Back yard test 9mm, .38 Spl., .380 [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Back yard test 9mm, .38 Spl., .380


4 glocks
05-01-2012, 14:12
Ok I tested my carry ammo just to see how it would do.

I shot 9 mm Speer GD 124+p SB, .38 Spl. Speer GD 135g +p, and .380 Hornady 90g. Critical Defense. These are my carry loads. All three shot in 3, one gallon milk jug. Each jug is 6 inches so three jugs would be 18 inches. The 9 mm and .38 exit the 3 rd jug the .380 hit the back of the 3rd jug but did not exit. See the results below.


http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/8849/1001485gd.jpg (http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/8849/1001485gd.jpg)

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/2806/1001484o.jpg (http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/2806/1001484o.jpg)

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/7421/1001483w.jpg (http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/7421/1001483w.jpg)


FYI .380 1st, 2nd 9mm, 3rd .38

4 glocks
05-01-2012, 14:17
Test guns were 9mm Glock 26, .38 Ruger Six 2.75 inch, .380 Ruger LCP.

mj9mm
05-01-2012, 14:38
i have no fear of water jugs when i carry my 45:whistling:

4 glocks
05-01-2012, 16:15
i have no fear of water jugs when i carry my 45:whistling:

It did not take long for the 45 guys to show up. All 3 cal. were 1 shot stops.

Dexters
05-01-2012, 17:54
Ok I tested my carry ammo just to see how it would do.

FYI .380 1st, 2nd 9mm, 3rd .38

OK, I'll ask.

Now that you did it: What did you learn?

Merkavaboy
05-01-2012, 18:16
OK, I'll ask.

Now that you did it: What did you learn?

That water jugs aren't humans and that humans aren't made up of water jugs?

Or maybe that if/when confronted by water jugs, wait until they attack in a single file line and you can take out up to 3 water jug attacker with one shot?

4 glocks
05-01-2012, 18:25
OK, I'll ask.

Now that you did it: What did you learn?


See pic, it is what it is.

4 glocks
05-01-2012, 18:27
That water jugs aren't humans and that humans aren't made up of water jugs?

Or maybe that if/when confronted by water jugs, wait until they attack in a single file line and you can take out up to 3 water jug attacker with one shot?

That's how it went down.

Dexters
05-01-2012, 18:31
That water jugs aren't humans and that humans aren't made up of water jugs?

Or maybe that if/when confronted by water jugs, wait until they attack in a single file line and you can take out up to 3 water jug attacker with one shot?

Jugs ... mmmmmmmm:supergrin:

Dexters
05-01-2012, 18:33
See pic, it is what it is.

OK, I guess I'll start to worry when 'isn't is what it is'

Jeff82
05-01-2012, 18:48
What it means is that water used to be very harsh on bullets causing them to fragment. Now a'days the rounds are tougher and stay together.

Dexters
05-01-2012, 18:51
What it means is that water used to be very harsh on bullets causing them to fragment. Now a'days the rounds are tougher and stay together.

Are the round tougher or the water softer?

2740dmx
05-01-2012, 18:56
Thanks for taking the time to post the pics!

I use the Speer Gold Dot in both 9mm and .38+P (also .357 magnum), and appreciate seeing how evenly they expanded and held together.

4 glocks
05-01-2012, 19:06
Thanks for taking the time to post the pics!

I use the Speer Gold Dot in both 9mm and .38+P (also .357 magnum), and appreciate seeing how evenly they expanded and held together.


Thanks man

glock2740
05-01-2012, 19:11
I carry .380 and 9mm sometimes too. 90gr Gold Dots in my .380 (LCP) and 124+P Gold Dots in whichever 9mm I'm CC'ing. I also CC .40S&W, .45ACP, 10mm and .357 Mag too. I have toted .38Spl+P loads from time to time as well. I feel just fine with any of them. Nice test OP. :thumbsup:

ithaca_deerslayer
05-01-2012, 19:53
Thanks for taking the time to post the pics!

