit your definition of a modern HP? Without that info I don't know how to reply.

Please don't think my intent is to "dis" you with any of what I posted above. I'm just not sure where we're not on the same perspective. Hopefully I've cleared up at least some of it.

pisc1024
05-28-2011, 14:56
Even 357 SIG, being the same caliber, raises the velocity enough to create a more devastating wound track, similar to the difference between 38 Special and 357 Magnum. Do you question that?



Hey,
The differences between the 9mm/.357sig are substantially less than what's seen with .38/.357mag.

From ATK's web site:http://le.atk.com/general/speerproducts/handgun/golddot.aspx
.38 125gr+p=945FPS
.357 mag 125gr=1450FPS

9mm 124gr+p=1220FPS
.357Sig 125gr=1350FPS
I'm no math major, but that looks like apples and oranges to me.

glock20c10mm
05-28-2011, 15:10
Hey,
The differences between the 9mm/.357sig are substantially less than what's seen with .38/.357mag.

From ATK's web site:http://le.atk.com/general/speerproducts/handgun/golddot.aspx
.38 125gr+p=945FPS
.357 mag 125gr=1450FPS

9mm 124gr+p=1220FPS
.357Sig 125gr=1350FPS
I'm no math major, but that looks like apples and oranges to me.
:shocked: You may very well have honestly posted that, with zero intent otherwise, but now you have to admit you're going overboard.

I used the word "similar". I used the word "similar" on purpose. The word "similar" means to have a resemblance in character without being identical. YES, I'm sure the 357 Mag with a 125gr bullet that actually does 1450 fps will do more damage beyond the permanent crush cavity than 357 SIG with a 125gr bullet that actually does 1350 fps too, BUT, it's completely beside the point.

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s271/glock20c10mm/Facepalms%20and%20Such/imagesCA2DL1CH.jpg

pisc1024
05-28-2011, 15:19
I don't know how to spell it out much different than that. Do you agree, or not? If not, at this point, I'm thinking the only bullet design(s) you deem worthy of use would HAVE TO BE bonded. Yes? No? Why? At this point I'm just not getting where your disagreement is.



No, I think that the HST line dose quite well in testing. It's a quality non bonded bullet.

I'm saying, reguardless the barrier, windshield or whatever, it doesn't matter if a bullet frags if it still reaches FBI suggested minimum penetration depth most of the time, barrier or not. And just to be clear, I also believe no bullet design can be relied upon to do that 100% of the time, as the exceptions to the rule appear to be endless, even if uncommon for some designs, including some that are well known fragmenters overall that still meet minimum FBI recommended penetration depths.
Ok, what is the oldest bullet design that fits YOUR definition of a modern HP? And, what are at least two bullet designs that don't fit your definition of a modern HP? Without that info I don't know how to reply.


I think that youíre missing the point.
Is a bullet going to exhibit some fragmenting/deformation when it passes through a windshield/intermediate barrier? Yes it will, however I feel that when a bullet dose fragment some of the wounding capability is taken away from it. Not the small pieces that may be seen by some rounds when fired into jell, but things like jacket/core separation.
My point was, if you have a bullet that is known to fragment without the aid of an intermediate barrier, I feel that it could underperform with an intermediate barrier. With handguns, you just can't have your cake and eat it too.
A modern HP is most definitely not a hydra shock. I am glad they are still around so people can buy them, and let me buy my gold dots/HST's.:supergrin:
I also feel that the Winchester Ranger series is a pretty good load.
I guess when I'm talking about modern; those are going through my mind.


Please don't think my intent is to "dis" you with any of what I posted above. I'm just not sure where we're not on the same perspective. Hopefully I've cleared up at least some of it.

I don't feel that at all, itís just an exchange of ideas.

pisc1024
05-28-2011, 15:25
:shocked: You may very well have honestly posted that, with zero intent otherwise, but now you have to admit you're going overboard.

I used the word "similar". I used the word "similar" on purpose. The word "similar" means to have a resemblance in character without being identical. YES, I'm sure the 357 Mag with a 125gr bullet that actually does 1450 fps will do more damage beyond the permanent crush cavity than 357 SIG with a 125gr bullet that actually does 1350 fps too, BUT, it's completely beside the point.

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s271/glock20c10mm/Facepalms%20and%20Such/imagesCA2DL1CH.jpg

I guess we just see it a little differently. To me, there really isn't all that much difference between a 9mm and 357 sig. I feel that 150- 200 fps isn't that big of a deal, especially when you look at the numbers in ref to the .38 and the .357mag. That's a difference!
No it wasn't my intent to go "overboard".

Yes I know what the word similar means. I was just making a point that it's a stretch to compare the differences between the .38/357mag to the differences in the 9/.357sig.

glock20c10mm
05-28-2011, 16:01
No, I think that the HST line dose quite well in testing. It's a quality non bonded bullet.
:agree: I think we're on the same page there. If I said something earlier that you think doesn't correlate, it didn't.
I think that youíre missing the point.
Is a bullet going to exhibit some fragmenting/deformation when it passes through a windshield/intermediate barrier? Yes it will, however I feel that when a bullet dose fragment some of the wounding capability is taken away from it. Not the small pieces that may be seen by some rounds when fired into jell, but things like jacket/core separation.
I broke this part of your post up, not because I don't see it as a whole, but because of how I want to respond.

As to what I highlighted from you post in blue above, I would say it could be that wounding capability would stay the same or lessen if maximum potential expansion was disrupted because of the core/jacket separtation, depending on the specific bullet design in question.

For example, some bullet designs open into separate petals, and some simply more/less mushroom. Most of the newest premium bullet designs that you bring up below, open into petals, and most of them don't have anything near a serious issue with core/jacket separation. Therefore, obviously, there is no real issue with them.

On the other hand we have XTPs and Golden Sabers, both of which have to be heavily pursuaded to give up their jackets. At the same time, at least by the point we recover the bullets at, they are more of a mushrooming design JHP. And their mushroomed expansion capability is generally not hindered from core/jacket separation when it does happen, nor do they usually loose any (or any worth mentioning) core mass after shedding a jacket. Therefore, for those bullets, I don't see that wounding capability really changes, core/jacket separation or not.

Then we have the likes of 9mm 115gr in the flavors of Federal, Remington, and Winchester, which I think we could both agree are an old school bullet design and are well know fragmenters. At the same time, as long as penetration depth is adequate, they would seem to stop attackers just as well as any heavier bullet weight bonded or not, that outpenetrates them or not.
My point was, if you have a bullet that is known to fragment without the aid of an intermediate barrier, I feel that it could underperform with an intermediate barrier.
Ok, so now going to the 9mm 115gr "fragmenting" loads I had last brought up. These generally ball up and go through the windshield to the perp anyway. In other words, the windshield can cause a chunk of bullet to be "sheared" off in any bullet design. Just because a bullet design frags in gel doesn't mean it does against a windshield. Maybe they penetrate enough after the windshield, and maybe not, depending on angles and such stuff I suppose.

Either way, I've not known virtually any bullet design to have even a fair chance of expanding after a windshield, just like thicker-than-sheet-metal steel barriers. So what's the difference? If the bullet gives up expanding on hard barriers it's more less FMJ equivalent anyway (very generally speaking). And stuff like wallboard or whatever generally won't cause major upset anyway before the bullet reaches the perp. Seems to me that windshields as barriers pretty much force JHPs as a whole to lessen wounding effect because expansion is almost always practically nill. Same as hard steel barriers.

I guess we do disagree here.
With handguns, you just can't have your cake and eat it too.
Yes and no. I say you can with 10mm and a 180gr JHP at 1350 fps. You'll say no you can't because recoil becomes excessive, or something along those lines. Either way, stuff like that is simply difference of opinion. I think we can agree to disagree there.
A modern HP is most definitely not a hydra shock. I am glad they are still around so people can buy them, and let me buy my gold dots/HST's.:supergrin:
I also feel that the Winchester Ranger series is a pretty good load.
I guess when I'm talking about modern; those are going through my mind.
:thumbsup:
I don't feel that at all, itís just an exchange of ideas.
:cheers:

glock20c10mm
05-28-2011, 16:06
I feel that 150- 200 fps isn't that big of a deal...
Well if that's the case, them I'm bewildered why any bullet manufacturer felt the need to redesign bullets just to handle the additional 150 - 200 fps.

