View Full Version : Improved Bullet design since FBI shootout
I wanted to split off a discussion fromthe .40 FBI thread to a question I had revisiting the information based around the "FBI shootout"
The basic questions is: What about ammunition, specifically in 9mm has improved that gives it the required penetration of 12" at a consistent rate.
The reason I ask is based on 2 things. 1st page 5 of this report shows only a 67% penetration rate of 9mm (and 38 +p):
http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi_10mm_notes.pdf
Of course that is now 20+ years ago. We have in our stickies data showing 12" penetration from several 9 mm loads and a note that bullet design has improved in the intervening years. (Not to mention resources around the web that demonstrate the same data for current loads).
I was just curious as to the specifics of What in particular about design has improved the penetration rate of the smaller caliber rounds?
This thread can help you.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887
No that's not actually not very helpful.
Careful reading of my original post will notice a reference to our stickies and my question is not whether 9 mm is equal to 45 or what loads are adequete-- but what specifically changed. In particular at the end of the sticky you will notice a comment that bullet design has changed in the intervening years.
My question is "what details of the bullet design contributed to the improved performance?" and a technical discussion of how they improved penetration
I know this is not a 9mm vs 45acp thread, and wasn't trying to make it into one. You want to know what's a good load for 9mm? Doc Roberts put together this list and describes it as "outstanding terminal performance" so to me that says they all reached the minimum of 12 inches of penetration:
"The following loads all demonstrate outstanding terminal performance and can be considered acceptable for duty/self-defense use:
9 mm:
Barnes XPB 115 gr JHP (copper bullet)
Federal Tactical 124 gr JHP (LE9T1)
Federal HST 124 gr +P JHP (P9HST3)
Remington Golden Saber 124 gr +P JHP bonded (GSB9MMD)
Speer Gold Dot 124 gr +P JHP
Winchester Partition Gold 124 gr JHP (RA91P)
Winchester Ranger-T 124 gr +P JHP (RA9124TP)
Winchester Ranger-T 127 gr +P+ JHP (RA9TA)
Federal Tactical 135 gr +P JHP (LE9T5)
Federal HST 147 gr JHP (P9HST2)
Remington Golden Saber 147 gr JHP (GS9MMC)
Speer Gold Dot 147 gr JHP
Winchester Ranger-T 147 gr JHP (RA9T)
Winchester 147 gr bonded JHP (RA9B/Q4364)"
You want to know what's changed in bullet design?
Companies started making hollowpoints better.
"-- Bullet designs like the Silver Tip, Hydra-Shok, and Black Talon were state of the art 15 or 20 years ago. These older bullets tend to plug up and act like FMJ projectiles when shot through heavy clothing; they also often have significant degradation in terminal performance after first passing through intermediate barriers. Modern ammunition which has been designed for robust expansion against clothing and intermediate barriers is significantly superior to the older designs. The bullets in the Federal Classic and Hydrashok line are outperformed by other ATK products such as the Federal Tactical and HST, as well as the Speer Gold Dot; likewise Winchester Ranger Talons are far superior to the old Black Talons or civilian SXT's." -Doc GKR
If you want to understand what actually makes their new hollowpoints better than their old hollowpoints then it's things like jacket design both in shape and thickness, bonding between the lead cores and jackets and maybe some other stuff too.
Microalign
02-02-12, 12:01
Taken from the FBI "10mm Notes":
Reasons for Adoption of 10mm:
1. Initial Test Results(12/88-1/89) on which decision based:
A. .38 Special +P - 158gr lead hollow point
-Success rate meeting 12" minimum 67.5%
-Wound volume (cubic inches of tissue disrupted): 2.16
-Average penetration: 11.76
-Test barrel average group: 2.992
-Service weapon average group: 10.863
B. 9mm Subsonic - 147gr jacketed hollow point
-Success rate meeting 12" minimum 67.5%
-Wound volume (cubic inches of tissue disrupted): 2.82
-Average penetration: 13.84
-Test barrel average group: 2.305
-Service weapon average group: 2.774
C. .45 ACP - 185gr jacketed hollow point
-Success rate meeting 12" minimum 92.5%
-Wound volume (cubic inches of tissue disrupted): 3.98
-Average penetration: 19.95
-Test barrel average group: 2.040
-Service weapon average group: 4.319
D. 10mm FBI Load - 180gr jacketed hollow point(980fps)
-Success rate meeting 12" minimum 97.5%
-Wound volume (cubic inches of tissue disrupted): 4.11
-Average penetration: 17.90
-Test barrel average group: 0.893
-Service weapon average group: 2.550
Some other stuff about the 9mm:
*Why didn't the 9mm do better - that is suprising?
