WFNGC Hardcast or TMJ or FMJ [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : WFNGC Hardcast or TMJ or FMJ


scarecrow734
07-10-2012, 10:45
would someone mind explaining the differenct between these rounds. and what would be more effective coming out of a G29 as a woods gun.

1) doubletap 230gr. WFNGC Hardcast
2) underwood 200 Grain Total Metal Jacket
3) buffalo bore 220 gr. Hard Cast
4) buffalo bore 200 gr. F.M.J.

im sure i am beating a dead horse i did search. i have been reading all morning.

Meathead9
07-10-2012, 11:22
Forget all of those, and get the DT 200gr WFNGC. They should clock around 1100fps out of your G29, and it's my bullet choice for the woods (although I load my own using Beartooth's). The WFNGC is a better bullet because of its wide meplat (nose). They hit hard, plow through flesh/bone like a cookie cutter, and doesn't need nuclear velocity to penetrate. The 230gr WFNGC is too long, heavy & slow for my taste, and all the other bullets you listed have a similar profile (Truncated Cone). The TC profile of that BB 220 & 10mm FMJ/TMJ's make the bullet tend to penetrate, but just slip through without causing much damage. The TC's also tend to deflect more if/when they hit bone. The WFNGC just leaves a nasty wound in a straight line.

I know you said you searched, but we have discussed this at length here several times recently. Everyone has their own opinion, but most of us are in the same neighborhood anyway.


.

freakshow10mm
07-10-2012, 11:29
1) Probably won't stabilize and will most likely be inaccurate.
2) Completely covered in a copper jacket with no exposed lead. This was developed for indoor shooting to reduce smoke caused by an exposed lead base.
3) Marginally stabile.
4) Copper jacket with exposed lead base, the traditional jacketed bullet design.

The largest issue with heavy bullets is they won't stabilize in the barrel. They are too long for the rate of twist in the rifling. When they exit the barrel, they aren't a perfect spin, but are a "wounded duck". Think of a quarterback throwing a football. A short barrel like a G29 won't help matters either since the bullet is in contact with the rifling for a shorter time than a longer barrel. That being said a bullet isn't immediately stabilized when it exits the barrel. The bullet actually stabilizes a few feet downrange.

I imagine your biggest threat in the woods would be a black bear. In that case, I would recommend a 180gr jacketed bullet like the XTP or Gold Dot.

Cast bullets are best left to hunting with practical firearms more suited to the task. The term hardcast is really nothing more than a marketing term meaning harder than pure lead and harder than the next guy's bullets. Harder isn't always better.

dm1906
07-10-2012, 12:14
1) Probably won't stabilize and will most likely be inaccurate.
2) Completely covered in a copper jacket with no exposed lead. This was developed for indoor shooting to reduce smoke caused by an exposed lead base.
3) Marginally stabile.
4) Copper jacket with exposed lead base, the traditional jacketed bullet design.

The largest issue with heavy bullets is they won't stabilize in the barrel. They are too long for the rate of twist in the rifling. When they exit the barrel, they aren't a perfect spin, but are a "wounded duck". Think of a quarterback throwing a football. A short barrel like a G29 won't help matters either since the bullet is in contact with the rifling for a shorter time than a longer barrel. That being said a bullet isn't immediately stabilized when it exits the barrel. The bullet actually stabilizes a few feet downrange.

I imagine your biggest threat in the woods would be a black bear. In that case, I would recommend a 180gr jacketed bullet like the XTP or Gold Dot.

Cast bullets are best left to hunting with practical firearms more suited to the task. The term hardcast is really nothing more than a marketing term meaning harder than pure lead and harder than the next guy's bullets. Harder isn't always better.

Please explain why any of these bullets wouldn't stabilize. A typical Glock barrel is 1:9 twist, with the slowest aftermarket barrel around 1:20 (KKM). The 230 gr. WFNGC requires any rate faster than 1:33 to stabilize. Unless there's significant rifle stripping (which is nearly non-existent with properly sized handgun bullets), it will stabilize. I've recovered (recycled) tens of thousands lead (hard and soft) and jacketed bullets fired from Glock barrels, and none indicate any stripping. If the bullet isn't stable when it leaves the barrel, nothing that affects the bullet when it leaves the muzzle will cause it to stabilize (there are exceptions, but none apply to the bullets of discussion). In fact, the opposite is often the case: Leaves the muzzle stabilized, then becomes unstable in flight. This shouldn't be a factor with any of these bullets, within their practical range. If you are shooting unstable bullets, something else is wrong.

freakshow10mm
07-10-2012, 13:27
Look at high speed video footage bullets leaving the muzzle. Paper test your ammunition. Talk to suppressor manufacturers and ask them why they have so much baffle clearance. The answer is the bullet is not stabilized when it exits the muzzle, suppressed or unsuppressed. Neither is an arrow when it leaves the bowstring.