Think of it this way; 150 - 200 fps = 102 - 136 mph.

Glolt20-91
05-28-2011, 17:00
No, I think that the HST line dose quite well in testing. It's a quality non bonded bullet.

I think that you’re missing the point.
Is a bullet going to exhibit some fragmenting/deformation when it passes through a windshield/intermediate barrier? Yes it will, however I feel that when a bullet dose fragment some of the wounding capability is taken away from it. Not the small pieces that may be seen by some rounds when fired into jell, but things like jacket/core separation.
My point was, if you have a bullet that is known to fragment without the aid of an intermediate barrier, I feel that it could underperform with an intermediate barrier. With handguns, you just can't have your cake and eat it too.

A modern HP is most definitely not a hydra shock. I am glad they are still around so people can buy them, and let me buy my gold dots/HST's.:supergrin:

I also feel that the Winchester Ranger series is a pretty good load.
I guess when I'm talking about modern; those are going through my mind.

I don't feel that at all, it’s just an exchange of ideas.

As always, you are spot on. There are those who think bullet fragmentation is good for performance, as you've written, this is not true. This can be proven mathematically/scientifically . . . probably why Dr. Gary Roberts states fragmentation is bad for penetration.

Let's look at the following examples of three bullets (ballpark expansion/velocity) that retained their mass vs one that didn't.

(***where Vcav equals the lower velocity limit of the cavitation regime, Mw equals the predicted mass of the tissue within the wound cavity and Xcm equals the predicted penetration in soft tissue/calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin)


.357 Magnum 180 gr. Nosler Partition JHP v. four layers of denim
Vi = 1292 feet per second
Mr = 179.4 grains
Dr = 0.637 inch (1.78x cal)

Vcav = 398.435 feet per second
Mw = 59.242 grams (2.0897 ounce)
Xcm = 39.085 centimeters (15.388 inches)

180gr Nosler Partition;

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/357mag180grPartition1292fps012jpg.jpg

10mm Hornady 180 gr. XTP JHP v. 4 layers of denim

Vi = 1265 feet per second
Dr = 0.631 inch
Mr= 180.0 grains

Vc = 121.788 meters per second (399.568 feet per second)
Mw = 58.756 grams (2.073 ounces)
Xcm = 39.451 centimeters (15.532 inches)

Winchester Bonded 9mm 147 gr. PDX1 JHP (S9MMPDB1)
Impact Velocity: 1006 feet per second (330fpe)
Average Expanded Diameter: 0.579 inch
Retained Weight: 146.9 grains (99.93%)

Cavitation Boundary (Vc) = 411.827 fps
Permanent Wound Cavity Mass (Mw) = 41.906 grams (1.478 ounces)
Penetration Depth (Xin) = 13.525 inches (34.353 cm)

Hornady 10mm 180 gr. XTP JHP
Impact velocity: 1294 fps
Recovered weight: 144.7 gr. (80.4%)
Average recovered diameter: 0.623"

Vcav = 397.071 fps
Mw = 46.494 grams (1.640 ounces)
Xcm = 33.940 cm (13.362 inches)

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/10mm180XTP003.jpg

At 1294fps (highest kinetic energy of the 4 bullets tested), this 180gr XTP was beyond its velocity design window; its fragments would have wounded by laceration and do not possess a 'crush' cavity as Craig's opinion suggests. The crush cavity of this fragmented 180gr XTP is marginally greater than that of the 9mm 147gr.

As a result of fragmentation (loss of mass 144.7grs recovered) and wider expansion, the XTPs fragged penetration is slightly less than that of the 9mm 147gr PDX, lowest energy of the 4 rounds.

All 4 rounds met the FBI's standard 12" penetration, but the fragged 180gr XTP had less of a crush cavity then the first, slower 10mm/180gr XTP and the 180gr Partion in .357mag. The latter 2 rounds would have performed better on angling and bone penetration shots against large felons than the fragged bullet.

I expect the 147gr HST would have performed in a similar manner as the PDX bullet.

Bob :cowboy:

glock20c10mm
05-28-2011, 18:58
As always, you are spot on. There are those who think bullet fragmentation is good for performance, as you've written, this is not true. This can be proven mathematically/scientifically . . . probably why Dr. Gary Roberts states fragmentation is bad for penetration.

Let's look at the following examples of three bullets (ballpark expansion/velocity) that retained their mass vs one that didn't.

.357 Magnum 180 gr. Nosler Partition JHP v. four layers of denim
Vi = 1292 feet per second
Mr = 179.4 grains
Dr = 0.637 inch (1.78x cal)

Vcav = 398.435 feet per second
Mw = 59.242 grams (2.0897 ounce)
Xcm = 39.085 centimeters (15.388 inches)

180gr Nosler Partition;

10mm Hornady 180 gr. XTP JHP v. 4 layers of denim

Vi = 1265 feet per second
Dr = 0.631 inch
Mr= 180.0 grains

Vc = 121.788 meters per second (399.568 feet per second)
Mw = 58.756 grams (2.073 ounces)
Xcm = 39.451 centimeters (15.532 inches)

Winchester Bonded 9mm 147 gr. PDX1 JHP (S9MMPDB1)
Impact Velocity: 1006 feet per second (330fpe)
Average Expanded Diameter: 0.579 inch
Retained Weight: 146.9 grains (99.93%)

Cavitation Boundary (Vc) = 411.827 fps
Permanent Wound Cavity Mass (Mw) = 41.906 grams (1.478 ounces)
Penetration Depth (Xin) = 13.525 inches (34.353 cm)

Hornady 10mm 180 gr. XTP JHP
Impact velocity: 1294 fps
Recovered weight: 144.7 gr. (80.4%)
Average recovered diameter: 0.623"

Vcav = 397.071 fps
Mw = 46.494 grams (1.640 ounces)
Xcm = 33.940 cm (13.362 inches)

At 1294fps (highest kinetic energy of the 4 bullets tested), this 180gr XTP was beyond its velocity design window; its fragments would have wounded by laceration and do not possess a 'crush' cavity as Craig's opinion suggests. The crush cavity of this fragmented 180gr XTP is marginally greater than that of the 9mm 147gr.

As a result of fragmentation (loss of mass 144.7grs recovered) and wider expansion, the XTPs fragged penetration is slightly less than that of the 9mm 147gr PDX, lowest energy of the 4 rounds.

All 4 rounds met the FBI's standard 12" penetration, but the fragged 180gr XTP had less of a crush cavity then the first, slower 10mm/180gr XTP and the 180gr Partion in .357mag. The latter 2 rounds would have performed better on angling and bone penetration shots against large felons than the fragged bullet.

I expect the 147gr HST would have performed in a similar manner as the PDX bullet.

Bob :cowboy:
That example is just wrong on so many levels.

First, look at the two 180gr 10mm loads. One impacts at 1265 fps, and the other at 1294 fps. (I'm assuming Vi = impact velocity.) That's 29 fps difference. There is no way, if the test media was equal, that one 180gr XTP traveling 29 fps faster than another, on impact, lost almost 20% weight, with the one traveling 29 fps slower not loosing any mass at all. (I'm assuming Mr = recovered weight.)

And then, on top of all that, to suggest the impact velocity of 1294 fps is/was beyond its velocity design window. ESPECIALLY WHEN HORNADY THEMSELVES CLAIMS THE 180 GR XTP'S DESIGN WINDOW IS AT 1450 FPS!!!

Bob, what were you shooting a 180gr XTP into or through, at 1294 fps, that caused it to frag like it did anyway? And then, because of your backyard testing that made the XTP frag like that, I'm wondering if it's anywhere near real world street barrier material, inline with FBI protocol practice? And, how do actual bonded loads fair against the same?

