Which would you choose given the parameters.....

[Alpha-17]

I also never compared rifle and pistol calibers. I don't know where he got that from.

You absolutely did. Unless there's a line of rifle caliber HSTs out there that neither myself nor Google have ever heard of, you brought up two pistol ammo lines in conjunction with fragmentation being a bad thing. See quote below.

The fact of the matter is that retained weight is king among the criteria for being a prized self defense bullet. You're just not going to find a professional who's going to say, You know what, I like these HSTs and Gold Dots, but I sure wish they would immediately break into a bunch of tiny little pieces immediately upon impact. They were expressly designed NOT to do that, and their ability to stay intact is why pros around the world pay the big bucks for them. I keep mentioning Speer and Federal because they're the current standard everything else is held up to, but pretty much all of the generally respected LE and self defense ammo out there is the same in the sense that retained weight is one of if not the most important criteria going into the design process. If something doesn't retain 80% or more of its weight it's pretty much out of the running.

[okie]

You absolutely did. Unless there's a line of rifle caliber HSTs out there that neither myself nor Google have ever heard of, you brought up two pistol ammo lines in conjunction with fragmentation being a bad thing. See quote below.

That's not a comparison. I was merely pointing out that weight retention is a sought after characteristic across the board, and that the most highly respected bullets across the board are known for excellent weight retention and their tendency not to fragment under any condition. I can't prove this obviously but I think if you did a survey you would find that the most popular bullets in LE nationwide would be Gold Dot 223s and HST or Gold Dot for their pistols, which is why I brought them up.

How you interpret that as me comparing rifle and pistol bullets is beyond my ability to comprehend. I'm not comparing anything. On the contrary, I'm saying weight retention is a characteristic that transcends comparisons. It's a universal goal across the board.

[vicious_cb]

That's not a comparison. I was merely pointing out that weight retention is a sought after characteristic across the board, and that the most highly respected bullets across the board are known for excellent weight retention and their tendency not to fragment under any condition. I can't prove this obviously but I think if you did a survey you would find that the most popular bullets in LE nationwide would be Gold Dot 223s and HST or Gold Dot for their pistols, which is why I brought them up.

How you interpret that as me comparing rifle and pistol bullets is beyond my ability to comprehend. I'm not comparing anything. On the contrary, I'm saying weight retention is a characteristic that transcends comparisons. It's a universal goal across the board.

Im glad someone else is taking up the torch and calling out your BS.

This entire statement is complete BS. Bullets are NOT "sought after for tendency not to fragment under any condition". Fragmentation is a DESIRABLE and legitimate way to increase tissue destruction especially when paired with the temp. stretch cavity generated from rifle bullets. This is backed up by DocGKR who recommends fragmenting OTMs if barriers are not a concern and in all literature from Fackler regarding 5.56 caliber wounding effects.

Yes, you can't prove this because you made it up. Oh yeah and here is some source material for you, and entire IWBA library refuting your idiotic statement that fragmentation is undesirable.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...ylhiJAVbjrIWeg

And a peer viewed MEDICAL JOURNAL article on tissue disruption caused by fragmenting bullets:

Bullet fragmentation: a major cause of tissue disruption
Journal of Trauma. 1984 Jan;24(1):35-9.
M L Fackler, J S Surinchak, J A Malinowski, R E Bowen

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6694223/
https://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Fa...gmentation.pdf

[okie]

Im glad someone else is taking up the torch and calling out your BS.

This entire statement is complete BS. Bullets are NOT "sought after for tendency not to fragment under any condition". Fragmentation is a DESIRABLE and legitimate way to increase tissue destruction especially when paired with the temp. stretch cavity generated from rifle bullets. This is backed up by DocGKR who recommends fragmenting OTMs if barriers are not a concern and in all literature from Fackler regarding 5.56 caliber wounding effects.

Yes, you can't prove this because you made it up. Oh yeah and here is some source material for you, and entire IWBA library refuting your idiotic statement that fragmentation is undesirable.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...ylhiJAVbjrIWeg

Bullets that fragment all fall into one of three categories. Bullets that partially fragment incidentally as a largely unintended consequence of other design features (e.g. ball, Mk262, M855A1), bullets that fragment completely for safety reasons (TRU being a poster child), and gimmicky bullets that are expressly designed to fragment purely for terminal reasons (e.g. RIP).

Fragmentation is acceptable under some conditions, but rarely desirable, and never desirable from a standpoint of terminal effect, unless it's the only option (e.g. M855A1).

I, of course, as I've said many times in this thread, don't dispute the material in your data dump. But what you seem incapable of appreciating is that there's more to the equation. A lot more. Yes, fragmentation tears stuff up and turns it into minced meat, and, yes, that's a good thing in an information vacuum. But there's so much more in the total equation (which I've gone into detail about here) that has led experts to overwhelmingly opt for bullets that were expressly designed not to fragment in tissue.

