Are Speer Gold Dot Short Barrel Really Different? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Are Speer Gold Dot Short Barrel Really Different?


Ljutic
09-24-2012, 14:56
I share my findings in my latest blog article.

http://mousegunaddict.blogspot.com/2012/09/gel-testing-speer-9mm-gold-dot-vs-gold.html

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v391/BDSBruce/Blog%20Photos%202/IMG_0944_zps490719f0.jpg

WiskyT
09-24-2012, 15:28
Q: Are Speer Gold Dot Short Barrel Really Different?

A: Apparently not.

dkf
09-24-2012, 15:36
The bullets post expansion look different but the velocities are pretty darn close.

If you have a Shield .40 or CM/PM40 to do the same test with .40 I think that would be interesting.

ChuteTheMall
09-24-2012, 16:24
Great test, article, and video. Thanks for sharing!:wavey:

But these tests always invite the ritualistic picking of the nits, so I'll start:

So the short barrel gold dot (sbgd) penetrated about 1 1/2" less than the regular gold dot (gd)? That might or might not be typical, or critical.

How expensive is this jello (sorry, but I love to call it jello)?

Wouldn't it be better to repeat the tests a couple of times and post the average penetration, as was done with the velocity tests? Maybe it's too expensive?

How does penetration and expansion in this new clear stuff compare to conventional ballistic geletin (oops, I mean jello)?

Why no denim over the entry wound, like other testers often use? In case the targets aren't nudists?

Got any links to anybody else's tests, maybe in water jugs or wet newspapers or clay? I know these are less desirable testing media, but other data points might be useful.

Both shots knocked the target back upon impact, was there a measurable difference?
Any perceived difference in cost, recoil, blast, or more likely flash?

Based on your tests, I'd buy whichever I found cheaper and not worry about it. Again, thanks for sharing.

M 7
09-24-2012, 16:55
I share my findings in my latest blog article.

http://mousegunaddict.blogspot.com/2012/09/gel-testing-speer-9mm-gold-dot-vs-gold.html

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v391/BDSBruce/Blog%20Photos%202/IMG_0944_zps490719f0.jpg

I was always under impression that Speer used two different powders in those loads.

I like the new test medium that you are using- very "illustrative". :cool:

Keep up the good work.

happyguy
09-24-2012, 17:21
Looks like you got more expansion out of the short barrel load which would explain why it got less penetration.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

G21MAN
09-24-2012, 18:24
That was one of the most informative tests that I have seen using my carry load (53617). I have a G26 with a 3.5 inch bbl, and I choose to use the regular GDHP due to the street record with NYPD. It's very good to see that my carry load expanded with a 3 inch bbl. This gives me confidence in my chosen load.:wavey:

cowboy1964
09-24-2012, 19:01
Looks like you got more expansion out of the short barrel load which would explain why it got less penetration.


Exactly.

I like that clear gel. Maybe we can convince tnoutdoors9 to start using that!

Ljutic
09-24-2012, 19:38
Exactly.

I like that clear gel. Maybe we can convince tnoutdoors9 to start using that!

He's the guy that told ME about it. It just turned out that the company that makes it is just down the road from me so I got to work with it first. I know he's watching my progress with it and I'm happy to share with him just as he shared info with me about SIM-TEST. Can never have too much data and I don't think either of us is in it for the money.

Ljutic
09-24-2012, 19:41
That was one of the most informative tests that I have seen using my carry load (53617). I have a G26 with a 3.5 inch bbl, and I choose to use the regular GDHP due to the street record with NYPD. It's very good to see that my carry load expanded with a 3 inch bbl. This gives me confidence in my chosen load.:wavey:

Thank you for the compliment.

Here's another confidence booster for you then. Tested earlier this year using SIM-TEST. http://mousegunaddict.blogspot.com/2012/05/ballistics-testing-speer-gold-dot.html

Ljutic
09-24-2012, 19:43
The bullets post expansion look different but the velocities are pretty darn close.

If you have a Shield .40 or CM/PM40 to do the same test with .40 I think that would be interesting.

Just starting to get my feet wet with .40 even though it's my favorite carry caliber. I test with a PM40 and G27. I think I might like the Shield 40 if they fattened the grip a bit vs. the Shield 9.

Ljutic
09-24-2012, 20:11
Great test, article, and video. Thanks for sharing!:wavey:

But these tests always invite the ritualistic picking of the nits, so I'll start:

So the short barrel gold dot (sbgd) penetrated about 1 1/2" less than the regular gold dot (gd)? That might or might not be typical, or critical. More expansion usually gives you less penetration. It's a bigger parachute so it's a good thing it had a bit more velocity to compensate.

How expensive is this jello (sorry, but I love to call it jello)? 6"x6"x16" is $130 on their website, but it can be recast and reused as long as you keep it clean.

Wouldn't it be better to repeat the tests a couple of times and post the average penetration, as was done with the velocity tests? Maybe it's too expensive? First time out with the gel and I tried to limit the number of shots per block. I shot two more blocks you have not seen yet. It might be possible to get 4 shots in a block. My max was 3 on my first time out. Absolutely, more shots would have been better. More shots = More data.

How does penetration and expansion in this new clear stuff compare to conventional ballistic geletin (oops, I mean jello)? This block calibrated at 8.1 cm vs. the 8.3 cm minimum for 10% ballistics gel. It was slightly harder than 10% gel.