CanyonMan
07-10-2012, 14:11
Forget all of those, and get the DT 200gr WFNGC. They should clock around 1100fps out of your G29, and it's my bullet choice for the woods (although I load my own using Beartooth's). The WFNGC is a better bullet because of its wide meplat (nose). They hit hard, plow through flesh/bone like a cookie cutter, and doesn't need nuclear velocity to penetrate. The 230gr WFNGC is too long, heavy & slow for my taste, and all the other bullets you listed have a similar profile (Truncated Cone). The TC profile of that BB 220 & 10mm FMJ/TMJ's make the bullet tend to penetrate, but just slip through without causing much damage. The TC's also tend to deflect more if/when they hit bone. The WFNGC just leaves a nasty wound in a straight line.

I know you said you searched, but we have discussed this at length here several times recently. Everyone has their own opinion, but most of us are in the same neighborhood anyway.
.



Right on... I agree with ALL of it ! Good post ! ;)



Good Shooting !










CM

Meathead9
07-10-2012, 14:19
Please explain why any of these bullets wouldn't stabilize. A typical Glock barrel is 1:9 twist, with the slowest aftermarket barrel around 1:20 (KKM). The 230 gr. WFNGC requires any rate faster than 1:33 to stabilize. Unless there's significant rifle stripping (which is nearly non-existent with properly sized handgun bullets), it will stabilize. I've recovered (recycled) tens of thousands lead (hard and soft) and jacketed bullets fired from Glock barrels, and none indicate any stripping. If the bullet isn't stable when it leaves the barrel, nothing that affects the bullet when it leaves the muzzle will cause it to stabilize (there are exceptions, but none apply to the bullets of discussion). In fact, the opposite is often the case: Leaves the muzzle stabilized, then becomes unstable in flight. This shouldn't be a factor with any of these bullets, within their practical range. If you are shooting unstable bullets, something else is wrong.

It gets interesting at around 4:15
Glock 20 with heavy cast bullets - YouTube

CanyonMan
07-10-2012, 14:40
1) Probably won't stabilize and will most likely be inaccurate.
2) Completely covered in a copper jacket with no exposed lead. This was developed for indoor shooting to reduce smoke caused by an exposed lead base.
3) Marginally stabile.
4) Copper jacket with exposed lead base, the traditional jacketed bullet design.

The largest issue with heavy bullets is they won't stabilize in the barrel. They are too long for the rate of twist in the rifling. When they exit the barrel, they aren't a perfect spin, but are a "wounded duck". Think of a quarterback throwing a football. A short barrel like a G29 won't help matters either since the bullet is in contact with the rifling for a shorter time than a longer barrel. That being said a bullet isn't immediately stabilized when it exits the barrel. The bullet actually stabilizes a few feet downrange.

I imagine your biggest threat in the woods would be a black bear. In that case, I would recommend a 180gr jacketed bullet like the XTP or Gold Dot.

Cast bullets are best left to hunting with practical firearms more suited to the task. The term hardcast is really nothing more than a marketing term meaning harder than pure lead and harder than the next guy's bullets. Harder isn't always better.



Hey freakshow,

Yep gotta agree here as well, although I do like the HC 200gr WFNGC in the G20 10mm @ 1300fps. Other than that as you probably know with me, I shoot the big bore revolvers more than anything with the HC bullets and they have always preformed excellent on all manner of game small to XX large ! ha.

The OP would be bettter served with a G20, If he just "has to pack a 10mm glock." In the woods I still prefer my 44mag/45LC.


Good word!
Well stay safe.





CM

dm1906
07-10-2012, 15:14
Look at high speed video footage bullets leaving the muzzle. Paper test your ammunition. Talk to suppressor manufacturers and ask them why they have so much baffle clearance. The answer is the bullet is not stabilized when it exits the muzzle, suppressed or unsuppressed. Neither is an arrow when it leaves the bowstring.

