9BPLE vs. Ranger 115 +p+ [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : 9BPLE vs. Ranger 115 +p+


PghJim
05-12-2011, 16:34
For the first time I was able to purchase a few boxes of 9mm 9BPLE from ATG. I have been using Ranger 115 +p+. Does anyone have an opinion as to which may be more effective. I know that 9BPLE has gotten more press.

Deputydave
05-12-2011, 16:58
From what I understand, the Ranger has very good expansion and penetration qualities. I do not know specifically about the 9BPLE. That would be a major consideration for me, particularly the penetration aspect of the round.

Other major considerations would be which functions better in your firearm? Which can you control better/more accurate with?

If all those considerations are about equal, which is less expensive so that you can practice more with it?

Merkavaboy
05-12-2011, 22:44
Both loads were developed for the ISP and they had great success with both loads as a issued duty round.

My understanding is that both loads penetrate ballistic gel to approx 10". That's why they fail the FBI's ballistic protocols, and yet both loads wreck havoc on BGs.

PghJim
05-12-2011, 22:56
From my limited water jug - 4 layers of denim testing this evening, they perform almost identical. They pentrate two jugs into the third causing a dimple on the far side and expand around 0.63. I did have one instance where the Ranger clogged with cloth and did not expand. However, this was very limited testing.

Glolt20-91
05-13-2011, 15:35
This 115gr Ranger (RA9115HP+) came apart during a 4 layer denim water bag test and was good for about calculated soft tissue ~8.7" of penetration;

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/9mm115PWinRangerRA9115HP1349fps4denim005.jpg

Contrast that with the 115gr +P+ Gold Dot;

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/9mm115PGD1300fps4denim005.jpg

Surprising 0.580" expansion (1.73x caliber) that was good for ~12.3" of penetration, not much difference than the 124gr GD +P tested, 0.587" exp ~12.4" penetration.

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/9mm124grPSpeerGoldDot1220fps4layerdenim004.jpg

Bob :cowboy:

Buffering
05-13-2011, 16:11
From my reading and studying of this issue I have taken from it the thought that the 9BPLE, as a non-bonded bullet, suffers in barrier penetration and will shed the copper jacket. Bonded bullets in general don't have that concern or at least not to the same degree so through windows and such you have some better options. Not perfect but better.

At the end of the mythical day, I wouldn't hesitate to carry the 9BPLE as it receives praise for its track record and I especially would carry it for person to person situations where as if I thought I'd be shooting at someone through a car window or door I'd carry a bonded bullet from a reputable manufacturer. I have both Gold Dots and the 9BPLE so I'm not predisposed to one bullet type or the other.

PghJim
05-13-2011, 17:37
Hey Bob - What was the diameter on that Ranger 115 +p+?

glock20c10mm
05-13-2011, 18:54
For the first time I was able to purchase a few boxes of 9mm 9BPLE from ATG. I have been using Ranger 115 +p+. Does anyone have an opinion as to which may be more effective. I know that 9BPLE has gotten more press.
I see them both as pretty much dead equal. They both travel at very high velocity, though I'ld be real curious to see some privately done chrono results, and both seem to penetrate 10" - 10.5" in clothed gel. Plus they both seem to expand fairly reliably. Matter of fact, in data I've seen, the Cobon version seems to be on an equal level also in all the same respects.

On a side note, in data I've come across (FBI test results IIRC), the Remington version supposedly penetrates 11", and the Speer GD version supposedly penetrates 12" (which Bob's (Glolt20-91) data backs up).

As for expansion numbers, I don't recall for any of them.

PghJim
05-13-2011, 19:32
My wife carries a G19 and we have been looking to change her carry round. Currently she carries Ranger T 127gr +p+, but I have been a little dissapointed in the T series expansion. Particularly with ammo we purchased last year. The 9BPLE and Ranger 115 +p+ seem to have a good reputation, which is why I started there. I am not that knowledgable in the best 9mm carry rounds and would welcome suggestions. I practice with the 9mm, but do not carry it.

Craig - which GD round are you refering to? 115 +p+ or 124 +p?

Jeff82
05-13-2011, 20:31
I'ld be real curious to see some privately done chrono results

I've clocked 9BPLE at 1381 through my G17. (avg. 10 rounds, high 1409, low 1368. On a very cool day.)

PghJim
05-13-2011, 21:14
I've clocked 9BPLE at 1381 through my G17. (avg. 10 rounds, high 1409, low 1368. On a very cool day.)

Jeff, I would think she should still get above 1,300fps in the G19. I shot some last evening through denim and water jugs and actually was a bit impressed. The 9BPLE expanded every time and almost made it out of the third jug. That is the same penatration I get with HST 124gr +p.

Jeff82
05-13-2011, 21:17
Jeff, I would think she should still get above 1,300fps in the G19.

