PDA

View Full Version : 45 G.A.P.



bearsdl
12-28-09, 05:25
I recently bought a Glock 39 (3.5" barrel). I am curious if anyone has done any ballistic testing with the self defense G.A.P. ammo that is currently available. Any expansion and penetration information on HST's, Ranger's, or GD's fired from a Glock 39 would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks...

Marcus L.
12-28-09, 08:35
The GAP uses .45acp bullets, so as long as the velocity of each grain weight is similar to its .45acp counterpart, the penetration and expansion levels would be very similar.

The GAP is a nice cartridge. Too bad it never really took off in popularity.

woodandsteel
12-28-09, 09:06
FWIW, here is one comparison test that I found.

http://www.outdoors.net/site/features/feature.aspx+Forum+Firearms+ArticleCode+1117+SearchTerm+

99HMC4
12-28-09, 10:09
I was running Hyrdashocks in my G37 carry gun. Never had to "use" them but they work as they should plinking (expansion wise)....

DocGKR
12-28-09, 12:20
When comparing well designed, robust expanding JHP ammunition, .45 GAP and standard pressure .45 ACP offer similar terminal ballistic results, although the GAP is running at higher pressure. If one compares .45 ACP loaded to the same pressure as .45 GAP, then the .45 ACP +P offers better terminal performance. If only non-expanding FMJ is going to be used then .45 GAP and .45 ACP are ballistically identical.

Like .357 Sig, .45 GAP brings nothing to the table that is not already available in other more widely available calibers.

jmart
12-28-09, 13:11
The GAP wasn't intended to provide greater ballistics, it was intended to package45 ACP-equivalent (non +p) ballistics in Glock's smaller frame package. At the time of GAP introduction, the .45 SF's weren't yet in the pipeline, and even since their introduction the GAP frames are still smaller.

Whether or not this serves as real benefit is up for each to decide.

kenb
12-28-09, 15:02
When I owned a Glock 38 in .45 GAP, I looked at DOC's list of recommended bullets in the sticky about self defense loads and found he recommended the Federal HST 230 grain JHP (P45HST2).

I believe the 230 grain HST in GAP (P45GHST1) travels at 880 FPS and the 45 ACP travels 890 FPS. Both of these are out of a 5" barrel. My G38 had a 4" barrel but a lot of GAP owners told me they used the 230 grain round in their 38's. I also think I know that at least 2 different state police agencies are using the 200 grain Gold Dots and are very happy with them.

You may want to get confirmation from DOC that a 3.5" barrel will give you satisfactory ballistics in a 230 grain round. It certainly does in a 5" barrel since DOC recommended it. I'd be interested to know if it gives satisfactory ballistics in a 4" barrel as well although I no longer have the G38.

bearsdl
12-28-09, 16:51
When I owned a Glock 38 in .45 GAP, I looked at DOC's list of recommended bullets in the sticky about self defense loads and found he recommended the Federal HST 230 grain JHP (P45HST2).

I believe the 230 grain HST in GAP (P45GHST1) travels at 880 FPS and the 45 ACP travels 890 FPS. Both of these are out of a 5" barrel. My G38 had a 4" barrel but a lot of GAP owners told me they used the 230 grain round in their 38's. I also think I know that at least 2 different state police agencies are using the 200 grain Gold Dots and are very happy with them.

You may want to get confirmation from DOC that a 3.5" barrel will give you satisfactory ballistics in a 230 grain round. It certainly does in a 5" barrel since DOC recommended it. I'd be interested to know if it gives satisfactory ballistics in a 4" barrel as well although I no longer have the G38.

I read the same information on the Federal HST and currently carry that in the Glock 39. I am also interested to know if this round would perform well out of a shorter barrel. Some have recommended Speer GD 185 grain as a better alternative with its higher velocity. Results have also been positive with the GD 200 grain with le agencies.

Thank You To All for the Replies...

WS6
12-28-09, 17:05
When comparing well designed, robust expanding JHP ammunition, .45 GAP and standard pressure .45 ACP offer similar terminal ballistic results, although the GAP is running at higher pressure. If one compares .45 ACP loaded to the same pressure as .45 GAP, then the .45 ACP +P offers better terminal performance. If only non-expanding FMJ is going to be used then .45 GAP and .45 ACP are ballistically identical.

Like .357 Sig, .45 GAP brings nothing to the table that is not already available in other more widely available calibers.

I guess I will follow-up on the second part of your post and ask about the 357SIG. I have read numerous stories where the agencies using it have had better results in OIS's than with the 9mm's they traded from, and have not heard a bit of complaint about it since TX State Troopers give up the .45 switched over. The US Border Patrol has, for a very long time, used light-weight/high velocity and reports a rather impressive track-record of effectiveness, enough so that they have not changed from their ways in several decades.

When agencies went from whatever, to the 5.7, we heard all about failures. It obviously showed itself up in the field. The same has not happened with the 357 SIG.

Further, the velocity makes it the best penetrator of car doors I have ever tested (except for 10mm and the like), much superior to the .45 ACP. Granted, my backyard shooting of a car-door is not "scientific", but then neither is the shooting of a car-door when some felon is hiding behind it shooting back.

Either way, the SIG round consistantly makes 12+" in gel in the lab through various bariers, and remains superior through sheet-metal from what I have seen, and the agencies that have gone to it have said narry a bad thing.

How does it not have something to offer over other calibers, if only in the realm of vehicle-material penetration?

*In most mediums, SD is important, but in sheet-metal/car-doors, I found SD to be irrelevant and velocity to be the best indicator of performance given similarly constructed bullets. Again, in my back-yard, not a lab.