Moving on, you seem to be suggesting that the lacerations cut by the at least 8 fragments you show in the picture to have no additional wounding capacity at all. Did it ever occur to you that one of those frags may have been what was needed to cut open a vein or artery that the main bullet mass missed? Besides the fact the bullet penetrated to a respectful depth in the end anyway?

Sounds to me like the XTP that impacted at 1294 fps did an excellent job after penetrating whatever you initially set up for it to penetrate as a barrier. And you're making it sound like a failure compared to other bullets that you may or may not have tested the same way. And, the XTP impacting at 1294 fps still crushed more tissue, plus lacerations by a number of fragments, in the process over the 9mm 147gr PDX1 JHP, and you're saying the 9mm load was somehow better, how, again???

Like I said, wrong on so many levels I'm not even going to bother with them all. Hey Bob, how about showing an example of something, where something in the test actually fails at something, compared to another succeeding, AND, in an apples to apples comparison where all bullets tested go through the same kind of media? That just may give you a tad bit of a stronger case to work from. Maybe even meaningful!:thumbsup:


Good Shooting,
Craig

Berto
05-28-2011, 19:09
Above, you typed; "(emphasis mine)"

I'm not getting your meaning? Was "mine" supposed to be one of the words you quoted from Mas, or are you suggesting something was yours, and if so, what?


You showed where Mas said; "EXCELLENT RESULTS"

Excellent results compared to what? Excellent results in terms of all officers returned home alive? Excellent results, meaning it was better than what they used to carry? Excellent results across the board with all different loads chosen by each dept listed, or they all carried the same load? Excellent results reguarding only 38 Special by itself? And just what year did that Volume 6 come out in print? Did it come out in print before either Glocks or bonded bullets existed? Seriously, just what exactly do you know that would lead you to believe "EXCELLENT RESULTS" meant anywhere near what another might call the same? Maybe "EXCELLENT RESULTS" in those days simply means a threat was stopped before everyone ran out of bullets.

As for fragmentation, near as I could tell, we agree, at least between what we both actually posted. Am I missing something? If so, what?

Worst case, you could ask him.....but I'll go ahead and give it shot, despite the fact you already know.:wavey:
Vol 6 is dated 2007. I guess that would mean even by contemporary standards, the FBI load in .38sp is highly thought of.
If you're in the default "compared to my God-awesome 10mm" mode, then I would expect YOU might feel it's less than excellent.....but what some pathological anonymous caliber corner guy thinks doesn't sway me from the opinion of folks more knowledgeable. I suspect it would also fall short of say, 12ga OO and .223 Rem too.:supergrin:

You called me out with this Hey Berto, you think it's just that your's and my definitions of "very good reputation" vary by a whole lot?

I provided a very coherent and easy to understand response, to which you feign confusion.:upeyes: Is this a circle-jerk, do we get to go on and on for like 10 pages?

:dunno:

Short answer: It's a very good load. It penetrates deep and expands to approx .60, depending on the version (Rem, Win, Fed or Buffalo Bore).
It has a long earned reputation, observed by folks who saw it used or themselves used it.
Both camps of the Gello vs OSS camps agreed it was an effective load.
"Mas" appears to think it is an effective load in the realm of service calibers. The RCMP and FBI used this load as a standard to be met when developing or considering new calibers and platforms.

So yeah. Very Good reputation.

glock20c10mm
05-28-2011, 22:24
Worst case, you could ask him.....but I'll go ahead and give it shot, despite the fact you already know.:wavey:
Vol 6 is dated 2007. I guess that would mean even by contemporary standards, the FBI load in .38sp is highly thought of.
If you're in the default "compared to my God-awesome 10mm" mode, then I would expect YOU might feel it's less than excellent.....but what some pathological anonymous caliber corner guy thinks doesn't sway me from the opinion of folks more knowledgeable. I suspect it would also fall short of say, 12ga OO and .223 Rem too.:supergrin:

You called me out with this Hey Berto, you think it's just that your's and my definitions of "very good reputation" vary by a whole lot?

I provided a very coherent and easy to understand response, to which you feign confusion.:upeyes: Is this a circle-jerk, do we get to go on and on for like 10 pages?

:dunno:

Short answer: It's a very good load. It penetrates deep and expands to approx .60, depending on the version (Rem, Win, Fed or Buffalo Bore).
It has a long earned reputation, observed by folks who saw it used or themselves used it.
Both camps of the Gello vs OSS camps agreed it was an effective load.
"Mas" appears to think it is an effective load in the realm of service calibers. The RCMP and FBI used this load as a standard to be met when developing or considering new calibers and platforms.

So yeah. Very Good reputation.
I like your honesty with evidence to back up your belief. We don't have to try for 10 pages. I can agree to disagree. We both have strong feelings both ways. I don't believe either of us could sway the other. Obviously I have information that backs up my opinion too. At the same time I'm not going to offer to stand in front of any 38 Special load, and would never call them useless.


Good Shooting,
Craig

pisc1024
05-29-2011, 06:22
Well if that's the case, them I'm bewildered why any bullet manufacturer felt the need to redesign bullets just to handle the additional 150 - 200 fps.

Think of it this way; 150 - 200 fps = 102 - 136 mph.

No, I was saying that the way I see it there isn't that much difference. I'm sure to a guy who makes a living developing bullets for cops and other professionals to use, 150-200FPS is a difference. You can see that in bullets designed for 9mm vs. .357sig.
I don't feel that 150-200 FPS is enough to warrant me changing my current set up. As I said before I own a gun in all of the cal's mentioned, but .357sig isn't a go to gun/cal combo for me. If that's what I have, then fine, but if given a choice, 9 is fine for what Iím likely to face.

esminbritt
05-29-2011, 16:51
Nobody is outright dogging it the way you make it sound. It is understood by all the it meets FBI minimum spec with most loads available today. The point of those of us "dogging" it is that it doesn't wound or incapacitate as well as other service cartridges available. THIS CANNOT BE ARGUED JUST BY GOING BY THE BASICS ALONE.

For example; There are loads in all of 40S&W, 10mm, and 45 Auto/GAP, that will always crush more tissue throughout the permanent crush cavity assuming equal shot placement, than 9mm will ever be capable of. Period! Do you question that?

Even 357 SIG, being the same caliber, raises the velocity enough to create a more devastating wound track, similar to the difference between 38 Special and 357 Magnum. Do you question that?

It's also been shown on plenty of accounts that a higher energy round, much of the time, will incapacitate quicker than another with less energy, particularily with bullets of medium to lower weight for caliber, but that still penetrate at least the "FBI mimimum" suggested. Do you question that?

And now here you go with the word "extremely". What do you mean "extremely"? When a 147gr 9mm bullet expands and pokes a hole, yes, it effectively will crush tissue through the full length of penetration depth, and the better the bullet expands, the more tissue it will crush if it penetrates enough. And the word "enough", as I just used it at the end of the sentence before this one, will have a different meaning depending on who you ask, which is perfectly rational, as we all plan for different risk assessments depending on our personal surroundings and what we think we might be up against. So tell me, why did you exaggerate a simple fact with the word "extremely"? It does it. Nobody questions it can do it. Why are you suggesting anyone posting here doesn't think 9mm is perfectly capable of poking a hole through tissue, through the vitals, except for some 115gr loads some of the time?

That line of thinking simply proves your lack of experience and knowledge with such issues. Maybe you don't even realize part of a pit bull's genetics allows it to disreguard a whole lot of pain other dogs would succumb to. Maybe you also don't realize many dogs bred as guard dogs, depending on how they are treated and trained will not give up till blood loss or CNS damage forces them to. Maybe you don't even simply realize how fast a guard dog can be latched onto you. And once he is, if he didn't sound an alarm letting you know he was coming from about a mile off, you may find yourself trying to figure out how to shoot the dog without shooting yourself, while it's latched onto you and shaking you around best it can, particularily anywhere worth shooting it to INCAPACITATE it, let alone kill it.

Understand the only reason I left out the first paragraph you said was because I agreed with it. Not an attempt to ignore anything you said.