My G19 typically gets about 30-35 fps less than my 17. So I'd expect about 1345-1350 in a 19. Glad to hear about the penetration.

glock20c10mm
05-14-2011, 21:42
My wife carries a G19 and we have been looking to change her carry round. Currently she carries Ranger T 127gr +p+, but I have been a little dissapointed in the T series expansion. Particularly with ammo we purchased last year. The 9BPLE and Ranger 115 +p+ seem to have a good reputation, which is why I started there. I am not that knowledgable in the best 9mm carry rounds and would welcome suggestions. I practice with the 9mm, but do not carry it.

Craig - which GD round are you refering to? 115 +p+ or 124 +p?
115, but I don't recall if it was labeled as simply +P, or +P+. It was actually chronoed at 1259 fps, don't know from what platform though.

glock20c10mm
05-14-2011, 21:44
Jeff, I would think she should still get above 1,300fps in the G19. I shot some last evening through denim and water jugs and actually was a bit impressed. The 9BPLE expanded every time and almost made it out of the third jug. That is the same penatration I get with HST 124gr +p.
Like Jeff82 said, that's nothing to sneeze at! To tell you the truth, I'm surprised it went clear through the 3rd jug. Not that I knew one way or the other, just "surprised" is all.

cowboy1964
05-15-2011, 00:16
Judging penetration with gallon water jugs is just wild ***** guestimation.

unit1069
05-15-2011, 07:14
Judging penetration with gallon water jugs is just wild ***** guestimation.

Backyard tests may not be directly comparable to carefully controlled lab tests but they do yield valuable information that may or may not confirm the lab results.

For example, every backyard test of Federal HST I've seen shows uniformly consistent expansion of that round, whatever the test medium used. Wouldn't that tend to confirm ATK's and other lab tests?

I don't rely on informal backyard tests when it comes to ammo selection, but I do think it's useful and interesting.

PghJim
05-15-2011, 11:35
Judging penetration with gallon water jugs is just wild ***** guestimation.

What do you think they used before ballistic gel? With in its limitation it tells me some information considering every round is tested exactly the same. I cannot judge actual flesh peneration, but if a round fails to open in a water test it probably will not open in a gellatin test either. Everything I have seen in my testing as far a Winchester T-Series failures have been seen in gellatin tests. Rounds known for good penetration, will in my testing make it through the third jug. That is why I was surprised the 9PBLE almost made it out of the third jug.

It gives me something to do. The most interesting testing was the 357 magnum 125gr SJHP Remington round next to Seirra's 125gr DT 357sig round.

My wife and I are trying to pick a carry round for her. It is just another piece of information to use. Right now everything is pointing toward the 9PBLE and I have just ordered 6 boxes from ATG. However, she does not think the round is as cute as the T-series 127 +p+. I am trying to convince her that cuteness is not part of the selection process.

DocKWL
05-15-2011, 19:52
What do you think they used before ballistic gel? With in its limitation it tells me some information considering every round is tested exactly the same. I cannot judge actual flesh peneration, but if a round fails to open in a water test it probably will not open in a gellatin test either. Everything I have seen in my testing as far a Winchester T-Series failures have been seen in gellatin tests. Rounds known for good penetration, will in my testing make it through the third jug. That is why I was surprised the 9PBLE almost made it out of the third jug.

It gives me something to do. The most interesting testing was the 357 magnum 125gr SJHP Remington round next to Seirra's 125gr DT 357sig round.

My wife and I are trying to pick a carry round for her. It is just another piece of information to use. Right now everything is pointing toward the 9PBLE and I have just ordered 6 boxes from ATG. However, she does not think the round is as cute as the T-series 127 +p+. I am trying to convince her that cuteness is not part of the selection process.

What do you think they used before ballistic gel? With in its limitation it tells me some information considering every round is tested exactly the same. I cannot judge actual flesh peneration, but if a round fails to open in a water test it probably will not open in a gellatin test either.

Water-filled 55 gallon drums or purpose built tanks, not plastic gallon jugs. There is something called a Fackler box and when used properly, there is a mathematic formula which allows conversion. The information you need can be found at FirearmsTactical, but I know you disapprove of that site.

It is good to see you performing your own tests and formulating your own opinions based on results instead of Internet garbage.

PghJim
05-15-2011, 20:42
Water-filled 55 gallon drums or purpose built tanks, not plastic gallon jugs. There is something called a Fackler box and when used properly, there is a mathematic formula which allows conversion. The information you need can be found at FirearmsTactical, but I know you disapprove of that site.

It is good to see you performing your own tests and formulating your own opinions based on results instead of Internet garbage.

Thanks, there are some things I disagree with on the site, but I will always look for ways of learning new information. If it is easier than carrying around 24 jugs filled with water, it is worth a look.

Glolt20-91
05-16-2011, 14:20
Hey Bob - What was the diameter on that Ranger 115 +p+?

