Jacket separation?

Just like a game-hunting bullet, I want a defense bullet to both expand and penetrate. Jackets that separate from their lead core don't penetrate very much at all, and the compromised core doesn't have all of the weight the designers intended to facilitate the penetration.

Some of the all-copper bullets are very similar to a bullet jacket in composition, but their construction is designed to expand/penetrate like a lead/jacket type bullet.

So no, IMHO I don't want a jacket to separate from the core in a defensive (or a hunting) situation.

Stay safe.

If the jacket separates it won't penetrate as much. But as long as it penetrates enough to reach vitals I don't consider it a failure. I'm more experienced with hunting rifles than handguns, but the bullets that separate and stay inside still do the most damage and tend to put game down faster than the ones that pass completely through.

Of course the ones that pass through leave a better blood trail and are more likely to reach vitals when shots are taken from bad angles. This is a topic where the logic has taken a 180 degree reversal from what hunters wanted 30 years ago. Back in the 70's and 80's a bullet that gave complete penetration was considered a failure. Hunters wanted the bullet to rapidly expand and stay in the animal back in the day. Today that is now considered a bullet failure and guys want complete penetration.

I think either approach can work. When it comes to picking bullets I like to see how they work in gel. If it expands and still gives adequate penetration I'm good with it.

jmr40 said:

Of course the ones that pass through ... are more likely to reach vitals when shots are taken from bad angles. This is a topic where the logic has taken a 180 degree reversal from what hunters wanted 30 years ago. Back in the 70's and 80's a bullet that gave complete penetration was considered a failure. Hunters wanted the bullet to rapidly expand and stay in the animal back in the day.

Click to expand...

Same as handgun ammo theory.

The "energy dump" theory of the 1970's & early 1980's, with lightweight rapidly expanding bullets went out the window with the 1986 Miami shootout. You've got to get enough penetration to hit something important. Not every target will stand facing you at 10'.

Jacket separation can screw up penetration, wound tracking, and expansion. All three are vital in penetrating important bits, damaging them, and stopping an attack.

Yes, I think jacket separation is a problem, but there's worse problems to have.

Here are 2 pictures of 40S&W Golden Sabers shot into modified clear gel with plastic inserts attempting to simulate connective tissue. One of the bullets lost it’s jacket at the last of 4 inserts which was at the 10” mark. The 125gr core, which is a common 9mm weight, continued another 5”.

I tested several more of these rounds in plain clear gel and none of them lost their jacket. Any Golden Saber I’ve ever tested that lost it’s jacket was always near the end of its travel.

Here are two bonded 40S&W Gold Dots shot into the same modified gel. No jacket separation at all and deeper average penetration but less expansion, which is common for bonded handgun bullets.

If the jacket separates, the bullet has failed in my eyes and is an indication the bullet is of a lesser quality. I like A-frames because no matter what we've shot them into, they always look like this if you recover them:

Hartkopf said:

Here are 2 pictures of 40S&W Golden Sabers shot into modified clear gel with plastic inserts attempting to simulate connective tissue. One of the bullets lost it’s jacket at the last of 4 inserts which was at the 10” mark. The 125gr core, which is a common 9mm weight, continued another 5”.

I tested several more of these rounds in plain clear gel and none of them lost their jacket. Any Golden Saber I’ve ever tested that lost it’s jacket was always near the end of its travel.

Click to expand...

I've seen similar results over time.

Here's a test shot in a 4Layer Denim (covered by single layer of t-shirt) organic gel block, of a Rem 165gr GS.

Note the distance traveled by the discarded jacket in the gel block, and the further distance of the lead core.



I don't have any pics of it, but many years ago I remember attending a hosted gel event at an outside agency. One of the test shots involved a 180gr Ranger RA40T (SXT) in which the jacket was somehow shed in a 4LD covered gel block. Surprised everyone. The lead core ended up close to the end of the gel block, though, and the wickedly expanded SXT jacket was maybe close to 2/3's into the long block. None of the cops attending the event thought that particular round might be "less effective" or a "failure".

In the same gel event where the above 165gr GS load lost it's jacket, we fired a lot of the regular 180gr weight .40 GS, both non-bonded and bonded. None of the other non-bonded GS shed their jackets. Not in the bare gel, 4LD or glass barrier shots. Even in a demo shot where several 180gr non-bonded were rapidly fired into a gel block resulted in all of the rounds falling within an approx 2" range of total penetration, and none of them shed their jackets.

I stopped worrying about any rounds potentially shedding jackets many years ago. Makes for stimulating debate among the internet gun forums, though.

Energy transfer/dump is a myth!!! Only the actual DAMAGE matters. MANY rounds past through the target make a LONG and WIDE wound cavity and still have A LOT of energy left. Where as MANY rounds do not pass through the target and do not do as much 'wounding/damage', but if you buy in the myth they 'transferred/dumped' ALL their energy into the target thus they are BETTER!!! NOT!!!