I have. I do. And I know the reason for baffle clearance, which isn't due to bullet stability. Bullet cant is part of the reason, which may be what you are referring. It is also necessary to accommodate gas pressure (the can would blow up without the clearance, or would be less suppressed). A bullet's cant isn't instability, unless it isn't stabilized. If a bullet leaves a barrel unstable, then stabilizes, it was an accident. If you throw a football wobbly, it stays wobbly. A football will rotate on the axis imparted to it by the person throwing it. A bullet will continue to rotate, on the axis of rotation the moment it is free of the bore. A bullet may correct it's cant, if its designed is aerodynamically favorable. A bullet with a more narrow nose has a CG further rearward, and is less likely to correct. Ideally, a bullet should have no cant. If it does, the cartridge and barrel selection is less than ideal. A full-wadcutter is generally more accurate, due almost entirely to its CG being closer to ideal. A WFN bullet, compared to RN, FP, etc. has the potential to fly more true, for the same reason. Shorter bullets of the same diameter and mass require less rotation rate (twist) to attain stabilized flight than longer bullets. This applies to handguns and slower rifles. The rules change considerably when about 2800 FPS is crossed (more aerodynamic affect, less centrifugal).

An arrow isn't a bullet, and their flight characteristics are very different. Bullets don't have fletching, which is what causes the stability and rotation of an arrow, after it leaves the bow. A bullet receives all the gun's affect before it exits the muzzle, and is only affected in flight by friction and gravity. It takes with it only what it was given between ignition/detonation and muzzle exit.

dm1906
07-10-2012, 15:17
It gets interesting at around 4:15
Nice video. Not much different than my "unscientific" tests.

Meathead9
07-10-2012, 16:39
Nice video. Not much different than my "unscientific" tests.

What do you mean?

Yondering
07-10-2012, 17:49
Forget all of those, and get the DT 200gr WFNGC. They should clock around 1100fps out of your G29, and it's my bullet choice for the woods (although I load my own using Beartooth's). The WFNGC is a better bullet because of its wide meplat (nose). They hit hard, plow through flesh/bone like a cookie cutter, and doesn't need nuclear velocity to penetrate. The 230gr WFNGC is too long, heavy & slow for my taste, and all the other bullets you listed have a similar profile (Truncated Cone). The TC profile of that BB 220 & 10mm FMJ/TMJ's make the bullet tend to penetrate, but just slip through without causing much damage. The TC's also tend to deflect more if/when they hit bone. The WFNGC just leaves a nasty wound in a straight line.

.

+1 to all this, good stuff.

Yondering
07-10-2012, 17:55
The largest issue with heavy bullets is they won't stabilize in the barrel. They are too long for the rate of twist in the rifling. When they exit the barrel, they aren't a perfect spin, but are a "wounded duck".

Have you actually experienced keyholing from some of the heavy 10mm bullets? I never have, so I'm curious. I didn't think any of the 10mm bullets were too long for the twist rate of our barrels.

If the twist rate is too slow, you will get keyholing. Bad accuracy without keyholing is probably not a direct result of not enough twist rate.

I actually agree with dm1906 on most of this, except the stripping of the rifling; I have recovered some bullets that have partially stripped the Glock rifling, this has been with soft alloys and heavy loads. It's possible that's happening with the DT230 bullets, but I don't know.

dm1906
07-10-2012, 18:09
What do you mean?

Well, you tell me. You quoted my reply, then attached the video. As I said, it's a nice video, as well as his others I've seen. Along with scientific methods, I also blow up a lot of stuff, including steel and cinder blocks, among many other things. It's easier for me than most, as I have a range not unlike his. Not very effective for testing a hunting round, as I've yet to run into a critter clad in steel or cinder blocks, or even paper, for that matter. It is fun, though.

dm1906
07-10-2012, 18:39
Have you actually experienced keyholing from some of the heavy 10mm bullets? I never have, so I'm curious. I didn't think any of the 10mm bullets were too long for the twist rate of our barrels.

If the twist rate is too slow, you will get keyholing. Bad accuracy without keyholing is probably not a direct result of not enough twist rate.

I actually agree with dm1906 on most of this, except the stripping of the rifling; I have recovered some bullets that have partially stripped the Glock rifling, this has been with soft alloys and heavy loads. It's possible that's happening with the DT230 bullets, but I don't know.