-The 9mm is no more effective than the .38 Special, which should not be suprising since they are the same caliber bullets(.35 caliber) at the same range of velocities and bullet weights.
*Are you saying the 9mm is no good?
-No. We are saying it is as good as the .38 Special, which has served us for a long time. It has severe limitations, which we are not willing to accept. It is woefully inadequate for shooting at people in cars, for example, and over half of our shootings involve vehicles. It is a marginally adequate wounding agent. We have had a number of 9mm shootings over the past couple of years, and if you define a good shooting as one in which the subject stops whatever he was doing when he gets shot, we have yet to have a good one, and we are hitting our adversaries multiple times. We have shot half a dozen dogs in the past year, and have not killed one yet, although we have run up a significant veterinary bill. The 9mm with proper ammunition is not a bad round. It is just nowhere near as effective as the 10mm and .45 offerings, and the disparity between it and the larger calibers has remained a constant throughout all the testing we have done over the past two years.
At the time, this thinking was ground breaking, and based on many years of OIS data and lab testing. Whether or not it remains relevant today is up for debate. The training techniques of today emphasize repeated shots on your subject with semiautos, which usually results in multiple hits on the subject in OISs since most duty pistols now days have approximately a 15+1 magazine capacity and are chambered in very controllable calibers. So, even if the 9mm is still a "marginally adequate wounding agent", or a poor windshield penetrator, multiple shots make up for it and can conceal the accuracy of statistical data. In yesteryears, officers often used low capacity revolvers or semiautos resulting in fewer shots fired on subjects which I feel was a better indicator of caliber effectiveness in the field. Obviously ammunition design has improved in the last two decades. The relevance of OIS statistics is another debate entirely.
I was just curious as to the specifics of What in particular about design has improved the penetration rate of the smaller caliber rounds?
I'd have to say the availablility and affordability of heat treatment and plating processes.
Monolithic designs tempered to expand in a repeatable manner, and bonding of the jacket to the core.
Oh, and possibly better powders for more velocity too.
<snip>
. Obviously ammunition design has improved in the last two decades. The relevance of OIS statistics is another debate entirely.
Please stop reposting material not germaine to the discussion. Yes design has improved, I was seeking knowledge about the specifics of said improvement.
Doc has repeatedly stated that a excellent guideline is 12-18" of penetration. I do not wish to question that guideline. I do not want to disucss the applicability that guideline. I am taking as a baseline that it is indeed an excellent guideline.
I am taking 2 points of data
1) The initial report I linked that characterzied 9mm penetration at 67% success (to 12 inches or more)
2) Current recommendations for duty loads which both our stickies and http://www.firearmstactical.com which reports test loads through gelatin, of which many 9mm bullets now acheive increased success rates of 12-18" penetration.
I accept both of these data points as VALID.
My question is what specifically in design changed between these two points. Hopefully that will put the discussion on track instead of rehashing old discussions.
Generalpie
02-02-12, 14:10
Moltke answered that for you.
"companies started making hollow points better."
Exactly what they did is a matter of educated guesses because I imagine they are not all very free with their R&D results.
Ultimately an improvement in materials and construction has made for better performing handgun projectiles. Some of those possibilities were already mentioned as well, particularly improvements in bonding technologies.
Now just to get certain agencies to understand this and stop issuing me HydraShoks is another matter all together.
Moltke answered that for you.
"companies started making hollow points better."
the Op already was in possesion of that knowledge. it was not an answer at all.
As I pointed out above, it was an evolution in techniques and technology in metalurgy and powder that added up to an increase in performance.
pilotguyo540
02-02-12, 18:02
Am I the only one to catch that the 9mm in the study is SUBSONIC?