I use the Speer Gold Dot in both 9mm and .38+P (also .357 magnum), and appreciate seeing how evenly they expanded and held together.

I agree. Thanks for the effort.

Worth noting is the 380 didn't penetrate. I think you could do many backyard tests and keep finding that :)

VinnieD
05-01-2012, 20:34
Water is a pretty decent measure of penetration if you can't get ballistics gel. That said 3 jugs isn't enough. Most people who test on water use 5 or more.

Of course no consistent medium is going to give you real data on the more irregular human body and what a bullet goes through hitting clothing, skin, fat, muscle, bone, and of course vital organs. But ballistics gel or water remain decent measurements of how one bullet penetrates versus another, how far it can maintain its inertia against resistance, and how it expands in soft tissue.

Good to see expansion is uniform, but that pretty well confirms the weakness of .380 What do you expect from the speed of a .38 with the weight of a 9mm?

I wouldn't mind seeing how an even heavier round like the .45 would perform though. Heavy bullets carry a lot of inertia with them even if you can't get them going fast enough.

Insert my basic rant on how magnums beat them all here.

bac1023
05-01-2012, 20:37
Thanks for the report.

Metal Angel
05-01-2012, 20:42
Also worth noting is how efficiently 9mm works. It's the only one of the three that expanded to its maximum potential, and it still penetrated substantially. I'm not saying 9mm is the most powerful round, I'm just saying it is perfect for what it is.

Glock40man
05-01-2012, 20:45
[/B]

That's how it went down.

:rofl: Thanks for the report 4 glocks.

Beanie-Bean
05-01-2012, 20:47
Excellent post! I carry two of your rounds tested (9X19, .380) and the .38 I have is loaded w/Speer .38 +P.

The 9X19 was most impressive, although I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of any of those!

billybad34209
05-02-2012, 06:10
Ok I tested my carry ammo just to see how it would do.

I shot 9 mm Speer GD 124+p SB, .38 Spl. Speer GD 135g +p, and .380 Hornady 90g. Critical Defense. These are my carry loads. All three shot in 3, one gallon milk jug. Each jug is 6 inches so three jugs would be 18 inches. The 9 mm and .38 exit the 3 rd jug the .380 hit the back of the 3rd jug but did not exit. See the results below.


http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/8849/1001485gd.jpg (http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/8849/1001485gd.jpg)

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/2806/1001484o.jpg (http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/2806/1001484o.jpg)

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/7421/1001483w.jpg (http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/7421/1001483w.jpg)


FYI .380 1st, 2nd 9mm, 3rd .38
You did a great job. Thank-you for taking the time to do a test like this. I carry all of the above rounds from time to time. All three show great expansion, and they stayed together, just like they should.

Dexters
05-02-2012, 08:29
I don't see any value in the 'test'.

First, we don't know what the the OP trying to discover.

So, the OP left it to us to guess and assume. He is testing defensive ammo. So, I'm guessing he is trying to find out if his carry ammo is adequate against a human attacker.

Again, let's assume that water jugs can somehow relate to the human body (clothed or not we don't know).

He didn't establish or doesn't know the threshold or minimum penetration for effective ammo for self defense. It could be penetrating 1 jug, 3 or 8.

I would encourage the OP to learn more about how to test hypothesis and ammo effectiveness characteristics.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_scientists_test_a_hypothesis

http://go.hrw.com/resources/go_sc/ssp/HK1BSW11.PDF

FireForged
05-02-2012, 08:49
It did not take long for the 45 guys to show up. All 3 cal. were 1 shot stops.

:dunno:

I am confused as to what you were trying to determine and what you actually determined other than a bullet will go through a few jugs of water.

4 glocks
05-02-2012, 12:01
I don't see any value in the 'test'.

First, we don't know what the the OP trying to discover.