This is true, about the rifle stripping. I said "Unless there's significant rifle stripping (which is nearly non-existent with properly sized handgun bullets), it will stabilize". I haven't seen it, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. That brings us back to my other suggestion, that if it's happening, something else is wrong, and/or the cartridge, barrel, or weapon is less than an ideal match. Many calibers and weapons have issues with specific cartridges and accuracy. Some combinations just don't go together. It shouldn't be happening, under any condition. If it is, something needs to change.

The keyholing, I suspect, is not a "tumble", but more likely a canted bullet. The inaccuracy (and possibly the cant) is likely due to improper unlock timing. All of this points to the same suggestion made in the video: This cartridge is not ideal for his OEM Glock (mine or yours, or the conditions, may be different). A heavier RSA may yield a similar result as changing to the LWD barrel. I would like to repeat his test, just to confirm the reasons. He called the DT rounds "cheap", which is were we disagree. A buck a round is far from "cheap", in my book (maybe because I'm cheap).

scarecrow734
07-10-2012, 18:42
wow wasent expecting all this but thanks! would there be any gain to upgrading the barrel in my 29 ?

dm1906
07-10-2012, 19:07
wow wasent expecting all this but thanks! would there be any gain to upgrading the barrel in my 29 ?
Possibly. With no more information than you have, it may be an effort in futility, or an easy fix. There are a lot of ammo options available to consider, as well. Have a look at Underwood. This may be an issue with only the 230's, and the others may do well in your OEM pistol. It's my opinion that upgrading the barrel is a good idea, as long as you aren't compromising reliability.

Meathead9
07-10-2012, 19:25
Well, you tell me. You quoted my reply, then attached the video. As I said, it's a nice video, as well as his others I've seen. Along with scientific methods, I also blow up a lot of stuff, including steel and cinder blocks, among many other things. It's easier for me than most, as I have a range not unlike his. Not very effective for testing a hunting round, as I've yet to run into a critter clad in steel or cinder blocks, or even paper, for that matter. It is fun, though.

What I meant by showing you that video, is that Hickok45 did have stability issues with DT's 230gr WFNGC using the stock barrel. His shots at the steel, I'm guessing around 25yds, were all over the place. It was probably a 3ft group and hit everything except the target. Also the paper target showed keyholing and horrible accuracy. The LWD barrel seemed to fix it though.

dm1906
07-10-2012, 19:36
What I meant by showing you that video, is that Hickok45 did have stability issues with DT's 230gr WFNGC using the stock barrel. His shots at the steel, I'm guessing around 25yds, were all over the place. It was probably a 3ft group and hit everything except the target. Also the paper target showed keyholing and horrible accuracy. The LWD barrel seemed to fix it though.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. Just saying that "instability" is an often misused term. There are several reasons that can, and do, cause what we saw in the vid. An actual case of bullet instability is not at the top of the list, and is often the least likely suspect. Not saying it isn't possible, or isn't actually happening, just that there are so many other factors to consider.

Taterhead
07-10-2012, 22:25
Forget all of those, and get the DT 200gr WFNGC. They should clock around 1100fps out of your G29, and it's my bullet choice for the woods (although I load my own using Beartooth's). The WFNGC is a better bullet because of its wide meplat (nose). They hit hard, plow through flesh/bone like a cookie cutter, and doesn't need nuclear velocity to penetrate. The 230gr WFNGC is too long, heavy & slow for my taste, and all the other bullets you listed have a similar profile (Truncated Cone). The TC profile of that BB 220 & 10mm FMJ/TMJ's make the bullet tend to penetrate, but just slip through without causing much damage. The TC's also tend to deflect more if/when they hit bone. The WFNGC just leaves a nasty wound in a straight line.

I know you said you searched, but we have discussed this at length here several times recently. Everyone has their own opinion, but most of us are in the same neighborhood anyway.


.

100% Agree. Beat me to it.

Taterhead
07-10-2012, 22:29
wow wasent expecting all this but thanks! would there be any gain to upgrading the barrel in my 29 ?

That depends upon the bullets and loads that you want to shoot. I personally have not had a need to change barrels in my G20, after several years of moderately-heavy use.

If you want to shoot the WFNGC bullets as recommended by Meathead, Yondering, and myself, some aftermarket barrels will not feed those profile well due to chamber and throat dimensions. The stock barrel functions well with the WFNGC profile. It is always a good idea to check for leading after a couple of mags though.