___________________________________

Sorry for the hi-jack. Back on-track, if the 45GAP doesn't do worse than the .45ACP, then it does better, imho, because it can go into a smaller platform and accomplish the same performance. Looks like a "win" to me.


I read the same information on the Federal HST and currently carry that in the Glock 39. I am also interested to know if this round would perform well out of a shorter barrel. Some have recommended Speer GD 185 grain as a better alternative with its higher velocity. Results have also been positive with the GD 200 grain with le agencies.

Thank You To All for the Replies...


I do know that in testing the 200gr GDHP .45 ACP load has proven itself a very erratic performer in the IWBA 4-layer denim tests.

Marcus L.
12-28-09, 18:51
I read the same information on the Federal HST and currently carry that in the Glock 39. I am also interested to know if this round would perform well out of a shorter barrel. Some have recommended Speer GD 185 grain as a better alternative with its higher velocity. Results have also been positive with the GD 200 grain with le agencies.

Thank You To All for the Replies...

I would personally stay away from the 185gr lead core load as it generally has poor penetration characteristics due to its low sectional density. Its sectional density rating is the same as the 9mm 115gr load and "usually" it will penetrate less that 12" in bare gel. In my opinion the best .45acp/.45GAP load is the 230gr load which has a lot of momentum to penetration through a wide variety of barriers as well as internal bone structure. The HST bullet design is especially good at reliable expansion, so the other element that you want is good penetration which you get with the 230gr load.

Marcus L.
12-28-09, 19:03
I guess I will follow-up on the second part of your post and ask about the 357SIG. I have read numerous stories where the agencies using it have had better results in OIS's than with the 9mm's they traded from, and have not heard a bit of complaint about it since TX State Troopers give up the .45 switched over. The US Border Patrol has, for a very long time, used light-weight/high velocity and reports a rather impressive track-record of effectiveness, enough so that they have not changed from their ways in several decades.

When agencies went from whatever, to the 5.7, we heard all about failures. It obviously showed itself up in the field. The same has not happened with the 357 SIG.

Further, the velocity makes it the best penetrator of car doors I have ever tested (except for 10mm and the like), much superior to the .45 ACP. Granted, my backyard shooting of a car-door is not "scientific", but then neither is the shooting of a car-door when some felon is hiding behind it shooting back.

Either way, the SIG round consistantly makes 12+" in gel in the lab through various bariers, and remains superior through sheet-metal from what I have seen, and the agencies that have gone to it have said narry a bad thing.

How does it not have something to offer over other calibers, if only in the realm of vehicle-material penetration?

*In most mediums, SD is important, but in sheet-metal/car-doors, I found SD to be irrelevant and velocity to be the best indicator of performance given similarly constructed bullets. Again, in my back-yard, not a lab.

From all the FBI protocol testing I've seen out of the IWBA, FBI, and DHS the .357sig is very good at punching through hard and elastic barriers such as sheet steel and car tires. However, against soft and cushioning materials such as wood, heavy clothing, and windshields it does pretty much exactly the same as the 9mm in all its best grain weights. The only .357sig and 9mm loads that I've seen penetrate 12" through a windshield have been high end bonded bullets such as Federal Tactical Bonded and Winchester Ranger Bonded. Standard JHPs in both 9mm and .357sig usually only penetration 9-10" through a windshield.

Personally, I believe that the .357sig gives a terminal effects and barrier penetration advantage over the 9mm, but not over the .40S&W and .45acp when you take into account the likely barriers that you may encounter. The .40 and .45 are able to meet all the FBI barrier test protocols not only with bonded JHP, but cheaper unbonded JHPs. The .40 and .45 will still penetrate through a car door with no problem, especially if it must first punch through a window inside the door. If you are shooting at someone through both sides of a car(including seats, windows, plastic), all of the service calibers will either be be deflected off target or slowed down enough to cause only superficial wounding. The larger bullet diameters will create larger wound channels, and their higher momentum ratings are superior at punching through internal bone structure as Dr. Lane demonstrated in his femur tests in the 1990s. Given that you rarely encounter metal barriers thicker than those of a car door, I think the ability to punch through such a barrier is secondary compared to punching through windows, doors, sofas, and other materials that you are more likely to encounter and which the higher momentum calibers of .40 and .45 do better.

WS6
12-28-09, 19:24
From all the FBI protocol testing I've seen out of the IWBA, FBI, and DHS the .357sig is very good at punching through hard and elastic barriers such as sheet steel and car tires. However, against soft and cushioning materials such as wood, heavy clothing, and windshields it does pretty much exactly the same as the 9mm in all its best grain weights. The only .357sig and 9mm loads that I've seen penetrate 12" through a windshield have been high end bonded bullets such as Federal Tactical Bonded and Winchester Ranger Bonded. Standard JHPs in both 9mm and .357sig usually only penetration 9-10" through a windshield.

Personally, I believe that the .357sig gives a terminal effects and barrier penetration advantage over the 9mm, but not over the .40S&W and .45acp when you take into account the likely barriers that you may encounter. The .40 and .45 are able to meet all the FBI barrier test protocols not only with bonded JHP, but cheaper unbonded JHPs. The .40 and .45 will still penetrate through a car door with no problem, especially if it must first punch through a window inside the door. If you are shooting at someone through both sides of a car(including seats, windows, plastic), all of the service calibers will either be be deflected off target or slowed down enough to cause only superficial wounding. The larger bullet diameters will create larger wound channels, and their higher momentum ratings are superior at punching through internal bone structure as Dr. Lane demonstrated in his femur tests in the 1990s. Given that you rarely encounter metal barriers thicker than those of a car door, I think the ability to punch through such a barrier is secondary compared to punching through windows, doors, sofas, and other materials that you are more likely to encounter and which the higher momentum calibers of .40 and .45 do better.