So, the OP left it to us to guess and assume. He is testing defensive ammo. So, I'm guessing he is trying to find out if his carry ammo is adequate against a human attacker.

Again, let's assume that water jugs can somehow relate to the human body (clothed or not we don't know).

He didn't establish or doesn't know the threshold or minimum penetration for effective ammo for self defense. It could be penetrating 1 jug, 3 or 8.

I would encourage the OP to learn more about how to test hypothesis and ammo effectiveness characteristics.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_scientists_test_a_hypothesis

http://go.hrw.com/resources/go_sc/ssp/HK1BSW11.PDF

This test was not scientific by any means nor was it intended to be. The term test was maybe not the best term to use.
I was not trying to prove or determine anything specific. That's why I left it up to each person to conclude what they wanted to because it was not scientific. I shot the Speer Gold Dot 9mm just to see how it would expand, then decided to try my other carry ammo. Water was used because it was free and would be consistent to measure. Guns used were my carry guns.

What did it prove? Not sure, maybe nothing. It did show how these rounds expanded and how deep they penetrated in water.

Based on expansion and penetration I would say the 9mm would be the most effective of the three. With the 9mm the water jug exploded more violently than the .38 or .380 but that's just my observation and can not be measured effectively. I was surprised that the .380 made it to the back of the 3 rd water jug.

I decided to post these pic so people could see how they expanded in water and let everyone make there own conclusions.

Dexters
05-02-2012, 12:11
Based on expansion and penetration I would say the 9mm would be the most effective of the three.


Effective at what?

4 glocks
05-02-2012, 12:35
Effective at what?

.
Killing ninja water jug.

Dexters
05-02-2012, 12:50
.
Killing ninja water jug.

The 380 went to the back of the 3rd water jug - I'd say it was killed also unless you missed its vitals.

Read the FBI reports and you'll understand why.

ithaca_deerslayer
05-02-2012, 12:53
.
Killing ninja water jug.

I think all your data is there.

You've got water, basically a universal. A measurement of water in a standard milk jug. And then you've got the shown results (good pictures by the way).

Do you have to spell the math out for everyone? I don't think so. It is elementary to create the hydraulic constant multiplied by the root of the velocity factor and averaged against a known target density of water based carbon life form, divided by mass, using the typical hedge factor, and extrapolate the blown to bits theorem.

:)

GlockFish
05-02-2012, 14:10
I am pleased with all three of those rounds expansion.

Good tests.

Berto
05-02-2012, 14:18
Thanks for doing that. It may not be all inclusive absolute scientific gamechanger data, but it's interesting and has pics instead of some pseudo scientific yarn trying to legitimize a theory based on vascular pressure to the noodle or water canals on Mars.

PaulMason
05-02-2012, 16:32
Thanks for doing all that. I've done something similar before. I wanted to shoot stuff so I got a bunch of things and shot them up. I then dug out the slugs to see what they looked like. It was fun and all safety rules were followed and no alcohol was involved. And if anyone asked what I was doing I could say I was testing out some ammo. Let's not take all this stuff so seriously. The surprising thing would have been if that ammo didn't expand. Next time try some melons. I'm sure we'll get some yahoo telling you about all the starving children in the world after that.:faint:

Metal Angel
05-02-2012, 17:26
My dad, brother in law and I did this with 1 quart jugs. Rolled tight magazines soaked with water inside the jug. My dad hit the first with a hand loaded hornady xtp .40s&w 165?gr out of his 27. It made a .40 cal hole in the front and a gaping irregular hole in the back... Channel was somewhere south of an inch. My 9mm 124+p pdx1 out of my 19 produced the same results, albeit a 9mm hole in front. My brother in law's gold dot 90gr .380 out of his P380 got stuck in the middle of the jug. Not sure it showed anything scientific, but it gave me no confidence in .380.

Dexters
05-02-2012, 18:37
Rolled tight magazines soaked with water inside the jug.

Which magazines?