Microalign
02-02-12, 19:35
Am I the only one to catch that the 9mm in the study is SUBSONIC?
Which is what even 147gr+P is at sea level. I believe the sound barrier at sea level at around 70 degrees is around 1100fps.
Pretty much ALL the standard pressure 147 gr 9 mm loads are subsonic...
pilotguyo540
02-02-12, 19:59
Wow! I had no idea!
Going back to my lane now:D
What about ammunition, specifically in 9mm has improved that gives it the required penetration of 12" at a consistent rate?
Most of the 9mm bullets on the list of good current performers are bonded.
Barrier penetration is where the lighter 9mm bullets have difficulty meeting 12" if they come apart and shed weight vs heavier .40 and .45 bullets. So even the ones that are not bonded have a "tougher" design to stay intact better.
I was just curious as to the specifics of What in particular about design has improved the penetration rate of the smaller caliber rounds?
I dont know specifics, except that most of the best bullets are bonded or solid copper IIRC.
I HAVE noticed, upon looking at moderm ammo, vs just say hydroshocks(going from memory) the new, good stuff has longer weak points cut into the jacket and maybe into the bonded core. When comparing 9mm hst vs 40 hst(147gn vs 180) I noticed the cuts in the jacket were longer on the .40 (Im assuming this is to counter-balance the heavier round). These cuts may dictate how far and easily the bullet opens. If it opens too fast, too much energy is expended too fast and shallow penetration. Opens too late, bad term ballistics early on(small perm cavity) with overpenetration.
The engineers, or whoever designed these, realized that we have x amount of energy and mass, you can only get so big for so long and still get into your target penetration depth. They built bullets around this with certain shaped cavities in the hollowpoints, and certain built in failure points so the bullet expands at the specified rate, evenly around the bullet so it travels straight. On my hst's the cut is very thin up top and gets bigger down. Going out on a limb here, I think this would enable, once it has opened up a little and slowed down, to keep opening at the reduced velocities. Thats just my theory so take it for what its worth. Furthermore, the jacket is bonded to the core to retain the maximum momentum so that it travels as deep as possible. Heavier stuff has more momentum, and less tendency to fragment, which is why IN GENERAL heavy stuff is the best. A good example to an exception to this is the solid copper bullets which seem to need a higher speed to open up reliably.
All this leads to ammo that now penetrates as deep as needed(which we didnt quantify to 12" way back when), opens up as wide as possible, and handles barriers very well. And with modern technology, we can do it consistently.
I know this wasnt "specific" to 9mm but the changes have been made accross the board. My bro has a 9 and I have a .40 so I compared the two (both hst) visually around Christmas and noticed some of what I mentioned. As for 9mm, I think the biggest thing is that "they" realized heavier rounds have more momentum, and can be made more consistent much easier. This is why a lot of the recommended 9s are 147 grain.
Hope this helped a little bit, nothing too scientific, but a little more in depth than "its better"
Maybe the doc or someone in the industry can get more in depth for you. Also, if either of the above contradicts me, more likely than not, they are right.;)
Wow! I had no idea!
Going back to my lane now:D
I forget where I read it, so it may be wrong, but you might be interested in(if someone can confirm this)... I think the 147grain 9mm started as a full-power subsonic, and the benefits realized led to widespread adoption for general purpose.
BuckskinJoe
02-03-12, 07:47
Absent an incredible reverse-engineering effort on multiple modern handgun bullets (of which I am not aware), I suspect the only way to get accurate information about changes to design, engineering, metallurgy,and manufacturing, would be to obtain that information directly from Federal, Remington, Federal, etc., and I suspect such are closely-held proprietary data.
As for finding such information on Internet gun forums, "thems that say don't know, and thems that really know don't say" is a dependable viewpoint.