[Ironman8]

Ok, first of all, choosing a fragmenting round vs a barrier blind round (bonded SP) is NOT based on weight retention. It’s based on whether you need to defeat a barrier before contacting soft tissue. And even if it was based on weight retention, then Okie’s argument still doesn’t make sense because you still get a high percentage of weight retention from heavy fragmenting loads that end up past the minimum penetration threshold in bare gel testing. Instead of being contained in one piece, you get several pieces that combined give you a high degree of “penetrating weight retention”. (Yes I just made that term up, sue me )

Just a note, when I say fragmenting design, I’m talking the generally accepted HEAVY OTM loads recommended by DocGKR and others that reach the minimum accepted penetration depth in gel testing. I’m not talking about lightweight varmint or other similar rounds that don’t meet this criteria.

If your threat environment dictates that you will use this in/around vehicles, then (theoretically) you would choose a barrier blind (GD, TSX, etc) over fragmenting design (MK262). If you believe that you’ll be making more unobstructed shots, then (theoretically) you would go with a fragmenting design. The trade off being made here is usually better accuracy vs better performance through barriers. It’s up to you to determine which is more important.

I say “theoretically” above because at the end of the day, this is all based on testing where ONE shot is fired at a gel block with or without intermediate barriers and data is gathered. In the real world, more than one round is getting fired with hundreds of other variables in play. All this stuff is just data points for you to make a decision on what might give you that 1% edge in getting the job done because the real truth is that none of it matters without getting accurate rounds on target. And the only thing that really guarantees an immediate stoppage is a CNS hit.

[ABNAK]

MK318 has been pretty much unobtanium lately. When it comes in to stock it’s more the MK262. I won’t touch M855A1 because I like my rifles. The FBI load is ok but if you go that route, look at the Nosler offering in either .223 or 5.56 which is a lot easier to get (Currently have a few mags loaded with that in the HD rifle).

Speer GDHP is another good round. I like the 55 and 75 grain rounds. The 55 matches my M193 when shooting at the range and the 75 is very close to my MK262 zero.

All in all, I will take the 262 all day. Blackhills makes a fine round, it can be sourced relatively easily, not very cost prohibitive, and I get great accuracy and precision out of my barrels using it. My current mix of ammo is 2k of MK262, 5k of M193, and a few mags of Nosler and GDHP.

The Mk262 I have is IMI "Razor" ammo, a clone. It seems to be a spunky load.

[davidjinks]

The Mk262 I have is IMI "Razor" ammo, a clone. It seems to be a spunky load.

I’ve shot that round next to my 262. Out of my guns, I give the edge to the IMI.

[okie]

Ok, first of all, choosing a fragmenting round vs a barrier blind round (bonded SP) is NOT based on weight retention. It’s based on whether you need to defeat a barrier before contacting soft tissue. And even if it was based on weight retention, then Okie’s argument still doesn’t make sense because you still get a high percentage of weight retention from heavy fragmenting loads that end up past the minimum penetration threshold in bare gel testing. Instead of being contained in one piece, you get several pieces that combined give you a high degree of “penetrating weight retention”. (Yes I just made that term up, sue me )

Just a note, when I say fragmenting design, I’m talking the generally accepted HEAVY OTM loads recommended by DocGKR and others that reach the minimum accepted penetration depth in gel testing. I’m not talking about lightweight varmint or other similar rounds that don’t meet this criteria.

If your threat environment dictates that you will use this in/around vehicles, then (theoretically) you would choose a barrier blind (GD, TSX, etc) over fragmenting design (MK262). If you believe that you’ll be making more unobstructed shots, then (theoretically) you would go with a fragmenting design. The trade off being made here is usually better accuracy vs better performance through barriers. It’s up to you to determine which is more important.

I say “theoretically” above because at the end of the day, this is all based on testing where ONE shot is fired at a gel block with or without intermediate barriers and data is gathered. In the real world, more than one round is getting fired with hundreds of other variables in play. All this stuff is just data points for you to make a decision on what might give you that 1% edge in getting the job done because the real truth is that none of it matters without getting accurate rounds on target. And the only thing that really guarantees an immediate stoppage is a CNS hit.

I'm seriously not trying to be combative here, but that's just plain made up nonsense.

Bonded bullets were and are designed expressly to retain weight, yielding deeper, straighter penetration and, most importantly, an increased tendency to pass through bone without being deflected. They were originally designed for and marketed to hunters for large game (i.e. barrier blindness was not a consideration in their development, elk generally being too unevolved to properly use cover).