Berto
05-02-2012, 19:26
Which magazines?

Porn has more flesh like substances.

ithaca_deerslayer
05-02-2012, 19:48
Porn has more flesh like substances.

Yes but it would have to be sandwiched between clothing magazines.

Berto
05-02-2012, 19:55
Yes but it would have to be sandwiched between clothing magazines.

Probably have the gel aspect covered too.:supergrin:

4 glocks
05-02-2012, 20:48
Which magazines?


Guns & Ammo would make it more scientific.

Dexters
05-03-2012, 05:55
Porn has more flesh like substances.

That's kinda what I was thinking.

If the 380 was shot through 'The Economist' magazine and the 9mm 'People' magazine - it isn't a fair test.

'The Economist' has dense articles, 'People' has puff articles.

FireForged
05-03-2012, 08:37
a grown man will flee a irate bumble bee but the internet claims that a 380 round is somehow illadvised as a defensive tool. I dont currently carry a 380 but would not feel underpowered if I did.

I offer this to add to the debate as sometimes a SD event can be survived by changing the channel of the attacker. I dont mind if a attacker happens to survive my defensive actions, I just want them to stop attacking.

VinnieD
05-03-2012, 09:52
a grown man will flee a irate bumble bee but the internet claims that a 380 round is somehow illadvised as a defensive tool. I dont currently carry a 380 but would not feel underpowered if I did.

I offer this to add to the debate as sometimes a SD event can be survived by changing the channel of the attacker. I dont mind if a attacker happens to survive my defensive actions, I just want them to stop attacking.

In most cases you'd be right, but then again I've also known people who approach a hornet's nest with a bat. Can't always assume your attacker has a sense of self preservation. Then again if you can't carry anything bigger, some gun is always better than no gun.

Still it's fun to shoot stuff. I myself prefer wet phone books. I mean that's why they send them to my house right? I can't imagine them having any other use.

Jeff82
05-03-2012, 11:48
My brother in law's gold dot 90gr .380 out of his P380 got stuck in the middle of the jug. Not sure it showed anything scientific, but it gave me no confidence in .380.

Minimum required penetration (15" is standard in ballistic gel) beats expansion every time, which is why the minor cartridges like .32, .380 etc. should be a non-expanding round. An expanded bullet not quite deep enough does nothing to help your odds of surviving.

Dexters
05-03-2012, 13:23
Minimum required penetration (15" is standard in ballistic gel) beats expansion every time, which is why the minor cartridges like .32, .380 etc. should be a non-expanding round. An expanded bullet not quite deep enough does nothing to help your odds of surviving.

True

The FBI report says min. 12" of soft body tissue - page 11 last paragraph.

Ballistic gel = body tissue?

WarEagle32
05-03-2012, 18:51
Try the same test with a full size 1911 45, shooting Corbon 185 gr DPX's. It embarrases anything else I've tried!

FFR Spyder GT
05-05-2012, 10:15
Thanks for the test!

I've done the same type test in the past and I fill my jugs with shredded newspaper and water. I usually let then sit for a few days before I shoot them.

You can also cover the first jug with a t-shirt, sweat shirt, old blue jeans or whatever you have handy at the time.

In your standard CCW handgun nothing beats the 10mm.

A .45Super will give the 10mm a run for its money in penetration and expansion.

Usually stuff that has good expansion doesn't have the best penetration especially in lower power loads like .380, 9mm, .38 Special, etc. and that were the 10mm is King!

Spyder

Dexters
05-05-2012, 10:42
Thanks for the test!

I've done the same type test in the past and I fill my jugs with shredded newspaper and water. I usually let then sit for a few days before I shoot them.

You can also cover the first jug with a t-shirt, sweat shirt, old blue jeans or whatever you have handy at the time.

In your standard CCW handgun nothing beats the 10mm.

A .45Super will give the 10mm a run for its money in penetration and expansion.