In the wake of the 1986 FBI incident in Miami, LE began to investigate what criteria should be used to optimize handgun ammunition terminal performance. To help guide that development, the FBI held a series of wound ballistic workshops in 1987 through 1993, inviting leading experts to address the topic. These FBI workshops lead to the establishment of the FBI ammunition testing guidelines—this was good for the public, LE, and ammunition vendors, as it articulated a clear set of performance criteria resulting in more effective and safer ammunition. Ammunition engineers were able to use the new test protocol as a metric to guide bullet design. The first generation of handgun ammunition designed to meet the new FBI terminal performance guidelines included the Federal Hydrashok, Hornady XTP, Remington Golden Saber, first generation Speer Gold Dot, and Winchester Black Talon. These bullets all offered improved penetration to reach the desired 12-18” guidelines and somewhat better intermediate barrier performance, however, they still demonstrated inconsistent terminal performance under some conditions, particularly with heavy clothing and through automobile windshields. As a result, the IWBA began a series of tests to determine what needed to be done—this data, along with suggested engineering changes and test protocols, particularly the 4 layer denim test, was shared with industry. By 1997, many munitions engineers began incorporating these updates into LE handgun ammunition, eventually leading to improved loads like the current Barnes XPB, Federal HST and Tactical, Remington bonded Golden Saber, current generation Speer Gold Dot, and Winchester Ranger Talon, Partition Gold, and Bonded. The results of the IWBA experiments, corrective recommendations, and engineering test protocls were published by the IWBA in an article by Duncan MacPherson (MacPherson D: “Improved Handgun Ammunition”. Wound Ballistics Review. 3 (3):12-21, 1998). This, along with Duncan’s book (MacPherson D: Bullet Penetration: Modeling the Dynamics and the Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma. Ballistic Publications, El Segundo, CA, 1994. ISBN 0-9643577-0-4), remain the best sources of information on this subject.
Monolithic designs tempered to expand in a repeatable manner, and bonding of the jacket to the core.
Slight sidetrack, but how do they bond the jacket to the core?
Slight sidetrack, but how do they bond the jacket to the core?
two ways generally
first is old school where they use a flux and heat to bond the core to the jacket. similar process to sweating a copper pipe or soldering
second is the way they make stuff like the gold dot. The jacket is electroplated onto the core until they reach the desired thickness. it's a similar process to plating pistol bullets, and the bond is very robust and more consistent than the old fluxing process.
as for the tempering process on single metal bullets, I believe they use computer controlled temperature and timing in an oven of sorts to get the exact hardness and toughness of the bullet so it will expand between certain velocities. It similar to what they do with steel for knives, but more precise. I have not actually seen the process myself tho, so I may not be exactly right on the details. I'm sure some of them are proprietary.
Biggest improvement in ammunition in the last 25+ years?
Education of departments to actually know what they should request. The industry responded to what was asked for, just as they did in the past.
The problem now, is to keep the momentum going, and not let the morons, snake oil salesmen, and junk scientists, veer us off course.
Busta Prima
02-05-12, 14:23
Bonded doesn't automatically mean "better." Bonded is better when barrier penetration is an issue though.
What I've learned from studying all of the data out there (FBI included) is that the smaller the caliber, the more you have to pay attention to bullet design.
Also, don't get so hung up with these test results. It's easy to get sucked in! Training and shot placement will always be key.
Alaskapopo
02-05-12, 15:24
Bonded doesn't automatically mean "better." Bonded is better when barrier penetration is an issue though.
What I've learned from studying all of the data out there (FBI included) is that the smaller the caliber, the more you have to pay attention to bullet design.
Also, don't get so hung up with these test results. It's easy to get sucked in! Training and shot placement will always be key.
Training and shot placement are separate topics. We are talking about bullet performance.
Pat
Busta Prima
02-05-12, 15:33
Training and shot placement are separate topics. We are talking about bullet performance.
Pat
That was about 5% of my post, said matter-of-factly. But thanks for YOUR input! LOL!
Bonded doesn't automatically mean "better." Bonded is better when barrier penetration is an issue though.
What I've learned from studying all of the data out there (FBI included) is that the smaller the caliber, the more you have to pay attention to bullet design.
Can you share just exactly what was "all the data out there" you've studied?
Busta Prima
02-06-12, 11:13
Can you share just exactly what was "all the data out there" you've studied?
Just do a search. There's lots of it. The FBI data is extensive and there are numerous other sources as well (and gel tests, etc.). I particularly liked the tests where they had gel after barriers like wood, glass (including windshields at an angle) and layers of denim.