Second, OTM bullets are NOT fragmenting by design. The nature of OTMs to fragment is 100% incidental. They are designed first and foremost for long range precision. They have a tendency to fragment because, one, they aren't bonded, and, two, because of the open tip. Bonding tends to yield less consistent results, which of course influences accuracy, so match bullets are unbonded by necessity. The open tip is also incidental to them being optimized for precision. The fact that they sometimes expand and fragment is nothing more than a happy coincidence.

The choice for bonded bullets has little to nothing to do with barriers, and everything to do with what the bullet does inside a body. They are expressly designed not to break apart in a body, period, end of story. And the impetus behind their design is to prevent the bullet from being deflected, primarily by bone. The reason LE choose them is the exact same reason hunters choose them. If you have to shoot through the arms or shoulder, they're much, much more likely to succeed.

Your theory of "penetrating weight retention" also ignores basic physics. Even if the bullet only breaks into two pieces its momentum is cut in half. Along with its inertia, which means its velocity will decrease more rapidly over time and distance than it would have, had the bullet stayed intact, meaning rapidly diminishing momentum over time. That means more rapid deceleration, which means greater instability, which, combined with the force vectors at breakup, mean the fragments will go in any direction except the one in which the bullet initially entered the body. Which is great if the bullet just so happens to already be where it was intended to go, like in someone's heart, but disastrous if it's not.

Yes, those fragments will destroy tissue, but is it the RIGHT tissue? Or did you just destroy someone's forearm or shoulder at the expense of missing their heart, that the bullet was otherwise on trajectory with? Is it any consolation to you that they will die of blood loss hours later or have their arm amputated?

And yes, some of those fragments may very well penetrate to a satisfactory depth, but in what direction? And will they have the momentum to punch through bone, fibrous organ sacks, etc. on their way there without a change in trajectory? To illustrate, a .32 ACP will penetrate roughly the same amount of gel as a 9mm hollow point. Does that mean the .32 ACP is adequate? No! Because it has roughly half the momentum of the 9mm. By the exact same logic, a fragment of a bullet that penetrates the same amount of tissue as a whole bullet is not therefore equal. It has less inertia, and therefore less ability to resist change in velocity and trajectory. (and please, no one accuse me of comparing pistol and rifle bullets for using that analogy)

You don't even have to understand physics or take my word for it! You can simply look at what fragmenting bullets do in gel compared to non fragmenting ones. Fragments travel in arcs tangent to the trajectory of the bullet when it entered the body (and that's in homogeneous bare gel mind you, which is far less likely to upset a bullet than the human body). Non fragmenting bullets travel in a straight trajectory.

Again, to summarize, agencies choose bonded bullets because they know that people don't always just stand there square to the shooter with their arms behind their back. They know the target is likely to either be standing oblique to the shooter, or have its arms raised defensively, or because it's holding a weapon. They choose bonded bullets primarily because they do not want to reduce the bullet's chances of driving a straight path through however much muscle and bone is necessary in order to reach the target.

[vicious_cb]

I'm seriously not trying to be combative here, but that's just plain made up nonsense.

Funny coming from you, everything that spouts from your keyboard is made up nonsense

Second, OTM bullets are NOT fragmenting by design. The nature of OTMs to fragment is 100% incidental. They are designed first and foremost for long range precision. They have a tendency to fragment because, one, they aren't bonded, and, two, because of the open tip. Bonding tends to yield less consistent results, which of course influences accuracy, so match bullets are unbonded by necessity. The open tip is also incidental to them being optimized for precision. The fact that they sometimes expand and fragment is nothing more than a happy coincidence.

Wrong again. The 77gr SMK is not all OTMs. Look at M855A1 and Mk318 which are expressly designed to fragment on impact. The new TMKs which is marketed as a match bullet, are expressly designed to fragment on impact for increased terminal performance as stated Black Hills themselves.

Making up more bulls*it I see, bonding does NOT decrease accuracy Gold Dots are some of the most accurate bullets on the market.

The choice for bonded bullets has little to nothing to do with barriers, and everything to do with what the bullet does inside a body. They are expressly designed not to break apart in a body, period, end of story. And the impetus behind their design is to prevent the bullet from being deflected, primarily by bone. The reason LE choose them is the exact same reason hunters choose them. If you have to shoot through the arms or shoulder, they're much, much more likely to succeed.

Wow, how is it possible to come up with this much bulls**t, I mean its pretty amazing. Bonded LE loads are clearly marketed as being able to perform against barriers, Gold Dot, Hornady SBR were never marketed as hunting bullets first but expressly as barrier bullets. This statement is just so factually wrong, I just can't wrap my head around how someone can be this dense. Look at any of these companies websites you'll see barrier performance being touted all over.

