Ranger T-Series 127gr +P+ vs. Windshield- Deflection and Gel Test

[PriseDeFer]

Just saw this and your toob channel. Nice work twanger.

[TY44934]

First lets cover the fact that handgun rounds SUCK. They suck fully intact. They suck even more (read ineffective) when the jacket is missing.

The lead bullet entered the gel at a good length, but ideally you want 12 inches of penetration with the all parts intact for optimal damage. I don't think we got that kind of length. Keep in mind, the gel had no covering on it. Put a jean jacket and sweatshirt over it and lets see what we get.

As we kind of saw in the Vid, you can shoot a windshield 10 times and get 10 different outcomes. Meaning, very erratic flight paths. This is not a good thing.

This is why bonded ammo is king when shooting through barriers.


C4

Agree - but need to add: "bonded OR ELECTROPLATED. The Gold Dot is an ELECTROPLATED bullet; the others mentioned in this thread are NOT ELECTROPLATED.

Furthermore, the term "bonded" truthfully means: a non-electroplated bullet that is constructed of a copper-alloy jacket formed from a tube into which a lead core is swaged, and the two are chemically "bonded" together with a 3rd chemical.

In contrast, Speer makes the excellent and effective Gold Dot by imersing a lead core in a copper-sulfate solution and plating on PURE COPPER MOLECULES (i.e. - pure copper, and NOT an alloy) until the plating is quite thick. Then, Speer forms the plated bullet in at least on additional swaging/forming die.

I'm not disputing that Gold Dot's have plating that adheres to the core; if anything, I believe electroplating is the supperior method for creating an effective defensive bullet. And the real world performance of Gold Dots (on more than just gel) speaks for itself. This is an excellent choice of defensive bullet.

But the construction method and the actual materials used in construction are entirely different than "bonded, copper-alloy jacketed" bullets, and the two should not be confused.

[MegademiC]

Agree - but need to add: "bonded OR ELECTROPLATED. The Gold Dot is an ELECTROPLATED bullet; the others mentioned in this thread are NOT ELECTROPLATED.

Furthermore, the term "bonded" truthfully means: a non-electroplated bullet that is constructed of a copper-alloy jacket formed from a tube into which a lead core is swaged, and the two are chemically "bonded" together with a 3rd chemical.

Where are you getting this definition?

In contrast, Speer makes the excellent and effective Gold Dot by imersing a lead core in a copper-sulfate solution and plating on PURE COPPER MOLECULES (i.e. - pure copper, and NOT an alloy) until the plating is quite thick. Then, Speer forms the plated bullet in at least on additional swaging/forming die.

I'm not disputing that Gold Dot's have plating that adheres(bonds?) to the core; if anything, I believe electroplating is the supperior method for creating an effective defensive bullet . WHY? And the real world performance of Gold Dots (on more than just gel) speaks for itself. This is an excellent choice of defensive bullet.

But the construction method and the actual materials used in construction are entirely different than "bonded, copper-alloy jacketed" bullets, and the two should not be confused.

Red is me...

Please correct me if I'm miss reading, but are you saying that electroplating is not chemically bonded to the substrate? Or is the 'bonded' you are referring to specifically defined to mean a bullet manufactured in the manner you outlined above as such? Because "bonded" is a very broadly defined word, and you could have jackets bonded to cores in a variety of different ways. I always thought "bonded" bullets meant the copper or copper alloy was literally bonded to the core as opposed to two metals touching each other(you could peel the jacket off the core), and not some specific definition. I'd like to know the specific background and definition so I don't call the right stuff the wrong name.

[jstone]

Agree - but need to add: "bonded OR ELECTROPLATED. The Gold Dot is an ELECTROPLATED bullet; the others mentioned in this thread are NOT ELECTROPLATED.

Furthermore, the term "bonded" truthfully means: a non-electroplated bullet that is constructed of a copper-alloy jacket formed from a tube into which a lead core is swaged, and the two are chemically "bonded" together with a 3rd chemical.

In contrast, Speer makes the excellent and effective Gold Dot by imersing a lead core in a copper-sulfate solution and plating on PURE COPPER MOLECULES (i.e. - pure copper, and NOT an alloy) until the plating is quite thick. Then, Speer forms the plated bullet in at least on additional swaging/forming die.

I'm not disputing that Gold Dot's have plating that adheres to the core; if anything, I believe electroplating is the supperior method for creating an effective defensive bullet. And the real world performance of Gold Dots (on more than just gel) speaks for itself. This is an excellent choice of defensive bullet.

But the construction method and the actual materials used in construction are entirely different than "bonded, copper-alloy jacketed" bullets, and the two should not be confused.

I see you spewing your verbal diarrhea once again. There are many ways to bond a bullet. Bonding simply states that the jacket and core are one piece. The funny thing is that you can not grasp such a simple concept. Maybe if you did some research you would find that there are many acceptable ways to bond the core to the jacket.

Shoot a 147 hst, and gold dot into water jugs or gel. You will see the hst lead seperates from the jacket petals. The jacket does not completely shed, because they use a mechanical process to keep from the jacket shedding. The cannelure on the bullet performs this task. It works like the interbond process hornady uses. When you fire the gold dot the jacket and lead do not seperate at the petals, because it is bonded to the jacket.

The gold dot has been around for so long how do they get away with claiming the bullet is bonded 2hen you claim it is not. Dont you think more knowledgeable people would be saying something similar. With all the testing docgkr has done with gold dots if they were not bonded he would say so.

[Vegasshooter]

I must say that after seeing this, I'm glad our duty ammo at work is the Gold Dot. We use 124+p in 9, 165gr in .40, and the 230gr in .45. I can speak, with a great deal of confidence, about the quality and consistency of the Gold Dot. As a senior LEO, and an adjunct firearms instructor for about 12 years, I have studied many, many after action reports on the effectiveness of the GD. I am extremely happy with it's real world performance. Our duty issued rifle ammo is the Federal TRU ( Tactical Rifle Urban) 55 grain. That uses the excellent Sierra Gameking BTHP. Again, this bullet has proven very, very effective in real world shootings. The 55 grain is a little light for me personally, but for our actual engagement didtances in LE, it does what we need it to. Over penetration has not ever been an issue. Our SWAT Snipers use a combination of 64 grain bonded bullets or 77 grain federal Gold Medal Match. My best friend is a Sniper( precision/ sharp shooter technically) and he uses mostly 64 grain bondeds for everything. ANYWAY, that said, my point is we have had great success with bonded ammo. I would not feel terrible about the Winchester Ranger ammo, but I agree with the above posters about bonded/ barrier blind ammo being more versatile overall. I think the Ranger ammo is good ammo, but maybe a bit long in the tooth given some of the great choices out there. In LE, our distances are shorter than Millitary shooters, and vehicles and glass is a common occurrence. BTW, our 64 grain bonded .223 ammo is the great Speer Gold Dot. I have shot that through my Daniel Defence MK18 into calibrated 10% gel. It opened beautifully. Ultimately I believe we will move to that as our duty rifle ammo. Just a great all around bullet.

[aguila327]

I feel the same. We also use Gold Dot specifically the 125 grain in .357sig.

What I found ironic is that both Winchester, and Remington had performance presentations at our county range and none of them beat out the GD.

I should clarify that penetration and performance numbers were only slightly less than the GD but after considering availability and price here on the east coast we found no reason to change from a known performer.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Steve]

having taught and still teaching vehicle classes on a monthly bases with full ballistic shooting
this is a bit flawed while fun its not factual or actual representation

every vehicle glass performs different, shooting outside in is simple and not an overall great idea of Load selection, every car every make and year has different glass different rake/angle etc
ammo and numbers based on make model barrel length etc all have an effect we have documented a lot of this info and charted the trajectory on graph paper etc.. window flex vs being in the real frame vs wood etc.....

shooting inbound is easy shooting out is the critical aspect

[Canonshooter]

How does the muzzle blast and flash of the Ranger 127 +P+ compare to the 124 GD +P ? I currently use the Ranger in my G17C for defensive purposes but would certainly switch to the GD if it has the advantage. I wish I could find the 147 HST (non +P) but so far no-go, but the GD seems available at the moment.

TIA for any insight....

[Detmongo]

How does the muzzle blast and flash of the Ranger 127 +P+ compare to the 124 GD +P ? I currently use the Ranger in my G17C for defensive purposes but would certainly switch to the GD if it has the advantage. I wish I could find the 147 HST (non +P) but so far no-go, but the GD seems available at the moment.

TIA for any insight....

I just fired a box of 127 two weeks ago and found them to be about the same. Nothing i would worry about.

[Canonshooter]

I just fired a box of 127 two weeks ago and found them to be about the same. Nothing i would worry about.

Thanks!