I use the word "extremely" because the destruction of tissue effectively, is extreme in nature. If a bullet can cause extreme damage, it is doing what it does extremely well. And No, I don't disagree that a larger calibre can do more damage. That is why I chose the largest 9mm round I could find. And while it is not as big or "powerful" as larger calibre rounds, it IS enough. It does "work". In response to your questions in regards to such basic facts, I assure you that, while am no expert, I am very well researched and very tenacious in my pursuit of true facts. While I do value everyone's input here, I lose respect quickly for those who defensively ask patronizing, rhetorical questions, and frankly, it is mildly insulting. But fear not, for that mess flows off me like water off a duck's back. I say this not to seem confrontational, merely to point out why your input is not received well in interactions I notice between yourself and others. I want to stress: I do value your input. But I would truly appreciate it if you could respond without such emotionally charged, loaded questions that we both know the answers to. That is just my opinion. Just 2Ę... to take or leave.

cowboy1964
05-29-2011, 16:59
Are you saying a heavy 9mm will do more "damage" than a lighter one?

Berto
05-29-2011, 18:17
I like your honesty with evidence to back up your belief. We don't have to try for 10 pages. I can agree to disagree. We both have strong feelings both ways. I don't believe either of us could sway the other. Obviously I have information that backs up my opinion too. At the same time I'm not going to offer to stand in front of any 38 Special load, and would never call them useless.


Good Shooting,
Craig

:cheers:

In the world of ballistics, it's tough to nail down absolutes given some folks simply exist to make spectacular bullet sponges.
MY favorite .38sp load frags in jello.:supergrin:
I shoot my 10mm frequently, it just pisses me off that real 10mm level stuff is pretty much botique stuff these days and I usually settle for Silvertips.:whistling:

esminbritt
05-29-2011, 19:07
Are you saying a heavy 9mm will do more "damage" than a lighter one?

No, not all cases. And not all heavy 9mm rounds. but in some, yes. I think it has some benefits as far as initial barrier penetration, weight retention, cavitation boundary velocity. But truthfully, I am just beginning to learn the full spectrum of the difference between 147's and 124/115's. I can say with confidence, that from what I have gathered so far, that my choice in the Federal HST Tactical 147 +P is a really solid choice. Not the "best, biggest, baddest, all-in-one, one-shot-drop and do your laundry too" type of round, but I truly believe it is a very good choice and I have seen A LOT of facts, sitings, photographs, etc. that prove that this round outperforms lighter 9mm round in certain specific settings. I am still wrapping my head around the nuances, but I definitely am getting the main point: good enough in most situations and even better in some (assuming I do my part)

esminbritt
05-29-2011, 19:10
I like your honesty with evidence to back up your belief. We don't have to try for 10 pages. I can agree to disagree. We both have strong feelings both ways. I don't believe either of us could sway the other. Obviously I have information that backs up my opinion too. At the same time I'm not going to offer to stand in front of any 38 Special load, and would never call them useless.


Good Shooting,
Craig

THAT makes sense to me. Well said.

glock20c10mm
05-30-2011, 03:41
I use the word "extremely" because the destruction of tissue effectively, is extreme in nature. If a bullet can cause extreme damage, it is doing what it does extremely well. And No, I don't disagree that a larger calibre can do more damage. That is why I chose the largest 9mm round I could find. And while it is not as big or "powerful" as larger calibre rounds, it IS enough. It does "work". In response to your questions in regards to such basic facts, I assure you that, while am no expert, I am very well researched and very tenacious in my pursuit of true facts. While I do value everyone's input here, I lose respect quickly for those who defensively ask patronizing, rhetorical questions, and frankly, it is mildly insulting. But fear not, for that mess flows off me like water off a duck's back. I say this not to seem confrontational, merely to point out why your input is not received well in interactions I notice between yourself and others. I want to stress: I do value your input. But I would truly appreciate it if you could respond without such emotionally charged, loaded questions that we both know the answers to. That is just my opinion. Just 2Ę... to take or leave.
First of all, I didn't question anything defensively. Sencond of all, yes, I was being patronizing. Why wouldn't I if you're simply not making sense. The problem is you think you're making sense and you're not. Hence why in your mind I'm coming back at you defensively.

Let's look at what you've said;

You're taking issue with those dogging the 9mm, when no one actually is.

You believe a dog is guaranteed lights out if you get a chance to fire at it. I'm not the only one who corrected you there.

You're so convinced the 147gr 9mm of your choice is all that's needed, and claim it to be EXTREMELY effective at destroying tissue. Destroyed tissue is destroyed tissue. Destroyed means completely ruined. Extremely means to a high degree. Completely ruined is completely ruined. You can't extremely completely ruin tissue. Completely is already as extreme as you can get except for maybe vaporizing it after ruining it. And even my 10mm loads using "the force" can't do that. And now you come back and suggest you meant something other than the context you typed and expect me to be a mind reader, outside the context you wrote in, and now you're saying it's mildly insulting on my part?

On top of that you add how you're saying this "merely to point out why your input is not received well in interactions I notice between yourself and others". Do what?!? You mean the opinions others throw around as fact? You mean how I cite what was asked of me, simply to have someone come back and give nothing more than opinion that it's bogus and not cite anything back, which did become arguementative, on top of which you ignorantly said; "...this post confirms my suspicion that this SSA Urey W. Patrick was off the mark." Do what?!? On an opinion!?!:shocked: When, yes, in this very same thread you also said; "For people like me who are new to handguns, it is important to not get lost in the sea of opinions." And now you're jumping my case, for, as you claim; "I would truly appreciate it if you could respond without such emotionally charged, loaded questions..." And all that said, it's beyond your comprehention how I became, as you say; "emotionally charged"?

And further, on top of all that, in reguard to your ABSOLUTE (free from imperfection) confidence in the 9mm 147gr HST load, based on YOU SAYING; "...it IS enough.", and, "It does "work".", you have also said; "I chose 9mm due to cost and availability.", and, "I mainly chose it (9mm) due to ammo availability and cost." (submitted separately in 2 different posts). Not to mention all your other reasoning like it's as good or almost as good......and you think I'm out of control?

Bro, if I went off on that many unrelated tangents, supposedly trying to make others understand my logic, with improper wording, and contradiction, and going from outright meek to outright fanatically divine instruction as though you have certain aspects all figured out that have clearly been shown to be wrong (which you've admitted to), then I'ld expect me to come back like I have.

You not understanding why I've replied with what I have, shows that at the same time you know you're in the beginning - middle of the learning curve (which some on GT will tell you is impossible without various credentials backing you up, therefore to some, not including myself, you're a moron anyway and will be forever, or up until you achieve those credentials), also believe you know aspects you don't. And that my friend will lead to no less than patronizing, rhetorical questions, by just about anybody paying attention and not skimming.

As for your insisting on hard copy proof to all who don't agree with what you opine to be fact, sometimes you'll get it, and more often than not you won't. And if you're not going to post reference or hard copy proof, while at the same time DEMANDING it of others, then save some bandwidth and forget about it, just as Berto and I have. (Yes, I'm aware of the single link to the pics you posted which a number of us have been well aware of pratically since they were originally posted.)

Believe me, I'ld love everything there is to know about every single shooting and bullet and load and......................but it DOESN'T exist for us to see as a whole. Nor will it ever. Are you aware that some police departments won't share their data with other police departments? And where does all this leave us? Well, more/less hanging. Therefore, we gather what we can, we learn from our experiences if we've had any, we do our own backyard testing, we converse together to learn from other's experiences and overall knowledge, all while at the same time trying to sift through the BS (opinions, lies, misconception...) that automatically comes with it here and there.

You know where that leaves us? It leaves us with a handful of schools of thought. It leaves us with loose ends that may or may not ever be answered. It also leaves us with questions. And somehow, one way or another, each of us as individuals have to decide for ourselves (though not everyone is even capable of this), which of those handful of school of thoughts makes the most sense in all we've been able to gather. In the end it doesn't mean we can't agree to disagree either.

On top of all that, just here on GT, not to mention elsewhere, we have people at different levels of surety or lack thereof, either decided on what they believe, or unsure of what they believe, along those like you who are leaning one way but still aren't sure, to the extent they're fighting some of their own demons, just trying to tie loose ends up.

