View Full Version : Collected links to Doctor Roberts' recent ammo reviews
Since I'm borderline OCD, I asked the good Doctor if I could re-host his recent ammunition reviews. In doing so, I also cleaned them up a little to make them "prettier". I'll keep the list updated as he's publishing data...
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm#Ammunition%20comparison%20tests%20by%20Doctor%20Roberts
nice job thanks. Finally and easy way to get all the pics and info into one place so I can save it to my computer.
That’s outstanding! Thanks
Very nice, Zhukov. :D
One thing I would really like to have included in the recommended duty loads are loads that failed Doc's testing. A lot of times we make the assumption that loads there are not included in the listed failed testing, when they simply may have not been tested.
Very nice, Zhukov. :D
One thing I would really like to have included in the recommended duty loads are loads that failed Doc's testing. A lot of times we make the assumption that loads there are not included in the listed failed testing, when they simply may have not been tested.
Well, that list is going to be tough to keep up-to-date. I think it makes more sense to keep a list of approved bullets and not side-track readers. There are quite a few times when someone will post "What about such-and-such a bullet?" and I just tell them "Read the list - if it's not on there, then don't use it." ;)
Speaking of which - some people just seem to have an emotional attachment to certain bullets. The HydraShok is one of them. There are a ton of people who just absolutely swear by them, and telling them otherwise - you think you just insulted their mother!
Zhukov,
Have you ever been a member of NBT?
Zhukov,
Have you ever been a member of NBT?
Probably not, since I don't know what NBT is. :D
Glock17JHP
02-20-09, 13:31
Zhukov,
PM me about #1 Buckshot supposedly being the #1 choice...
I have another view...
-Ron.
Glock17JHP
02-21-09, 10:40
Posted originally on another forum on 02Mar2006:
"Technology will not likely allow anything smaller that #1 Buckshot to be good for self defense in the short term in scenarios that are not perfect: shots from angles other than direct frontal, intermediate barriers, etc. Last I knew, even #1 Buckshot is marginal in cases where the shot must be taken in a 'less than ideal' way. If Duncan MacPherson's suggestions in the WBR are taken seriously by the manufacturers (shotcup designs, hardened shot, buffering), then #1 Buckshot could be the best choice. So far as I am presently aware, there is not yet an offering in #1 Buckshot that matches these recommendations...
I still would recommend (and currently employ) 00 Buck in a 12-pellet load near 1,000 FPS (Winchester XX Supreme). "
The original WBR articles dealing with #1 Buckshot need to be taken within their entire context. If they are, #1 Buckshot is not the best choice, but could be if the shot was truly hardened, like Ranger Buckshot is. Shawn Dodson should update his website to reflect this because this misconception keeps being repeated. I emailed him about this specific thing a few years ago. 00 Buckshot is the best choice, not #1 Buckshot.
Indeed, 00-buck is the superior load in all circumstances in my opinion. Lack of penetration is a consistant problem with shot and the only way to improve that is to increase pellet mass and hardness. If you prevent the pellets from deforming on impact, the more they will penetrate. Lead plated 00-buck is probably the best choice for defense and law enforcement at this time.
I'm not a fan of reduced recoil loads. There is considerable velocity loss at ranges over 15yrds and 500fps can mean the difference between adequate penetration and inadequate penetration expecially through a barrier.
A nice compilation of good information.
Thanks.
Great resource!
just out of curiosity, will you also be archiving Dr. Roberts' test data/findings for the individual carry loads? That would be useful to be able to index back to a specific archive covering the test data and determinations on specific rounds.
Glock17JHP
02-22-09, 21:33
Indeed, 00-buck is the superior load in all circumstances in my opinion. Lack of penetration is a consistant problem with shot and the only way to improve that is to increase pellet mass and hardness. If you prevent the pellets from deforming on impact, the more they will penetrate. Lead plated 00-buck is probably the best choice for defense and law enforcement at this time.
I'm not a fan of reduced recoil loads. There is considerable velocity loss at ranges over 15yrds and 500fps can mean the difference between adequate penetration and inadequate penetration expecially through a barrier.
Marcus,
The problems with pellets deforming is actually more of an issue while still in the shotcup as well as while still in the chamber and bore of the shotgun. The compression of the shot column during firing flattens the pellets against each other. there is more deformation on impact as well, but this initial compression is often misunderstood or ignored. This is the reason for needing better shotcup designs, buffering materials and hardened shot. Plated buckshot is only a little better than plain lead buckshot, what helps more is truly hardened buckshot, i.e. antimony content.
I am also not a fan of reduced recoil loads, but many 00 Buck loads are higher velocity than is necessary, which adds to deformation and increases recoil. i would like to see a 12-pellet 00 Buck load developed that has just the right velocity to ensure adequate penetration but not much more. Ranger Buckshot was once offered in a 25-round box with 12-pellet 00 Buck load, but it was discontinued... I wish it was still made, and could be tweaked to the optimum velocity.
Marcus,
The problems with pellets deforming is actually more of an issue while still in the shotcup as well as while still in the chamber and bore of the shotgun. The compression of the shot column during firing flattens the pellets against each other. there is more deformation on impact as well, but this initial compression is often misunderstood or ignored. This is the reason for needing better shotcup designs, buffering materials and hardened shot. Plated buckshot is only a little better than plain lead buckshot, what helps more is truly hardened buckshot, i.e. antimony content.
I am also not a fan of reduced recoil loads, but many 00 Buck loads are higher velocity than is necessary, which adds to deformation and increases recoil. i would like to see a 12-pellet 00 Buck load developed that has just the right velocity to ensure adequate penetration but not much more. Ranger Buckshot was once offered in a 25-round box with 12-pellet 00 Buck load, but it was discontinued... I wish it was still made, and could be tweaked to the optimum velocity.
Very informative. I guess I didn't know all that much about deforming shot after all.
Zhukov,
PM me about #1 Buckshot supposedly being the #1 choice...
I have another view...
-Ron.
Sent you a PM, haven't heard back.
I put a blurb in the FAQ about the lack of availability of #1 buck, and that 00 buck will be just fine.
Glock17JHP
02-23-09, 13:18
I invited the PM, but then I elaborated on the issue of #1 Buckshot.
Haven't gotten a notice about a PM yet.
Is any of the data at this site accurate?
http://www.tacticalshotgun.ca/ballistics_shotgun.html
* Range: 3 yards
* Shotgun: 18 inch barreled Remington 870 Marine Magnumn
* Round: 12 gauge 2� Remington 16 pellet #1 Buckshot
* Gelatin: 9'x9'x19' 10% ordinance gelatin block
* Measured Average Permenant Cavity Penetration: 16.5 inches (41.9 cm)
* Measured Temporary Stretch Cavity: 1.0 to 9.5 inches (2.5 - 24.1cm)
* Block #1 Calibration BB Velocity: 611 fps
* Block #1 Calibration BB Penetration: 12.4 cm
* Block #2 Calibration BB Velocity: 620 fps
* Block #2 Calibration BB Penetration: 12.6 cm
Glock17JHP
02-25-09, 20:21
The gelatin penetration seems overstated by at least several inches...
I would have to cross-reference the #1 Buckshot data from my WBR journals to be sure, though. That actually looks like the penetration I would expect from my 12-pellet 00 Buckshot load. Keep in mind it calls the 16.5 inch pellet penetration: "Measured Average Permenant Cavity Penetration"... this would mean some pellets penetrated MORE than 16.5 inches...
I would consider that data VERY suspicious...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.