Meathead9
07-10-2012, 22:29
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. Just saying that "instability" is an often misused term. There are several reasons that can, and do, cause what we saw in the vid. An actual case of bullet instability is not at the top of the list, and is often the least likely suspect. Not saying it isn't possible, or isn't actually happening, just that there are so many other factors to consider.

Ok. I've been reading your posts in this thread, over and over, and I'm still trying to wrap my head around what you're getting at. You're obviously a very well educated, intelligent man, but I'm a pretty sharp guy & I'm still having a hard time understanding what point you're making. I'm not trying to argue, just trying to understand.

In the case of Hickok45 and the keyholing 230gr WFNGC's, what would you say the likely culprit was? If that bullet is keyholing in that barrel, doesn't that mean that the bullet is unstable in flight? I agree that something is wrong in that equation, but wouldn't you think that the same round would shoot fine through say a 16" barrel with the same twist rate? It just seems like the bullet needs more barrel/time/revolutions to stabilize. Wouldnt that make that specific bullet too long to stabilize in a glock barrel? I'm nowhere near a ballistics expert, but this seems pretty simple. Again, I'm not trying to argue, I'm just picking the brain of a guy that seems to know a lot more than I do about this.

I have read that short barreled 44mag's & 454C's are limited to a certain weight in hard cast bullets for the same reason. Is there any validity to that? I'm considering a Ruger Alaskan in 454C, so I'm really curious about this as well.

Yondering
07-10-2012, 22:58
In the case of Hickok45 and the keyholing 230gr WFNGC's, what would you say the likely culprit was?

I went back and looked at the video closely again, and don't see any keyholing, just bad accuracy. What looked like a keyhole at the upper right of his paper target, I think is actually two shots next to each other. The rest of the holes looked normal to me, for a paper target without a solid backing. I'd have to see a better picture to be convinced that was actually keyholing, and not just a case of bad accuracy due to a poor load choice for that gun.

The much more significant factor with that DT230 load, in my opinion, is the really poor quality of those bullets, as reported by others on this forum. I think it was Any Cal. that reported a wide range of diameters (was it .397"-.403"??) that in itself would cause terrible accuracy, not to mention the weight variation as well.

I think it's safe to say the DT230 is a pretty lousy load for most 10mm's, but I don't agree that bullet length and rate of twist is necessarily the reason for it's accuracy issues.

Yondering
07-10-2012, 23:00
This is true, about the rifle stripping. I said "Unless there's significant rifle stripping (which is nearly non-existent with properly sized handgun bullets), it will stabilize". I haven't seen it, but that doesn't mean it can't happen.

We're in agreement, just pointing out that I've seen it happen. Generally when the alloy is too soft for the load. I've never seen it with "hard cast" bullets, only with ACWW or softer.

Yondering
07-10-2012, 23:06
I have read that short barreled 44mag's & 454C's are limited to a certain weight in hard cast bullets for the same reason. Is there any validity to that? I'm considering a Ruger Alaskan in 454C, so I'm really curious about this as well.

In my experience, no. As long as the short barrel has the same twist rate as a longer barrel, and the bullet is not stripping the rifling, the short barrel length doesn't matter. Reduced velocity loads in the longer barrels don't go unstable, and that approximates what you get from a short barrel.

As a side note, the snubby 454 revolvers are pretty pointless, IMO. You'd have better results on target with a 44 or 45 Colt with a longer barrel, with the same or less weight in the holster.

dm1906
07-10-2012, 23:23
Ok. I've been reading your posts in this thread, over and over, and I'm still trying to wrap my head around what you're getting at. You're obviously a very well educated, intelligent man, but I'm a pretty sharp guy & I'm still having a hard time understanding what point you're making. I'm not trying to argue, just trying to understand.

In the case of Hickok45 and the keyholing 230gr WFNGC's, what would you say the likely culprit was? If that bullet is keyholing in that barrel, doesn't that mean that the bullet is unstable in flight? I agree that something is wrong in that equation, but wouldn't you think that the same round would shoot fine through say a 16" barrel with the same twist rate? It just seems like the bullet needs more barrel/time/revolutions to stabilize. Wouldnt that make that specific bullet too long to stabilize in a glock barrel? I'm nowhere near a ballistics expert, but this seems pretty simple. Again, I'm not trying to argue, I'm just picking the brain of a guy that seems to know a lot more than I do about this.