Me, I'm decided. You aren't going to change my belief which I base on a combination of: FACT, personal observation, personal experience, and other's imput. Some here agree with me fully, while others, partially. Some don't agree with me at all, and some outright hate me. If you or anyone else doesn't like what I have to say, fine, big whooooooooopy.

Therefore, don't question me knowing full well you're not going to like what I have to say. And if you decide to question me anyway, don't act like it was a surprise that I didn't agree with you still, let alone choose to argue, and/or tell me I'm now on the defensive, making you feel mildly insulted.

I don't care what you decide, unless I see misguidance or misinterpetation or misunderstanding. If you decide 9mm 147gr HST is as good or so close to as good as anything else a service caliber has to offer, and that's what makes you happy, and you've decided for yourself for sure, at this point in time, then be happy.

What does this mean; "I am just beginning to learn the full spectrum of the difference between 147's and 124/115's." Does it mean you're still undecided, or does it mean you are decided, but just want to know something else just because?

With a clear slate I would ask; What SPECIFICALLY do you want to know from any of us on GT who may want to reply, whether you end up liking or not, what is posted in reply?

glock20c10mm
05-30-2011, 03:47
THAT makes sense to me. Well said.
http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s271/glock20c10mm/Facepalms%20and%20Such/win18.jpg

esminbritt
05-30-2011, 07:47
@ 10mm. by "Just Beginning to learn" I am referring to the wealth of technical, scientific, information out there, but more specifically, the post by Glolt 20-91. I really liked how he kept his opinions and his responses to a minimum, while providing A LOT specific data. I was actually able to learn by observing raw data and forming my own conclusions from it. I was in awe of the scope in which that data was displayed. Let's set aside his conclusions to the data he presented for a moment and let's JUST look at the data. If you want to disprove the data, i would welcome that in my quest for better understanding. To do so, I would suggest going line by line, and correcting each statistic, each value and replacing it with hard data that you have instead. I am not asking for theoretical opinions by you or some FBI guy from 20 years ago. Show me photos or actual recorded specs that disprove the data. I'm not talking about debating velocity design windows. I am talking about the compiled data collected from testing. The max capacity of the round may differ greatly when asking an independent source vs. the manufacturer. It's just like car stereos. Manufacturers can rate an amplifier at 1000W, while that may be a peak rating and the RMS rating is really only 700W. But the real measure of how loud a stereo can get in a specific car-an actual situation-one needs to put a decibel meter in the car and record hard data. i am not saying firearms are like stereo equipment, just sayin' that manufactures are not always right, which is why I want to focus on the data compilations listed next to the red font. And 14 paragraph responses usually indicate defensiveness. Especially when there are lots of exclamation points, but maybe not in your case. As far as the insults, they were not in regards to the semantics of the use of the word "extreme". They were in regards to you patronizingly inquiring if I knew the a larger caliber round could do more damage than a smaller one. I know that a bigger rock, thrown harder, won't do more damage than a smaller one. I should have been more clear.

WiskyT
05-30-2011, 08:06
First of all, I didn't question anything defensively. Sencond of all, yes, I was being patronizing. Why wouldn't I if you're simply not making sense. The problem is you think you're making sense and you're not. Hence why in your mind I'm coming back at you defensively.

Let's look at what you've said;

You're taking issue with those dogging the 9mm, when no one actually is.

You believe a dog is guaranteed lights out if you get a chance to fire at it. I'm not the only one who corrected you there.

You're so convinced the 147gr 9mm of your choice is all that's needed, and claim it to be EXTREMELY effective at destroying tissue. Destroyed tissue is destroyed tissue. Destroyed means completely ruined. Extremely means to a high degree. Completely ruined is completely ruined. You can't extremely completely ruin tissue. Completely is already as extreme as you can get except for maybe vaporizing it after ruining it. And even my 10mm loads using "the force" can't do that. And now you come back and suggest you meant something other than the context you typed and expect me to be a mind reader, outside the context you wrote in, and now you're saying it's mildly insulting on my part?

On top of that you add how you're saying this "merely to point out why your input is not received well in interactions I notice between yourself and others". Do what?!? You mean the opinions others throw around as fact? You mean how I cite what was asked of me, simply to have someone come back and give nothing more than opinion that it's bogus and not cite anything back, which did become arguementative, on top of which you ignorantly said; "...this post confirms my suspicion that this SSA Urey W. Patrick was off the mark." Do what?!? On an opinion!?!:shocked: When, yes, in this very same thread you also said; "For people like me who are new to handguns, it is important to not get lost in the sea of opinions." And now you're jumping my case, for, as you claim; "I would truly appreciate it if you could respond without such emotionally charged, loaded questions..." And all that said, it's beyond your comprehention how I became, as you say; "emotionally charged"?

And further, on top of all that, in reguard to your ABSOLUTE (free from imperfection) confidence in the 9mm 147gr HST load, based on YOU SAYING; "...it IS enough.", and, "It does "work".", you have also said; "I chose 9mm due to cost and availability.", and, "I mainly chose it (9mm) due to ammo availability and cost." (submitted separately in 2 different posts). Not to mention all your other reasoning like it's as good or almost as good......and you think I'm out of control?

Bro, if I went off on that many unrelated tangents, supposedly trying to make others understand my logic, with improper wording, and contradiction, and going from outright meek to outright fanatically divine instruction as though you have certain aspects all figured out that have clearly been shown to be wrong (which you've admitted to), then I'ld expect me to come back like I have.

You not understanding why I've replied with what I have, shows that at the same time you know you're in the beginning - middle of the learning curve (which some on GT will tell you is impossible without various credentials backing you up, therefore to some, not including myself, you're a moron anyway and will be forever, or up until you achieve those credentials), also believe you know aspects you don't. And that my friend will lead to no less than patronizing, rhetorical questions, by just about anybody paying attention and not skimming.

As for your insisting on hard copy proof to all who don't agree with what you opine to be fact, sometimes you'll get it, and more often than not you won't. And if you're not going to post reference or hard copy proof, while at the same time DEMANDING it of others, then save some bandwidth and forget about it, just as Berto and I have. (Yes, I'm aware of the single link to the pics you posted which a number of us have been well aware of pratically since they were originally posted.)

Believe me, I'ld love everything there is to know about every single shooting and bullet and load and......................but it DOESN'T exist for us to see as a whole. Nor will it ever. Are you aware that some police departments won't share their data with other police departments? And where does all this leave us? Well, more/less hanging. Therefore, we gather what we can, we learn from our experiences if we've had any, we do our own backyard testing, we converse together to learn from other's experiences and overall knowledge, all while at the same time trying to sift through the BS (opinions, lies, misconception...) that automatically comes with it here and there.

You know where that leaves us? It leaves us with a handful of schools of thought. It leaves us with loose ends that may or may not ever be answered. It also leaves us with questions. And somehow, one way or another, each of us as individuals have to decide for ourselves (though not everyone is even capable of this), which of those handful of school of thoughts makes the most sense in all we've been able to gather. In the end it doesn't mean we can't agree to disagree either.

On top of all that, just here on GT, not to mention elsewhere, we have people at different levels of surety or lack thereof, either decided on what they believe, or unsure of what they believe, along those like you who are leaning one way but still aren't sure, to the extent they're fighting some of their own demons, just trying to tie loose ends up.

Me, I'm decided. You aren't going to change my belief which I base on a combination of: FACT, personal observation, personal experience, and other's imput. Some here agree with me fully, while others, partially. Some don't agree with me at all, and some outright hate me. If you or anyone else doesn't like what I have to say, fine, big whooooooooopy.

Therefore, don't question me knowing full well you're not going to like what I have to say. And if you decide to question me anyway, don't act like it was a surprise that I didn't agree with you still, let alone choose to argue, and/or tell me I'm now on the defensive, making you feel mildly insulted.

I don't care what you decide, unless I see misguidance or misinterpetation or misunderstanding. If you decide 9mm 147gr HST is as good or so close to as good as anything else a service caliber has to offer, and that's what makes you happy, and you've decided for yourself for sure, at this point in time, then be happy.