In my back-yard, using non-calibrated pine boards the 357 SIG out-penetrated the .45 3:1 in distance roughly and the 9mm by about 2 inches. All using FMJ. Using +P JHP, the .45 made a bit better showing, still not very good. THe 357SIG was definitely superior on the pine I tested (2x6 lumber) compared to any 9mm, .40, or .45 I shot at it.

I agree, the 357SIG all but REQUIRES the use of the bonded ammo.

Tests I have seen the data for show that the 357 SIG using Gold-Dot ammunition penetrates 15" +- .5" or so both at 20 yards and 10 yards through a windshield into clothed gel.

The same tests for the .40 and .45 using GDHP's of 180 and 230gr, respectively, do not equal this.

.40 and .45
http://le.atk.com/pdf/Butte_WBW_5_27_09.pdf

I wish I could find a test showing results for BOTH using bonded ammo, but no 1 test seems to have tested them togather, so I must pull from multiple tests that used FBI standards.

357 SIG

https://sites.google.com/a/armsmaster.net/www/357sig.pdf?attredirects=0

DocGKR
12-28-09, 20:09
Let’s compare apples to apples—below is factory test data from various Winchester loads in different calibers, Ranger-T as well as Ranger Bonded. How does the .357 Sig compare to the other service calibers with respect to intermediate barrier penetration?

FBI Test Protocols:
Bare Gelatin at 10ft
Denim, 4 Layers at 10ft
Heavy Clothing at 10ft
Steel, 2 pieces of 20 gauge at 10ft
Wallboard, 2 pieces of 1/2" gypsum board at 10ft
Plywood, 1 piece of 3/4" AA fir plywood at 10ft
Automobile Glass, 1 piece 1/4" laminated safety glass set at a 45 degree angle with an offset of 15 degrees at 10ft

9mm 127gr +P+ RA9TA at 1250fps:
Bare Gel: 12.3”/.64”
Denim: 12.2”/.68”
Heavy Cloth: 12.2”/.68”
Wallboard: 12.1”/.66”
Plywood: 12”/.68”
Steel: 20.5”/.40”
Auto Glass: 9.4”/.48”

9mm 147gr RA9T at 990fps:
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”

357Sig 125gr RA357SIGT at 1350fps:
Bare Gel: 10.9”/.63”
Denim: 12.1”/.66”
Heavy Cloth: 10.7”/.69”
Wallboard: 15.4”/.48”
Plywood: 12.2”/.66”
Steel: 23.4”/.41”
Auto Glass: 10.3”/.49”

.40S&W 180gr RA40T at 990fps:
Bare Gel: 13.8”/.60”
Denim: 14.3”/.70”
Heavy Cloth: 13.4”/.64”
Wallboard: 13.1”/.66”
Plywood: 15.1”/.64”
Steel: 17”/.52”
Auto Glass: 12”/.61”

.45ACP 230gr +P RA45TP at 990fps:
Bare Gel: 13.2”/.79”
Denim: 15.2”/.78”
Heavy Cloth: 15.7”/.78”
Wallboard: 13.8”/.75”
Plywood: 14.6”/.77”
Steel: 20.6”/.53”
Auto Glass: 13.6”/.60”

How about bonded bullets?

9mm 124gr +P at 1180 fps:
Bare Gel: 12.6”/.68”
Denim: 18.7”/.54”
Heavy Cloth: 18.2”/.56”
Wallboard: 11.9”/.64”
Plywood: 15.8”/.57”
Steel: 22”/.42”
Auto Glass: 12.7”/.58”

9mm 147gr at 995fps:
Bare Gel: 14.7”/.62”
Denim: 16.5”/.59”
Heavy Cloth: 15.8”/.58”
Wallboard: 16.7”/.56”
Plywood: 16.5”/.59”
Steel: 19”/.42”
Auto Glass: 12.6”/.55”

357Sig 125gr RA357SB at 1350fps:
Bare Gel: 12.5”/.59”
Denim: 15.9”/.57”
Heavy Cloth: 16.9”/.55”
Wallboard: 14.7”/.62”
Plywood: 16.0”/.60”
Steel: 21.7”/.44”
Auto Glass: 12.8”/.62”

.40S&W 180gr at 1070fps:
Bare Gel: 14.8”/.67”
Denim: 21.8”/.51”
Heavy Cloth: 19”/.59”
Wallboard: 16.7”/.61”
Plywood: 15.5”/.62”
Steel: 14.8”/.55”
Auto Glass: 12.4”/.63”

.45ACP 230gr RA45B at 905fps:
Bare Gel: 14”/.73”
Denim: 15.8”/.67”
Heavy Cloth: 15.8”/.68”
Wallboard: 14.7”/.69”
Plywood: 16.5”/.74”
Steel: 14.8”/.56”
Auto Glass: 12.5”/.66”

WS6
12-28-09, 22:26
I see your point, but I would rather dump 500# of energy than 400# of energy. I know it won't cause brain bleeds or anything, but surely it registers on some scale, in some way.

Marcus L.
12-28-09, 22:27
Docs numbers are some of the most representative of the various calibers and their bullet construction. Winchester published their results with no omissions of data which is something that you cannot expect of all companies. For instance, a number of their loads and other calibers(not listed here) failed to meet the FBI protocols which certainly doesn't look good for Winchester contracts.........but they published their results anyway.

The ATK testing while it looks good, does not entirely follow FBI protocols and may not be accurate. Examples of their deviations are firing multiple shots into a single block of gel to save money, incorrect barrier distances, no post test calibration, and no indication of time between initial calibration and test shot. All of these factors can skew the results of the tests. It usually makes the loads look better than they actually are. The FBI protocols are available from a number of sources such as Duncan MacPherson's book which gives a step by step walk through on the testing protocols and their importance. Some of the newer Gold Dots tested by Dr. Robert's group demonstrated poor performance through some barriers in recent testing and you'll notice that ATK's testing seems to make all their distributed products looked exceptionally superior to independent and unbiased testing groups.

I think of the .357sig as an alternative to the .40S&W.....not the 9mm. The .357/.40 share the same platform characteristics and handling characteristics. Given the actual trauma inflicted by the .40 versus the .357 the .40 comes out ahead.....including through commonly encountered barriers. There is also the element of retained kinetic energy which is retained better in the larger, higher momentum caliber. This is how Dr. Lane's test comes into play in which he demonstrated that a heavier projectile, although fired at slower velocities, does more damage to deeper parts of the body such as a femur, humerus, pelvis, or spine than a ligher high velocity bullet weight. Given the choice, the .40S&W is superior in almost all measurable and practical means of testing ammunition.

Grendelizer
12-28-09, 23:20
I'd like to see Winchester load the 147gr in the .357 SIG and then run the tests.

John

DocGKR
12-29-09, 00:02
So Grendelizer, pull a 9mm 147 gr bonded, put it in a .357 case and shoot it...you might be surprised.

As Dr. Fackler proved, it is actually OK to shoot multiple shots into the same gel block, as long as the wound tracks don't overlap.

In many tissues, 400 vs. 500 lbs of energy from handguns is going to make NO difference in terminal performance, but might result in more recoil, slower shot to shot recovery, more muzzle blast and flash, decreased weapon life, etc...

Since shot placement is the key with handguns, if given the choice, I'd much rather be defended by a guy who practices with 500 rounds per month of 9mm, than one who caries a .357 Sig, but only shoots 500 rounds per year.

WS6
12-29-09, 00:53
So Grendelizer, pull a 9mm 147 gr bonded, put it in a .357 case and shoot it...you might be surprised.

As Dr. Fackler proved, it is actually OK to shoot multiple shots into the same gel block, as long as the wound tracks don't overlap.

In many tissues, 400 vs. 500 lbs of energy from handguns is going to make NO difference in terminal performance, but might result in more recoil, slower shot to shot recovery, more muzzle blast and flash, decreased weapon life, etc...

Since shot placement is the key with handguns, if given the choice, I'd much rather be defended by a guy who practices with 500 rounds per month of 9mm, than one who caries a .357 Sig, but only shoots 500 rounds per year.



I agree that placement is everything, but I just can't see how the 357 SIG is equal to the 9mm when it is almost a given that the 357 mag > 38 special. The extra velocity must do SOMETHING. I do not understand the icy reception for the 357 SIG when it mirrors the 357 MAG from a 4" barrel.

The 147gr XTP is available in 357 SIG, btw.

DocGKR
12-29-09, 01:32
The 147gr XTP is not a great bullet.

So the extra energy stretches the tissue a bit more--not sure if that is significant at handgun velocities.

Closely look at the "apples to apples" Winchester factory comparative data above--what is the .357 Sig doing that other calibers are not able to do just as well?

Contemplate this--Prior to transitioning to .40 S&W, the CHP used a variety of .357 Mag loads, depending upon what was available via the state contract. According to the published CHP test data, the .357 Magnum load used immediately prior to the CHP transition to .40 S&W was the Remington 125 gr JHP with an ave. MV of 1450 f/s from their duty revolvers. Yet despite the decrease in velocity, the CHP has continued to report greater success in OIS incidents (both better terminal performance, as well as intermediate barrier ability) with their .40 S&W 180 gr JHP than with the .357 Magnum 125 gr JHP they previously issued.

WS6
12-29-09, 01:34
The 147gr XTP is not a great bullet.

So the extra energy stretches the tissue a bit more--not sure if that is significant at handgun velocities.

Closely look at the "apples to apples" Winchester factory data above--what is the .357 Sig doing that other calibers are not able to do just as well?

We both agree the Ranger T load isn't the greatest, and it appears that the bonded round is more/less equal to the others.

I still feel that TC might influence a psychological stop.

True, the XTP is not the greatest, but I was just stating that there is a 147gr load, albeit not a bonded one. I wish there were a bonded one. Are you aware of one?

DocGKR
12-29-09, 02:02
If the substantially larger TC's from rifle shots don't always result in rapid enough incapacitation, I doubt if the relatively minute TC differences between service caliber handgun projectiles are going to be significant...

Alaskapopo
12-29-09, 04:16
I agree that placement is everything, but I just can't see how the 357 SIG is equal to the 9mm when it is almost a given that the 357 mag > 38 special. The extra velocity must do SOMETHING. I do not understand the icy reception for the 357 SIG when it mirrors the 357 MAG from a 4" barrel.

The 147gr XTP is available in 357 SIG, btw.

The difference in velocity from a 38 special to a 357 mag is much greater close to 500 FPS. The difference between a 9mm and a 357 sig is 100 to 200 fps max. The extra velocity does do something. It increases recoil and muzzle blast.
Pat

Marcus L.
12-29-09, 10:08
We both agree the Ranger T load isn't the greatest, and it appears that the bonded round is more/less equal to the others.

I still feel that TC might influence a psychological stop.

True, the XTP is not the greatest, but I was just stating that there is a 147gr load, albeit not a bonded one. I wish there were a bonded one. Are you aware of one?

A lot of bonded loads such as Gold Dots and even the newer Ranger Bonded have had some expansion problems lately. It seems that they need tighter quality controls in order to ensure reliable expansion in the FBI protocols. It's still hard to beat the heavier Ranger Talon and HST loadings in 9mm, .40, and .45. The .357sig strips off its jacket too easily when punching through barriers and when that happens, it lacks the momentum to reach ideal penetration levels through a hydraulic substance such as human tissue.

In regards to TC from handgun calibers, there isn't any measurable way to determine if it has any effect at all in actual modern day shootings. This means that it is unreliable to the point that it can't be counted on to work with any dependability. In the 1970s and 1980s the energy dump theories were popular because of the poor JHP designs of the time. Prior to standardized ballistic gel testing, almost all ammunition companies used water tanks to test their ammunition. Since water does not compress, when a hollow point impacts the water, the water fills up the hollow point and cannot exit. Since it cannot compress and more water is being shoved into the front cavity, it must exit through the path of least resistance and that path is around the sides of the hollow point.......this causes the mushroom effect. Human tissue is not 100% water and will not so easily cause expansion. So all the slow velocity loadings in .38spl, 9mm, and .45acp had poor expansion reliability in actual shootings. The .357magnum on the other hand had the necessary impact force to overcome the design flaw of these early hollow point designs and reliably open up the hollow point. At the time, the only explanation for why this was happening was the calculated muzzle energy of the particular caliber. This was actually a good way to determine caliber effectiveness at the time so that you get around the poor bullet designs, but with modernized bullet designs it is outdated. The 9mm 147gr, .40S&W 180gr, and .45acp 230gr have demonstrated good track records with modern bullet designs such as Ranger Talon and Federal HST with agencies that have used them.

Those agencies that do use light and fast loads such as .40 135gr and .357sig, have usually done so as a carry over from previously using .357magnum and do not have comparison data from heavier modernized 9mm and .40 loadings. They've really just gotten lucky that the penetration problems of these loads haven't negatively effected the outcome of their shootings. Although, there was a recent Texas DPS shooting where a suspect was shot multiple times through his windshield with .357sig. He was able to yell stop shooting loud enough and put his hands up for the officer to cease fire, and then he made his court date two weeks later. The last time I spoke with a Texas DPS firearms instructor a couple of years ago he was preaching Marshall & Sanow one shot stop statistics and energy dump theories. He had never heard of Fackler.

In case you haven't read it, Dr. Roberts posted a great read here:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=34714

jmart
12-29-09, 11:26
A lot of bonded loads such as Gold Dots and even the newer Ranger Bonded have had some expansion problems lately. It seems that they need tighter quality controls in order to ensure reliable expansion in the FBI protocols. It's still hard to beat the heavier Ranger Talon and HST loadings in 9mm, .40, and .45. The .357sig strips off its jacket too easily when punching through barriers and when that happens, it lacks the momentum to reach ideal penetration levels through a hydraulic substance such as human tissue.

In regards to TC from handgun calibers, there isn't any measurable way to determine if it has any effect at all in actual modern day shootings. This means that it is unreliable to the point that it can't be counted on to work with any dependability. In the 1970s and 1980s the energy dump theories were popular because of the poor JHP designs of the time. Prior to standardized ballistic gel testing, almost all ammunition companies used water tanks to test their ammunition. Since water does not compress, when a hollow point impacts the water, the water fills up the hollow point and cannot exit. Since it cannot compress and more water is being shoved into the front cavity, it must exit through the path of least resistance and that path is around the sides of the hollow point.......this causes the mushroom effect. Human tissue is not 100% water and will not so easily cause expansion. So all the slow velocity loadings in .38spl, 9mm, and .45acp had poor expansion reliability in actual shootings. The .357magnum on the other hand had the necessary impact force to overcome the design flaw of these early hollow point designs and reliably open up the hollow point. At the time, the only explanation for why this was happening was the calculated muzzle energy of the particular caliber. This was actually a good way to determine caliber effectiveness at the time so that you get around the poor bullet designs, but with modernized bullet designs it is outdated. The 9mm 147gr, .40S&W 180gr, and .45acp 230gr have demonstrated good track records with modern bullet designs such as Ranger Talon and Federal HST with agencies that have used them.

Those agencies that do use light and fast loads such as .40 135gr and .357sig, have usually done so as a carry over from previously using .357magnum and do not have comparison data from heavier modernized 9mm and .40 loadings. They've really just gotten lucky that the penetration problems of these loads haven't negatively effected the outcome of their shootings. Although, there was a recent Texas DPS shooting where a suspect was shot multiple times through his windshield with .357sig. He was able to yell stop shooting loud enough and put his hands up for the officer to cease fire, and then he made his court date two weeks later. The last time I spoke with a Texas DPS firearms instructor a couple of years ago he was preaching Marshall & Sanow one shot stop statistics and energy dump theories. He had never heard of Fackler.

In case you haven't read it, Dr. Roberts posted a great read here:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=34714

How many hits and where on the torso? Any vital areas hit or were they all peripheral?

WS6
12-29-09, 13:48
The difference in velocity from a 38 special to a 357 mag is much greater close to 500 FPS. The difference between a 9mm and a 357 sig is 100 to 200 fps max. The extra velocity does do something. It increases recoil and muzzle blast.
Pat

The hottest 9mm I have seen is the Ranger 127gr +P+ which will clock near 1300fps from a full-size. The fastest I have seen from the 357SIG is Double-Tap which runs well over 1500fps. Also, There has to be a reason the 127gr +P+ got the reputation it did. Ironically, it is the fastest of the 124+gr 9mm rounds. As far as I know, most people in the know would rather have that than the 124gr +P ranger T load.

However, it shouldn't matter that the difference is 500fps between 357 mag and 38spl., they both expand to roughly the same diameter and penetrate 12+". Ergo, they should perform almost identical terminally, since 1600fps is below the 2200fps threshold. According to your premise that TC is worthless, no?

Or rather, is the 2-300fps also meaningful, just not as much as 500fps?

It seems that this topic has no clear answers. Doc made a great point. SHoot a deer with a .45 and shoot one with a .30-06. THey react close to the same way. Sometimes dropping, sometimes running. Regardless of the TC/Energy.

However, I don't think that anyone could dispute that given idential expansion and penetration that more energy is a BAD thing. So, I will take my 9mm expansion and penetration and the 20% more energy.

WS6
12-29-09, 13:54
A lot of bonded loads such as Gold Dots and even the newer Ranger Bonded have had some expansion problems lately. It seems that they need tighter quality controls in order to ensure reliable expansion in the FBI protocols. It's still hard to beat the heavier Ranger Talon and HST loadings in 9mm, .40, and .45. The .357sig strips off its jacket too easily when punching through barriers and when that happens, it lacks the momentum to reach ideal penetration levels through a hydraulic substance such as human tissue.

In regards to TC from handgun calibers, there isn't any measurable way to determine if it has any effect at all in actual modern day shootings. This means that it is unreliable to the point that it can't be counted on to work with any dependability. In the 1970s and 1980s the energy dump theories were popular because of the poor JHP designs of the time. Prior to standardized ballistic gel testing, almost all ammunition companies used water tanks to test their ammunition. Since water does not compress, when a hollow point impacts the water, the water fills up the hollow point and cannot exit. Since it cannot compress and more water is being shoved into the front cavity, it must exit through the path of least resistance and that path is around the sides of the hollow point.......this causes the mushroom effect. Human tissue is not 100% water and will not so easily cause expansion. So all the slow velocity loadings in .38spl, 9mm, and .45acp had poor expansion reliability in actual shootings. The .357magnum on the other hand had the necessary impact force to overcome the design flaw of these early hollow point designs and reliably open up the hollow point. At the time, the only explanation for why this was happening was the calculated muzzle energy of the particular caliber. This was actually a good way to determine caliber effectiveness at the time so that you get around the poor bullet designs, but with modernized bullet designs it is outdated. The 9mm 147gr, .40S&W 180gr, and .45acp 230gr have demonstrated good track records with modern bullet designs such as Ranger Talon and Federal HST with agencies that have used them.

Those agencies that do use light and fast loads such as .40 135gr and .357sig, have usually done so as a carry over from previously using .357magnum and do not have comparison data from heavier modernized 9mm and .40 loadings. They've really just gotten lucky that the penetration problems of these loads haven't negatively effected the outcome of their shootings. Although, there was a recent Texas DPS shooting where a suspect was shot multiple times through his windshield with .357sig. He was able to yell stop shooting loud enough and put his hands up for the officer to cease fire, and then he made his court date two weeks later. The last time I spoke with a Texas DPS firearms instructor a couple of years ago he was preaching Marshall & Sanow one shot stop statistics and energy dump theories. He had never heard of Fackler.

In case you haven't read it, Dr. Roberts posted a great read here:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=34714

I thought that was the story about why the 5.7 was no good, except there was no windshield involved?

Is there a source for this, or is it hearsay, or did you personally witness it?

Marcus L.
12-29-09, 14:23
I thought that was the story about why the 5.7 was no good, except there was no windshield involved?

Is there a source for this, or is it hearsay, or did you personally witness it?

Officer James Hudson just outside of Fort Worth in 2006. I don't remember how many shots were fired, but 5 shots hit the suspect(3 torso) through the windshield. Don't have any medical data on it, but the 3 hits were in or near COM. Perhaps I can get more details from the Austin Police Department training division who highlighted the incident in their use of force refresher last year. Another Texas DPS shooting in the refresher occurred in 2004 with DPS Officer Juan Gonzalez in El Paso. A brief gun fire exchange at a DUI checkpoint resulted in an illegal alien taking two direct .357sig hits, one COM and one in the abdomen. The illegal ran off into the desert and bled out several hundred yards from the scene of the shooting.

Nothing wrong with the .357sig, it is another alternative to the 9mm, .40, or .45. There isn't any convincing evidence that it demonstrates any measurable advantage in the field over the alternatives, but there are measurable advantages to using the alternatives over the .357sig.

bearsdl
12-29-09, 15:44
Anyone else have additional info on 45 G.A.P.

Marcus L.
12-29-09, 16:02
Sorry Bearsdl for getting off topic.

In regards to the .45GAP it performs pretty much exactly like the .45acp standard pressure loadings. When Winchester tested their 230gr Ranger Talon load in both .45acp and .45gap the data was almost identical and warranted no distinguishing of the results:

Ranger Talon:

.45GAP 230gr JHP(penetration/expansion):
Bare Gel: 11.6"/.75"
Through Denim: 12.7"/.72"
Through Heavy Cloth: 12.3"/.75"
Wallboard: 15.2"/.69"
Plywood: 18"/.45"
Steel: 16.5"/.53"
Autoglass: 12"/.58"

This is older testing data, and the RT's have improved since then. What is interesting is that Winchester did their GAP tests using the G38, and the .45acp tests using a 5" 1911. One advantage of the .45GAP over the .45acp is that it seems to work better in shorter barrels than the .45acp, and most likely using a short barrel should not be a problem as it is in the .45acp.

Federal, Winchester, and Speer try to maintain exact velocities between their standard pressure .45acp and .45GAP loadings. That way they know that when they test their .45acp standard pressure loadings, the terminal effects data in the .45GAP will be the same. It's the exact same bullet, and the velocities are so close that the performance is almost exactly the same.

I would select 230gr Ranger Talons or Federal HST and not worry about it.

DocGKR
12-29-09, 16:07
"As far as I know, most people in the know would rather have that than the 124gr +P ranger T load."

Well my first choice would be the 147 gr, then the 124 gr +P, then the 127 gr +P+, but then maybe I am not, "in the know".


"However, I don't think that anyone could dispute that given idential expansion and penetration that more energy is a BAD thing."

It could potentially be "a BAD thing" if it comes at the expense of greater recoil, slower shot recovery, greater flash, more blast, increased weapon wear, reduced weapon service life, increased ammo cost, etc...

WS6
12-29-09, 16:11
Well my first choice would be the 147 gr, then the 124 gr +P, then the 127 gr +P+, but then maybe I am not, "in the know".



It could potentially be "a BAD thing" if it comes at the expense of greater recoil, slower shot recovery, greater flash, more blast, increased weapon wear, reduced weapon service life, increased ammo cost, etc...

I am running out of logical arguments in favor of my emotional and monetary investment :confused:

Either way, it's one heck of a fun range-pistol, and I trust it 100% in my car or on my night-stand. I still am convinced it does better against hard barriers than the .45/9mm. I have not shot a car-door enough with a .40 to say there though. I do know that several gun-rag authors took some pistols out to a junk yard and had a field-day. The 357 SIG penetrated the best. Again, just a magazine article, but it mirrors what I have done myself. I would probably not carry my 357 SIG often though due to the weight. (P226 Elite ST)

*ETA: I posted the caveat of "as far as I know..." ergo, I now know different.

Marcus L.
12-29-09, 16:16
I am running out of logical arguments in favor of my emotional and monetary investment :confused:

....then keep your .357sig and don't worry about it. If you shoot it well and you have good quality ammunition for defensive purposes you'll be fine. If you want to switch to something else you can always get a .40S&W barrel and drop it into your Sig. Your primary concern should be getting your training time in and shooting your pistol enough to maintain a high level of skill. Dynamic, rapid, and accurate.

DocGKR
12-29-09, 16:24
Shoot what you run the best and can practice with the most.

If I worked at an agency that gave me as much free .357 Sig ammo as I wanted to shoot, then I would carry it, practice an absolute minimum 100 rounds per week, and not think twice.

Marcus L.
12-29-09, 21:59
Here's a quote from another M4carbine member on another thread:

"I am a current CBP Officer/Firearms Instructor and Armorer. When I started in 2006 we were shooting the Federal 155gr. load, 4 months later at my port we started shooting Federal 135gr. load, the rumor reason were various.

We have both in 135gr. loads in our inventory. The Border Patrol officially announced on 12/16/09 they are switching to an 180gr load, not sure which manufactuer, but DHS/CBP buys from all of them.

The BP guys in my armorer class were happy and I am sure us blue suiters will start seeing it come into our inventory also, I personally do not get wrapped around the axle about bullet weight, it ranks right up there with arguing about calibers...just shoot the threat until it is no longer a threat!"

It's been confirmed that they are switching to the 180gr Federal HST. This is good news and it seems that most of the CBP and BP officers are happy with the change.

WS6
01-16-10, 16:17
Well, I have found conflicting information on the 357SIG GoldDot ammunition. It appears that in some tests it penetrates much better than the .45, .40, 9mm, etc. In other tests, it is equal. So I did some digging. This is what I found:



AFTE JOURNAL

Volume 33, Number 4, Fall 2001

From the Virginia Institute of Forensic Science and Medicine

Speer 357 SIG Cartridge Improvements
A Technical Report

Amy A. Zahradka, VIFSM Fellow '02 and Ann L. Davis, Virginia Division of Forensic Science
Richmond, Virginia

ABSTRACT
A local police department found that their stock of 357 SIG ammunition was not all the same, even though it had been purchased under identical specifications. This article identifies a new cartridge headstamp and examines the variations available in Speer 357 SIG Gold Dot 125 grain hollow point ammunition.

While working on a police shooting case, it came to our attention that the ammunition submitted as standard issue was different from the fired cartridge cases recovered at the scene. When the police department was questioned about the discrepancy, personnel discovered that their stock of ammunition was not all the same. Although Speer 357 SIG Gold Dot 125 grain hollow point ammunition was ordered, cartridges from box to box looked different and product numbers varied. After discussing the matter with a development engineer at Blount, it was found that up to four types might currently be available on distributorsÿ shelves.

Product Improvements
An unusual semi-automatic handgun cartridge, the 357 SIG has a bottleneck case and operates at a high chamber pressure, up to 5,000 psi greater than some 357 Magnum loadings. Speer introduced their version in 1996 and made improvements in 1999 as a response to feedback they received.

It seems that the nickel-plated primers were causing a problem for some Sigarms handguns. During obturation, the high chamber pressure forced the primer cup into the breech face firing pin aperture. As the pistol unlocked, dropping the barrel, pieces of the cup metal occasionally sheared off into the recess. These shavings restricted the firing pinÿs movement, subsequently causing misfires. Speer reduced the size of the flash hole and switched to a plain brass primer to eliminate this problem.

Changes to the bullet were also incorporated. The bullet was given a larger nose radius to improve feeding, and the profile was changed to allow for more clearance in the chamber. The jacket thickness was increased by 0.007" to optimize performance through a wider range of velocities.

The improved ammunition was initially released on March 1, 1999 and is distinguished with a sideways "s" (called a "Lazy s") on the headstamp.