Why no denim over the entry wound, like other testers often use? In case the targets aren't nudists? I typically test with 2 layers of denim to simulate clothing when using SIM-TEST. I never knew this, but the 4 layers of denim test was never intended to simulate clothing, but rather try to plug the HP cavity with denim. Again, first time out with the gel and I'd like to be able to reuse it a few times before corrupting it with denim fibers. I may add it back again or I may run those tests with SIM-TEST.

Got any links to anybody else's tests, maybe in water jugs or wet newspapers or clay? I know these are less desirable testing media, but other data points might be useful. I wish I did. Unfortunately, there's not much out there on the short barrel 9mm load. That's one of the reasons I ran the test.

Both shots knocked the target back upon impact, was there a measurable difference? Just checked the high speed footage again. If there was a difference, it was small.

Any perceived difference in cost, recoil, blast, or more likely flash? If you read the blog article, I call out the standard load showed powder residue around the bullet entrance. No residue found around the Short Barrel. I included pictures of both. I'm believing Speer's claim of lower flash. Cost per round difference is 5 cents more per round for the SB load per Midway pricing. No noticeable difference in recoil during velocity testing.

Based on your tests, I'd buy whichever I found cheaper and not worry about it. Again, thanks for sharing.

Thanks very much for letting me pick back at the nits. I try to consider all angles before publishing anything, but I often miss stuff and try to include it in future tests. Really appreciate the feedback.

Glad you decided to to pick the cheaper of the two and feel good about that decision. In the end, it's always a personal choice and I hope folks will test in their specific pistol before trusting any ammo. For me, I just like to create the data and let folks make their own decisions based on that data.

dkf
09-24-2012, 21:24
Just starting to get my feet wet with .40 even though it's my favorite carry caliber. I test with a PM40 and G27. I think I might like the Shield 40 if they fattened the grip a bit vs. the Shield 9.

The PM40 and G27 is more than fine. Thanks for taking the time performing the tests.

eb07
09-24-2012, 21:31
Great data thank you.

Billy10mm
09-25-2012, 12:50
And again, further proof of why I run FMJ ammo in every handgun caliber save for 200gr 10mm.

I want penetration, penetration, and more penetration, in that order.

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

unit1069
09-25-2012, 18:15
And again, further proof of why I run FMJ ammo in every handgun caliber save for 200gr 10mm.

I want penetration, penetration, and more penetration, in that order.

Why would anyone want to take an inordinate chance of bullet passthrough that might endanger, wound, or even kill an innocent bystander?

The human body usually isn't even 12" thick front-to-back and even the Speer Short Barrel Gold Dot penetrated 14" in the OP's test with a 3.1" barrel.

Sure, that's only gel without obstructions like bone but I'll take a little less penetration than 14" if I'm going to get expansion and complete energy dump.

Kalmah
09-25-2012, 19:44
Love your website. Most people do testing with full size handguns, so it's good to see how the smaller ones perform. I carry a PM9 most of the time, so I like to see results from barrels of that size.

Have you done any testing of the 147gr HSTs or Rangers?

cowboy1964
09-25-2012, 20:11
And again, further proof of why I run FMJ ammo in every handgun caliber save for 200gr 10mm.

I want penetration, penetration, and more penetration, in that order.

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

Did you even read that document?

It's:

1) Penetration
2) Permanent cavity
3) Temporary cavity
4) Fragmentation

Not:

1) Penetration
2) Penetration
3) Penetration
4) Penetration

chrisbritt15
09-25-2012, 20:17
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWAw62lcB4M

Ljutic
09-25-2012, 22:39
Love your website. Most people do testing with full size handguns, so it's good to see how the smaller ones perform. I carry a PM9 most of the time, so I like to see results from barrels of that size.

Have you done any testing of the 147gr HSTs or Rangers?

Thanks for the feedback on the blog.

I've been buying up 147 test boxes whenever I see them. I think I must have close to a dozen by now so I should start on them soon. Would like to do a few 40 tests first.

Tiro Fijo
09-25-2012, 23:12
...I've been buying up 147 test boxes whenever I see them. I think I must have close to a dozen by now so I should start on them soon...


Before you do, take a gander at a thread where some LEO's offer first hand opinions on the 147 gr. 9mm Gold Dot and its failures on the street:


http://www.stoppingpower.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=21922

happyguy
09-26-2012, 08:52
Thanks very much for letting me pick back at the nits. I try to consider all angles before publishing anything, but I often miss stuff and try to include it in future tests. Really appreciate the feedback.

Glad you decided to to pick the cheaper of the two and feel good about that decision. In the end, it's always a personal choice and I hope folks will test in their specific pistol before trusting any ammo. For me, I just like to create the data and let folks make their own decisions based on that data.

It is always interesting to see these kind of tests. What I came away with was there was only a minor difference in terminal performance and I would feel fine carrying either load.

If both loads were side by side in the LGS I would pick the short barrel load for my G26 but if they didn't have any I would buy the standard load and wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

Thanks!

Regards,
Happyguy :)

SCmasterblaster
09-27-2012, 18:27
The Speer Gold Dot short barrel load in 9mmP is designed for the 3-3.5-inch barrels that are getting more and more common. They must be using a lot of a faster-burning propellant.