What does this mean; "I am just beginning to learn the full spectrum of the difference between 147's and 124/115's." Does it mean you're still undecided, or does it mean you are decided, but just want to know something else just because?

With a clear slate I would ask; What SPECIFICALLY do you want to know from any of us on GT who may want to reply, whether you end up liking or not, what is posted in reply?

http://www.chaobell.net/newgallery/d/455-3/daffy-screwball.gif

esminbritt
05-30-2011, 10:11
@WhiskyT: I laughed so damn hard I woke the baby up.

esminbritt
05-30-2011, 10:12
First of all, I didn't question anything defensively. Sencond of all, yes, I was being patronizing. Why wouldn't I if you're simply not making sense. The problem is you think you're making sense and you're not. Hence why in your mind I'm coming back at you defensively.

Let's look at what you've said;

You're taking issue with those dogging the 9mm, when no one actually is.

You believe a dog is guaranteed lights out if you get a chance to fire at it. I'm not the only one who corrected you there.

You're so convinced the 147gr 9mm of your choice is all that's needed, and claim it to be EXTREMELY effective at destroying tissue. Destroyed tissue is destroyed tissue. Destroyed means completely ruined. Extremely means to a high degree. Completely ruined is completely ruined. You can't extremely completely ruin tissue. Completely is already as extreme as you can get except for maybe vaporizing it after ruining it. And even my 10mm loads using "the force" can't do that. And now you come back and suggest you meant something other than the context you typed and expect me to be a mind reader, outside the context you wrote in, and now you're saying it's mildly insulting on my part?

On top of that you add how you're saying this "merely to point out why your input is not received well in interactions I notice between yourself and others". Do what?!? You mean the opinions others throw around as fact? You mean how I cite what was asked of me, simply to have someone come back and give nothing more than opinion that it's bogus and not cite anything back, which did become arguementative, on top of which you ignorantly said; "...this post confirms my suspicion that this SSA Urey W. Patrick was off the mark." Do what?!? On an opinion!?!:shocked: When, yes, in this very same thread you also said; "For people like me who are new to handguns, it is important to not get lost in the sea of opinions." And now you're jumping my case, for, as you claim; "I would truly appreciate it if you could respond without such emotionally charged, loaded questions..." And all that said, it's beyond your comprehention how I became, as you say; "emotionally charged"?

And further, on top of all that, in reguard to your ABSOLUTE (free from imperfection) confidence in the 9mm 147gr HST load, based on YOU SAYING; "...it IS enough.", and, "It does "work".", you have also said; "I chose 9mm due to cost and availability.", and, "I mainly chose it (9mm) due to ammo availability and cost." (submitted separately in 2 different posts). Not to mention all your other reasoning like it's as good or almost as good......and you think I'm out of control?

Bro, if I went off on that many unrelated tangents, supposedly trying to make others understand my logic, with improper wording, and contradiction, and going from outright meek to outright fanatically divine instruction as though you have certain aspects all figured out that have clearly been shown to be wrong (which you've admitted to), then I'ld expect me to come back like I have.

You not understanding why I've replied with what I have, shows that at the same time you know you're in the beginning - middle of the learning curve (which some on GT will tell you is impossible without various credentials backing you up, therefore to some, not including myself, you're a moron anyway and will be forever, or up until you achieve those credentials), also believe you know aspects you don't. And that my friend will lead to no less than patronizing, rhetorical questions, by just about anybody paying attention and not skimming.

As for your insisting on hard copy proof to all who don't agree with what you opine to be fact, sometimes you'll get it, and more often than not you won't. And if you're not going to post reference or hard copy proof, while at the same time DEMANDING it of others, then save some bandwidth and forget about it, just as Berto and I have. (Yes, I'm aware of the single link to the pics you posted which a number of us have been well aware of pratically since they were originally posted.)

Believe me, I'ld love everything there is to know about every single shooting and bullet and load and......................but it DOESN'T exist for us to see as a whole. Nor will it ever. Are you aware that some police departments won't share their data with other police departments? And where does all this leave us? Well, more/less hanging. Therefore, we gather what we can, we learn from our experiences if we've had any, we do our own backyard testing, we converse together to learn from other's experiences and overall knowledge, all while at the same time trying to sift through the BS (opinions, lies, misconception...) that automatically comes with it here and there.

You know where that leaves us? It leaves us with a handful of schools of thought. It leaves us with loose ends that may or may not ever be answered. It also leaves us with questions. And somehow, one way or another, each of us as individuals have to decide for ourselves (though not everyone is even capable of this), which of those handful of school of thoughts makes the most sense in all we've been able to gather. In the end it doesn't mean we can't agree to disagree either.

On top of all that, just here on GT, not to mention elsewhere, we have people at different levels of surety or lack thereof, either decided on what they believe, or unsure of what they believe, along those like you who are leaning one way but still aren't sure, to the extent they're fighting some of their own demons, just trying to tie loose ends up.

Me, I'm decided. You aren't going to change my belief which I base on a combination of: FACT, personal observation, personal experience, and other's imput. Some here agree with me fully, while others, partially. Some don't agree with me at all, and some outright hate me. If you or anyone else doesn't like what I have to say, fine, big whooooooooopy.

Therefore, don't question me knowing full well you're not going to like what I have to say. And if you decide to question me anyway, don't act like it was a surprise that I didn't agree with you still, let alone choose to argue, and/or tell me I'm now on the defensive, making you feel mildly insulted.

I don't care what you decide, unless I see misguidance or misinterpetation or misunderstanding. If you decide 9mm 147gr HST is as good or so close to as good as anything else a service caliber has to offer, and that's what makes you happy, and you've decided for yourself for sure, at this point in time, then be happy.

What does this mean; "I am just beginning to learn the full spectrum of the difference between 147's and 124/115's." Does it mean you're still undecided, or does it mean you are decided, but just want to know something else just because?

With a clear slate I would ask; What SPECIFICALLY do you want to know from any of us on GT who may want to reply, whether you end up liking or not, what is posted in reply?

I think I'm good for now. Glolt20-91 gave me enough hard data to confirm my interpretations for now. That's what I was looking for, Scientifically tested data that is clear to substantiate. I've already read thousands of opinions. I just needed to sift through it all a bit, which you certainly helped me do. Thanks though. Cheers.

esminbritt
05-30-2011, 10:19
As always, you are spot on. There are those who think bullet fragmentation is good for performance, as you've written, this is not true. This can be proven mathematically/scientifically . . . probably why Dr. Gary Roberts states fragmentation is bad for penetration.

Let's look at the following examples of three bullets (ballpark expansion/velocity) that retained their mass vs one that didn't.

(***where Vcav equals the lower velocity limit of the cavitation regime, Mw equals the predicted mass of the tissue within the wound cavity and Xcm equals the predicted penetration in soft tissue/calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin)


.357 Magnum 180 gr. Nosler Partition JHP v. four layers of denim
Vi = 1292 feet per second
Mr = 179.4 grains
Dr = 0.637 inch (1.78x cal)

Vcav = 398.435 feet per second
Mw = 59.242 grams (2.0897 ounce)
Xcm = 39.085 centimeters (15.388 inches)

180gr Nosler Partition;

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/357mag180grPartition1292fps012jpg.jpg

10mm Hornady 180 gr. XTP JHP v. 4 layers of denim

Vi = 1265 feet per second
Dr = 0.631 inch
Mr= 180.0 grains

Vc = 121.788 meters per second (399.568 feet per second)
Mw = 58.756 grams (2.073 ounces)
Xcm = 39.451 centimeters (15.532 inches)

Winchester Bonded 9mm 147 gr. PDX1 JHP (S9MMPDB1)
Impact Velocity: 1006 feet per second (330fpe)
Average Expanded Diameter: 0.579 inch
Retained Weight: 146.9 grains (99.93%)

Cavitation Boundary (Vc) = 411.827 fps
Permanent Wound Cavity Mass (Mw) = 41.906 grams (1.478 ounces)
Penetration Depth (Xin) = 13.525 inches (34.353 cm)

Hornady 10mm 180 gr. XTP JHP
Impact velocity: 1294 fps
Recovered weight: 144.7 gr. (80.4%)
Average recovered diameter: 0.623"

Vcav = 397.071 fps
Mw = 46.494 grams (1.640 ounces)
Xcm = 33.940 cm (13.362 inches)

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/10mm180XTP003.jpg

At 1294fps (highest kinetic energy of the 4 bullets tested), this 180gr XTP was beyond its velocity design window; its fragments would have wounded by laceration and do not possess a 'crush' cavity as Craig's opinion suggests. The crush cavity of this fragmented 180gr XTP is marginally greater than that of the 9mm 147gr.