Usually stuff that has good expansion doesn't have the best penetration especially in lower power loads like .380, 9mm, .38 Special, etc. and that were the 10mm is King!

Spyder

Beat this and then we can talk.

Smith & Wesson Model 500 .50-Cal. Magnum Is The King Of Handguns
http://www.popularmechanics.com/outdoors/recreation/1277336

After testing the 10mm against the S&W 50 I lost faith in the 10mm.

To test the 50 I used dams with old Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedias behind it. All calibers except the 50 were stopped by the dam - not good enough for self protection in my mind.

Jeff82
05-05-2012, 12:43
Beat this and then we can talk.

Smith & Wesson Model 500 .50-Cal. Magnum Is The King Of Handguns
http://www.popularmechanics.com/outdoors/recreation/1277336

After testing the 10mm against the S&W 50 I lost faith in the 10mm.

To test the 50 I used dams with old Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedias behind it. All calibers except the 50 were stopped by the dam - not good enough for self protection in my mind.

Self protection use? hahaha Being as we can't go around shooting bad guys for testing purposes, take that thing out to an IDPA match and you'll get eaten for lunch.

Merkavaboy
05-05-2012, 22:59
Minimum required penetration (15" is standard in ballistic gel) beats expansion every time, which is why the minor cartridges like .32, .380 etc. should be a non-expanding round. An expanded bullet not quite deep enough does nothing to help your odds of surviving.

Actually, the FBI protocols call for a minimum of 12" penetration in calibrated gel with up to 18" being "not undesirable".

Two street-proven loads, the 9mm 115JHP+P+ and 357Mag 125SJHP both only penetrate gel on average 9"-11". WOW! They both fail the FBI's 12" min. penetration in gel. And in the case of the 9mm 115JHP+P+, it load was given a score of 0 (zero) by the FBI.

If 12"-18" of penetration is so important, why isn't everybody using FMJ/solid bullet loads instead of JHP's? FMJ/solids should guarantee 12"-18" of penetration nearly 100% of the time. Right?

Well, guess what folks, reality doesn't reflect labratory tests and vis versa.

Dexters
05-06-2012, 07:31
Well, guess what folks, reality doesn't reflect labratory tests and vis versa.

Do you have any links to support your info? Or, should we just believe it because we read it on the net?

M&P15T
05-06-2012, 07:49
Actually, the FBI protocols call for a minimum of 12" penetration in calibrated gel with up to 18" being "not undesirable".

Two street-proven loads, the 9mm 115JHP+P+ and 357Mag 125SJHP both only penetrate gel on average 9"-11". WOW! They both fail the FBI's 12" min. penetration in gel. And in the case of the 9mm 115JHP+P+, it load was given a score of 0 (zero) by the FBI.

If 12"-18" of penetration is so important, why isn't everybody using FMJ/solid bullet loads instead of JHP's? FMJ/solids should guarantee 12"-18" of penetration nearly 100% of the time. Right?

Well, guess what folks, reality doesn't reflect labratory tests and vis versa.

Do you have any links to support your info? Or, should we just believe it because we read it on the net?

I'm sure you can google FBI ammo test and read it for yourself. The point is that what ballistic gel tests and recorded street performance are not necessarily in-line with one another.

Also, penetration is not necessarily the most important criteria when judging how well a given cartridge will work.

Dexters
05-06-2012, 08:00
I'm sure you can google FBI ammo test and read it for yourself. The point is that what ballistic gel tests and recorded street performance are not necessarily in-line with one another.

I did. I couldn't find your info.



Also, penetration is not necessarily the most important criteria when judging how well a given cartridge will work.

There are a lot of things that 'is not necessarily the most important' like the color of the bullet or brass or iron case.

Saying what something 'is not' is in vogue for the intellectual wannabe or a person who doesn't know what is or is afraid to say what is important.

M&P15T
05-06-2012, 08:15
I did. I couldn't find your info.

It's not "my" info. It's the FBI's, and I didn't reference it.