Your theory of "penetrating weight retention" also ignores basic physics. Even if the bullet only breaks into two pieces its momentum is cut in half. Along with its inertia, which means its velocity will decrease more rapidly over time and distance than it would have, had the bullet stayed intact, meaning rapidly diminishing momentum over time. That means more rapid deceleration, which means greater instability, which, combined with the force vectors at breakup, mean the fragments will go in any direction except the one in which the bullet initially entered the body. Which is great if the bullet just so happens to already be where it was intended to go, like in someone's heart, but disastrous if it's not.

Maybe its you who doesnt understand basic physics. Explain how the rear core of Mk318 bullet can still exit a 21in block of gel tracking straight through even if its nose completely fragmented. Hint: because it was designed that way. Clearly more bulls**t you are just making up.

Yes, those fragments will destroy tissue, but is it the RIGHT tissue? Or did you just destroy someone's forearm or shoulder at the expense of missing their heart, that the bullet was otherwise on trajectory with? Is it any consolation to you that they will die of blood loss hours later or have their arm amputated?

Again making s**t up, you realize the fragments INCREASE the chance of hitting something important not directly in path of the main wound channel while the core of the bullet tracks straight through to penetrate deep into the vitals,because thats how the bullet was designed. Any single gel test video or image will completely disprove your statement.

If you think a bullet veering off course is a huge issue, have you even heard of 7n6? Go tell that to all the dead Russians and Ukrainians that were shot by 7n6 that it doesnt do the job. Not a fragmenting bullet either.

No surprise to anyone who studied or dealt with GSWs but ANY bullet can go off course, even intact handguns FMJ or HP can turn 90 degrees after striking bone. Anyone who studies GSW knows this, hell any one with emergency or trauma medical experience would know this when looking for an exit wound, again showing your ignorance of the subject.

And yes, some of those fragments may very well penetrate to a satisfactory depth, but in what direction? And will they have the momentum to punch through bone, fibrous organ sacks, etc. on their way there without a change in trajectory? To illustrate, a .32 ACP will penetrate roughly the same amount of gel as a 9mm hollow point. Does that mean the .32 ACP is adequate? No! Because it has roughly half the momentum of the 9mm. By the exact same logic, a fragment of a bullet that penetrates the same amount of tissue as a whole bullet is not therefore equal. It has less inertia, and therefore less ability to resist change in velocity and trajectory. (and please, no one accuse me of comparing pistol and rifle bullets for using that analogy)

Thats what the penetrating core is for, not the fragments *facepalm*. Seriously its not even funny how ignorant you are about this subject anymore.

You don't even have to understand physics or take my word for it! You can simply look at what fragmenting bullets do in gel compared to non fragmenting ones. Fragments travel in arcs tangent to the trajectory of the bullet when it entered the body (and that's in homogeneous bare gel mind you, which is far less likely to upset a bullet than the human body). Non fragmenting bullets travel in a straight trajectory.

Funny because actual gel tests completely disprove your BS statements. Please go watch some gel tests of any decent performing OTM, you'll see the core of the bullet tracking straight and sailing past the 12" mark.

Again, to summarize, agencies choose bonded bullets because they know that people don't always just stand there square to the shooter with their arms behind their back. They know the target is likely to either be standing oblique to the shooter, or have its arms raised defensively, or because it's holding a weapon. They choose bonded bullets primarily because they do not want to reduce the bullet's chances of driving a straight path through however much muscle and bone is necessary in order to reach the target.

Why do you think the 12" FBI minimum exists for ALL bullets regardless if they fragment or not hmm?

I, of course, as I've said many times in this thread, don't dispute the material in your data dump. But what you seem incapable of appreciating is that there's more to the equation. A lot more. Yes, fragmentation tears stuff up and turns it into minced meat, and, yes, that's a good thing in an information vacuum. But there's so much more in the total equation (which I've gone into detail about here) that has led experts to overwhelmingly opt for bullets that were expressly designed not to fragment in tissue.

You have yet to reveal who your mysterious "experts" are, I linked the journals of actual experts now show yours. Also wasnt that you who accused others of using the "appeal to authority" tactic?

You missed the point entirely. The point I was making is that his appeal to authority was a fallacy. And that if he wanted to go down that road of appeal to authority the actual authorities support my argument, not his.

Not that he even has an argument, mind you. His argument was a drive by "You're wrong I'm right" response to my multiple paragraphs of thoughtful response.

Not to mention I thought we were supposed to have higher standards in these non GD forums.

Yeah, we do have higher standards than GD, its called backing your statements with evidence which you never have except talk about nebulous "professionals" and "experts" you fail to reveal. Because clearly no one in this thread has backed up any of your claims. Maybe follow your own advice and steer clear of technical forums, we tend not to tolerate bulls**t here.

[1168]

The core of M855a1 retains enough weight and energy after “fragmenting” to sail clear through a mother****er sideways.