Recovered lead core averaged 0.657" diameter, 93.2 grains.

Bob :cowboy:

Glolt20-91
05-16-2011, 14:30
Water-filled 55 gallon drums or purpose built tanks, not plastic gallon jugs. There is something called a Fackler box and when used properly, there is a mathematic formula which allows conversion. The information you need can be found at FirearmsTactical, but I know you disapprove of that site.

It is good to see you performing your own tests and formulating your own opinions based on results instead of Internet garbage.

Good points.

Duncan MacPherson writes about shooting 10 rounds into a 55 gallon drum filled with water, average those 10 recovered bullet diameters and weights; then by using velocity, diameter and weight data . . . plug those numbers into his published graph to determine soft tissue penetration.



Bob :cowboy:

481
05-16-2011, 15:46
Duncan MacPherson writes about shooting 10 rounds into a 55 gallon drum filled with water, average those 10 recovered bullet diameters and weights; then by using velocity, diameter and weight data . . . plug those numbers into his published graph to determine soft tissue penetration....


...which means that we need to shoot each of all of your prior tests nine more times and then run the numbers again. :animlol:

Lemme know when you are done, OK? :supergrin:

Glolt20-91
05-16-2011, 19:22
...which means that we need to shoot each of all of your prior tests nine more times and then run the numbers again. :animlol:

Lemme know when you are done, OK? :supergrin:

Yeah, when those 55 gallon drums freeze over. :tongueout:
Bob :cowboy:

PghJim
05-16-2011, 20:17
Good points.

Duncan MacPherson writes about shooting 10 rounds into a 55 gallon drum filled with water, average those 10 recovered bullet diameters and weights; then by using velocity, diameter and weight data . . . plug those numbers into his published graph to determine soft tissue penetration.



Bob :cowboy:


But how do you factor in a clothing barrier?

Generally for me, if a bullet expands but does not make it past the 2nd jug, then the pentration will not be enough with that round. I calculated that by looking at published penetration depths of rounds through gel, then fired the same round through the jugs. In my test, I would not consider a round unless it at least dimples the far side of the third jug. Not very scientific.

As far as Duncan's method, I will try it with three rounds. The confidence level will not be high, but good enough for my purposes. I will still use my test to see the effects of clothing.

Glolt20-91
05-17-2011, 01:51
But how do you factor in a clothing barrier?

Generally for me, if a bullet expands but does not make it past the 2nd jug, then the pentration will not be enough with that round. I calculated that by looking at published penetration depths of rounds through gel, then fired the same round through the jugs. In my test, I would not consider a round unless it at least dimples the far side of the third jug. Not very scientific.

As far as Duncan's method, I will try it with three rounds. The confidence level will not be high, but good enough for my purposes. I will still use my test to see the effects of clothing.

Most of my MacPherson testing is done with one gallon, double zip, water bags set in a 'Fackler' trough; that's as close to a 55 gallon drum as I can get. I then give the velocity, recovered weight/diameter to 481 and he runs the complex math to ballpark gel penetration. 4 layers of denim are used to test cavity clogging, that results in a non-expanded JHP bullet. Ballistic gel is only used as a measure to ballpark soft tissue penetration.

I just happen to have this data handy, M686/180gr Nosler Partition/1292fps with a rather remarkable 0.637" expansion;

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

This bullet penetrated 31" of water, significant given its 1.78x cal expansion; ~15.4" gel penetration.

A thought about bullet velocity and penetration;

Handloaded 9mm 124gr XTP;

Hornady 9mm 124 gr. XTP JHP @ 1276 fps v. four layers of denim
Dr = 0.622 inch
Xcm = 29.507 centimeters (11.617 inches)

Notice what happens when the same bullet is slowed down to ~1150fps . . . less expansion and deeper penetration;

Hornady 9mm 124 gr. XTP "TAP-CQ" JHP (90245) v. four layers of denim
Dr = 0.516 inch
Xcm = 37.791 centimeters (14.878 inches)

This new design Win bonded .40/180gr PDX clogged while penetrating a wood barrier; but doesn't mean it would clog every time;

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/40SW180PDX008.jpg

Not picking on Winchester, but this .40/180gr PDX failed a cow bone test;

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/40180PDXcowbonefailure006.jpg

This .357mag/140gr XTP expanded w/i a redwood 4x4 and blew out this hole in a cow rib bone;

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/Furniture140XTP-147GD4X4-rib011.jpg

You may want to test bullets with a barrier in front of water bags/bottles; you learn a lot about bullet construction when fired out of your personal weapon. If you want to guage how fast a bullet opens up, place a 12oz-20oz bottle in front of you bullet recovery bottles.

I'll test both the Win and Speer 115gr +P+ against bone and see how the light and fast match up against 147gr weights.

Bob :cowboy: