View Full Version : Got any 10mm data?
Hey Doc, I know the 10mm is a bit outdated, but I'm still a fan of the round and if there is any 10mm testing data available, I'd be grateful if you could point me in the right direction.
Thanks,
USSA-1
Sorry, but we have not tested any 10 mm loads in over a decade. It is unfortunate, since 10 mm is one of the best SMG loads ever produced.
If that's an offer, I'll start to beg, borrow, or steal some ammuntion for you to test.:D
USSA-1
Double Tap 10mm Data
All of these tests were done using 10% ballistic gelatin provided by Vyse gelatin using all FBI protocols and 4 layers of denim and two layers of light cotton T-shirt in front of the gelatin.
DoubleTap 10mm
135gr JHP @ 1600fps - 11.0" / .70" frag nasty
155gr Gold Dot JHP @ 1475fps - 13.5" / .88"
165gr Gold Dot JHP @ 1400fps - 14.25" / 1.02"
165gr Golden Saber JHP @ 1425fps - 14.75" / .82"
180gr Golden Saber JHP @ 1330fps - 16.0" / .85"
180gr Gold Dot JHP @ 1300fps - 15.25" / .96"
200gr XTP @ 1250fps - 19.5" / .72"
230gr Equalizer @ 1040fps - 11.0" and 17.0" / .62" and .40"
Here is the link
www.ar15armory.com/forums/DoubleTap-Performance-Data-f268.html
No data, but here's what the Bureau is still issuing for the MP5/10s.
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c270/dspipes/Others/DSC010172.jpg
zippygaloo
01-29-09, 18:50
Outdated? How about incredibly effective but misunderstood?
10mm Tech Notes (http://www.geocities.com/mr_motorhead/10tech.html)
10mm Commercially Available Factory Loads (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=34797&d=1218040872)
10mm Auto Cartridge (http://www.geocities.com/mr_motorhead/10mminfo.html)
10mmtalk.com (http://www.ar15armory.com/forums/10mm-Talk-Forums-f187.html)
IMO, one of the nicest looking 10mm's around is Ken Lunde's Colt Delta Elite 10mm (http://lundestudio.com/wallpaper/delta-bobtail-left-full-hi.jpg)
I am a bit skeptical about the Double Tap ammo test results...
On the other hand, we have tested the ammo that "Federale" depicted--it has been a quite a while, but IIRC, out of a Colt Delta Elite it ran about 925 fps, penetrated in the 16" range with expansion around 60-62 caliber, with minimal changes against 4 layer denim and auto glass. A relatively mild, but good performing load.
Doc, what is your opinion of the 10mm for use on auto bodies? What load would you recommend for use in, around and against automobiles? Planning on hard mounting a G20. I've seen what .357 Sig does on steel but don't like that cartridge, I was thinking that a 180 at 1300 might do well.
Thanks in advance!
Again, we have not tested 10 mm loads in over a decade, however, the Federal 190gr JHP (XM1003A) shown above is a good choice as the bonded bullet does well against intermediate barriers.
Link www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_25&products_id=39
When penetration is key, two holes bleed better than one! Entrance and exit hole! This is an excellent load for woods protection.
Caliber : 10mm
Bullet : 200gr FMJ / FP
Ballistics : 1275fps / 722 ft./lbs. - Glock 20
Glock 29 - 1225fps
Box of 50rds.
Outdated? How about incredibly effective but misunderstood?
No hate here, I'm with ya brother!
Beautiful Delta! Definitely one of the best I've seen in a long time.
My next project is going to be a hi-cap 10mm on a STI/SVI frame.
Doc, if we got you a sampling of some ammo, would you be interested in testing it?
I've got some of the FBI load, a Winchester JHP, and some original Black Talons. Add to this the Silvertips, Hornady, Gold dots, and some other loads and you should have a good generational representation between some of the first JHP designs and the more modern offerings at all velocity levels.
USSA-1
I am a bit skeptical about the Double Tap ammo test results...
On the other hand, we have tested the ammo that "Federale" depicted--it has been a quite a while, but IIRC, out of a Colt Delta Elite it ran about 925 fps, penetrated in the 16" range with expansion around 60-62 caliber, with minimal changes against 4 layer denim and auto glass. A relatively mild, but good performing load.
I can't speak to the gel tests but I've chrono-ed the Double Tap loads I've purchased and McNett isn't embellishing on the velocity.
How different is 10mm verses 124gr 38Super? It has been a couple years since I compared the 2 and I thought they were pretty close......?!?!?!?:confused:
My concern is the gel test protocols--they were listed as FBI spec, but the description does not match the actual FBI protocols...
[QUOTE=DocGKR;300091]My concern is the gel test protocols--they were listed as FBI spec, but the description does not match the actual FBI protocols...[/QUOTE
Please be specific.
The test link states:
"All of these tests were done using 10% ballistic gelatin provided by Vyse gelatin using all FBI protocols and 4 layers of denim and two layers of light cotton T-shirt in front of the gelatin."
However, there is NO FBI protocol test event using "4 layers of denim and two layers of light cotton T-shirt" Likewise if the test was conducted using "all FBI protocols", as stated, then where are the bare gel, heavy clothing, auto glass, sheet steel, and wall board test results? What is "frag nasty"? That is most assuredly NOT an FBI protocol description of projectile performance--for an FBI protocol test, a more accurate description would include the % fragmentation. Finally, the FBI protocol requires 5 shots for each test event; it is not clear, but it appears most of these are single shot, with a few double shot events listed. It would also be nice to know the gel calibration results or at least if the blocks were within spec.
Because of these numerous discrepancies, I expressed my skepticism...
It would also be nice if McNett posted pictures of the gel blocks after being shot with the calibration BB visible in the pic. Just little things he could do to give his tests a LOT more credibility. We really have no idea if these tests even took place.
Doc,
Given that the ideal performance for the 10mm was deemed by the FBI to be a 180gr Sierra JHP at 980fps, what point is there in using the 10mm when the .40S&W will do exactly that in a smaller package with lower manufacturing costs on ammunition. From my perspective, it makes little sense to use the 10mm for anti personnel use given that the common service calibers easily meet the penetration requirements in FBI protocols. The 10mm really offers nothing over the service calibers except excessive penetration with higher sectional density loads. The .40S&W usually equals the 10mm in total permanent crush cavity volume, and the .45acp exceeds the 10mms crush cavity volume given that the average attacker torso will only be 7-10" from front to back.
For those who repeatedly shoot living tissue, you will realize that gel is not flesh. Gel is the best we have ,but it is does not reflect the trauma caused by velocity. I will take velocity over penetration every time, as long as penetration is adequate. 357mag 125jhp at 1450 is proven people smoker and so is 9BPLE and they both do poorly in FBI tests. This is my personal expirance based conditions that can not be reproduced in a controlled laboratory test.
Also I don't have the writing skills to ague this out over the internet.
I think McNett is referring to FBI protocols in heavy clothing test only.
Jim from Houston
01-30-09, 18:00
When you speak of 125 gr .357 Magnum as a "proven stopper", I would assume that the data you're using to back-up this claim is derived from the work of Marshall and Sanow (if you have another source of data, please share it).
You should read these articles which illuminate some of the many discrepancies/factual impossibilites which have, over the years, led the majority of reputable experts to regard Marshall and Sanow's research as, at best mistaken, and at worst, possibly fraudulent.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-statistical-analysis.htm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/afte.htm
With regard to the notion that ballistics gelatin data does not accurately reflect real world performance, Eugene Wolberg, through comparison of "real world" results and performance in ballistics gelatin was able to demonstrate that, in fact, ballistics gelatin give remarkably similar results to "real world" data.
If you have access to data which refutes Mr. Wolberg's research, again, please share it.
Velocity affects a human target through the creation of a temporary cavity...none of the practical self-defense handgun calibers, not even the hottest .357 Magnum loads, have anywhere near enough velocity to cause a temporary cavity that can overcome the elasticity of human flesh...in other words, pistol temporary cavities simply push flesh out of the way, and then it slides back into place, with minimal damage. Rifle bullets have enough velocity to create a temporary cavity that DOES cause damage to human tissue, but the velocity difference between such rifle rounds and any of the service handgun calibers is immense...
The following document written by the FBI's Urey Patrick explains the mechanisms by which handgun projectiles cause damage to human tissue:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm
When you speak of 125 gr .357 Magnum as a "proven stopper", I would assume that the data you're using to back-up this claim is derived from the work of Marshall and Sanow (if you have another source of data, please share it).
Just because M&S were proponents doesn't mean the cartridge's reputation is sullied. The M&S thing is a red herring.
...none of the practical self-defense handgun calibers, not even the hottest .357 Magnum loads, have anywhere near enough velocity to cause a temporary cavity that can overcome the elasticity of human flesh...in other words, pistol temporary cavities simply push flesh out of the way, and then it slides back into place, with minimal damage.
This is a leap in logic that is often made but not supported by the scientific evidence. Yes, it's true that at normal handgun velocities the stretch cavity will not permanently tear most tissues. I'm not aware of any reputable study which has proven that the rapid, violent disruption of internal organs (below the threshold at which they receive permanent injury discoverable post mortem) has zero impact on the efficacy of a handgun round.
What we do know, scientifically, is that wounds (permanent injury) cause stops.
What we also know, experientially, is that quite a few people are incapacitated without suffering the kinds of permanent injury associated with the "CNS or TBV loss" type of stop.
The vogue is to refer to all such incapacitations as "psychological," with the connotation that anyone who is tough enough or mean enough won't be affected by such things. And there is absolutely no doubt that at least some of these "stops" do in fact result from a conscious decision on the part of the target. But, and this is the key thing, there is no scientific basis to declare them all "psychological." It's a circular logic trap that has befallen much of the literature: the only good stop is a CNS/TBV stop; all other stops are psychological; thus anyone who didn't suffer CNS damage or massive TBV loss must de facto have been "psychologically" stopped.
The fact is that plenty of people are incapacitated without suffering permanent identifiable CNS damage or significant TBV loss. The reality is that in many of those cases, the cause of the incapacitation is simply unknown.
There is a huge leap being made from "unknown" to declaring that there are no other possible factors involved in incapacitation.
Don't get me wrong, I choose my handgun ammo based on DocGKR's recommended list just like every other sane person. The data he collects is, at present, the best indicator of the only proven method of causing incapacitation.
On the other hand, having talked to a lot of OIS survivors and people who've studied OIS events for decades, I tend to choose loads on the high velocity end of Doc's list. :cool:
The test link states:
However, there is NO FBI protocol test event using "4 layers of denim and two layers of light cotton T-shirt" Likewise if the test was conducted using "all FBI protocols", as stated, then where are the bare gel, heavy clothing, auto glass, sheet steel, and wall board test results? What is "frag nasty"? That is most assuredly NOT an FBI protocol description of projectile performance--for an FBI protocol test, a more accurate description would include the % fragmentation. Finally, the FBI protocol requires 5 shots for each test event; it is not clear, but it appears most of these are single shot, with a few double shot events listed. It would also be nice to know the gel calibration results or at least if the blocks were within spec.
Because of these numerous discrepancies, I expressed my skepticism...
I think the term AND before the description of the denim/cotton is key.
Given that the ideal performance for the 10mm was deemed by the FBI to be a 180gr Sierra JHP at 980fps, what point is there in using the 10mm when the .40S&W will do exactly that in a smaller package with lower manufacturing costs on ammunition. From my perspective, it makes little sense to use the 10mm for anti personnel use given that the common service calibers easily meet the penetration requirements in FBI protocols.
While the FBI did eventually settle on the 180gr. at 950 fps standard, it should also be remembered that part of the reason for adopting this "standard" was that the factory 10mm loadings were deemed too difficult for the new agents to effectively shoot. Prior to this issue, full power 10mm loads were being considered to duty issue. This intent seems to indicate the FBI was satisfied with the terminal performance of full power 10mm loads. When they finally conceded is power issue, the decision was made to reduce the 10mm round to lowest power level that would still meet the minumum performance standards. This standard eventually morphed into the 40S&W, but I think it's important to remember that at the time the reduced 10mm load was introduced there were a lot of unhappy FBI Agents in both command and rank-n-file that wanted the more powerful load.
I think it should also be remembered that the 12" standard was defined as a minimum with 18" being maximum "desired." I would much rather have a round on the higher end of the penetration scale, somewhere around 16-17", but that's my preference.
The 10mm really offers nothing over the service calibers except excessive penetration with higher sectional density loads. The .40S&W usually equals the 10mm in total permanent crush cavity volume, and the .45acp exceeds the 10mms crush cavity volume given that the average attacker torso will only be 7-10" from front to back.
I'll have to disagree with you this. Excessive penetration is quite dependant on load selection. The 40 only matches the 10mm in total crush volume when loaded to similar velocities. When using proper load selection, the 10mm exceeds the 45acp in expansion without excessive penetration. While the previously listed gelatin data may be open to criticism for not stricly adhering to the FBI testing protocols, look at some of the data. I seriously doubt that conforming to the testing requirements will significantly change the 10mm performance, but if we look at these "indicators", good God man, look at what the 10mm is capable of doing! Close to 1 inch in expansion with penetration almost smack in the middle of the 12-18" standard.
180gr Gold Dot JHP @ 1300fps - 15.25" / .96"
165gr Gold Dot JHP @ 1400fps - 14.25" / 1.02"
Making the big assumption that a person can effectively shoot these loads (and I realize thats a big assumption) sign me up!
Where are you getting the average torso measurement of 7-10"? Is that the vital zone distance or total torso measurement?
USSA-1
Those Gold Dot numbers need to be verified by another tester before I'd give them any credence. Historically, the Gold Dot design has dramatically over-expanded and folded back in on itself (leaving a smaller than optimal recovered expanded diameter) when pushed past its intended velocity envelope.
As for the FBI, it's important to remember that the 10mm was chosen literally as a political compromise to end an internal war between the 9mm and .45 camps.
While the FBI did eventually settle on the 180gr. at 950 fps standard, it should also be remembered that part of the reason for adopting this "standard" was that the factory 10mm loadings were deemed too difficult for the new agents to effectively shoot. Prior to this issue, full power 10mm loads were being considered to duty issue. This intent seems to indicate the FBI was satisfied with the terminal performance of full power 10mm loads. When they finally conceded is power issue, the decision was made to reduce the 10mm round to lowest power level that would still meet the minumum performance standards. This standard eventually morphed into the 40S&W, but I think it's important to remember that at the time the reduced 10mm load was introduced there were a lot of unhappy FBI Agents in both command and rank-n-file that wanted the more powerful load.
I think it should also be remembered that the 12" standard was defined as a minimum with 18" being maximum "desired." I would much rather have a round on the higher end of the penetration scale, somewhere around 16-17", but that's my preference.
I'll have to disagree with you this. Excessive penetration is quite dependant on load selection. The 40 only matches the 10mm in total crush volume when loaded to similar velocities. When using proper load selection, the 10mm exceeds the 45acp in expansion without excessive penetration. While the previously listed gelatin data may be open to criticism for not stricly adhering to the FBI testing protocols, look at some of the data. I seriously doubt that conforming to the testing requirements will significantly change the 10mm performance, but if we look at these "indicators", good God man, look at what the 10mm is capable of doing! Close to 1 inch in expansion with penetration almost smack in the middle of the 12-18" standard.
Making the big assumption that a person can effectively shoot these loads (and I realize thats a big assumption) sign me up!
Where are you getting the average torso measurement of 7-10"? Is that the vital zone distance or total torso measurement?
USSA-1
Very well stated.
The .40 S&W was developed as a 10mm lite if you will. For those of you about to get "passionate" about it..... To put it directly it was developed for girl agents and men with small hands. (and we know what that means.....:p )
I can only add one thing to USSA-1's reply....... The 10mm is the most versatile of the auto loading cartridges out there.
Load it down for 2 legged threats, load it up for 4 legged threats. For those of you who load out with an AR15 for self defense an think of it as a 100 yard weapon, have a look at the 10mm. It's nice to have ammo campadibility between your side arm and long arm.
Those Gold Dot numbers need to be verified by another tester before I'd give them any credence. Historically, the Gold Dot design has dramatically over-expanded and folded back in on itself (leaving a smaller than optimal recovered expanded diameter) when pushed past its intended velocity envelope.
That would certainly be some good information to confirm! Yet another reason for some updated testing with the newer bullet designs.
As for the FBI, it's important to remember that the 10mm was chosen literally as a political compromise to end an internal war between the 9mm and .45 camps.
No doubt about that!
The 10mm is the most versatile of the auto loading cartridges out there.
It certainly can operate in several enviroments quite well and let's not forget that it makes an outstanding submachine gun round. The nicest, most effective sub-gun I ever had the pleasure to shoot was the 10mm MP-5. It would drive poppers over at 100 yards like they were hit with a sledgehammer.
Sure would like to see an 10mm, AR platform with some good magazines.
Well, a man can dream, can't he?:rolleyes:
USSA-1
"The transition from the 170gr Norma to the 180gr jacketed hollow point at around 1000fps is not a control issue has some has speculated."
SA Patrick's statements notwithstanding, I've worked with two men who were at FTU when the 10mm was adopted and both of them have stated to me that the reason a reduced velocity load was selected was because weaker shooters struggled with the full power 10mm. These were instructors on the line dealing with new agents and reporting their troubles back up the chain of command.
This version of events was also affirmed for me by a former FBI FTU Unit Chief.
The agency's official reasoning may have been that losing all that velocity had no effect on terminal performance, but a reduced recoil load was explored only because it needed to be reduced recoil.
Here's my toy to take advantage of 10mm:
http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p89/Spooky130_photos/DSC05409.jpg
Now what to run in it? I currently have 180gr Federal JHPs - nothing fancy.
Just a HK MP5/40 kit with a 10mm barrel on a US receiver all SBR'd.
Spooky
Gosh. I got into on line forums (long time ago) over some .40 S&W guy carping the .40 out performs the 10mm or that the 10mm is "too much".
It goes on.
I guess:
the .38 Sp out performs the .357 mag.....
the 380 spanks the 9mm.........
the .44 Sp is superior to the .44 mag
and on
and on
and on.......
Get a gun that fits your hand, that you shoot well, that's reliable and move on to developing your software. Forget about the hardware.
Given all that if some nice fellow has some newer 10mm data please email it to me or PM.
Thanks
the .38 Sp out performs the .357 mag.....
the 380 spanks the 9mm.........
the .44 Sp is superior to the .44 mag
Obviously you did not take the time to read my posts and understand my reasoning backed up by credible sources. I advise you to do more than browse the internet for snipits of information and read books and journals by Dr. Martin Fackler, Shawn Dodson, Duncan MacPherson, and Urey Patrick.
.38spl 135gr+P (900fps): (Penetration/Expansion) Speer GD
Bare Gel: 12.3”/.63”
Through Denim: 12.2”/.61”
Through Heavy Cloth: 12.2”/.60”
Through Wallboard: 12.1”/.66”
Through Plywood: 12”/.58”
Through Steel: 16.5”/.40”
Through Auto Glass: 9.4”/.48”
.357magnum 125gr(1450fps): (Penetration/Expansion) Speer GD
Bare Gel: 13.5”/.59”
Through Denim: 15.9”/.57”
Through Heavy Cloth: 16.9”/.55”
Through Wallboard: 14.7”/.62”
Through Plywood: 16.0”/.60”
Through Steel: 21.7”/.44”
Through Auto Glass: 12.8”/.62”
......357magnum beats .38spl due to better overall characteristics such as higher operating pressure, significantly higher velocity which equals greater momentum, and significantly larger powder charge.
.380 95gr(1000fps): (Penetration/Expansion) Winchester Ranger Talon
Bare Gel: 7.65”/.65”
Through Denim: 7.95”/.64”
Through Heavy Cloth: 7.85”/.64”
Through Wallboard: 15”/.36”
Through Plywood: 15.5”/.36”
Through Steel: 9.3”/.36”
Through Auto Glass: 4.5”/NA
9mm 147gr(990fps): (Penetration/Expansion) Winchester Ranger Talon
Bare Gel: 13.9”/.65”
Through Denim: 14.5”/.66”
Through Heavy Cloth: 14”/.66”
Through Wallboard: 15”/.67”
Through Plywood: 14.8”/.62”
Through Steel: 17”/.45”
Through Auto Glass: 10.8”/.52”
......9mm beats .380 due to better overall characteristics such as bullet mass, sectional density, higher operating pressure, and significantly larger powder charge.
Sorry, no .44spl or .44mag data to share.
.40S&W 180gr(990fps): (Penetration/Expansion) Winchester Ranger Talon
Bare Gel: 13.8”/.68”
Through Denim: 14.3”/.70”
Through Heavy Cloth: 13.4”/.64”
Through Wallboard: 13.1”/.66”
Through Plywood: 15.1”/.64”
Through Steel: 17”/.52”
Through Auto Glass: 12”/.61”
10mm Norma 170gr(1350fps): (Penetration/Expansion) No credible FBI testing for full power 10mm loads presently. Norma load FBI tests from 1989. No demin test at that time.
Bare Gel: 16.4”/.58”
Through Heavy Cloth: 17.8”/.52”
Through Wallboard: 17.2”/.54”
Through Plywood: 16.5”/.57”
Through Steel: 17.9”/.48”
Through Auto Glass: 12.3”/.55”
Yes, I know there is about a 15 year technology gap between these .40S&W and 10mm loads. However, the reduced power 180gr load of 1989 wasn't all that different.
10mm 180gr(980fps): (Penetration/Expansion) 1989 FBI load Sierra JHP
Bare Gel: 13.6”/.59”
Through Heavy Cloth: 15.4”/.56”
Through Wallboard: 16.1”/.55”
Through Plywood: 14.3”/.57”
Through Steel: 15.3”/.50”
Through Auto Glass: 12.1”/.52”
The Sierra JHP of that day were more reliable expanders as well.
Obviously you did not take the time to read my posts and understand my reasoning backed up by credible sources. I advise you to do more than browse the internet for snipits of information and read books and journals by Dr. Martin Fackler, Shawn Dodson, Duncan MacPherson, and Urey Patrick.
Thanks but.........
I'll spend my time focused on the software. I'll take my chances that I don't have the gee whiz bang bestest uber kill load in my carry gun. (whatever gun it happens to be on a given day)
Marcus L. -- My thoughts on velocity viz-a-vis handgun "stopping power" were mentioned above, so I will not rehash them.
One or two anecdotes, however, aren't enough for me to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'd also be happy with a round that was capable of macerating someone's heart even though Stacey Lim survived (and continued to fight) after being shot in the heart.
Along the same lines, I worked a case while at DOJ (U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Violent Crimes Section) in which the "victim" -- a drug dealer -- was shot in the heart. According to the surgeon on the stand, three of the chambers of the heart were destroyed. It was apparently quite a feat to put the young gentleman back together again. But he lived.
Another case I worked on involved another "victim" -- drug dealer -- being shot 15 times at point blank range with a .45, almost all of the shots hitting the torso. That guy picked himself up and walked to a hospital a mile away.
I was unaware of the Gonzales case you mentioned. Do you have more details? That would be the first time I've heard of the 357 SIG failing to stop someone with hits to the torso. The folks at TX DPS I've spoken to have been exceedingly impressed with the results they're getting from their 357's compared to what they got from both the 9mm and .45 rounds they were using previously. (though, as Doctor Roberts pointed out the last time I threw that argument at him, TX DPS also went through a significant training cycle when transitioning to the 357's so it's possible that improved shooter performance played as much or more of a role than improved bullet performance)
If you guys would actually attempt to READ something in detail before you become irritated that it isn't preaching your religion and you only end up reading the first and last paragraphs.
You must have the intelligence to recognize the increments and the leaps and use them to their fullest tactical advantage.
The body of knowledge that you can gain from sources outside your training circle and from those who are now dead often trump what you learn from your limited cadre of peers.
Since you specifically addressed your post to me, I will assume those comments are directed at me.
To which I can only respond that it is you, not I, who seems to get irritated when someone isn't agreeing with your particular chosen church of terminal ballistics. It is you who has very clearly chosen to reject information from outside your "cadre of peers." And there's absolutely no way you could have "actually attempt to READ" my previous posts and come to the conclusion that I discount the terminal effects you are discussing or that I am a M&S fanboy.
FWIW: Judging from the FBI FTU Ammo Test reports, they had already made the decision to go with the attenuated 10mm loads before the 1076 was ever available. The "Fed Lite" loads first showed up in the 1989 tests. The majority of the testing that year was conducted using the Colt Delta Elite. (It was reportedly privately owned by FTU Chief John Hall.) The only 10mm Smith & Wesson pistols used were prototypes built off of a 4506 and a 4516. The 1076 wasn't used for ammunition tests until 1990.
A well designed, full power, 200 gr 10 mm generally offers superior terminal effects compared with .40 S&W, as the 10 mm permanent crush cavity is larger and the temporary cavity effects are getting large enough to begin to be significant; the problem is that there are very few such loads available and they are more suited to SMG platforms than handguns due to increased recoil issues.
Penetration was deeper, but most .40S&W 180gr loads which expand usually exit the body in shootings unless they impact a large bone like the femur. The penetration advantage in the 10mm is of little importance is this regard.
This statement doesn't seem to be supported by the previously cited testing numbers showing 13-14" penetration through denim or with the cited statement that most torso's are only 7-10" in thickness. If this were the case it seems the FBI miscalculated the 12" minimum penetration standard. Why would they set a minimum standard to start with 2" of overpenetration?
Citing SA Patrick,
The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding. Penetration less than 12 inches is too little, Considering the desired penetration spectrum was from 12-18", the 170 Norma load performed at the upper end of this spectrum showing 16-17" penetrations and I would submit this performance was exactly what the FBI desired. I find it hard to believe they would search for a performance load that just barely crossed the minimum threshold as opposed to one that was just under the maximum threshold.
You also stated,
There is no mention of problems associated with women and smaller agents having problems with the 10mm. but the cited Annual Law Enforcement Review 1990 clearly infers this from the second part of this statement,
This was a decision the agency arrived at from a combination of lab testing and use on the range
The "use on the range" clause supports the smaller agent/control issues and is supported by personal associations of firearms instructors cited by Todd and my own conversations with FBI firearms instructors and former HRT members.
It's really not too difficult to understand why there was no direct mention of those issues. Was the premier LE Agency in the Country supposed to admit that their Agents did not possess the skills to handle a 10mm round or that FBI Instructors could not effectively train their Agents to do so? There is no way the FBI was going to admit those truths in a National Public Forum. They may not publically acknowledged them, but they did exist.
There was no hot 10mm load that would expand to levels beyond what the lower velocity 10mm loads could do, and the same is likely evident today.
The truth is, we don't know.
The controversy is whether it is any more effective against a soft target. Both the hot, and light loads expand to similar levels in unbias standardized testing,
I agree, but those were tests using 20yr. old bullets designs, some of which were Norma designs and Norma has never been known for industry leading hollowpoint design technology. It's no surprise to me the tests were underwhelming.
When the FBI FTU completed it's testing, Unit Chief John Hall forwarded two caliber recommendations to the director for selection, the 10mm and the 45acp. The FTU did not make the caliber selection. The Director of the FBI did based on recommendations from the FTU. Both had met the FBI performance standards with the slight edge going to the 10mm. One additional notation on the report concluded that while both rounds were very similar, the 45acp had been around for many decades and had most likely reached the zenith of its development potential. The 10mm was a relatively new cartridge, but its development and future increased potential was just beginning.
Who knows for what reason the Director choose the 10mm. Maybe he wanted to appear cutting edge by leading the LE community towards the next great handgun round. Maybe the exclusivity of being the only Agency to use the "new" round. Maybe ego, who knows. One thing was certain. The potential of the 10mm had yet to be fully explored and it that fact is still relevant today. Who knows what the 10mm is capable of with the newest generation of bullet technology. Until we test it, we won't know. Who's to say we can't achieve .90 expansion diameters with the 10mm? It's all about bullet design at a given velocity. Performance can be adjusted to velocity, similar to the way Speer had to redesign the 9mm 125gr. Gold Dot bullet for use in the higher velocity .357 Sig. They redesigned the bullet to compensate for the additional velocity. Look at the pictures of the gelatin tests of the 125gr. GD in .357 Sig. It has one of the largest permanent crush cavities of all the tested rounds and what is a .357 Sig after all? It's nothing more than a faster 9mm. What's a 10mm? Nothing more than a faster 40S&W. My point in this whole thread is not to say the 40S&W isn't a damm fine round, it is, but is there potential for a 10mm loaded with modern bullets, designed for it's full velocity potential, to offer something better? It's a relatively simple thing to find out, so why not see what it can do?
USSA-1
"Look at the pictures of the gelatin tests of the 125gr. GD in .357 Sig. It has one of the largest permanent crush cavities of all the tested rounds"
That is not an accurate statement as noted in the photo below:
http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq319/DocGKR/Handgun_expanded_JHP.jpg
Doc,
Sorry if I mispoke, I was thinking this picture when I made the statement which obviously shows both a temp. and perm. wound cavities.
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/Handgun_gel_comparison.jpg
USSA-1
Lets end this, and get some DT full power ammo tested. I will provide 50 rounds of DT GD 165 rated at 1400fps.
I think Doc's picture is a good example of how the petals of the JHP peel back and come to rest up against the trunk. This means that the bullet has reached the end of its engineered expansion cavity and there isn't enough of a cavity in the nose for the hydrolic force to cause the nose to yield additional petal length. Just as CCI Speer demonstrated with their pistol carbine testing, the bullets fired at higher than engineered velocties did not expand more, but in some cases the petals folded back and hugged the trunk even tighter resulting in a smaller recovered diameter and excessive penetration.
Even so, it is very difficult to get over .65"+ of expansion out of a 9mm projectile, .70"+ out of a 10mm/.40 projectile, and .75"+ out of a .45acp projectile. When taking a 5-shot average, most 9mms are .62", .67" for .40, and .72" for .45acp. Just as I mentioned above, the resisting force of tissue pushes those expanding petals back so that they fold up against the trunk. Cranking up the velocity does not means those fragile petals will extend to longer lengths thus generating a greater mushroom, it just folds them back at a faster rate. Even with over half of the bullet used in expansion in the case of the .357sig, the .40S&W, and the .45acp in Doc's pic, the petals did not stay extended, they folded back.
If some upbias testing from credible researchers such as Dr. Roberts says otherwise, I'll eat my words. However, I have not seen any credible testing that says anything contrary to what I've typed above. Perhaps if harder materials were used the petals may become more rigid and stay extended, but then the bullet may not be soft enough to even cause hydrolic expansion of the cauldera.
Anyway you cut it, a well engineered 10mm will not reach a final expanded diameter equaling that of a well engineered .45acp by the nature of the way the petals fold against the trunk of the bullet. Not to mention, the petals of a 10mm/.40S&W are less thick than that of a .45acp meaning that they are more easily folded back.
Marcus
I want my petals to fold back.
I want to my bullet to break apart and fragment.
I want my core and jacket to separate.
I want to drive my bullets at speeds that cause it fail.
When the above happens, my bullets cause the most damage in the first 4 to 10 inch's.
After that I will accept a smaller crush cavity.
I realize this is in direct conflict with the jello shooters.
"I realize this is in direct conflict with the jello shooters."
I am not sure what a jello shooter is, but I can state that a variety of equally important methodologies are used for terminal performance assessments, including actual shooting incident reconstruction, forensic evidence analysis, and post-mortem data and/or surgical findings; properly conducted ethical animal test results; and laboratory testing--this includes the use of tissue simulants proven to have correlation with living tissue. Some individuals seem to be under the mistaken impression that one of these areas is more important than others--this is not the case, as each category provides important information. The last several years of OCONUS GWOT operations have given us a tremendous amount of combat derived terminal performance information. After analyzing all the available evidence from shots into living human tissue, the Joint Service Wound Ballistics IPT reported in the Summer of 2006 that then best measure of terminal performance and the only one concordant with battle field projectile injuries was properly interpreted, calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin. In LE, there is also great value in the use appropriately gathered and interpreted surgical and/or post-mortem data. The IWBA published some of Gene Wolberg’s material from his study of San Diego PD officer involved shootings that compared bullet performance in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin with the autopsy results using the same ammunition. When I last spoke with Mr. Wolberg in May of 2000, he had collected data on nearly 150 OIS incidents which showed the majority of the 9mm 147 gr bullets fired by officers had penetrated 13 to 15 inches and expanded between 0.60 to 0.62 inches in both human tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin. Several other agencies with strong, scientifically based ammunition terminal performance testing programs have conducted similar reviews of their shooting incidents with much the same results--there is an extremely strong correlation between properly conducted and interpreted 10% ordnance gelatin laboratory studies and the physiological effects of projectiles in actual shooting incidents. There is a reason why LE agencies such as the FBI, California Highway Patrol, RCMP, etc… continue to rely on properly conducted gelatin studies when selecting ammunition.
Lets end this, and get some DT full power ammo tested. I will provide 50 rounds of DT GD 165 rated at 1400fps.
I think this test will provide valuable comparison info.
Now who exactly is the closed minded person here? :rolleyes:
Dr. Roberts is one of top professionals in the ballistics field right now and it doesn't seem that you are even willing to read into his insight and ask him questions about this topic. You automatically assume that your ideas are right, and his are wrong even though he has worked with the best such as Dr. Martin Fackler, numerous law enforcement agencies, the Defense Department, and has spent the better part of two decades researching all this. All of your criteria have been addressed in the IWBA after thousands of hours of testing, hundreds-thousands of cases on the surgeon's table, first hand accounts on the battle field, and first hand case incident reports of officers in the field. The research is about as concrete and refined as it comes.
"The higher COM shot gives a greater margin of error because shots that deviate from COM 4-5" have a much higher probability of hitting a major artery to speed up incapacitation. These departments have had a VERY high success rate since then and they use .40S&W 180gr loads."
A few years ago I stole some of Doc Williams' info and started teaching it in our firearms program.
The high center mass shooting that he advocates works well regardless of load, as long as it penetrates enough.
We have been shooting bad guys here with 124gr +p 9mms for many years. Well placed, this load works very, very well.
Having been to his class officially, we here are working on refining the training concept.
We have not had any failure to stop issues as long as the officers placed their shots where they needed to go. Doc JSW's training helps things along greatly.
I'm absolutely convinced that we are arguing "infinitesimal increments" with service calibers.
My observation from studying this stuff over the years is that one should push good bullets from a reliable weapon that one can make hits good hits with at speed.
Caliber is fairly irrelevant.
Just to stay on the 10mm topic;
I can see from a hunting standpoint where the velocity and available bullets might make one choose a 10mm for hunting, where "excessive" penetration may be exactly what one is looking to achieve.
Even so, it is very difficult to get over .65"+ of expansion out of a 9mm projectile, .70"+ out of a 10mm/.40 projectile, and .75"+ out of a .45acp projectile. When taking a 5-shot average, most 9mms are .62", .67" for .40, and .72" for .45acp.
So then I guess the next question should be whether or not expansion above these numbers can be achieved through new designs. Might be time for another thread!:D
USSA-1
So then I guess the next question should be whether or not expansion above these numbers can be achieved through new designs. Might be time for another thread!:D
USSA-1
Perhaps, but it would be a very complex design involving harder and thicker materials for the petals with a soft expansion core. It would be a VERY expensive bullet probably costing 5-10 times more than the best JHPs on the market. However, then you would very likely run into other performance problems. Due to the mass of lead it gives a bullet very good sectional density and momentum. If the petals are made of a harder material, even tungsten, the momentum of the bullet will be greatly reduced since there are no materials that compare mass-wise to lead unless you use depleted uranium. With a wider expansion, the frontal area of the bullet will cause exponentially greater resistance force against the bullet and result in much reduced penetration. This would be even further compounded by impacting a rib. You would need a very elongated bullet to increase the mass of the bullet and give it high sectional density in order to provide enough momentum to force the over expanded bullet to adequate penetration depths. Then you run into other problems such as the elongated bullet yawing and tumbling which would prevent the frontal JHP region from continuing to expand.........it all gets very complex. That's why the best overall solution is simply to increase the unexpanded projectile diameter of your bullet by increasing caliber size if you want improved terminal effects. If you want more than 9mm, go .40S&W.......if you want more than .40S&W, go .45acp and call it a day. I generally prefer .40 in the duty pistol as it is a good middle ground between several criteria......and 9mm for the subcompacts for improved handling.
A good read to understand all this is "Bullet Penetration: Modeling the Dynamics and the Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma" by Duncan MacPherson
http://www.firearmstactical.com/bulletpenetration.htm
Fortunatley for us, the free market place is driven by a demand for ammunition that will take out a badguy with efficiency(not realistic, but a desire). There are very educated and intelligent people designing this ammunition for us. I met an engineer who worked on ammunition developement for Federal Cartridge once. He had his BS in physics, and his Doc in aerospace engineering. The brief time that I talked with him I walked away realizing just how little I knew about anything. His grasp of firearms and ammuition was impressive, his expertise on physics and bullet design was beyond what I knew, and his knowledge of the medical aspects of gun shot wound science was over my head.
tpd223,
You're right on the money when it comes to the small incremental advantages that increasing caliber size gives you. Service caliber handguns punch holes and in the grand scheme of things your skill trumps your caliber selection. Only move up from 9mm if, and only if you can shoot the larger caliber equally as well in a timed course of fire and in likely timed scenarios. That's what I tried to tell a new officer who thought that his puny 9mm was inadequate even though he was getting perfect qualification scores. He moved to the P220 .45acp and his scores went down, particularly in the timed combat handgun course of fire. I finally convinced him to go back to 9mm and ignore the ignorant comments from the less trained officers who didn't know what they were talking about.
NinjaMedic
02-03-09, 09:26
Well dammit, that settles it - we just need to make some .50AE depleted uranium rounds with tungsten jackets. BRB gotta go duct tape my E-SAPI plates on. :D
Maybe the answer lies in fragmentation? A design that maintains its integrity until the 12" penetration mark, then as the petals expand past the midpoint the design loses integrity and shears the petals allowing new wound channels to develope.
USSA-1
Hey Erik:
Since this is your thread, I hope you don't mind me showing off a 10mm my friend John Harrison built recently. The finish is ion bond.
http://www.louderthanwords.us/mediumfoto/picts/ulfls/12082007/19704566031.jpg
http://www.louderthanwords.us/mediumfoto/picts/ulfls/12082007/19704566032.jpg
http://www.louderthanwords.us/foto/picts/ulfls/12082007/19704566033.jpghttp://www.louderthanwords.us/foto/picts/ulfls/12082007/19704566034.jpg
http://www.louderthanwords.us/foto/picts/ulfls/12082007/19704566005.jpghttp://www.louderthanwords.us/foto/picts/ulfls/12082007/12769785461.jpg
http://www.louderthanwords.us/foto/picts/ulfls/12082007/12769785462.jpghttp://www.louderthanwords.us/foto/picts/ulfls/12082007/12769785463.jpg
http://www.louderthanwords.us/foto/picts/ulfls/12082007/12769785464.jpghttp://www.louderthanwords.us/foto/picts/ulfls/12082007/12769785465.jpg
Hey Erik:
Since this is your thread, I hope you don't mind me showing off a 10mm my friend John Harrison built recently. The finish is ion bond.
http://www.louderthanwords.us/mediumfoto/picts/ulfls/12082007/19704566031.jpg
http://www.louderthanwords.us/mediumfoto/picts/ulfls/12082007/19704566032.jpg
http://www.louderthanwords.us/foto/picts/ulfls/12082007/19704566033.jpghttp://www.louderthanwords.us/foto/picts/ulfls/12082007/19704566034.jpg
http://www.louderthanwords.us/foto/picts/ulfls/12082007/19704566005.jpghttp://www.louderthanwords.us/foto/picts/ulfls/12082007/12769785461.jpg
http://www.louderthanwords.us/foto/picts/ulfls/12082007/12769785462.jpghttp://www.louderthanwords.us/foto/picts/ulfls/12082007/12769785463.jpg
http://www.louderthanwords.us/foto/picts/ulfls/12082007/12769785464.jpghttp://www.louderthanwords.us/foto/picts/ulfls/12082007/12769785465.jpg
As always Johns work is exceptional! He has a second Colt that he is doing for me that I am looking forward to getting home. He did a WWI repro that is my favorite 1911!!!! Between you and DH I am not sure who I am more jealous of, being so close to Kennesaw and all......
I think USSA-1 has a great point... The major players in the ammunition business quit developing bullets suitable for the 10mm as it was being surpassed by the .40SW in popularity. Unfortunately for the 10mm lovers out there current 10mm bullet selection is very limited and much of it (Double Tap/Buffalo Bore) use bullets actually designed for the lower speed .40SW. As much as I like the 10mm I doubt we will ever see bullets up to the challenge of performing as well as the mainstream loadings in 9mm, .40SW and .45ACP.
Spooky
I am convinced that all modern JHP rounds 9x19mm or greater are sufficient for direct frontal COM shots, and this is not my opinion, but that which I have gleaned from those far more qualified. While 9mm may make smaller holes than .45 it also puts more lead on target in the same time period for most shooters, and so the difference is balanced for most.
Where the calibers seem to differentiate is barrier penetration. Perhaps this should receive more attention.
NinjaMedic
02-06-09, 18:41
Good point. Doc, in your testing have you seen any caliber related tendencies in regards to intermediate barrier performance? I know that one of the rumors on TX DPS moving to .357SIG was its performance through windshields and auto bodies. (personally I think it had to do more with sig's incentives than caliber performance)
The increased velocity of the .357sig only helps against certain materials. Those materials which require a great deal of impact energy to deform them so that the bullet can pass through. Such materials are hard barriers such as sheet metal, or elastic materials such as car tires.
Here you can see that the increased velocity of the .357sig only improved performance over the 9mm in those specific areas(Winchester Ranger Talons):
9mm+P 124gr(1180fps): (Penetration/Expansion)
Bare Gel: 12.2”/.70”
Through Denim: 13.9”/.67”
Through Heavy Cloth: 13.3”/.68”
Through Wallboard: 14”/.66”
Through Plywood: 13.1”/.65”
Through Steel: 18.9”/.40”
Through Auto Glass: 10.6”/.48”
.357sig 125gr(1350fps): (Penetration/Expansion)
Bare Gel: 10.9”/.63”
Through Denim: 12.1”/.66”
Through Heavy Cloth: 10.7”/.69”
Through Wallboard: 15.4”/.48”
Through Plywood: 12.2”/.66”
Through Steel: 23.4”/.41”
Through Auto Glass: 10.3”/.49”
Here's the slower moving 147gr 9mm:
9mm 147gr(990fps): (Penetration/Expansion)
Bare Gel: 13.9”/.65”
Through Denim: 14.5”/.66”
Through Heavy Cloth: 14”/.66”
Through Wallboard: 15”/.67”
Through Plywood: 14.8”/.62”
Through Steel: 17”/.45”
Through Auto Glass: 10.8”/.52”
If you want true improvement, the .40S&W does better overall:
.40S&W 180gr(990fps): (Penetration/Expansion)
Bare Gel: 13.1”/.68”
Through Denim: 14.3”/.70”
Through Heavy Cloth: 13.4”/.64”
Through Wallboard: 13.1”/.66”
Through Plywood: 15.1”/.64”
Through Steel: 17”/.52”
Through Auto Glass: 12”/.61”
I'm not entirely sure why Texas DPS prefers the .357sig, but they also preferred the .357magnum. I do know that in the 1970s when my uncle worked for them they tested a lot of loads against old cars and stuck pine 4x4s behind various panels to serve as the subjects inside. Hardly scientific. Chief Thomas Davis was a big proponent of the high energy crazy of the 1970s and 1980s and I'm willing to bet that his preference played a part in equipment selection. Texas State Troopers are also very well trained and spend roughly double the time training at the range than most departments. What might be confused for superior caliber, might actually be superior marksmanship.
Here's some testing that was done by Delaware State Troopers and David DiFabio:
The test guns used were the Glock G31, Glock G22, and Glock G17.
Test ammo used was Speer Gold Dot as follows:
Load 1: 9mm 124gr+P Lot# 28904
Load 2:.40S&W 180gr Lot# B28G64
Load 3: .357 Sig 125gr Lot # J02G34
We tested as follows:
Test Panel #1
1999 Ford Taurus Hood (w car attached)
Distance to target: 3 yards
Angle to target: Approx 30 degrees (estimated height for a 5'10" male to be standing in front of the car firing at it aiming at the rear 1/3)
Result:
Load 1: Semi-round crater/hole w/partial penetration and impact with the windshield in the lower 1/4 of the glass. RW=114grs
Load 2: Oblong crater w/full penetration through the hood and interestingly enough we found a small perfectly circular metal disc matching the hood material and color about 12" from the point where the round struck the engine. RW=146grs
Load 3: Almost circular crater/hole just slightly larger then 9mm, no metal disc, and a slightly deformed bullet. RW=118grs
Test Panel (s) 2:
1992, Chevrolet C1500, 1991 C2500, and 1996 C1500 windshields in perfect condition (the model years do not match but they were free and it was the best we could come up with).
Fired at directly in front of the front bumper of the truck(s) at 3 yards distance to the hood using the steering wheel as the aiming point on each one.
Result:
Load 1: complete penetration with a slightly oblong entry hole. RW= 98grs
Load 2: complete penetration with a virtually circular hole. RW= 134grs
Load 3: complete penetration with a slightly oblong entry hole. RW= 107grs
Test Panel 3:
1998 Chevrolet Suburban C2500 one piece fold down rear lift gate (split type with upper glass window and one opening handle).
Distance to target 3 yards.
Aiming point upper 1/3 of the lift gate but all impacts occurred 4-6” below the top edge.
Result:
Load 1: Complete penetration with a torn/deformed bullet stopped within the outer vinyl layer of the rear (3rd) seat. RW=112grs
Load 2: complete penetration with a non-expanded but heavily deformed bullet stopped by the center layer of the 2nd (middle) seat. RW=137grs
Load 3: Complete penetration with a moderately deformed bullet lodged in the center console of the front row seats (driver and passenger). The bullet appears to have collapsed in on itself in effect becoming an fmj flat nosed projectile. RW= 116grs
We did not have the ability due to scheduling constraints and sheer luck in getting the owners to agree to do the tests on what were otherwise good “salvage” parts to prepare and bring calibrated ordnance gelatin to capture the bullets in after they passed through the barriers so I cannot comment as to the penetration/expansion/performance in tissue stimulant."
Here's a quote from Dr. Roberts:
"According to Dr. Fackler's work and that published by the FBI, approximately 50% of people who stop their actions after being shot with a handgun are incapacitated by incalculable psychological factors. Physiologically, there is no greater physiological damage caused by 357 Sig compared to other service pistol calibers. Remember the factory 357 Sig 125 gr loadings generally are only moving 100 f/s or so faster than the hotter 9 mm loadings, such as the Win 127 gr +P+ RA9TA; why would this meager 100 f/s difference make any more difference in this caliber than in other calibers with equal or greater differences in velocity, for example a 9mm Speer 147 gr Gold Dot at 998 f/s vs. a 9 mm Speer 124 gr +P Gold Dot at 1239 f/s?
I am grateful that the 357 Sig issuing agencies are satisfied with their weapon system performance. By the same token, every single agency that I am aware of that has acquired reliable pistols, dilligently emphasizes frequent realistic lethal force training and tactics, and uses good quality service pistol ammunition in 9 mm, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP are also very happy with their shooting results.
Good Training and Proper Psychological Preparedness coupled with Reliable Weapon Systems and followed by Frequent Practice is what will win the battles."
"The CHP reported the improved terminal effectiveness of .40 S&W compared to .357 Mag prior to their change in firearms training. I first saw the data when it was presented during a wound ballistic conference I attended at the CHP Academy in the early 1990's; I heard it discussed again at a CHP Officer Involved Shootings Investigation Team meeting in November of 1997 at Vallejo, CA. The information reviewed the differences in ammunition terminal performance such as penetration depth, recovered bullet characteristics, tissue damage and other physiological measurements and physical evidence detailed during forensic analysis."
The .357sig will get the job done. However, with modernized ammunition the lower velocity calibers have just as good of a track record in major LE divisions. If you don't have enough failures to stop, you haven't had enough shootings.
The bonded .40 S&W 180 gr and .45 ACP 230 gr tend to be the best performers against laminated windshields; higher velocity 0.355" diameter projectiles tend to be the best against metal.
The bonded .40 S&W 180 gr and .45 ACP 230 gr tend to be the best performers against laminated windshields; higher velocity 0.355" diameter projectiles tend to be the best against metal.
Another plus for the 357 SIG, then. It will be the handgun caliber of choice when the alien robots invade ...
If you really want to punch metal with a handgun, then 7.62x25mm has 357 Sig beat...
I am playing with a Glock 20 with a 6" barrel. I am told Buffalo Bore 180gr will be 1400+ fps. I will chrono some soon through my Oehler 3 screen and will see. Might try this on deer.
Does this 1400 fps approach fast enough for the temporary cavity to induce tearing and gain much over 9mm or .45 acp. I also wonder if a 150-160 driven faster would gain anything.
Has anybody got any accurate data on 9x25mm Dillon, I'm tempted to play with this in a 6" barrel as well. The data I see on fps is contradictory.
As an aside 175 gr WW factory Silvertips chronoed at 1100 out of my GL29.
I'm not unhappy with my 9mm,45acp or 10mm Glocks just curious.
I have much heavier revolvers for dangerous animals, 44, 475 Linebaugh, 500 Linebaugh, 500 S&W 4". I'm wondering if a 10mm might cover problem solving in the woods as a compromise if you are not actively seeking bear, boar. Mainly worried about feral people and feral dogs. I do not wish problems but on occasion they present.
Hey Erik:
Since this is your thread, I hope you don't mind me showing off a 10mm my friend John Harrison built recently. The finish is ion bond.
http://www.louderthanwords.us/mediumfoto/picts/ulfls/12082007/19704566031.jpg
http://www.louderthanwords.us/mediumfoto/picts/ulfls/12082007/19704566032.jpg
http://www.louderthanwords.us/foto/picts/ulfls/12082007/19704566033.jpghttp://www.louderthanwords.us/foto/picts/ulfls/12082007/19704566034.jpg
http://www.louderthanwords.us/foto/picts/ulfls/12082007/19704566005.jpghttp://www.louderthanwords.us/foto/picts/ulfls/12082007/12769785461.jpg
http://www.louderthanwords.us/foto/picts/ulfls/12082007/12769785462.jpghttp://www.louderthanwords.us/foto/picts/ulfls/12082007/12769785463.jpg
http://www.louderthanwords.us/foto/picts/ulfls/12082007/12769785464.jpghttp://www.louderthanwords.us/foto/picts/ulfls/12082007/12769785465.jpg
How is the IONBond holding up?
I'm curious about the velocity threshold myself. However, some of the reading here indicates that the additional velocity would not result in any additional wounding. Even though this information comes from highly knowledgable experts I still have a hard time believing a 125 gr. .357 Magnum JHP or a 180 gr. .44 Magnum JHP at 1600 FPS is no more effective than a 180 gr. .40 S&W at 1000 FPS.
I guess i've read too many accounts of the 125 gr. .357 Magnum load having a "struck by lightning" effect on the perp or statements from medical examiners stating these higher velocity loads resulting in what looked like high powered rifle wounds. I dunno.
of the 125 gr. .357 Magnum load having a "struck by lightning" effect on the perp
Watch the Trooper Coates video and get back to me on that opinion.
A trauma doc friend yells me he sometimes sees small amounts of stellate tearing in the wound track from hotter rounds in the 1400-1500fps range, like full power .357mag JHPs, but he's not convinced it does anything to assist incapacitation.
Trooper Coates shot his killer with 38 special +Ps
No, he didn't, Trooper Coates' revolver was loaded with Winchester .357mag 125gr JHPs.
The training tape that most people see has some jacked up info in it.
Anyway, that wouldn't be the first fails-to-stop from the 125gr .357mag that I know of. We also had one here years ago, among other I am aware of.
The authorized ammo at the time was 38 Special +P, not 357 mag.
There seems to be some serious confusion as to which load was used in this particular shooting.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs3.htm
"Trooper Coates fired four 145 grain Winchester Silvertip .357 Magnum bullets directly into his assailant's heavy abdomen, achieving solid hits with each."
I have a bad habit of actually calling directly to the source for info, which I did again in this case through a friend, my ammo info came directly from a trooper there that I spoke to.
... and Blackburn was hit with 5 out of the 6 shots fired.
Wolf Spyder
08-16-12, 19:10
Are we any closer to getting some 10mm loads tested? I would like to see some information on 165 grain Gold Dots from Underwood.
broberts001
08-19-12, 06:33
I have some Underwood 180gr I can donate to the test, both the TMJ and GD.
-Bryan
filthy phil
08-19-12, 07:32
the 10 ring at glocktalk is a great source of info
Wolf Spyder
09-08-12, 18:35
TN-OUTDOORS-9 has done it for us.
10mm Ammo Gel Test: Underwood Ammo 180 gr Gold Dot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl_n_miLfbY
Watch the 10mm "Meteorite" outperforms everything else.
TN-OUTDOORS-9 has done it for us.
10mm Ammo Gel Test: Underwood Ammo 180 gr Gold Dot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl_n_miLfbY
Watch the 10mm "Meteorite" outperforms everything else.
How does it "outperforms everything else"?
Is it tje Temporary Stretch Cavity that you and TNOutdoors still put stock into? Is it the single round fired? Is it the "callibrated ordnance gelatin" that is neither calibrated nor 10% ordnance gelatin? Is it the core/jacket seperation? Is it the expansion that came nowhere near your claims in that other thread you were involved in?
How does it "outperforms everything else"?
Is it tje Temporary Stretch Cavity that you and TNOutdoors still put stock into? Is it the single round fired? Is it the "callibrated ordnance gelatin" that is neither calibrated nor 10% ordnance gelatin? Is it the core/jacket seperation? Is it the expansion that came nowhere near your claims in that other thread you were involved in?
You cannot use reason and logic with someone so emotionally invested in his caliber of choice. He was so excited by his misinterpretation of the video he bumped 2 threads to discuss it. It's like having an 8th grader in a graduate level class. He already knows everything so there's no point distracting him with real science.
Wolf Spyder
09-11-12, 19:10
How does it "outperforms everything else"?
Is it the Temporary Stretch Cavity that you and TNOutdoors9 still put stock into? Is it the single round fired? Is it the "calibrated ordnance gelatin" that is neither calibrated nor 10% ordnance gelatin? Is it the core/jacket separation? Is it the expansion that came nowhere near your claims in that other thread you were involved in?
My comment focuses on the damage done to the Sim-test media when compared to the damage done by all the other service sized caliber Sim-test media videos. The Underwood 180 gr. Gold Dot caused more damage to the Sim-test media than any of the other bullets in any of the other service sized calibers.
As for the expansion I got out of a 165 gr. Gold Dot, what does that have to do with a 180 gr. Gold Dot?
My excitement over this test comes from the damage done to the test media and the fact that the Gold Dot penetrated less than 18 inches. This counters two arguments leveled at the full power 10mm loads. Everyone said it would cause the exact same damage as a .40S&W and that it would severely over penetrate. Now we know that both of those two charges are false. So of course I'm tickled. ;)
[SIZE="3"]
My comment focuses on the damage done to the Sim-test media when compared to the damage done by all the other service sized caliber Sim-test media videos. The Underwood 180 gr. Gold Dot caused more damage to the Sim-test media than any of the other bullets in any of the other service sized calibers.
And if Sim-Test was a valid medium for terminal ballistics, you might be onto something, but it doesnt, and you arent. So to clarify, you are relying on a test that 1. Uses one fired round, 2. Said single round was fired in a medium not used for terminal ballistics, and 3. Neither you nor the video author knows how to understand a wound profile for a handgun.
As for the expansion I got out of a 165 gr. Gold Dot, what does that have to do with a 180 gr. Gold Dot?
Well as ignorant as the video author is, even he knows how measure the diameter and leading edge of a bullet. You still dont, because you prefer to remain blissfully, willfully ignorant.
My excitement over this test comes from the damage done to the test media and the fact that the Gold Dot penetrated less than 18 inches. This counters two arguments leveled at the full power 10mm loads. Everyone said it would cause the exact same damage as a .40S&W and that it would severely over penetrate. Now we know that both of those two charges are false. So of course I'm tickled. ;)
So once again you are basing your posts about the 10mm of an scientifically invalid "test", because its supports your scientifically invalid claim. No less, no more. The only thing that is false around here is every claim you've ever made regarding the 10mm, which also causes your other posts to fall into question.
BTW, how do you like your cores and jackets? Intact or seperated?
Wolf Spyder
09-11-12, 23:32
Fail-Safe, I'm not really sure what your hang-up is, but you seem to have an un-natural hatred for the 10mm. Not to mention you seem to be stocking me... I'm not that sexy dude. You might want to stock somebody else.
And if Sim-Test was a valid medium for terminal ballistics, you might be onto something, but it doesn't, and you aren't.
Who says Sim-test is not used for ballistics testing? The manufacturer produces and markets Sim-test for that purpose. I would also like to mention that TNOutdoors9 alters the density to more closely match 10% Ballistics Gel. He calibrates his Sim-test media by using a BB traveling at the correct speed and to the correct depth in the Sim-test media.
Well as ignorant as the video author is...
What is up with all the personal attacks? What has TNOutdoors9 ever done to you? He seems to be a very nice and respectful person. When folks offer compliments he is always grateful. He is going out of his way to offer useful information for the rest of us and he is shouldering almost all the cost.
So what the F*ck is your problem?
Alaskapopo
09-12-12, 00:22
A good reason not to carry a 10mm. One of my officers like this round for back up in his Glock 29. He has to carry the issue 17 as a primary pistol but I grudgingly allowed him to carry a 29 off duty and as a back up gun as long as he can pass the qual. Not surprising his GLock 17 score was 236 out of 250 while his Glock 29 score was 220. Your better off with a gun you can shoot well regardless of the ballistic arguments.
Pat
Wolf Spyder
09-12-12, 00:36
A good reason not to carry a 10mm. One of my officers like this round for back up in his Glock 29. He has to carry the issue 17 as a primary pistol but I grudgingly allowed him to carry a 29 off duty and as a back up gun as long as he can pass the qual. Not surprising his GLock 17 score was 236 out of 250 while his Glock 29 score was 220. Your better off with a gun you can shoot well regardless of the ballistic arguments.
Pat
I agree. If I were a law enforcement officer I would carry what ever I was issued and my back-up would be of the same caliber as well as a compact version of my full sized issued weapon. So if it was the Glock 17, my back-up would be a Glock 26.
Alaskapopo
09-12-12, 00:38
I agree. If I were a law enforcement officer I would carry what ever I was issued and my back-up would be of the same caliber as well as a compact version of my full sized issued weapon. So if it was the Glock 17, my back-up would be a Glock 26.
I used to carry a 26 as back up and its a great gun but I found I could carry my 19 just as well so I sold the 26 and use the 19 as a bug and an off duty gun.
Pat
Wolf Spyder
09-12-12, 01:08
I used to carry a 26 as back up and its a great gun but I found I could carry my 19 just as well so I sold the 26 and use the 19 as a bug and an off duty gun.
Pat
Ya, both are fine. I was just trying to imagine carrying a back-up as an LEO... For off duty the Glock 19 would be better than the Glock 26 for most situations. My youngest brother carries the Glock 19 as an EDC. I some times tease him for not being fat enough to EDC a Glock 20. You know... a real man's gun. :sarcastic:
Fail-Safe, I'm not really sure what your hang-up is, but you seem to have an un-natural hatred for the 10mm. Not to mention you seem to be stocking me... I'm not that sexy dude. You might want to stock somebody else.
Nope, I have a hatred for fiction in the topic of Terminal Ballistics. Having owned a few 10mms, I find it to be a fun round, but its not the penultimate. I dont believe it will outperform the .40S&W enough to justify its existence.
BTW, I dont "stock" anybody. I read everything here in not only an effort to learn, but to separate wheat from chaff.
Who says Sim-test is not used for ballistics testing? The manufacturer produces and markets Sim-test for that purpose. I would also like to mention that TNOutdoors9 alters the density to more closely match 10% Ballistics Gel. He calibrates his Sim-test media by using a BB traveling at the correct speed and to the correct depth in the Sim-test media.
Well, Dr Roberts for one. You know, the worlds leading authority on the subject of Terminal Ballistics. The man you have attempted to discredit in the past.
It doesnt matter what a manufacturers markets their products for. Jennings, Bryco, etc market their pistols for personal protection, but that doesnt mean they are good at it.
It doesnt matter if TNOutdoors alters the Sim-Test. He shouldnt have to if it works the way the manufacturer says. How does he alter the media? Why is it in every video of his I watched, there is no BB hole, no proof of calibration? Just claims that is calibrated.
What is up with all the personal attacks? What has TNOutdoors9 ever done to you? He seems to be a very nice and respectful person. When folks offer compliments he is always grateful. He is going out of his way to offer useful information for the rest of us and he is shouldering almost all the cost.
Personal attacks? Saying someone is ignorant isnt a personal attack, especially if its true. It is true in TNOutdoors case. He refers to the Temporary Stretch Cavity as the "Temporary Wound" and believes it to be a factor when evidence doesnt support this. He has been told by many that he is not passing around inaccurate information in regards to wounds ballistics, but he continues on. Its willfull now. I'm sure he is grateful for compliments, but he seems to ignore constructive criticism.
Alaskapopo
09-13-12, 14:56
Nope, I have a hatred for fiction in the topic of Terminal Ballistics. Having owned a few 10mms, I find it to be a fun round, but its not the penultimate. I dont believe it will outperform the .40S&W enough to justify its existence.
.
This is where we part company. For certain uses like as a woods gun the 10mm is a far far far far better choice than the .40 SW. Now for use as a service caliber against people your right. But you need to think outside your little box before making a general all inclusive statement like that. Both you and Wolf Spyder need to take a chill pill. Live and let live. Enough of the name calling and bickering back and forth. Its obvious you don't care for one another, get over it and live and let live.
Pat
1) For me, the 10mm is purely a launch vehicle for shooting 200 grain solids, for use around animals. I carried a 20 or 29 all summer in Alaska.
2) I have no illusion that JHP ammo in 10mm is better than any other service caliber (9,40,45).
3) I am interested in your statement that the 10 is far far far better than the .40 as a woods gun. I would like to think so, but I have been able to locate no real data on this.
This is where we part company. For certain uses like as a woods gun the 10mm is a far far far far better choice than the .40 SW. Now for use as a service caliber against people your right. But you need to think outside your little box before making a general all inclusive statement like that. Both you and Wolf Spyder need to take a chill pill. Live and let live. Enough of the name calling and bickering back and forth. Its obvious you don't care for one another, get over it and live and let live.
Pat
Having carried 10mm in the woods, I stand by my statement. I dont believe the performance differences are enough to matter. You can call it into question, but if you are going to, I'd love to see some concrete proof. Ofcourse this takes us back a few months to a thread were you had none, and I had none.
I dont need a "chill pill", I'm actually quite relaxed. That said, dont prescribe something you've refused in the past.
I am not the one attempting to discredit Dr Roberts via childish manners. I am also not the poster who refuses to read papers presented, or links supplied to better understand the science behind terminal ballistics. I am also not the one disregarding others that have tried to explain the facts. Finally I am not the one making baseless claims off of a faulty test, while using said "test" to try and prove 30+ years of study wrong.
Beyond that crap, he may be a swell guy.
Alaskapopo
09-13-12, 23:54
Having carried 10mm in the woods, I stand by my statement. I dont believe the performance differences are enough to matter. You can call it into question, but if you are going to, I'd love to see some concrete proof. Ofcourse this takes us back a few months to a thread were you had none, and I had none.
I dont need a "chill pill", I'm actually quite relaxed. That said, dont prescribe something you've refused in the past.
I am not the one attempting to discredit Dr Roberts via childish manners. I am also not the poster who refuses to read papers presented, or links supplied to better understand the science behind terminal ballistics. I am also not the one disregarding others that have tried to explain the facts. Finally I am not the one making baseless claims off of a faulty test, while using said "test" to try and prove 30+ years of study wrong.
Beyond that crap, he may be a swell guy.
Failsafe how many bears or any animal for that matter have you had to defend yourself against with a .40sw? I have had to kill more than a few bears in my line of work. Believe what you want but the .40 is not enough for the job. The 10mm is still underpowered but its leaps and bounds ahead of the .40 SW. 1300 fps with a 180 grain bullet is better than 1000 fps. I am talking driving a FMJ bullet where extra speed means extra penetration.
Pat
Alaskapopo
09-14-12, 00:03
1) For me, the 10mm is purely a launch vehicle for shooting 200 grain solids, for use around animals. I carried a 20 or 29 all summer in Alaska.
2) I have no illusion that JHP ammo in 10mm is better than any other service caliber (9,40,45).
3) I am interested in your statement that the 10 is far far far better than the .40 as a woods gun. I would like to think so, but I have been able to locate no real data on this.
Put it this way a 180 grain FMJ bullet at 1300 fps will penetrate deeper than the same bullet going 1000 fps. Not everything is documented and put out in easy to read formats. Sometimes you just have to go with your own experience and that of others. I also don't believe in the 10mm for personal defense needs outside of that as a woods gun. And frankly I am still debating between my Glock 20 and my 5 shot Hamilton Bowen conversion on a Redhawk for .45 colt. (loaded to near .454 velocities 1350 fps with a 350 grain lead slug)
Pat
Here is how I look at this. With a handgun, I don't believe you can reliably break down an animal like with a 45-70 with proper bullets/.375 H&H/12 gauge with Brenneke slugs. That means, to stop a charge with a handgun, you need to be able to reliably penetrate the upper CNS from 0-20 yards.
That leads to the question as to what is the velocity threshold with a FMJ FP bullet to penetrate the skull on a grizzly bear? For example, Garrett Cartridges' Defender load for the Scandium is 300 something grains at 1,020. The Double Tap 200 grain penetrator load is about 1,200 fps. I see Buffalo Bore makes a .40 S&W FMJ at about 1,100 fps.
Once we know what velocity will reliably penetrate the skull, we can make informed choices such as 40, 10, .44 versus .45 LC. My preference is the lightest weight handgun, that carries the most cartridges, with the least recoil allowing me to make accurate follow-up shots. Since I will have shot well over 30,000 rounds thru a G17 this year, it being a Glock is desirable from a familiarity/proficiency perspective.
As an aside, I have two Bowen Alpine conversions, .44 and .45 LC, but both are heavier than I care to carry for extended periods. I also have a Bowen four inch Blackhawk, that has been slimmed down, that shoots great, but I feel a SA revolver is not ideal for this use.
Alaskapopo
09-14-12, 01:06
Here is how I look at this. With a handgun, I don't believe you can reliably break down an animal like with a 45-70 with proper bullets/.375 H&H/12 gauge with Brenneke slugs. That means, to stop a charge with a handgun, you need to be able to reliably penetrate the upper CNS from 0-20 yards.
That leads to the question as to what is the velocity threshold with a FMJ FP bullet to penetrate the skull on a grizzly bear? For example, Garrett Cartridges' Defender load for the Scandium is 300 something grains at 1,020. The Double Tap 200 grain penetrator load is about 1,200 fps. I see Buffalo Bore makes a .40 S&W FMJ at about 1,100 fps.
Once we know what velocity will reliably penetrate the skull, we can make informed choices such as 40, 10, .44 versus .45 LC. My preference is the lightest weight handgun, that carries the most cartridges, with the least recoil allowing me to make accurate follow-up shots. Since I will have shot well over 30,000 rounds thru a G17 this year, it being a Glock is desirable from a familiarity/proficiency perspective.
As an aside, I have two Bowen Alpine conversions, .44 and .45 LC, but both are heavier than I care to carry for extended periods. I also have a Bowen four inch Blackhawk, that has been slimmed down, that shoots great, but I feel a SA revolver is not ideal for this use.
I agree and the reason I am giving the Glock 20 strong consideration is because the Bowen is a pain to carry on long hikes.
Pat
Wolf Spyder
09-15-12, 02:38
Nope, I have a hatred for fiction in the topic of Terminal Ballistics. Having owned a few 10mms, I find it to be a fun round, but its not the penultimate. I don't believe it will outperform the .40S&W enough to justify its existence.
I had to look up the word "penultimate". It means; Next to the last. So I don't understand how that fits. I think your trying to say something else. At any rate, it boils down to being your opinion. You have looked at the data, and you have factored in those things that you think are important, and you came to a conclusion. That doesn't make it fact.
BTW, I don't "stock" anybody. I read everything here in not only an effort to learn, but to separate wheat from chaff.
I was joking, dude. I understand that it is really hard to tell the difference in a typed post. I try to cut everyone slack when reading posts on the internet. So if I read something that sounds a little off color, I assume it was meant as a joke. In my own life I try to be positive and up beat. However, it is hard to present that in a post.
When I read your stuff, you seem to be on a mission to set the world straight with regards to the 10mm. You think your opinion carries more weight than it actually does. In the end it is just your opinion.
Well, Dr Roberts for one. You know, the worlds leading authority on the subject of Terminal Ballistics. The man you have attempted to discredit in the past.
I wasn't trying to discredit anyone. I was trying to get someone to show me the data. Or at the very least do some new testing of the current 10mm loads offered by the different manufacturers. Trust me, it is hard to find gel reports on the 10mm. Dr. Roberts was very understanding and very helpful, but he too admits that since it is the Government that does a lot of these tests... the information is not published for public eyes.
It doesn't matter what a manufacturers markets their products for. Jennings, Bryco, etc market their pistols for personal protection, but that doesn't mean they are good at it.
In your opinion. Someone else may feel differently.
It doesn't matter if TNOutdoors9 alters the Sim-Test. He shouldn't have to if it works the way the manufacturer says. How does he alter the media? Why is it in every video of his I watched, there is no BB hole, no proof of calibration? Just claims that is calibrated.
Personal attacks? Saying someone is ignorant isn't a personal attack, especially if its true. It is true in TNOutdoors9 case. He refers to the Temporary Stretch Cavity as the "Temporary Wound" and believes it to be a factor when evidence doesn't support this. He has been told by many that he is not passing around inaccurate information in regards to wounds ballistics, but he continues on. Its willful now. I'm sure he is grateful for compliments, but he seems to ignore constructive criticism.
Ummm, a personal attack doesn't have to be true or false to be a personal attack. He offers the technical information about his Sim-test media and his reasons for using it in it's own video. If you want I'll find it for you. Personally I think he is doing a great job with the stuff he has to work with. In the end, he is being far more helpful to the average "Joe Shooter" than you are.
For what it is worth, most of your posts point to you being a regular guy. A true red blooded American. I don't have a problem with you at all, out side of you coming across as being a Caliber Nazi, but there is nothing wrong with that as long as you realize it is all just your opinion.
Wolf Spyder
09-15-12, 03:05
Having carried 10mm in the woods, I stand by my statement. I don't believe the performance differences are enough to matter. You can call it into question, but if you are going to, I'd love to see some concrete proof. Of course this takes us back a few months to a thread were you had none, and I had none.
...see there, it is what you believe, it is your opinion.
However, I use to live just round the bend to a fellow who had his own private zoo just outside of Zanesville Ohio. One fine morning he set all the animals free and then shot himself in the head. I'll let you google the story if you want. Outside of the Bangle Tigers, Lions and numerous monkeys and other very dangerous wild animals this guy had, he had a Bear. The first responding officer to the zoo/house found a Tiger eating the home owner. So he shot the Tiger with his AR15 and then put the rifle back in the patrol car. While standing outside the car, using the radio, a Bear charged the officer from the field next to where he was parked. Some reports say it was a Black Bear, and some reports say it was a Big Brown Bear. Either way, he fired one or two rounds from his Glock .40 S&W using the issued JHP's and killed the charging Bear.
Say what you will, but for that officer, his Glock .40 S&W saved his life by stopping a charging Bear. I don't know about the rest of you, but I carry a 10mm Glock 20 when I leave the house here in the Golden Corner of South Carolina, where we have roughly 1100 Black Bear in and around our county.
I am also not the poster who refuses to read papers presented, or links supplied to better understand the science behind terminal ballistics. I am also not the one disregarding others that have tried to explain the facts. Finally I am not the one making baseless claims off of a faulty test, while using said "test" to try and prove 30+ years of study wrong.
Beyond that crap, he may be a swell guy.
I read everything that was offered to read. I even thanked you for the PDF file that you offered for me to read.
Well, 30 years of tests haven't studied the new loads nor has it studied the new bullet designs traveling at 10mm velocities. The 10mm loads that were studied were bullets designed 20 years ago. So I don't see how those old tests matter when we have new loads that have not been tested. Hence the reason I was pushing for Dr. Roberts to test some of the new loads.
Alaskapopo
09-15-12, 03:20
...see there, it is what you believe, it is your opinion.
However, I use to live just round the bend to a fellow who had his own private zoo just outside of Zanesville Ohio. One fine morning he set all the animals free and then shot himself in the head. I'll let you google the story if you want. Outside of the Bangle Tigers, Lions and numerous monkeys and other very dangerous wild animals this guy had, he had a Bear. The first responding officer to the zoo/house found a Tiger eating the home owner. So he shot the Tiger with his AR15 and then put the rifle back in the patrol car. While standing outside the car, using the radio, a Bear charged the officer from the field next to where he was parked. Some reports say it was a Black Bear, and some reports say it was a Big Brown Bear. Either way, he fired one or two rounds from his Glock .40 S&W using the issued JHP's and killed the charging Bear.
Say what you will, but for that officer, his Glock .40 S&W saved his life by stopping a charging Bear. I don't know about the rest of you, but I carry a 10mm Glock 20 when I leave the house here in the Golden Corner of South Carolina, where we have roughly 1100 Black Bear in and around our county.
I read everything that was offered to read. I even thanked you for the PDF file that you offered for me to read.
Well, 30 years of tests haven't studied the new loads nor has it studied the new bullet designs traveling at 10mm velocities. The 10mm loads that were studied were bullets designed 20 years ago. So I don't see how those old tests matter when we have new loads that have not been tested. Hence the reason I was pushing for Dr. Roberts to test some of the new loads.
There was a case a few years ago on the Kenai where a fisherman saved his friend from being mauled by a brown bear with a 9mm pistol. You can get lucky but neither the 40sw or the 9mm is a good choice for bear protection.
Pat
You can get lucky but neither the 40sw or the 9mm is a good choice for bear protection.
Pat
I can't imagine anyone recommending any handgun for bear protection, if a rifle or shotgun were an option as a primary, and I am not suggesting you feel differently.
To advance this discussion, if neither 9 nor 40 are a good choice, what caliber do you think is and why?
Wolf Spyder
09-15-12, 19:17
My opinion, the full power 10mm FMJ is a minimum. The only reason to use a 10mm over a larger revolver cartridge would be the Glock 20 and the standard capacity 15 round magazines. If I couldn't carry a Glock 20, then I would carry at least a .44 Magnum.
Alaskapopo
09-15-12, 20:01
I can't imagine anyone recommending any handgun for bear protection, if a rifle or shotgun were an option as a primary, and I am not suggesting you feel differently.
To advance this discussion, if neither 9 nor 40 are a good choice, what caliber do you think is and why?
For bear protection in a pistol I think a revolver in 44 magnum (or bigger) with hot loads with hard cast bullets or possibly a 10mm semi auto pistol loaded with hot FMJ bullets. The revolver has a lot more power but the 10mm will be easier to shoot well and easier to carry so its a trade off that I am not entirely sure of yet. Yes I prefer long guns for bear protection.
Pat
So to both of you, what is the velocity threshold for reliably penetrating the skull of a grizzly bear?
Alaskapopo
09-15-12, 21:16
So to both of you, what is the velocity threshold for reliably penetrating the skull of a grizzly bear?
Its not so much velocity as a function of momentium and bullet construction. I did have a fish and wildlife trooper friend of mine shoot some brown bear skulls with the 40sw (issued JHP ammo and FMJ loads) and .357 sig loads. The 40 JHP did not penetrate in his tests. The FMJ did and the JHP and FMJ 357 sigs penetrated. He opted to carry a .357 sig off duty in the woods with FMJ figuring that your only chance with a handgun is to get to the CNS and he could fire the.357 sig better than the big revolvers. I feel better with the 10mm with a 180 grain FMJ going 1300 to 1400 or a 200 grain FMJ going 1200. My revolver load is a 350 grain lead slug going 1350 fps.
So to answer your question I would say 1200 fps with at least a 150 grain bullet as a minimum and thats assuming its a non expanding bullet.
Pat
Wolf Spyder
09-16-12, 12:55
First off, we are not experts.
Second, we are talking in hypotheticals.
Third, this is the internet.
All of that said, it is my opinion that there is no magic velocity, instead a combination of bullet design, velocity, and bullet weight. You want a bullet of significant weight traveling at high velocity with a bullet design that prevents expansion. Easy.
These are the minimums in my opinion
10mm 165 gr. FMJ Truncated Cone @ 1250 fps ~ 572 ft lbs.
10mm 180 gr. FMJ Truncated Cone @ 1200 fps ~ 575 ft lbs.
10mm 200 gr. FMJ Truncated Cone @ 1130 fps ~ 567 ft lbs.
These are what I use.
My 10mm Bear load is the Hornady 200 gr. XTP JHP @ 1255 fps ~ 700 ft lbs from Underwood Ammunition.
My .44 Magnum Bear load is the Hornady 300 gr. XTP JHP @ 1100 fps ~ 805 ft lbs from Hornady Ammunition. This is a medium to medium/heavy recoil load in my opinion for the .44 Magnum. Underwood loads the same Hornady 300 gr. XTP JHP @ 1200 fps ~ 960 ft lbs and it feels a little snappier.
I am currently in the Golden Corner of South Carolina. We have roughly 1000 Black Bears in my local area. I carry my Glock 20 every day and when I go into the woods I use the Underwood 200 gr. XTP load. In all the time I have spent hiking and looking for water falls I have yet to see one Black Bear. So take what we are saying for what it is worth... a grain of salt.
Interesting discussion. I have shot two grizzly bears hunting, one with a .338 WM and the other with a Guide Gun with Garrett 420 hard cast, so no real real data as regards handguns. I have fired in anger at a grizzly with a handgun only once -- with a four inch 629 with Garrett ammo. That was a warning shot and the sow and two cubs skidded to a stop 10 yards away. That bullet performed very well. :)
Been carrying a four inch Scandium with the Garrett Defender load or a Glock 20/29 with the DoubleTap 200 grain penetrator load.
Collecting handgun stopping data on bears is likely to be hard on the bear and the shooter, so it is easy to understand why so little exists.
First off, we are not experts.
Second, we are talking in hypotheticals.
Third, this is the internet.
Which doesn't mean that some people can use this as an excuse shrug off commonly accepted expert oppinions in order to advance their own silly speculations, which if challenged on they will claim to be joking, since afterall, this is the internet.
Wolf Spyder
09-16-12, 17:08
Which doesn't mean that some people can use this as an excuse shrug off commonly accepted expert opinions in order to advance their own silly speculations, which if challenged on they will claim to be joking, since after all, this is the internet.
What? Now you too? Fail Safe needs to learn that he has an opinion, just like the rest of us. His opinion doesn't carry anymore weight than your's does. Or mine for that matter. You both need to come to grips with the fact that this is the internet, so lighten up. I try to be helpful to others. I try to view everything through a positive light. I try to smile and joke daily. So chill out.
The thing with the 10mm for me, is I am trying to get the new full power loads tested. I don't care what some one thinks will happen when you drive a Gold Dot at 1400 fps. I would like to see some proof. Everyone was flapping their jaws about their opinion on the matter, but no one had any proof. Most of the Federal testing is closed to the public. So when some body on the internet tells me that a 10mm Gold Dot @ 1400 fps will preform worse than a .40 S&W @ 1000 fps, I just don't believe it. I want to see the proof.
So when people get pissy because I won't take their word on the subject, I either ignore them, like I did to you, or I do my best to lighten the mood with goofy quips. Take it for what it is worth.
I for one really enjoy what TN-Outdoors-9 has done for the shooting public. He spends his own money and time to offer a visual aid for the rest of us poor saps. I think it is kinda petty for folks on this forum to attack that.
Heavy Metal
09-16-12, 18:13
In all the time I have spent hiking and looking for water falls I have yet to see one Black Bear. So take what we are saying for what it is worth... a grain of salt.
Shit....I average two Black Bear encounters a hiking season (Spring to Fall, when Bears are active).
I was close enough to a 200lb Black Bear a week ago Wednesday to spit on him before he ran like hell!
Glock 23 with FMJ and 185 Gold Dots mixed.
Alaskapopo
09-16-12, 18:24
Shit....I average two Black Bear encounters a hiking season (Spring to Fall, when Bears are active).
I was close enough to a 200lb Black Bear a week ago Wednesday to spit on him before he ran like hell!
Glock 23 with FMJ and 185 Gold Dots mixed.
Most bears will run but not always. I have had litterally hundreds of bear interactions and I have had to shoot 5 in the last 7 years.
Mixing loads is not a great idea. The JHP's are next to useless on bear especially from a 45 acp. You will not get anywhere near the penetration you need.
Pat
Heavy Metal
09-16-12, 18:33
Glock 23 is 40 Smith.
Correction, its 180 grain.
And again, my bears typically do not get over 300lbs.
And it ain't loaded just for Bears.
Bears around here tend to be real afraid of people because they are heavily hunted by Hounds. If a Bear survives long enough to get big, it generally has a severe respect for man and gives him a wide berth.
Alaskapopo
09-16-12, 18:52
Glock 23 is 40 Smith.
Correction, its 180 grain.
And again, my bears typically do not get over 300lbs.
And it ain't loaded just for Bears.
Bears around here tend to be real afraid of people because they are heavily hunted by Hounds. If a Bear survives long enough to get big, it generally has a severe respect for man and gives him a wide berth.
Your right the 23 is a 40 but as you noted they don't make a 185 grain Gold dot in 40sw that is why the confusion. Still mixing ammo is a bad idea. Better to be loaded with FMJ and have to shoot a person with your bear load than to have to shoot a bear with your people load. A 180 or 165 grain FMJ will do more to a person than a 180 grain JHP will do to a bear. Even the lighter weight black bears are considerably harder to penetrate than thin skined humans.
Pat
Pat, as you probably know, three wildlife Troopers responded to where Timothy Treadwell was killed and eaten by that large Grizzly in Katmai. My understanding is that two Troopers had shotguns, and one just his handgun. When the bear charged, the Trooper with the handgun was in front, preventing the two with shotguns from firing. I believe the Trooper killed the bear with his Glock .40. It would be very interesting to review any data from that shooting in terms of what ammo the Trooper shot and what the individual bullets did by way of penetration.
Wolf Spyder
09-16-12, 20:25
Shit... I average two Black Bear encounters a hiking season (Spring to Fall, when Bears are active). I was close enough to a 200lb Black Bear a week ago Wednesday to spit on him before he ran like hell!
Glock 23 with FMJ and 180 Gold Dots mixed.
Maybe I smell worse than you...
Alaskapopo
09-16-12, 20:38
Pat, as you probably know, three wildlife Troopers responded to where Timothy Treadwell was killed and eaten by that large Grizzly in Katmai. My understanding is that two Troopers had shotguns, and one just his handgun. When the bear charged, the Trooper with the handgun was in front, preventing the two with shotguns from firing. I believe the Trooper killed the bear with his Glock .40. It would be very interesting to review any data from that shooting in terms of what ammo the Trooper shot and what the individual bullets did by way of penetration.
Thats strange because they went over the Treadwell guy in a training I had and they did not mention that. As for ammo if the trooper did kill the bear with a 40 it would have been with one of 3 different 180 grain JHP bullets they are issued depending on who had the lowest bid at the time. (180 grain Federal Hydrashock at that time, 180 grian Golden Saber or 180 grain Golddot.) Are you sure the store you got was accurate because no one up here mentioned a pistol being used at all. A lot of the brown shirts these days are using Marlin 45-70's with hot Buffalo bore ammo. The others use 870 with Breneke slugs.
My recollection is from the time, as the .40 part was memorable. Quick Google search turned up the following:
http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/articles6/bear_attack_leaves_two_dead_in_a.htm
Park rangers encountered a large, aggressive male brown bear within minutes of arriving. Ranger Joel Ellis said two officers stood by with shotguns as he fired 11 times with a semi-automatic handgun before the animal fell, 12 feet away.
"That was cutting it thin," said Ellis, the lead investigator. "I didn't take the time to count how many times it was hit."
Another link, confirming it was a .40:
http://sleepless.blogs.com/george/2003/10/bear_killed_wit.html
Alaskapopo
09-16-12, 23:45
My recollection is from the time, as the .40 part was memorable. Quick Google search turned up the following:
http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/articles6/bear_attack_leaves_two_dead_in_a.htm
Park rangers encountered a large, aggressive male brown bear within minutes of arriving. Ranger Joel Ellis said two officers stood by with shotguns as he fired 11 times with a semi-automatic handgun before the animal fell, 12 feet away.
"That was cutting it thin," said Ellis, the lead investigator. "I didn't take the time to count how many times it was hit."
Another link, confirming it was a .40:
http://sleepless.blogs.com/george/2003/10/bear_killed_wit.html
Thats strange because I thought it was Troopers not Park Rangers who took the bear.
Pat
Just found the book "Grizzly Maze" in my wife's iBook collection. Relevant section starts at page 110. There were Parks guys and Troopers involved. Believed it actually was a Parks guy that did the shooting with the Glock .40. Book says he fired 11 soft points, but there was shotgun shooting, too.
Alaskapopo
09-17-12, 00:40
Just found the book "Grizzly Maze" in my wife's iBook collection. Relevant section starts at page 110. There were Parks guys and Troopers involved. Believed it actually was a Parks guy that did the shooting with the Glock .40. Book says he fired 11 soft points, but there was shotgun shooting, too.
I know he did not use soft points because there are none in the 40 nor have I seen any issues. I will have to look into this.
Pat
Failsafe how many bears or any animal for that matter have you had to defend yourself against with a .40sw? I have had to kill more than a few bears in my line of work. Believe what you want but the .40 is not enough for the job. The 10mm is still underpowered but its leaps and bounds ahead of the .40 SW. 1300 fps with a 180 grain bullet is better than 1000 fps. I am talking driving a FMJ bullet where extra speed means extra penetration.
Pat
I have killed some feral hogs with a 10mm, but I've also killed a few with both 9mm and .357sig. We dont have many bears in Central Texas. Deep East Texas, and out west, sure.
How is a JHP designed for .40S&W velocities pushed to 10mm velocities going to be better? I mean if we are to take the test that Wolff Spyder is high on at face value, it doesnt. I just dont understand how 300 fps makes that big a difference in a pistol round. Maybe in larger diameter rounds like .44mag, .45Colt, etc., but even then they use heavier bullets and have higher velocity.
Shooting a solid, I dont know if velocity will make that much of a difference their. I've seen a properly calibrated gel block with 158gr JSP in both .38spec and .357mag and the penetration isnt much of a diffence at all.
I had to look up the word "penultimate". It means; Next to the last. So I don't understand how that fits. I think your trying to say something else. At any rate, it boils down to being your opinion. You have looked at the data, and you have factored in those things that you think are important, and you came to a conclusion. That doesn't make it fact.
You dont understand a lot of things. However I was trying speech recognition software(btw, I'm typing again). I meant to say simply "ultimate".
I have looked at data. I have factored what is important, not what I feel is important. What makes fact is proof, and proof has no feeling or emotion.
I was joking, dude. I understand that it is really hard to tell the difference in a typed post. I try to cut everyone slack when reading posts on the internet. So if I read something that sounds a little off color, I assume it was meant as a joke. In my own life I try to be positive and up beat. However, it is hard to present that in a post.