There are a lot of things that 'is not necessarily the most important' like the color of the bullet or brass or iron case.

Saying what something 'is not' is in vogue for the intellectual wannabe or a person who doesn't know what is or is afraid to say what is important.

Oh, then please, by all means, share with us what your intellect has determined to be most important. Surely one such as yourself has un-raveled all the mysteries of cartridge/platform ballistics, and can steer everyone in the right direction.

Sweet Jesus you're a negative nelly troll. And that's coming from me, and I'm not exactly know for being nice and sweet.

M&P15T
05-06-2012, 08:26
OK, I'll ask.

Now that you did it: What did you learn?

I don't see any value in the 'test'.

First, we don't know what the the OP trying to discover.

So, the OP left it to us to guess and assume. He is testing defensive ammo. So, I'm guessing he is trying to find out if his carry ammo is adequate against a human attacker.

Again, let's assume that water jugs can somehow relate to the human body (clothed or not we don't know).

He didn't establish or doesn't know the threshold or minimum penetration for effective ammo for self defense. It could be penetrating 1 jug, 3 or 8.

I would encourage the OP to learn more about how to test hypothesis and ammo effectiveness characteristics.

And I would encourage you to either be thankful that the OP took the time and energy to share this with us, or GTFO. It was nothing more than a "back-yard" test for Chrissake. If you need to criticize and judge harshly something so basic, spend some time looking in the mirror. Surely you'll find plenty to be critical about.

Other than that, how about you go hang out at www.noonesrightbutme.com (http://www.noonesrightbutme.com), where you can meet like minded people, and have a lot of fun at parties with yourself.

Nice work OP, thanks for sharing.

Dexters
05-06-2012, 09:04
It's not "my" info. It's the FBI's, and I didn't reference it.



Oh, then please, by all means, share with us what your intellect has determined to be most important. Surely one such as yourself has un-raveled all the mysteries of cartridge/platform ballistics, and can steer everyone in the right direction.

Sweet Jesus you're a negative nelly troll. And that's coming from me, and I'm not exactly know for being nice and sweet.

Right - you got nothing.

M&P15T
05-06-2012, 09:07
Right - you got nothing.

I've got plenty. I just won't share it with an asshat like you. Especially since you've contributed exactly ZERO other than your negativity and condescending criticisms.

Go troll somewhere else little one.

Dexters
05-06-2012, 09:10
And I would encourage you to either be thankful that the OP took the time and energy to share this with us, or GTFO. It was nothing more than a "back-yard" test for Chrissake. If you need to criticize and judge harshly something so basic, spend some time looking in the mirror. Surely you'll find plenty to be critical about.

Other than that, how about you go hang out at www.noonesrightbutme.com (http://www.noonesrightbutme.com), where you can meet like minded people, and have a lot of fun at parties with yourself.

Nice work OP, thanks for sharing.

Go to post #23 where I did encourage the OP and I provided positive feedback.

You on the other hand provide a void.

M&P15T
05-06-2012, 09:17
Go to post #23 where I did encourage the OP and I provided positive feedback.

You on the other hand provide a void.

You freakin' idiot. I quoted your post 23, where you absolutely did not either encourage the OP, or provide positive feedback. You were just being an ass again.

Jesus, I quoted your post 23 to demonstrate how much of an ass you're being, and you think it's a good example of your being encouraging and positive? :rofl::rofl:

What the hell is wrong with you?

Positive feedback; I do not think it means what you think it means...

Jeff82
05-06-2012, 09:26
Actually, the FBI protocols call for a minimum of 12" penetration in calibrated gel with up to 18" being "not undesirable".


So 15" would be about right for an average?


Two street-proven loads, the 9mm 115JHP+P+ and 357Mag 125SJHP both only penetrate gel on average 9"-11". WOW! They both fail the FBI's 12" min. penetration in gel. And in the case of the 9mm 115JHP+P+, it load was given a score of 0 (zero) by the FBI.