As a result of fragmentation (loss of mass 144.7grs recovered) and wider expansion, the XTPs fragged penetration is slightly less than that of the 9mm 147gr PDX, lowest energy of the 4 rounds.

All 4 rounds met the FBI's standard 12" penetration, but the fragged 180gr XTP had less of a crush cavity then the first, slower 10mm/180gr XTP and the 180gr Partion in .357mag. The latter 2 rounds would have performed better on angling and bone penetration shots against large felons than the fragged bullet.

I expect the 147gr HST would have performed in a similar manner as the PDX bullet.

Bob :cowboy:

Dude, this collection of data is amazing. I learned new and helpful terminology from your testing. One could argue against your opinions (although I agree with them) but it is refreshing to see factual data listed clearly so that one can see not only what you are saying, buy EXACTLY WHY you are saying it. Thanks you very much.

481
05-30-2011, 13:08
Originally Posted by glock20c10mm http://glocktalk.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17422009#post17422009)
First of all, I didn't question anything defensively. Sencond of all, yes, I was being patronizing. Why wouldn't I if you're simply not making sense. The problem is you think you're making sense and you're not. Hence why in your mind I'm coming back at you defensively.

Let's look at what you've said;

You're taking issue with those dogging the 9mm, when no one actually is.

You believe a dog is guaranteed lights out if you get a chance to fire at it. I'm not the only one who corrected you there.

You're so convinced the 147gr 9mm of your choice is all that's needed, and claim it to be EXTREMELY effective at destroying tissue. Destroyed tissue is destroyed tissue. Destroyed means completely ruined. Extremely means to a high degree. Completely ruined is completely ruined. You can't extremely completely ruin tissue. Completely is already as extreme as you can get except for maybe vaporizing it after ruining it. And even my 10mm loads using "the force" can't do that. And now you come back and suggest you meant something other than the context you typed and expect me to be a mind reader, outside the context you wrote in, and now you're saying it's mildly insulting on my part?

On top of that you add how you're saying this "merely to point out why your input is not received well in interactions I notice between yourself and others". Do what?!? You mean the opinions others throw around as fact? You mean how I cite what was asked of me, simply to have someone come back and give nothing more than opinion that it's bogus and not cite anything back, which did become arguementative, on top of which you ignorantly said; "...this post confirms my suspicion that this SSA Urey W. Patrick was off the mark." Do what?!? On an opinion!?!:shocked: When, yes, in this very same thread you also said; "For people like me who are new to handguns, it is important to not get lost in the sea of opinions." And now you're jumping my case, for, as you claim; "I would truly appreciate it if you could respond without such emotionally charged, loaded questions..." And all that said, it's beyond your comprehention how I became, as you say; "emotionally charged"?

And further, on top of all that, in reguard to your ABSOLUTE (free from imperfection) confidence in the 9mm 147gr HST load, based on YOU SAYING; "...it IS enough.", and, "It does "work".", you have also said; "I chose 9mm due to cost and availability.", and, "I mainly chose it (9mm) due to ammo availability and cost." (submitted separately in 2 different posts). Not to mention all your other reasoning like it's as good or almost as good......and you think I'm out of control?

Bro, if I went off on that many unrelated tangents, supposedly trying to make others understand my logic, with improper wording, and contradiction, and going from outright meek to outright fanatically divine instruction as though you have certain aspects all figured out that have clearly been shown to be wrong (which you've admitted to), then I'ld expect me to come back like I have.

You not understanding why I've replied with what I have, shows that at the same time you know you're in the beginning - middle of the learning curve (which some on GT will tell you is impossible without various credentials backing you up, therefore to some, not including myself, you're a moron anyway and will be forever, or up until you achieve those credentials), also believe you know aspects you don't. And that my friend will lead to no less than patronizing, rhetorical questions, by just about anybody paying attention and not skimming.

As for your insisting on hard copy proof to all who don't agree with what you opine to be fact, sometimes you'll get it, and more often than not you won't. And if you're not going to post reference or hard copy proof, while at the same time DEMANDING it of others, then save some bandwidth and forget about it, just as Berto and I have. (Yes, I'm aware of the single link to the pics you posted which a number of us have been well aware of pratically since they were originally posted.)

Believe me, I'ld love everything there is to know about every single shooting and bullet and load and......................but it DOESN'T exist for us to see as a whole. Nor will it ever. Are you aware that some police departments won't share their data with other police departments? And where does all this leave us? Well, more/less hanging. Therefore, we gather what we can, we learn from our experiences if we've had any, we do our own backyard testing, we converse together to learn from other's experiences and overall knowledge, all while at the same time trying to sift through the BS (opinions, lies, misconception...) that automatically comes with it here and there.

You know where that leaves us? It leaves us with a handful of schools of thought. It leaves us with loose ends that may or may not ever be answered. It also leaves us with questions. And somehow, one way or another, each of us as individuals have to decide for ourselves (though not everyone is even capable of this), which of those handful of school of thoughts makes the most sense in all we've been able to gather. In the end it doesn't mean we can't agree to disagree either.

On top of all that, just here on GT, not to mention elsewhere, we have people at different levels of surety or lack thereof, either decided on what they believe, or unsure of what they believe, along those like you who are leaning one way but still aren't sure, to the extent they're fighting some of their own demons, just trying to tie loose ends up.

Me, I'm decided. You aren't going to change my belief which I base on a combination of: FACT, personal observation, personal experience, and other's imput. Some here agree with me fully, while others, partially. Some don't agree with me at all, and some outright hate me. If you or anyone else doesn't like what I have to say, fine, big whooooooooopy.

Therefore, don't question me knowing full well you're not going to like what I have to say. And if you decide to question me anyway, don't act like it was a surprise that I didn't agree with you still, let alone choose to argue, and/or tell me I'm now on the defensive, making you feel mildly insulted.

I don't care what you decide, unless I see misguidance or misinterpetation or misunderstanding. If you decide 9mm 147gr HST is as good or so close to as good as anything else a service caliber has to offer, and that's what makes you happy, and you've decided for yourself for sure, at this point in time, then be happy.

What does this mean; "I am just beginning to learn the full spectrum of the difference between 147's and 124/115's." Does it mean you're still undecided, or does it mean you are decided, but just want to know something else just because?

With a clear slate I would ask; What SPECIFICALLY do you want to know from any of us on GT who may want to reply, whether you end up liking or not, what is posted in reply?


http://www.chaobell.net/newgallery/d/455-3/daffy-screwball.gif




My, my, my, Craig...it would appear that you are impressing even more members in much the same manner that you've impressed me and so many others here in the CC. :whistling:

It would appear that your "credentials" of "convalescent home appointment driver" don't carry the gravitas that you'd assumed, huh? :shame:

That's too bad...:shakehead:

481
05-30-2011, 13:21
Dude, this collection of data is amazing. I learned new and helpful terminology from your testing. One could argue against your opinions (although I agree with them) but it is refreshing to see factual data listed clearly so that one can see not only what you are saying, buy EXACTLY WHY you are saying it. Thanks you very much.

E-

Have a look at his "Furniture Bullet Penetration" thread further down the forum list. Bob has been doing lots of testing (over a year for that thread alone) and the results are interpreted using the MacPherson WTI Model developed by Duncan MacPherson, an MIT educated rocket scientist who wrote re-entry programs for the Mercury and Gemini space programs, and generated his own empirical data (he shot well over a ton of calibrated ordnance gelatin) and then derived from it the equations used in his model to analyse terminal ballistic data.