Two Product Numbers
Product number discrepancy is another issue. Two part numbers, 54234 and 53918 (or 23918 for boxes of 20), are currently available. Before the change in 1999, the only difference between them was that 54234 was mouth sealed. During the upgrade, it was decided that both should be mouth sealed to prevent bullet movement in the bottleneck case. At the same time, two new hollow point cavities were designed. The hollow point for 54234 was designed to duplicate the expansion and penetration characteristics of the original style, while 53918 was designed to decrease penetration by one to two inches. In order to make recoil more manageable, the powder charge in 53918 was reduced by 0.2 grains, resulting in an average velocity drop of 25 feet per second.

Conclusion
With both products available in either of two possible configurations, a total of four versions of the Speer 357 SIG Gold Dot 125 grain hollow point cartridges may still be in circulation. Although one type may not appear drastically different from another, it is important to understand the variations available.

Acknowledgment
We would like to extend a special thanks to Engineer Steve Moore of Blount for his assistance and cooperation in researching this article.

References
1. Product specifications and correspondence from Steve Moore, Development Engineer for Blount Inc. (CCI/Speer Division)
2. Barnes, F.C. and McPherson, M.L. (ed.), Cartridges of the World, 8th Edition, Krause Publications, Northfield, IL, 1997



In FBI testing the old load did 16 inches in bare gel, in DHS testing the new LP load did 14.7 inches.

DocGKR
01-16-10, 16:58
WS6--Now you are starting to get it and appear divine why things are not always black and white! Way to go. The article you located is from 2001; as you keep digging, I believe you will find even more interesting, yet often neglected bits of data on this topic.

It is quite interesting that the agency in question did not know they had received different products--that is a big FAIL!

ToddG
01-16-10, 17:23
FWIW, every federal agency I've dealt with carrying 357 SIG was using the 53918 load.

WS6
01-16-10, 17:36
WS6--Now you are starting to get it and appear to get why things are not always black and white! Way to go. The article you located is from 2001; as you keep digging, I believe you will find even more interesting, yet often neglected bits of data on this topic.

It is quite interesting that the agency in question did not know they had received different products--that is a big FAIL!

Thankyou! I am indeed doing some digging. I have an emotional investment to protect ; )

and now I have more questions :rolleyes:

I noted that the 2010 LE Ammunition PDF Catalogue from ATK DOES LIST the 54234 load. However, the ATK website no-longer lists it.

Do they still make the 54234 load? Why/why not?

Also, would it be safe to say, that the 54234 load offers superior penetration when compared with 9mm, .45, .40, due to it's construction and velocity, whereas the 53918 trades a bit of penetration for expansion, equalling other loads in this regard?

Would you recommend one over the other?
In addendum, you hint at there being more out there. Do I have to dig for it or can it be handed to me? (Damn microwave generation I am :P )

Further (edited a bunch of "also's", post looked odd), have you tested the RA45T I sent you a while back? If not, would you add 54234 and 53918 to that test so we can see with our own eyes the difference, if I were to procure and send them to you, or is time/gel/trouble to do so not something you wish to go through for that?

One more thing I noted. I think the 357 SIG "failed" due to marketing. Here is why (and I did somewhat steal this theory, before someone digs up the OP of it and accuses me of such).

The 357 SIG was said to be the 357 Magnum in a semi-auto. That is a BIG claim to make. People were polarized. Some said "no way", some said "prove it". Well. The 357 SIG had teething issues, with bullet setback, primer/pressure issues, etc. The "agnostics", as I term them, said "see? Screw that."

Had the 357SIG not had teething issues, I think it would have made much more impactful entrance. However, the USSS, FAMs, and TX DPS is a VERY strong endorsement for it.

WS6
01-16-10, 17:38
FWIW, every federal agency I've dealt with carrying 357 SIG was using the 53918 load.

I was curious who used what, I do think that the TX DPS uses the 54234 load though. Maybe vehicles factor higher on their list than FAMs and USSS.

ETA: This is from ATK's contact person:

"No, the 54234 is NOT being phased out. If anything, we're trying to phase out the LP. There is only 1.5" penetration difference and no difference in felt recoil. The rest is correct. I will get this load reinstated on the website. This load is used by TX DPS and Air Marshals. It's not going anywhere. "

Exiledviking
11-17-10, 18:42
I do know that in testing the 200gr GDHP .45 ACP load has proven itself a very erratic performer in the IWBA 4-layer denim tests.

More info this, please. Why do a lot the LE agencies then use it as their duty round?

DocGKR
11-17-10, 21:14
Perhaps they don't routinely test terminal performance?

Entropy
11-18-10, 08:46
I'm not sure why anyone would go with the GAP given its limited platform and ammunition availability. It has had almost 10 years on the market and has declined during that time in popularity. Other than Glock, there used to be several companies that made pistols chambered in the GAP, and even CZ and Sig had made prototypes for the market. Pretty much all of those prototypes have been canceled, and other manufacturers are discontinuing their GAP models.

The only agencies that have adopted GAP Glocks almost got them for free, but even that isn't improving the GAP's popularity.

TiroFijo
11-18-10, 11:20
Entropy, in other words: heading the way of the dodo bird?

Keith E.
11-18-10, 11:43
bearsdl, you could always start a .357 Sig thread and then let it evolve into a .45 GAP thread. :cool:

Seriously folks, good info here.

Thanks, Keith

GNXII
12-20-10, 22:29
Not to necropost but has the 45GAP caught on with any major LE agency. I read that NYSP issue the weapon and duty round but not sure if any other agency went with it. Thanks for any info!

Exiledviking
12-20-10, 23:43
The New York State Police, Georgia State Patrol, Pennsylvania State Police, South Carolina Highway Patrol, and Florida Highway Patrol have all adopted the .45GAP.