I have read that short barreled 44mag's & 454C's are limited to a certain weight in hard cast bullets for the same reason. Is there any validity to that? I'm considering a Ruger Alaskan in 454C, so I'm really curious about this as well.
No argument from me. Discussions are much more productive. As with anyone, disagreement doesn't have to mean argument. I disagree with a lot of folks (as you probably have noticed), but I don't argue, or call out anyone. At the same time, when someone says they've been reloading 10 or 20 years, and they display a theory based more on myth than fact, I tend to just blurt it out. Wrongfully placed or not, it's my fault for assuming they should at least have a basic knowledge of the physical laws involved. Many don't, and rely solely on their observed results (without ever knowing why something happened), and what someone else told them, because that's the way it's always been. I'm not saying I'm always right, but more often than not, and I can be an *** at times. I'm a really a nice guy with a sense of humor, and everything. I've spent my entire adult life in public service, starting with the military, then retired LE. It's not a power trip, so it must be something else. It sure as hell isn't about the money! Mix in a little engineering study along the way, and that's where I am. I gave quantum mechanics a shot, but it was too slow for me.

Anyhoo....
I think the terminology is part of the gap here. "Stabilized" means a bullet has sufficient centrifugal energy to maintain a constant profile in flight. If it starts out crooked, it will usually remain that way. "Unstabilized" means the bullet doesn't have sufficient centrifugal energy to maintain a constant flight profile, and has a tendency to "tumble", or flip end over end, which is almost always accompanied by a very distinctive sound (ziiiiing....), especially noticeable with subsonic rounds. Think of the westerns, and the ricochet. That's a bullet that's been "destabilized", by striking something, and tumbling off.

At any rate, with the lack of empirical data, I base my opinions on likelihoods. It isn't common that this bullet would be unstable, every time, with so many others shooting it successfully. The 230 gr. WFN requires about 1:33 rotation rate. The Glock barrel is 1:9. If the bullet grabs onto some of the available twist, it's likely going to get at least 1:33, probably a lot more. If it were a smooth bore, it would fly straight, or near straight, for 25 yds. It wouldn't tumble in that short distance, statistically, without some help. That's the trick. Barrel length wasn't the issue, as the LWD barrel he used was the same. I think the bullet is getting enough twist to stabilize, but an early unlock is kicking the muzzle, causing a canted flight. The bullet is so large and well balanced (BC, mass to CG), something is sending it off crooked. Because of it's mass and relatively ideal CG, it isn't likely to develop true flight in 25, or even 50 yds, if it isn't true at muzzle exit. Rather than truing it's flight and continuing on straight, it's continuing canted, and is deflected off course. I suspect an early battery unlock, which may be unique to Hickok's pistol, or any other that are in similar condition. The heavy bullet, coupled with a very short charge stack and a (relatively) slow powder, can cause timing issues in itself. It could be as simple as a weak RSA, a very worn locking lug/slide interface, or limp-wristing (which I seriously doubt, considering the shooter). As I said, there are a lot of unknown variables we don't know, which leaves us with only educated (and sometimes uneducated) guesses. When we discard the physics, it's all a guess, anyway.

Clear as mud now, right?

freakshow10mm
07-10-2012, 23:28
It is also necessary to accommodate gas pressure (the can would blow up without the clearance, or would be less suppressed).
The barrel doesn't blow up because it is designed to contain the pressure. A suppressor with no baffle clearance wouldn't be any different. A suppressor with less baffle clearance would be more suppressed. The more gas would be kept inside the suppressor, allowed to cool, and released over a longer period of time. That is the basic principle of sound suppressors. The reason suppressors have baffle clearance isn't pressure related, it's because the bullet isn't stabilized in that first foot or less of exiting the muzzle. Suppressor manufacturers experiment with this fine line between tolerance for bullet instability and containment of gases to effect overall sound signature reduction. The engineering Safety Factor of suppressors meets or exceeds the chamber pressure of the cartridge being fired, so the pressure argument is moot.

If a bullet leaves a barrel unstable, then stabilizes, it was an accident.
You don't understand ballistics as much as you think you do.

Look closely at 1:11 onward. The bullet is not completely stabilized exiting the muzzle.