His book, "Bullet Penetration" contains them all and a description of the process through which he went to produce the model and many insights into terminal ballistics that may prove of benefit to you.

esminbritt
05-30-2011, 14:02
E-

Have a look at his "Furniture Bullet Penetration" thread further down the forum list. Bob has been doing lots of testing (over a year for that thread alone) and the results are interpreted using the MacPherson WTI Model developed by Duncan MacPherson, an MIT educated rocket scientist who wrote re-entry programs for the Mercury and Gemini space programs, and generated his own empirical data (he shot well over a ton of calibrated ordnance gelatin) and then derived from it the equations used in his model to analyse terminal ballistic data.

His book, "Bullet Penetration" contains them all and a description of the process through which he went to produce the model and many insights into terminal ballistics that may prove of benefit to you.

I will check it out, thanks. It's always nice to find someone who can think about and go about things in a manner that I can barely conceive of at first. When I find people like that, I know I can learn something. The day I can't admit that there is more to learn, is the day I will become antiquated.

I am classically trained Chef. Aced culinary art school, worked in restaurants for 28 years, blah, blah. I know my way around a kitchen. I work my steel very well. I can shave with my chefs knife. Only point being, in the overall body of culinary knowledge, there is far more that I don't know than there is that I do. There is MUCH to learn. I remain a beast in the kitchen, not because I know so much (and I am good), but because I am constantly adding new ideas, techniques, theories, etc. to my cooking arsenal.

481
05-30-2011, 14:23
I will check it out, thanks. It's always nice to find someone who can think about and go about things in a manner that I can barely conceive of at first. When I find people like that, I know I can learn something. The day I can't admit that there is more to learn, is the day I will become antiquated.

I am a classically trained Chef. Aced culinary art school, worked in restaurants for 28 years, blah, blah. I know my way around a kitchen. I work my steel very well. I can shave with my chefs knife. Only point being, in the overall body of culinary knowledge, there is far more that I don't know than there is that I do. There is MUCH to learn. I remain a beast in the kitchen, not because I know so much (and I am good), but because I am constantly adding new ideas, techniques, theories, etc. to my cooking arsenal.

Now, there's a admirable profession. Man, I'd happily trade some of my technical knowledge just to be able to produce excellent cuisine. Bit of a goof around the kitchen, my best dish is fried eggs "over medium" that is, when I don't break the yolks.:rofl:

Bob's thread is a lot of fun and we make it clear throughout that it is meant strictly for fun. No one there takes themselves too seriously and it is always nice to have folks read what Bob is doin' over there. Hope you like it...

WiskyT
05-30-2011, 14:34
I will check it out, thanks. It's always nice to find someone who can think about and go about things in a manner that I can barely conceive of at first. When I find people like that, I know I can learn something. The day I can't admit that there is more to learn, is the day I will become antiquated.

I am classically trained Chef. Aced culinary art school, worked in restaurants for 28 years, blah, blah. I know my way around a kitchen. I work my steel very well. I can shave with my chefs knife. Only point being, in the overall body of culinary knowledge, there is far more that I don't know than there is that I do. There is MUCH to learn. I remain a beast in the kitchen, not because I know so much (and I am good), but because I am constantly adding new ideas, techniques, theories, etc. to my cooking arsenal.

MMMMMM FOOOD...

http://i1228.photobucket.com/albums/ee460/Wiskyt/Food/100_4656.jpg

esminbritt
05-30-2011, 17:39
Now, there's a admirable profession. Man, I'd happily trade some of my technical knowledge just to be able to produce excellent cuisine. Bit of a goof around the kitchen, my best dish is fried eggs "over medium" that is, when I don't break the yolks.:rofl:

Bob's thread is a lot of fun and we make it clear throughout that it is meant strictly for fun. No one there takes themselves too seriously and it is always nice to have folks read what Bob is doin' over there. Hope you like it...

Can't beat over medium eggs. And Even I still breaking the damn yolks fairly often. It is nice to know how to cook. But my waistline shows it. The wifey is always like: EVERY meal doesn't need to be like it's from a restaurant. Then i say "but it CAN be". Nothin' a bit of summer exercise wont cure. The gig I got now is WAY COOL in a way that most of you will appreciate; I am the Head Chef at a sorority house in Ann Arbor for girls who go to the U of M. I cook for 80 girls twice a day, pretty much solo. Not braggin' just thought you might get a kick out of that.

esminbritt
05-30-2011, 17:40
MMMMMM FOOOD...

http://i1228.photobucket.com/albums/ee460/Wiskyt/Food/100_4656.jpg

Demz look like good eats right there.

WiskyT
05-30-2011, 17:52
Demz look like good eats right there.

My cooking is like card tricks. To the uninformed, it looks like magic. But really it's pretty simple. Chicken Marsala is almost as easy as opening a can. You probably learned it on your first day of chef school. Stuff that is actually hard to do, I can't swing it. But there is so much that is easy to do, you can eat pretty well. Here in Charlotte, we hardley even go out anymore. We can do better at home.

The only thing I miss about NJ is the food.

The near dish is mine, grilled sardines
http://i1228.photobucket.com/albums/ee460/Wiskyt/Food/100_0029.jpg

Then there is some paella
http://i1228.photobucket.com/albums/ee460/Wiskyt/Food/100_0012.jpg

And pork with clams
http://i1228.photobucket.com/albums/ee460/Wiskyt/Food/100_0010.jpg

pisc1024
05-31-2011, 03:45
You guys are killin me with all this talk about food!

esminbritt
05-31-2011, 08:29
My cooking is like card tricks. To the uninformed, it looks like magic. But really it's pretty simple. Chicken Marsala is almost as easy as opening a can. You probably learned it on your first day of chef school. Stuff that is actually hard to do, I can't swing it. But there is so much that is easy to do, you can eat pretty well. Here in Charlotte, we hardley even go out anymore. We can do better at home.

The only thing I miss about NJ is the food.

The near dish is mine, grilled sardines
http://i1228.photobucket.com/albums/ee460/Wiskyt/Food/100_0029.jpg

Then there is some paella
http://i1228.photobucket.com/albums/ee460/Wiskyt/Food/100_0012.jpg

And pork with clams
http://i1228.photobucket.com/albums/ee460/Wiskyt/Food/100_0010.jpg

You got it. the trick is keeping it simple. I can do elaborate platings, etc, but I like my girls...they keep me honest. They dont want exotic stuff. they just want whatever I make to taste REALLY good. And I deliver that about 99.7 amount of the time. There were a coupl dinner last years where I just knew...damn...oops. Bt it's all good. Mainly, they all get spoiled by me and they know it. They also know that the other sorority chefs are doing a lot of heat and serve, whereas I always go from scratch. They really the difference and they genuinely appreciate it. That is nice. Plus, I'm not that much older than them so I know what they like.

esminbritt
05-31-2011, 08:32
In efforts to keep this thread on track, i just got a request for experiment dat/photos of the Fed HST 147 +P. I looked, but I couldnt find them. Anyone remember where those photos are...or am I losing my marbles again. (i am down to my emergency marbles)

gatorboy
05-31-2011, 10:32
The heavyweights rule in HST. One of three loads I'd use in 9mm if I lived somewhere I had to use 9mm.

esminbritt
05-31-2011, 13:33
The heavyweights rule in HST. One of three loads I'd use in 9mm if I lived somewhere I had to use 9mm.

what are the other two?

Glolt20-91
05-31-2011, 16:45
http://www.chaobell.net/newgallery/d/455-3/daffy-screwball.gif

:rofl::rofl:

Point the screw - up

Bob :cowboy:

Glolt20-91
05-31-2011, 16:58
In efforts to keep this thread on track, i just got a request for experiment dat/photos of the Fed HST 147 +P. I looked, but I couldnt find them. Anyone remember where those photos are...or am I losing my marbles again. (i am down to my emergency marbles)

I was wondering where those marbles on the kitchen counter came from? :dunno:

Bob :supergrin: