481
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,415
I’ll try just that and show the results when done. With more Fort Scott calibers as well.
And why do I suddenly find myself wanting to 'fire up' my grill?
Hmmmmmm
I’ll try just that and show the results when done. With more Fort Scott calibers as well.
Not that I am asking you to do so (although you say that you going to try it), but it would have been interesting to see if the Fort Scott round began to yaw after say two or three thicknesses (2 or 3 x 5'' deep pieces) of the shoulder roasts. I suspect that you are correct that it'll take more dwell time in the test medium to see yaw develop.
View attachment 825817 View attachment 825827 View attachment 825828 View attachment 825829 View attachment 825830 View attachment 825831 View attachment 825832 View attachment 825817
Here are the results of the shots lengthwise through roasts (again after penetrating a 2x4 sideways). The Fort Scott 40 S&W and the 45 ACP appeared to perform much better earlier in the target than the 9mm. I couldn’t tell for sure if they tumbled early or just naturally caused more damage. Both of them rivaled the sizes of the Underwood/Lehigh wound channels in the same caliber.
The 9mm Fort Scott tumble was a dramatic difference from the rest of its wound channel. Like my previous post results, the hole for the 9mm Fort Scott started out barely big enough to fit my pinky finger. The tumble started at roughly the 4.5” mark. That tumble-created a wound channel that seamed slightly larger than the Underwood/Lehigh wound channel.
It definitely appears that, in order to get tumble results from Fort Scott, the bullets need to reach a depth of 4-5” in the meat target which is consistent with gel test results. I think this is critical (and more fair) in assessing their effectiveness as a defensive/LEO/military round.
Overall, the Underwood/Lehigh rounds created larger permanent wound channels and the channels stayed a consistent size throughout the length of the meat target. I’d like to see more and different tests comparing these two company’s rounds.
I personally believe that this new technology which both these companies have developed will eventually be as impactful as when hollow points arrived on the scene years ago. And considering I have one son going LEO and another Special Forces, I’ve got skin in this game. I’ve seen too many videos of LEOs getting shot by the BG because their rounds didn’t effectively penetrate through barriers like car doors, car windows and walls.
It’s time for the science from the hard work of the people from these companies to reach the decision makers in the LEO/military realms. This technology will save lives.
View attachment 825833 View attachment 825834 View attachment 825835 View attachment 825836 View attachment 825838 View attachment 825837
Here are the rather poorly dissected results. The “Deep Cut” areas are where there are radial cuts similar to what I’ve seen in gel.
View attachment 825817 View attachment 825827 View attachment 825828 View attachment 825829 View attachment 825830 View attachment 825831 View attachment 825832
Here are the results of the shots lengthwise through roasts (again after penetrating a 2x4 sideways). The Fort Scott 40 S&W and the 45 ACP appeared to perform much better earlier in the target than the 9mm. I couldn’t tell for sure if they tumbled early or just naturally caused more damage. Both of them rivaled the sizes of the Underwood/Lehigh wound channels in the same caliber.
The 9mm Fort Scott tumble was a dramatic difference from the rest of its wound channel. Like my previous post results, the hole for the 9mm Fort Scott started out barely big enough to fit my pinky finger. The tumble started at roughly the 4.5” mark. That tumble-created a wound channel that seamed slightly larger than the Underwood/Lehigh wound channel.
It definitely appears that, in order to get tumble results from Fort Scott, the bullets need to reach a depth of 4-5” in the meat target which is consistent with gel test results. I think this is critical (and more fair) in assessing their effectiveness as a defensive/LEO/military round.
Overall, the Underwood/Lehigh rounds created larger permanent wound channels and the channels stayed a consistent size throughout the length of the meat target. I’d like to see more and different tests comparing these two company’s rounds.
I personally believe that this new technology which both these companies have developed will eventually be as impactful as when hollow points arrived on the scene years ago. And considering I have one son going LEO and another Special Forces, I’ve got skin in this game. I’ve seen too many videos of LEOs getting shot by the BG because their rounds didn’t effectively penetrate through barriers like car doors, car windows and walls.
It’s time for the science from the hard work of the people from these companies to reach the decision makers in the LEO/military realms. This technology will save lives.
Looks like you were right about the extra time/distance needed to see the Fort Scott ammo start to yaw. Unless it has to pass through an arm or a barrier of some sort, 5'' is about where the Fort Scott ammo's yaw cycle would begin to effect vulnerable internal organs. When it comes to handgun projectiles it gets a bit dicey when we start depending upon the yaw cycle of non-expanding bullet designs; in the end I'd just as soon rely on the much more probable (although not absolutely guaranteed) expansion of a good JHP like the Gold Dot or HST. The other thing that gives me pause about non-expanding designs is their tendency to exit bodies with enough velocity to strike and penetrate the body of an innocent bystander, perhaps killing them. I suppose that where the use of JHPs are prohibited by law, this might be a slightly better option that plain ol' FMJ ball ammo, but thankfully, most of us do not have to deal with that.
NYPD's dalliance with 9mm 115-grain FMJs fired from Glock 19s (from 1995 through 1996) resulted in 22 people being struck by bullets that had passed through other people, so I would still be rather hesitant to carry any of these rounds for SD since they are unlikely to behave much differently than FMJRN.
If nothing else, you've found a fun way to tenderize your next roast. Wouldn't wanna do that with anything made of lead, that's for sure!
Thanks for the tests.
481, I appreciate your apprehension for over-penetration with the solid copper rounds. This video does show, however, that the 10mm Extreme rounds from Underwood/Lehigh (traveling 1425 to 1700 fps) penetrate only about 24-28" in bare gel. I'm not certain of the bare gel distance traveled by Fort Scott TUI rounds, but through barriers they don't seem to over penetrate afterwards.
This site shows quite a few examples of incomplete expansion and a few instances of over penetration as a result.
The pictures of rounds I attached were DT Barnes 450 SMC (read 45 Super). These were shot through the same 2x4 through the thin side and all three shots failed to expand. For the life of me, I can’t find a good use case for these rounds now (except for practice) unless I can be assured the bad guy I’m aiming at isn’t behind a car door, window or wall; and is instead coming at me as a shirtless zombie with a boneless thoracic cavity
Thanks for the book reference 481! I understand your measured decision making process.
But, I can't help but be reminded of Alfred Wegener when I think of how slowly new/better technology is adopted in this industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener
I can only hope that for Underwood/Lehigh and Fort Scott the time to adoption is compressed in today's information age. Happy shooting!
Here’s a clear example of the inconsistent expansion (and subsequent over penetration) of respected and oft used hollow points when having to penetrate simply clothing first.
Great points on the clear ballistics gel! I didn’t know all that.
I’ve seen, however, quite a few examples of this non-expansion/over-penetrate issue with hollow points online in the 10% FBI gelatin as well; and including the awesome Paul Harrell meat targets (especially when his rounds seem to have hit bone).
I’m only putting forward that there may be less, or at the very least similar, chance of “severe” over penetration with Underwood/Lehigh Extreme Defender and Fort Scott compared to modern day hollow points. And if I’m correct, and you factor in the erratic barrier issues concerning the hollow points, then the solid copper (hard to deform) rounds from U/L and FS seem actually to be a safer bet if you aren’t “as concerned” with the extremely consistent 14” (380 ACP) to 26” (10mm) penetration (barrier or no-barrier) as seen with U/L and FS ammo.
I fully understand your reason for sticking with hollow point ammunition. I’m not far off I belive from your thinking on this. I am just not concerned about 26” of penetration like I would be for 36”+. And there’s a few videos online showing the results from U/L and FS shot into real animals and I haven’t seen over penetration yet. To the contrary, the animals seem to be a much harder target to shoot completely through than any type of gelatin test I’ve seen.
Enjoyable discussion. Thanks