That or you just got caught with a typo.
When I read your stuff, you seem to be on a mission to set the world straight with regards to the 10mm. You think your opinion carries more weight than it actually does. In the end it is just your opinion.
You're hypocrisy is showing, and not even just a little bit. You believe your opinion to be so valid you have to use a larger sized print. You have been shown you are wrong, but you keep on. it doesnt make you right, it makes you wrong in a larger print size.
Having studied the science of terminal ballistics for almost a decade, and read virtually everything I can on it, I feel I'm educated on the subject. I'm still learning. However I base my opinion off of the data at hand, and being able to interpret a pistol caliber wound in gelatin, even if it isnt suitable for testing. So, yeah, at the risk of sounding arrogant, I believe my opinion does carry more weight.
I wasn't trying to discredit anyone. I was trying to get someone to show me the data. Or at the very least do some new testing of the current 10mm loads offered by the different manufacturers. Trust me, it is hard to find gel reports on the 10mm. Dr. Roberts was very understanding and very helpful, but he too admits that since it is the Government that does a lot of these tests... the information is not published for public eyes.
You mocked Dr Roberts in the other thread for his opinions. Remember "Just guesses"? Truth be told it was a hypothesis. A valid one at that.
In your opinion. Someone else may feel differently.
We can draw conclusions from what trainers recommend, what LEAs use, etc. Furthermore those conclusions tend to jive with people have seen with regards to their durability. How someone else, and what is fact doesnt matter.
Ummm, a personal attack doesn't have to be true or false to be a personal attack. He offers the technical information about his Sim-test media and his reasons for using it in it's own video. If you want I'll find it for you. Personally I think he is doing a great job with the stuff he has to work with. In the end, he is being far more helpful to the average "Joe Shooter" than you are.
Nope. Stating someone is ignorant, when they really are isnt an insult. You equate ignorant with stupid, dumb, naive, etc. I equate it with "doesnt know".
The fact of the matter is he uses a substance that is not suited for ballistics testing (per Dr Roberts). He has to alter the substance to get it closer to 10% Ballistics Gelatin, he shows no calibration, and he fires one round. If that was good enough, the professionals in terminal ballistics would do that. But they dont.
The terms that TNOutdoors uses are inaccurate as well. He puts way too much stock the TSC as a wounding factor. I linked you a paper, you claimed you were going to read it. If you had, you would see the error in the terminology he uses.
For what it is worth, most of your posts point to you being a regular guy. A true red blooded American. I don't have a problem with you at all, out side of you coming across as being a Caliber Nazi, but there is nothing wrong with that as long as you realize it is all just your opinion.
Caliber Nazi? Classy.
Opinions? Sure. An educated one.
Alaskapopo
09-17-12, 14:03
I have killed some feral hogs with a 10mm, but I've also killed a few with both 9mm and .357sig. We dont have many bears in Central Texas. Deep East Texas, and out west, sure.
How is a JHP designed for .40S&W velocities pushed to 10mm velocities going to be better? I mean if we are to take the test that Wolff Spyder is high on at face value, it doesnt. I just dont understand how 300 fps makes that big a difference in a pistol round. Maybe in larger diameter rounds like .44mag, .45Colt, etc., but even then they use heavier bullets and have higher velocity.
Shooting a solid, I dont know if velocity will make that much of a difference their. I've seen a properly calibrated gel block with 158gr JSP in both .38spec and .357mag and the penetration isnt much of a diffence at all.
I am talking about FMJ's not JHP's designed around 40sw ballistics. The faster you push a non expanding bullet the deeper it will go and the better it will be able to break bone and that is what you need on a bear defense round. Bears are not calibrated gel blocks. Their tissue is denser and harder to penetrate.
Pat
...see there, it is what you believe, it is your opinion.
However, I use to live just round the bend to a fellow who had his own private zoo just outside of Zanesville Ohio. One fine morning he set all the animals free and then shot himself in the head. I'll let you google the story if you want. Outside of the Bangle Tigers, Lions and numerous monkeys and other very dangerous wild animals this guy had, he had a Bear. The first responding officer to the zoo/house found a Tiger eating the home owner. So he shot the Tiger with his AR15 and then put the rifle back in the patrol car. While standing outside the car, using the radio, a Bear charged the officer from the field next to where he was parked. Some reports say it was a Black Bear, and some reports say it was a Big Brown Bear. Either way, he fired one or two rounds from his Glock .40 S&W using the issued JHP's and killed the charging Bear.
Say what you will, but for that officer, his Glock .40 S&W saved his life by stopping a charging Bear. I don't know about the rest of you, but I carry a 10mm Glock 20 when I leave the house here in the Golden Corner of South Carolina, where we have roughly 1100 Black Bear in and around our county.[/quote]
Ooooohhhh.... Story time!
OK, so the cop used a .40S&W to drop the bear. Was it the caliber or was it the product placement? Would the bear have been any deader with a 10mm?
I read everything that was offered to read. I even thanked you for the PDF file that you offered for me to read.
Well, 30 years of tests haven't studied the new loads nor has it studied the new bullet designs traveling at 10mm velocities. The 10mm loads that were studied were bullets designed 20 years ago. So I don't see how those old tests matter when we have new loads that have not been tested. Hence the reason I was pushing for Dr. Roberts to test some of the new loads.
You read that thing? Did you understand it?
If you did, you'd understand that the paper, now 25'ish years old, literally transcends time. As Dr Roberts has stated, it is still the single best paper on handgun wounding factors.
We know that most handgun calibers dont have enough of a Temporary Stretch Cavity to increase wounding potential. Thus they have to rely on the tissue destroyed by the actual bullet, the Permanent Crush Cavity. The exceptions are the large revolver rounds whose weight and velocity contribute to a larger TSC.
Wolf Spyder
09-17-12, 15:56
You don't understand a lot of things. However I was trying speech recognition software(BTW, I'm typing again). I meant to say simply "ultimate".
You are correct, there are millions of things I don't understand. I don't understand why the national media works so hard for the Democrats when it is clear the Democrats would simply over look the 1st Amendment if it suited their purposes just as they do the 2nd Amendment. I don't understand why the Republican Establishment continues to push Moderate candidates when the base is far more Conservative.
All of that aside, what does my understanding of your use of words or use of software have to do with what we are talking about... that being you opinion?
I have looked at data. I have factored what is important, not what I feel is important. What makes fact is proof, and proof has no feeling or emotion.
Thats nice that you have decided what is important. So lets see this proof. Lets have a look at all of that Federal Ballistics Ordnance Gel data that is not published for civilian consumption. Lets see the proof that backs up the opinion that a 10mm 165 gr. Gold Dot @ 1400 fps will preform worse than a .40S&W 165 gr. Gold Dot @ 1000 fps. Which is the bases of this whole arguement between you and I.
You're hypocrisy is showing, and not even just a little bit. You believe your opinion to be so valid you have to use a larger sized print. ...It doesn't make you right, it makes you wrong in a larger print size.
??? What? What does print size have to do with anything? I use the larger text size because I can. I like it. And it makes it much easier for me to find my own posts. So how does that have anything to do with my "hypocrisy" in your opinion?
Having studied the science of terminal ballistics for almost a decade, and read virtually everything I can on it, I feel I'm educated on the subject. I'm still learning. However I base my opinion off of the data at hand, and being able to interpret a pistol caliber wound in gelatin, even if it isn't suitable for testing. So, yeah, at the risk of sounding arrogant, I believe my opinion does carry more weight.
Fail-Safe, my oldest daughter has a very rare genetic disorder. I have seen literally thousands of X-Ray and MRI films. I have almost all of them on DVDs on my book shelf. I have become pretty good at reading them, but that doesn't make me an X-Ray Tech. I still listen to the Doctors when they give me their opinions on those films. I have listened to those Doctors when it was their opinion that she would die before turning a year old. And again when they said she wouldn't live past two years old... four years old... six years old... I listened to those Human Genetics Experts tell me and my wife that our daughter had this disease, and then, no, it was that disease... then they admitted those were incorrect and she had a different desease. In the end these certified experts are giving us their opinions. My daughter is now 21 years old, and has a baby boy of her own. Which by the way, the experts said would be impossible.
This is her a few years ago with one of my 10mm Glock 20's
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v378/Wolf_Spyder/Img_3952CropResize2.jpg
As an EMT I trust my own eyes. When the equipment in the back of the Boo-boo-bus tells me one thing and my eyes and experience tell me something else... I trust my eyes. Now, that has nothing to do with Ballistics Testing. However, when I have a recovered .40S&W 165 gr. factory Gold Dot in one hand and a 10mm 165 gr. handloaded Gold Dot in the other... I believe my own eyes. So when you try to argue the point that a 165 gr. Gold Dot @ 1400 fps preforms worse than a 165 gr. @ 1000 fps, I look at the video data from TN-Outdoors-9 and I look at the two recovered bullets in my hand. I don't believe your opinion. If there is some super secret Government Data that proves your point, lets see it.
You mocked Dr Roberts in the other thread for his opinions. Remember "Just guesses"? Truth be told it was a hypothesis. A valid one at that.
a "Hypothesis" is an educated guess. I would like to see the proof.
The fact of the matter is he uses a substance that is not suited for ballistics testing (per Dr Roberts). He has to alter the substance to get it closer to 10% Ballistics Gelatin, he shows no calibration, and he fires one round. If that was good enough, the professionals in terminal ballistics would do that. But they don't.
First off, TN-Outdoors-9 is not making Public Policy for Police Departments around the nation. TN-Outdoors-9 is offering a visual aid, on his own dime, for folks on the internet.
If the experts were to publish their findings and their own video evidence, I might agree with you. However, seeing as the experts don't publish their evidence what are we to go on? In the end, I will believe my own eyes. I will believe the two recovered bullets I have in my own hand, and that reflects what I see in TN-Outdoors-9 YouTube videos.
Wolf Spyder
09-17-12, 16:46
OK, so the cop used a .40S&W to drop the bear. Was it the caliber or was it the product placement? Would the bear have been any deader with a 10mm?
What does that matter? Would that bear be any more dead if he had used a .460 Magnum? That question is goofy, at best. If I shoot a bad guy with a .22 lr and he dies, does that mean all LEO's should switch to .22 lr because it is much easier to shoot than 9mm? No. Oh, but wait, would he be any more dead if you had used a .40S&W? No.
"Would the bear have been any deader with a 10mm?" You sound silly, dude.
You read that thing? Did you understand it?
Yes, I read it. I saved it to my hard drive. It contains some very good points. However, it doesn't show any evidence. There was no proof within that document.
If you did, you'd understand that the paper, now 25'ish years old, literally transcends time. As Dr Roberts has stated, it is still the single best paper on handgun wounding factors.
Be that as it may. Lets go right back to the basis of our argument. "RiflemanBobcat" said that an over-driven 165 gr. HST @ 1400 fps would preform worse than that same 165 gr. HST @ 1000 fps. The paper you offered was a great piece of information, but it did not address our point of disagreement.
That is why I have been pushing for proof. Granted, I have been an ass about it sometimes... I would love for an expert like Dr. Roberts to test the new full power 10mm loads like those from Underwood Ammunition amoung others. However, even if someone certified, like Dr. Roberts does the testing, it will be on the Gov's dime and they will hide the results just like they have for the last 25-ish years. So we are left with other people's opinions.
ETA; changed it, I thought RiflemanBobcat had talked about the Gold Dot, he was talking about the HST. The arguement stays the same regardless. I kept talking about Gold Dots in that thread, but I thought I should go back and make sure. In the end, it was still just his opinion.
I am talking about FMJ's not JHP's designed around 40sw ballistics. The faster you push a non expanding bullet the deeper it will go and the better it will be able to break bone and that is what you need on a bear defense round. Bears are not calibrated gel blocks. Their tissue is denser and harder to penetrate.
Pat
What velocity is needed to break bear bones?
Again, I've seen .38spec and .357mag both loaded with 158gr JSP, and the penetration was virtually identical. Why would .40/10mm be any different?
Alaskapopo
09-21-12, 14:19
What velocity is needed to break bear bones?
Again, I've seen .38spec and .357mag both loaded with 158gr JSP, and the penetration was virtually identical. Why would .40/10mm be any different?
There have been shooting cases where 38 special RNL loads have bouched off skulls. Frankly without seeing the tests your speaking of its hard to comment. No test I have seen has 38 and 357 grain solid bullets penetrating the same unless your talking they both made ith through a 12 inch gelatine block and they did not measure past that.
Pat
One of the many fine bullet makers here in Montana recently invested in some 10mm molds. he is making a very nice 200gr Wide flat nosed gas checked hardcast (20+ BHN) bullet specifically for the 10mm. they are around 20 cents each and look very nice. I cant wait to load some up and play with them.
My understanding is that these WFN hardcast loads do some nice damage due to the way the edge reacts and penetrates into oblique hard structures but also in the way it pushed flesh aside better than things like a truncated cone or round nose FMJ round. Supposedly there is a specific width ratio of the flat nose to projectile width (something like nose width being 80% of projectile diameter) that allows reliable feeding and an optimum reaction with flesh.
In any event I'm thinking that for a penetrator that the WFNGC hardcast lead is the way to go over the wimpier and softer FMJ's
Alaskapopo
09-21-12, 18:18
One of the many fine bullet makers here in Montana recently invested in some 10mm molds. he is making a very nice 200gr Wide flat nosed gas checked hardcast (20+ BHN) bullet specifically for the 10mm. they are around 20 cents each and look very nice. I cant wait to load some up and play with them.
My understanding is that these WFN hardcast loads do some nice damage due to the way the edge reacts and penetrates into oblique hard structures but also in the way it pushed flesh aside better than things like a truncated cone or round nose FMJ round. Supposedly there is a specific width ratio of the flat nose to projectile width (something like nose width being 80% of projectile diameter) that allows reliable feeding and an optimum reaction with flesh.
In any event I'm thinking that for a penetrator that the WFNGC hardcast lead is the way to go over the wimpier and softer FMJ's
I may load some of the hard cast lead once I get my Bar Sto barrel in. I won a certificate off a prize table at a three gun match for a Barsto barrel and I decided to use it for my Glock 20. Not going to load lead in my stock barrel.
Pat
S. Galbraith
09-24-12, 10:35
Just found the book "Grizzly Maze" in my wife's iBook collection. Relevant section starts at page 110. There were Parks guys and Troopers involved. Believed it actually was a Parks guy that did the shooting with the Glock .40. Book says he fired 11 soft points, but there was shotgun shooting, too.