FLYING BULLETS - YouTube

An arrow isn't a bullet, and their flight characteristics are very different.
I know an arrow isn't a bullet. It was used as another example of something that people think leaves the weapon stabilized but in reality is not true.

freakshow10mm
07-10-2012, 23:47
Hey freakshow,

Yep gotta agree here as well, although I do like the HC 200gr WFNGC in the G20 10mm @ 1300fps. Other than that as you probably know with me, I shoot the big bore revolvers more than anything with the HC bullets and they have always preformed excellent on all manner of game small to XX large ! ha.
I like the big bore revolvers too, but I'm starting small and working my way up. PM inbound in a few regarding that.

The OP would be bettter served with a G20, If he just "has to pack a 10mm glock." In the woods I still prefer my 44mag/45LC.
Exactly. But I get the whole 10mm thing. Heavy and fast, mostly in pistols instead of revolvers for capacity and ergonomics, .357 ballistics in a service pistol, etc, etc. There are better things for the task, but the G29 should be kept as a carry gun and not a woods gun. Fine for people, but in the woods against wild animals that don't give a **** when they're in "defense mode", that sub 4 inch wonder ain't going to do you much good.

Any Cal.
07-11-2012, 01:24
I loooove heavy bullets in a 10, but wouldn't advocate any of those in the G29. The DT230 could be great, but they are built poorly; like Yondering said, mine were out of round and inconsistent. In the G29, I just don't think there is any real good reason to run them. I get about 1035 with them in the G20 barrel before seeing pressure signs, so I would expect a bit less in the G29. They might work in the 29, but if you were only getting 950fps, you might be better off w/ a 200 @ 1050-1100. I can't say that even that is the best bullet for black bears though, I would probably run an expanding bullet of some sort, but I don't know anything about blackies.

As far as the bullets not stabilizing, the only reference any one has to this is Hickok's video. I really don't see why they wouldn't stabilize, target rounds going 800-850fps are stable for a while, I wouldn't expect a bullet going faster than that to be less than stable. A lot of the big bore handguns run at 950+ fps and are stable even downrange when they hit something at a lower velocity. It seems more like internet legend, regardless of what may or may not have happened on one vid. When I was working up loads with the DT 230s, they went in the general direction I pointed them at 30-40', even when going 900ish fps in the stock barrel. I would shoot over the chrony at a stump with no markings, and I had to work at holding on different portions of the stump so I didn't shoot through it over time.

oceanbob
07-11-2012, 06:40
Forget all of those, and get the DT 200gr WFNGC. They should clock around 1100fps out of your G29, and it's my bullet choice for the woods (although I load my own using Beartooth's). The WFNGC is a better bullet because of its wide meplat (nose). They hit hard, plow through flesh/bone like a cookie cutter, and doesn't need nuclear velocity to penetrate. The 230gr WFNGC is too long, heavy & slow for my taste, and all the other bullets you listed have a similar profile (Truncated Cone). The TC profile of that BB 220 & 10mm FMJ/TMJ's make the bullet tend to penetrate, but just slip through without causing much damage. The TC's also tend to deflect more if/when they hit bone. The WFNGC just leaves a nasty wound in a straight line.

I know you said you searched, but we have discussed this at length here several times recently. Everyone has their own opinion, but most of us are in the same neighborhood anyway.


.


This^^^^^^

In addition I also run an extended StormLake barrel which is longer than stock. Not quite as long as a G20 barrel, but close. With the fabulous case support of the Stormlake I can run hot handloads with confidence. Really the perfect backpacking or woods gun.

For me, 200 Grains is about tops in weight of hot 10MM. The Bell Curve of pressure and bullet instability is pretty steep when running 220 grain anything thru a short barrel.
Not worth the problems for a weapon that must run 100% and be accurate.

Be well,

Bob

scarecrow734
07-11-2012, 07:33
thanks for all the info being posted. im not worried about black bear. 99.99% of the time a black bear will walk the other way. and the black bear in the area i go are not very big. i have a can of spray on the atv the 29 is a last ditch effort. im not a hunter i dont enjoy killing animals and would rather not. but if faced with the choice i have no problem pulling the trigger. just as you would kill or attack an intruder in your house or a person getting too close to your kids they are doing the same.

CanyonMan
07-11-2012, 12:41
Freakshow10mm,

Got your PM, and I sent ya one back pard... ;)




CM