View Full Version : 9 mm Fiocchi 92 gr EMB
We had a chance to look at the Fiocchi 92 gr Expansion Mono Block this week; as can be seen, it was less than impressive...
Fiocchi 92 gr Expansion Mono-Block (9EMB) fired from G17 at ave vel of 1315 f/s; 5 shot ave below:
BG: Pen = 12.6", Ave RD = 0.56", Ave RL = 0.54", Ave RW = 93.5 gr
4LD: Pen = 16.1+", Ave RD = 0.36", Ave RL = 0.55", Ave RW = 93.5 gr
Here is a photo showing how full of fail the EMB is, top row is fired into BG, bottom row into 4LD:
http://www.10-8forums.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=7642&filename=9mm%20EMB.jpg
In my limited experience, the 5 gramm version of the Hirtenberger (now Fiocchi) EMB expands very well even in clothed gelatine,
whereas the 6 gramm version was castrated in expansion and V0 as required by the German police (to not hurt suspects).
Wow! full of fail is a very accurate description...
Even if the EMB works perfectly, it is still problematic. The expanded portion of the EMB is far behind the leading edge of the projectile. The temporary cavity forms at the leading edge of the projectile--in the case of the EMB, at the front of the upright post, much like first generation Hydrashoks with the large thick center posts. Think of the EMB like a Hydrashok on Viagra. The TC forming at the front of the erect post can result in the tissue being stretched away from the expanded jacket at the back of the bullet, thus preventing the expanded bullet edges from touching and cutting tissue. With deforming handgun projectiles, the expanded bullet edges need to be as close to the leading edge of ther projectile as possible for maximum tissue disruption to occur. Unfortunately the EMB fails in every way...
Any chance to test 9mm Magtech First Defense SCHP??
Weight and velocity are similar...:D
Shucks and other comments! Glad to see this kind of hard data on it, do you think the Fiocchi Extrema line loaded w/Hornady XTP's (115, 124 & 147) would fare better?
Tomac
No. While the XTP's work well in .44 Mag, they have not performed well in service pistol calibers.
No. While the XTP's work will in .44 Mag, they have not performed well in service pistol calibers.
Is XTP performance typically minimal expansion, with very deep penetration?
Reason I ask is I'm thinking about 200gr XTPs out of a 10mm for use as a woods gun (deer, black bear)
Thanks
The service caliber XTP's tend to have inconsistent expansion, especially through heavy clothing and other intermediate barriers.
Is XTP performance typically minimal expansion, with very deep penetration?
Reason I ask is I'm thinking about 200gr XTPs out of a 10mm for use as a woods gun (deer, black bear)
Thanks
Not to sound like I am contradicting Doc in anyway, but for that mission your choice is fine IMHO.
Deer hardly ever wear heavy clothing, or hide in cars and try to run you down.
The penetration and expansion is surprising considering the light weight. It actually meets the 12" minimum with decent expansion (in plain gel). So I'm guessing the reason it fails is the failure to expand after denim and the TC issue?
PA PATRIOT
08-31-11, 22:37
Any chance to test 9mm Magtech First Defense SCHP??
Weight and velocity are similar...:D
If this happens maybe a short 3.0" barrel could be added during your testing of this load.
Magtech First Defense is very similar to the Barnes all copper XPB bullets.
If you drive the 10mm 200 gr XTP at full power it should be fine; the .44 Mag XTP's are some of the best we have tested.
car guy--the penetration is not surprising, all the expansion occurs w/in the first 2" of penetration. Then as the TC forms, it is stretching the tissue away from the expanded jacket, so it is not causing the same level of drag as a projectile with the expansion more at the leading edge, thus the bullet penetrates deeper than expected. The EMB follows a very poor design path.
3" barrels? 3.5" maybe, but what reliable service pistols use a 3" barrel?
PA PATRIOT
09-01-11, 22:17
Magtech First Defense is very similar to the Barnes all copper XPB bullets.
3" barrels? 3.5" maybe, but what reliable service pistols use a 3" barrel?
Micro sized 9mm's seem to gaining a following as BUG's or for low risk primary CCW and most have barrels in the 3"0 inch range. Finding creditable information on a adequate loading for the short barrel tends to be non existent so if you get the opportunity it surely would be appreciated by many who own these pistols.
I sent a box of the EMB to an avid hog-hunter in Texas for testing as well as the box I sent to the Doc. Here are his unedited results, the following is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to bash Doc's gel test in any way:
"We were hunting just a few miles from Terrell, Texas, and spotted these hogs in a large pack (30-35 headcount) in the middle of a pasture. We took advantage of the terrain, and made a good stalk to get within 75yds.
My M16 is the lower one, 9mm, 5.5", triple X suppressor, using some 95 grain ammo given to me by tomac to test on hogs. FUGGIT's M16 is running a 10mm upper and I let him put his gun next to mine so that he could feel special too.
My first burst knocked one hog down. My second tripped a second hog. Bursts 3-5 were misses. The two hogs pictured were each hit with multiple rounds and were laying side-by-side when we walked up. One was spine hit with two visible entrance wounds. The larger one took three rounds (one lung, two hindquarter).