I work for NPS, and according to agency policy we are only allowed to use Sigs. In some of our more remote areas that are less prone to regional oversight, I've heard of some rule bending(I suppose it is possible that a Glock could have been used). With the .40, we can only use 155gr-180gr JHP. Now for .45acp, we can use FMJ/Hardcast in addition to JHP which was written in for game disposal. So, either the book is incorrect about some of those details, or the rangers are in violation of policy which could get them slapped pretty good. Since this is such a public case which would get some regional attention, I'm guessing that the book account is wrong.
There have been shooting cases where 38 special RNL loads have bouched off skulls. Frankly without seeing the tests your speaking of its hard to comment. No test I have seen has 38 and 357 grain solid bullets penetrating the same unless your talking they both made ith through a 12 inch gelatine block and they did not measure past that.
Pat
And I have personally seen much larger pistol rounds skip off skulls while using JHPs and among others. Shit happens.
The test I saw wasnt recorded. It wasnt done because the department was thinking about the rounds usage, mostly because they were unused for the real testing, and "just because". The blocks were each 20 inches long, with one in front of the other. As I said, the penetration was virtually identical. There were some slight differences, but nothing huge. The .357mag had a pronounced TSC than the .38spec, but thats to be expected.
Alaskapopo
09-24-12, 13:36
And I have personally seen much larger pistol rounds skip off skulls while using JHPs and among others. Shit happens.
The test I saw wasnt recorded. It wasnt done because the department was thinking about the rounds usage, mostly because they were unused for the real testing, and "just because". The blocks were each 20 inches long, with one in front of the other. As I said, the penetration was virtually identical. There were some slight differences, but nothing huge. The .357mag had a pronounced TSC than the .38spec, but thats to be expected.
With respect a test that is not recorded nor with specific details is fairly useless.
Pat
Thats nice that you have decided what is important. So lets see this proof. Lets have a look at all of that Federal Ballistics Ordnance Gel data that is not published for civilian consumption. Lets see the proof that backs up the opinion that a 10mm 165 gr. Gold Dot @ 1400 fps will preform worse than a .40S&W 165 gr. Gold Dot @ 1000 fps. Which is the bases of this whole arguement between you and I.
I didnt decide what is important, professionals in the field of terminal ballistics did years of scientific study. They found out what is important. They passed their wisdom on. I listened to what they had to say.
Its not a matter of showing "proof" or how a bullet "preforms". Every bullet manufacturer will tell you they design a bullet to work optimally at certain velocity range. Too little velocity or too much will degrade the performance. You can call Speer, Winchester, Remington, Federal, etc. They will all tell you the same thing. In fact Speer has gone on record advising against using projectiles designed for .40S&W velocities in 10mm.
Dr Roberts has stated the same thing. In fact Dr Roberts tested a certain company's hot rod .40S&W against factory loaded version. The recoil was higher, the flash was greater, and in this case the casings showed signs of over pressure. In the gelatin, the performance difference was not enough to justify those negatives. Jacking the velocity up even higher isnt going to make things better. Its common sense.
??? What? What does print size have to do with anything? I use the larger text size because I can. I like it. And it makes it much easier for me to find my own posts. So how does that have anything to do with my "hypocrisy" in your opinion?
Just because you can, doesnt mean you should. The excuse that it makes it easier to find your posts doesnt jive. You could simply look for your screen name and avatar.,
As an EMT I trust my own eyes. When the equipment in the back of the Boo-boo-bus tells me one thing and my eyes and experience tell me something else... I trust my eyes. Now, that has nothing to do with Ballistics Testing. However, when I have a recovered .40S&W 165 gr. factory Gold Dot in one hand and a 10mm 165 gr. handloaded Gold Dot in the other... I believe my own eyes. So when you try to argue the point that a 165 gr. Gold Dot @ 1400 fps preforms worse than a 165 gr. @ 1000 fps, I look at the video data from TN-Outdoors-9 and I look at the two recovered bullets in my hand. I don't believe your opinion. If there is some super secret Government Data that proves your point, lets see it.
I'm not arguing with you. You are arguing with us. We told you that you were measuring wrong, but you didnt listen. We told you how to measure the expanded diameter, but still you didnt listen. Both your bullet and TNOutdoor's bullets showed SEVERE problems. I asked you earlier, in jest, how you like your bullets, core and jacket separated or care and jacket intact. Now I really want to know.
a "Hypothesis" is an educated guess. I would like to see the proof.
Congratulations, you can use a dictionary.
Again, the proof is there. Contact Speer, or any other JHP manufacturer. Ask them if they think its a good idea to use a bullet designed for .40S&W in 10mm, at 10mm velocities. When they say "no", are you going to demand visual proof, or could you, oh I dont know, listen?
First off, TN-Outdoors-9 is not making Public Policy for Police Departments around the nation. TN-Outdoors-9 is offering a visual aid, on his own dime, for folks on the internet.
Thank God he isnt making public policy! Small miracles.
He is offering a picture and narration. In his one shot test: He showed me a picture of a bullet that just about came apart. A bonded bullet no less. A bullet that penetrated 18 inches. In a substance that is not used for terminal ballistics testing.
If the experts were to publish their findings and their own video evidence, I might agree with you. However, seeing as the experts don't publish their evidence what are we to go on? In the end, I will believe my own eyes. I will believe the two recovered bullets I have in my own hand, and that reflects what I see in TN-Outdoors-9 YouTube videos.
The experts, in this case, simply cannot publish their findings. I'm sure thre are multiple legal reasons including NDAs. That said, they are experts in terminal ballistics and design. What do they have to gain or lose? They arent going to lie, and thus trash their credibility for a pistol caliber.
Hi to all, new member here and first post. Please, because it is a first post doesn't mean I'm an idiot. Feel free to agree to disagree respectully.
I opened that way as it seems this is such an emotional thread with some divergent opinions. At the end of the day, I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion (I'm not sure that is possible anyway), but would like to provide some insight.
I've been involved with 10's since their inception. That's about 27-28years now I guess. I have one of the first Bren Ten's and Delta Elites. I was involved on the outside periphery in helping develop early loads using Accurate Arms powders (AA5 and AA7). That makes me an expert in nothing...
I am intrigued by the very notion, a tightly held paradigm in this thread alone it seems, that a particular round is superior by the very fact that it is less powerful. All I can say is "Wow!".
I grew up in a family with many and varied hunters and the "best caliber" debate still rages. Many opinions that I hear are things that may have been true one time, but no longer are, but the person has not kept up with changing times. One cousin hates the 7mm Mag for hunting because he had one. Shot a deer at a closer range and the bullet blew up destroying a lot of meat. He got rid of the gun. So, are 7mm Mags a bad round to be thoroughly disregarded? I think not. My brother got on me for my .220 Swift (rem 700 vssf) for prairie dog hunting. "Bullets can't hold together at that velocity... everyone knows they come apart outside the barrel". At one time that was true. It can still be true if you don't know what you are doing. Does that make my rifle bad? Well the three shot groups inside a nickle at 350 yards says it's not so bad.
Bullet selection is key. It appears that the bullets made currently are optimized to the S&W .40 parameters for use in the ballistic media. So, is it really so hard to optimize a bullet for 10mm power? Nope... it just hasn't been necessary. So, if a .40 performs X in the ballistic gel at a given velocity and gel distance... Couldn't the 10mm do the same with the gel placed further out? (lessened velocity at distance)
I don't know it just seems this thread wasted a lot of good stomach acid arguing over trifles. Others can keep the .40 and I'll keep the 10. And we'll both be happy. And if I really feel the need, an awful lot of factory rounds are loaded to .40 power levels and I can use them if I want. But a .40 cannot be pushed to 10mm levels if needed. I have always preferred versatility.
Ultimately, for whatever the particular shooter uses, he must be proficient and using the appropriate projectile for the job at hand.
Afterall, there are more folks in the morgue with a .22 in the head than a .44 mag in the foot.
That said, my wife, all 5'3" of her and small hands shoots my Delta Elite better than a lot of men I know who have tried it.
"a poor carpenter blames his tools"
Thanks for listening guys, Cheers!
Top
What does that matter? Would that bear be any more dead if he had used a .460 Magnum? That question is goofy, at best. If I shoot a bad guy with a .22 lr and he dies, does that mean all LEO's should switch to .22 lr because it is much easier to shoot than 9mm? No. Oh, but wait, would he be any more dead if you had used a .40S&W? No.
"Would the bear have been any deader with a 10mm?" You sound silly, dude.
First of the question was posed in jest, which is basically what I hold any of your posts in. Secondly, its rhetorical (go grab that dictionary again).
Yes, I read it. I saved it to my hard drive. It contains some very good points. However, it doesn't show any evidence. There was no proof within that document.
So its one of those times in which you read it, but you didnt understand it. When I offered that link, it was because you were rambling on about energy this, energy that and velocity this, velocity that. You had no basic understanding of handgun wounds, you still dont.
Guess you really cant make a horse drink.
Be that as it may. Lets go right back to the basis of our argument. "RiflemanBobcat" said that an over-driven 165 gr. HST @ 1400 fps would preform worse than that same 165 gr. HST @ 1000 fps. The paper you offered was a great piece of information, but it did not address our point of disagreement.
The basis of the discussion is taking Bullet A which is designed to work at Velocity X, pushing it beyond its threshold, and expecting superior terminal performance.
We know through the use of other calibers that using a bullet designed to operate from say 650-950 fps and jacking the velocity up to 1200 is not a good thing. We know that it will result in either fragmentation (which is always a bad thing with handgun rounds), or the petals will fold further back, against the bullet, reducing the diameter of the only thing that matters in pistol caliber wounds, the Permanent Crush Cavity.
That is why I have been pushing for proof. Granted, I have been an ass about it sometimes... I would love for an expert like Dr. Roberts to test the new full power 10mm loads like those from Underwood Ammunition amoung others. However, even if someone certified, like Dr. Roberts does the testing, it will be on the Gov's dime and they will hide the results just like they have for the last 25-ish years. So we are left with other people's opinions.
ETA; changed it, I thought RiflemanBobcat had talked about the Gold Dot, he was talking about the HST. The arguement stays the same regardless. I kept talking about Gold Dots in that thread, but I thought I should go back and make sure. In the end, it was still just his opinion.
Sometimes?
Now your claiming there is a conspiracy. Yes, a conspiracy to deprive you of your 10mm tests from 25 years ago. Thats what it is! I suppose you will tell us there were multiple shooters at Dealey Plaza too!
As I suggested earlier, you want the tests done, pony up the money. Maybe Dr Roberts would be able to do your test if you paid for the ammunition, gelatin, his time. Have you asked, or do you just want this done for free?
An you can keep poo-pooing those opinions, but when they are educated opinions, they tend to be worth listening too.
I work for NPS, and according to agency policy we are only allowed to use Sigs. In some of our more remote areas that are less prone to regional oversight, I've heard of some rule bending(I suppose it is possible that a Glock could have been used). With the .40, we can only use 155gr-180gr JHP. Now for .45acp, we can use FMJ/Hardcast in addition to JHP which was written in for game disposal. So, either the book is incorrect about some of those details, or the rangers are in violation of policy which could get them slapped pretty good. Since this is such a public case which would get some regional attention, I'm guessing that the book account is wrong.
I spent a hour visiting with a ranger/pilot employed by the NPS in the Brooks Range of northern Alaska in August, and he had a Glock 23.
S. Galbraith
09-24-12, 19:50
I spent a hour visiting with a ranger/pilot employed by the NPS in the Brooks Range of northern Alaska in August, and he had a Glock 23.
Must be that rule bending I was referring to....
Wolf Spyder
09-27-12, 12:08
First of [all] the question was posed in jest
And here I didn't think you had it in you to have a lighter side. :p
We know through the use of other calibers that using a bullet designed to operate from say 650-950 fps and jacking the velocity up to 1200 is not a good thing.
Sometimes, this is true. Early testing that we did with Gold Dots showed, us 10mm-fans, that the 200 grain and 180 grain Gold Dots do not preform very well at the higher velocities. However, we did discover that the 155 grain and 165 grain Gold Dots showed hyper expansion when pushed to the higher velocities.
So while your generalization holds true most of the time it is not true all the time.
Sometimes? Now your claiming there is a conspiracy. Yes, a conspiracy to deprive you of your 10mm tests from 25 years ago.
Ummm, Dr Roberts admitted in the other thread that the government testing done over the last 25-ish years has not been published for general public use. It is not a conspiracy or at least that is not how I viewed.
Come to think of it... our Government keeping secrets from the general public is not a conspiracy. It is a fore gone conclusion. ;)
Have fun, my friend, I am looking forward to your reply.
Sometimes, this is true. Early testing that we did with Gold Dots showed, us 10mm-fans, that the 200 grain and 180 grain Gold Dots do not preform very well at the higher velocities. However, we did discover that the 155 grain and 165 grain Gold Dots showed hyper expansion when pushed to the higher velocities.
So while your generalization holds true most of the time it is not true all the time.[/quote]
Shooting wetpack and not knowing or understanding terminal ballistics, handgun wound profile, or how to measure RD doesnt equate to a test.
Ummm, Dr Roberts admitted in the other thread that the government testing done over the last 25-ish years has not been published for general public use. It is not a conspiracy or at least that is not how I viewed.
Come to think of it... our Government keeping secrets from the general public is not a conspiracy. It is a fore gone conclusion. ;)
The problem is you are desperate enough to believe it is a conspiracy. Hence why you said, and I quote:
However, even if someone certified, like Dr. Roberts does the testing, it will be on the Gov's dime and they will hide the results just like they have for the last 25-ish years.
:secret:
Yes, the government conspires to hide 10mm tests from some guy on the interwebz.
:secret:
:sarcastic:
With respect a test that is not recorded nor with specific details is fairly useless.
Pat
Actually, I dont know if it was recorded. The rounds were fired for shits and grins by some cops after a dept ballistic testing which was supposed to be "We swear, your GP rifle round is awesomez". The two gel blocks were left overs.
Alaskapopo
10-04-12, 15:18
Actually, I dont know if it was recorded. The rounds were fired for shits and grins by some cops after a dept ballistic testing which was supposed to be "We swear, your GP rifle round is awesomez". The two gel blocks were left overs.
Yea and that is fairly useless information.
Pat
Here is a new TNOutdoors 9 video where he tests the Underwood 10mm 135 grain Nosler JHP.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkUm7iegNbM&feature=g-high-u
S. Galbraith
10-07-12, 00:22
Here is a new TNOutdoors 9 video where he tests the Underwood 10mm 135 grain Nosler JHP.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkUm7iegNbM&feature=g-high-u
Amazingly predictable on that 135gr load. In the .40/10mm caliber, the 135gr bullet has an approximately sectional density of only 0.121. Virtually every handgun caliber that has that low of a sectional density rating has almost identical penetration to that tested 10mm load. Usually 9-10" of penetration.
According to the decades proven FBI penetration standard, it is a failure. :meeting: All that extra velocity pretty much did nothing for the caliber. Bullet sectional density, mass, and construction influence projectile effectiveness far more than velocity.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.