"What I've learned from studying all of the data out there (FBI included) is that the smaller the caliber, the more you have to pay attention to bullet design".
Can you share just exactly what was "all the data out there" you've studied?
I think that it's just a matter of a thicker piece of metal being able to survive intact when under stress. The only thing that can be done with a smaller diameter bullet is to make it out of a stronger metal or use a thicker jacket.
Busta Prima
02-06-12, 11:26
I should have saved all of my sources and links but what I did was try and find the best round for each caliber I used and buy a bunch of it. It took several days.
When I went through the data, as you went down in caliber there were fewer and fewer choices for decent penetration and expansion. When you got up to .45 cal, the difference in penetration and expansion varied the least. Your average 230 gr ball ammo did nearly as well as the Ranger T Series. In 9mm, you pretty much had to go with a specific brand, model, and weight or else the performance (in the tests, anyway) fell off considerably. The toughest was .380 where nearly all sucked and when I did find the "best," it cost almost a buck fifty a round!
I should have saved all of my sources and links but what I did was try and find the best round for each caliber I used and buy a bunch of it. It took several days.
When I went through the data, as you went down in caliber there were fewer and fewer choices for decent penetration and expansion. When you got up to .45 cal, the difference in penetration and expansion varied the least. Your average 230 gr ball ammo did nearly as well as the Ranger T Series. In 9mm, you pretty much had to go with a specific brand, model, and weight or else the performance (in the tests, anyway) fell off considerably. The toughest was .380 where nearly all sucked and when I did find the "best," it cost almost a buck fifty a round!
Screw .380
I should have saved all of my sources and links but what I did was try and find the best round for each caliber I used and buy a bunch of it. It took several days.
Oh, you actually spent several days "studying all the data" out there........
Busta Prima
02-06-12, 12:18
Oh, you actually spent several days "studying all the data" out there........
WTF ? ?
I think he is alluding to the idea that several days isn't enough time to have studied all the data necessary and you come off as wanting to be looked at as an expert without identifying yourself as such. Fortunately there are already experts on the forum like Doc who've already tested loads and evaluated results, and have made recommendations linked earlier in the thread.
I think he is alluding to the idea that several days isn't enough time to have studied all the data necessary and you come off as wanting to be looked at as an expert without identifying yourself as such. Fortunately there are already experts on the forum like Doc who've already tested loads and evaluated results, and have made recommendations linked earlier in the thread.
No, not at all. I thought not only could those here with extensive LE, training, rangemaster, and wound ballistics experience learn something, but I thought even Doc could benefit from such cutting edge data as:
When you got up to .45 cal, the difference in penetration and expansion varied the least. Your average 230 gr ball ammo did nearly as well as the Ranger T Series.
or:
Just do a search. There's lots of it. The FBI data is extensive and there are numerous other sources as well (and gel tests, etc.). I particularly liked the tests where they had gel after barriers like wood, glass (including windshields at an angle) and layers of denim.
I was hoping he could share his sources for these jewels, (who knew about all that gel stuff????), but since it apparently took several days to glean it, I doubt anyone here could devote that kind of time.....
....
Busta Prima
02-06-12, 13:42
I think he is alluding to the idea that several days isn't enough time to have studied all the data necessary and you come off as wanting to be looked at as an expert without identifying yourself as such. Fortunately there are already experts on the forum like Doc who've already tested loads and evaluated results, and have made recommendations linked earlier in the thread.
No, not an expert and I'm sorry if I came across like one, that was not my intention. I don't like mall ninja, know it all, keyboard commandos either!
I did only quote obvious facts though, or at least they seemed obvious. My comment on bonded bullets is a simple, well known fact, besides being a pretty generic comment. As for the rest, I tried to explain my comments when talking about the gel tests (and other tests). It's all published online for everyone to see. When one bullet penetrates more AND has a larger permanent wound cavity AND has a larger temporary wound cavity AND does this after defeating certain, common barriers, I don't need to be any kind of expert to see which bullet performs best. When you start getting results that criss-cross the specific things in my previous sentence, THEN you risk guessing. Also, I wasn't looking at every single bullet. I looked at .45, .40, 9mm and .380. I also did the same for .223/5.56 as well but that's a whole 'nuther story.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.