We checked for other hogs, bloodtrails, and did not recover any more from this group.
Before we left, we stopped to smoke a couple of cigars and spotted a lone hog in the middle of a 50 acre field.
I took my M16, with a PVS-22 on it (was now dusk) and crossed the field to get close enough to shoot.
I missed the first, second, and third burst, then I realized I was not leading the hog. By now, the hog was at a dead run, I lead him by six feet and got one round in to him. SNICKPOOMPSQUEAL!
At this point, I knew I must be low on ammo, and with the hog still running away (but slowing) I popped the magazine and saw one round in the mag (two total).
I lead the hog, who was now almost walking, and fired two rounds.
Clean misses.
The hog continued across the field and made his way in to the far treeline.
Five hogs hit, two recovered. And a happy landowner that wants us to come back again to kill some more."
From the IM's he sent me:
"The gut shot was thru and thru. Ruptured the large intestine. The other side shot went thru the ribs, vaped the bottom of the lungs and came out the front shoulder. It just missed the ball & socket.
Entered the left rib and exited the right shoulder."
"The rounds from hog 1 were 'through and through'. no recovered round.
I will check hog 2 this morning for any rounds inside.
As for performance...
I have used two basic rounds for years. 115gr and 147gr. Nothing fancy, white box from wal-mart.
Here's my impression:
115gr sucks. I have killed only a few hogs with it. I have wounded ALOT. If given a magazine of 115gr, I'll stay home. It is a waste of time.
147 kicks ass. Breaks bone, penetrates deep, but seldom exits. Not much of a bloodtrail, but, most hogs go down DRT when hit by it.
I shot 5 hogs with your ammo. Of those two that we recovered, they had 2-3 rounds each. I saw two others take bursts and stumble/fall/run off.
That was no surprise. I've seen the same with 115/147. These are tough animals. The hog that took a single hit (after dark with NVG) was gutshot. I am sure the round did not exit, because the gut is a wetsack of junk and it takes a helluva round to exit. Would have been the same result with the 147s.
What surprised me was the fact that the rounds exited (FUGGIT cleaned one hog, so the autopsy is from him on the wound path).
IMHO, they worked as well as my favorite, 147gr, round. I would carry the bullets any where in the woods. I did not hae a single misfire, jam, FTF, FTE.
When I was shooting them, I was on AUTO, and they cycled great!
Later this morning I will dissect the hog that I brought home. Two rounds went through and through her hips/thighs, at least one hit a femur, so I'll get pics of that for you."
Recovered two rounds. WOO HOO!
almost wanted to kiss the bullets!!
Want me to mail them to you? "
"I measured these. Max expansion is .68
Average is around .62
In my opinion, the 147 gr hits harder and penetrates deeper. I saw wound channel damage (especially on the head/neck impact) that showed alot of cavity wounding, similar to what I see with a rifle impact, but not as dramatic.
As for expansion, 147 does not expand. I use a TCMC as my primary round. I have used 147gr HP, but it still did NOT expand in a hog.
I have used Hydrashock, and they expand in a hog.
Keep in mind, a hog is a hairy animal with a tough tough hide. It does a good job of protecting a hog in the wild, they fight alot. Not like a human with our thin skin. Their hide is 1/4" thick.
Here's my assessment:
It's a good bullet. I would not be afraid to use it for personal defense. It is light, so, I would not expect it to go through a car door, or glass, and retain much energy. However, in day-to-day use on two legged adversaries, I would expect the person to receive fatal wounds. this round still penetrated 6-8" and broke a spine. It's total penetration was more than I expected from a 95gr bullet. It did not penetrate as well as the 147s.
It's an effective round. From what I have seen, 147s go deeper and break more bones. I've hit hogs in this same location before (shoulder-rib-spine-shoulder) and apples-to-apples, the 95gr only went HALF as deep as other rounds.
If you shoot someone/thin with it, do not expect an exit wound. Might be a good thing if you are shooting in a crowded area and you worry about a round exiting and hitting a bystander.
Even the hogs that ran off, imho, received fatal wounds. The sow I killed had a shattered leg and was still running. hogs react to pain differently than a human. unless a hog is hit in the spine, they ALWAYS run away when hit."
Tomac
"In my opinion, the 147 gr hits harder and penetrates deeper. I saw wound channel damage (especially on the head/neck impact) that showed alot of cavity wounding, similar to what I see with a rifle impact, but not as dramatic."
"As for expansion, 147 does not expand. I use a TCMC as my primary round. I have used 147gr HP, but it still did NOT expand in a hog."
Interesting, no expansion but effective. I wonder if the recovered bullets deformed into partially expanded, wadcutter like, nose shapes?
I have used two basic rounds for years. 115gr and 147gr. Nothing fancy, white box from wal-mart.
His "147gr HP" might not be modern duty grade stuff, considering his choice of cheap bulk and shooting full auto.
His "147gr HP" might not be modern duty grade stuff, considering his choice of cheap bulk and shooting full auto.
This. IIRC he used cheap Wally World White Box.
Tomac
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.