9BPLE is a great load inspite of what typically works for other bullets. An anomaly. Others of the same ilk don't work.


If 12"-18" of penetration is so important, why isn't everybody using FMJ/solid bullet loads instead of JHP's? FMJ/solids should guarantee 12"-18" of penetration nearly 100% of the time. Right?


Because the penetrate much too much and can become downrange hazards. Duh.


Well, guess what folks, reality doesn't reflect labratory tests and vis versa.

There is enough info to portray what works the majority of the time. To turn a blind eye to that is to ignore reality. Nothing is 100%.

Without adequate penetration you are simply shooting blanks. Penetration is a must and is the A-number-1 most important characteristic of a defensive cartridge. Without it (adequate penetration) none of the other characteristics even come into play. (Speaking of handgun cartridges.)

Dexters
05-06-2012, 10:14
Positive feedback; I do not think it means what you think it means...

Positive feedback = put OP on right track and don't waste time on shooting water jugs.

M&P15T
05-06-2012, 10:29
Positive feedback = put OP on right track and don't waste time on shooting water jugs.

No, it doesn't.

Try google.

Educate yourself.

The sad part is you probably cannot even comprehend how condescending you are, when you try to say you "put (the) OP on (the) right track"........:rofl::rofl:

Me thinks the OP couldn't care less about what track you think he's on, or should be on. He did something fun and interesting, shared it with us, and you're being nothing but a condescending, critical jerk about it.

Wait...is this Dr. Sheldon Cooper?

Dexters
05-06-2012, 11:18
Me thinks the OP couldn't care less about what track you think he's on, or should be on.

It isn't my 'track' it is the FBI's.

M&P15T
05-06-2012, 11:39
It isn't my 'track' it is the FBI's.

Who said it was your track, Dr. Cooper?

Dexters
05-06-2012, 12:04
Who said it was your track, Dr. Cooper?

It isn't important who said it.

Two Guns
05-06-2012, 18:09
Thanks for the pics and post.

wdg710
05-06-2012, 18:10
Thanks for sharing 4 Glock. A shame many choose to interpret your efforts into some hard fast scientific conclusion. Your experiment did show the how consistent bullet expansion was among the different rounds. And yes, we all know water is not the same as the human body. But as a cheap and readily available medium for experimental purpose your water jugs are just fine. THANKS AGAIN.

The Pirate
05-06-2012, 18:41
I think some of these guys are just pissed they can't shoot jugs in their backyards :supergrin:

http://youtu.be/zIKFnisKCcA

Thanks for posting

maxpower220
05-07-2012, 14:04
. With the 9mm the water jug exploded more violently than the .38 or .380 but that's just my observation and can not be measured effectively.

Thanks for the photos.

Hopefully someone can help diagnose my disorder. When I read the above quote, my brain processed
"jugs exposed more violently, but that's just my observation and jugs can not be measured effectively" At that point, I viewed the photos, but no "jugs" were "exposed" and I was disappointed.

gruntmedik
05-07-2012, 14:08
It's fun shooting stuff, isn't it? :thumbsup:

purrrfect 10
05-07-2012, 14:26
Looks like to me the 380 would do the most damage in the body.... JUST SAYING

purrrfect 10
05-07-2012, 14:35
THanks for sharing ...thinking about getting a LCP 380 for pocket and eas of carry..this post just makes me one step closer to going to my gun shop and picking it up..Thanks again good post

purrrfect 10
05-07-2012, 14:38
Thanks for the photos.

Hopefully someone can help diagnose my disorder. When I read the above quote, my brain processed
"jugs exposed more violently, but that's just my observation and jugs can not be measured effectively" At that point, I viewed the photos, but no "jugs" were "exposed" and I was disappointed.
I was actually happier to see the bullets. the 380 for sure will do some innerd ripping. could possible ruin your weekend too. Thanks again for the picture and this post.