Could this be why Remington developed the Golden Saber Bonded and Golden Saber Blackbelt ammo?

https://www.remington.com/ammunition/handgun/golden-saber-bonded

[URL]https://www.remington.com/ammunition/handgun/golden-saber-black-belt[/URL]

I have never tested rounds in ballistic gelatin. I rely on other folks tests to make up my mind on which ammo to buy and use in my SD guns. I have done testing in wet newsprint and water jugs. In older bullet designs I have experienced jacket separation but not in newer premium ammo.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your testing and experience.

A short history of the Golden Saber can be found here: https://www.gunsandammo.com/editorial/remingtons-black-belt-bullet/247952

Original Golden Sabers will never satisfy the, "I'll stick with my HST" crowd. There has been a lot of bullet advancement since GS's were introduced in 1991. It does not always bloom into a pretty flower. The jacket and core are not mechanically fastened. It is not bonded. GS's have a soft jacket that is designed to peel like a banana. They have a lower expansion threshold than the average premium defensive bullet today. The good thing is that they will expand at lower velocities, depending on caliber. It is about the only premium defensive bullet that will lose it's jacket (Liberty, G2,Glaser, etc are intentionally frangible).
Our 2020 hindsight (haha) says that bullets have failed if they lose their jackets, but I don't necessarily think that is the case.
If a 124gr 9mm bullet is pushing a .6XX diameter projectile through 16" of cloth covered gelatin and is loose or separated after that, has the projectile failed? I don't think it has. There are some reviews where jackets have been lost earlier. Even if the jacket and core pushes together to 12" and the core separates and extends to 19", it represents a conundrum for some - it separated, but did not over penetrate.
This is why original GS's are still effective. Sure, they aren't cutting edge anymore, but they are still a viable defensive load.
Even Remington still advertises them for LE sales:
https://www.remingtondefense.com/ammunition/handgun/duty/

Pat Riot said:

Could this be why Remington developed the Golden Saber Bonded and Golden Saber Blackbelt ammo?

https://www.remington.com/ammunition/handgun/golden-saber-bonded
https://www.remington.com/ammunition/handgun/golden-saber-bonded
https://www.remington.com/ammunition/handgun/golden-saber-black-belt

I have never tested rounds in ballistic gelatin. I rely on other folks tests to make up my mind on which ammo to buy and use in my SD guns. I have done testing in wet newsprint and water jugs. In older bullet designs I have experienced jacket separation but not in newer premium ammo.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your testing and experience.

Click to expand...

My guess would be that Remington engineers decided to approach having the benefits of "bonding", but retain the benefits of unfettered expansion. Back when I attended a Remington gel event, the Rem rep said that their bonding process basically involved using a flux compound to attach the brass jacket to the lead core (inserted after the flux compound was applied to the inside of the jacket). He also said that the nose cavity was a bit shallower on some of the bonded GS bullets, to help "control" expansion.

If I understand the mechanical "belting" process used for the Black Belt GS bullet, the belt aids to mechanically lock the lead core inside the jacket base, while yet allowing the jacket to robustly peel away from the lead and form a widely expanded jacket (with cutting edges), and also not impede maximum expansion of the lead core, expanding independently of the jacket. Not a bad idea.

How much 'energy' is REQUIRED to destroy a 'metal' projectile (bullet)?? Does the 'metal object/bullet' 'transfer' the energy or does it 'absorb' it when it is deformed or is destroyed?? In my entire life I have NEVER seen any of the 'experts' even consider this thought!!! It simple basic physics to me.

Jim Rau said:

It simple basic physics to me.

Click to expand...

Is that the only gap in ammo physics you've noticed?

".40 S&W and .45 Auto recoil more and are harder on the gun and the shooter, they are also harder to shoot well at speed due to this extra recoil. The 9mm is just as effective on the target as .40 S&W and .45 Auto."

When I switched fro 40SW to 9mm Luger I also switch EDC gun size from a 4 inch barrel to a 3.18 inch. Since barrel length is a factor of velocity, which in turn is a factor of expansion I undertook a research project to find the best 9mm bullet out of a 3 inc barrel. I did an enormous amount of reading a watching ammo tests on YouTube. Understand that I am very critical of you time reviews, and I only gave credence to reviewers who did extensive testing and demonstrated a level of competence to be deemed reliable. I also has 380 with a 3 inch barrel so I checked those reviews as well. I must have watched all the way through 50 videos or more, and I probably stopped watch more than that.

One thing I learned for certain was that jacket separation absolutely affected expansion and penetration to a degree that those test ballistics made rounds that exhibited jacket separation off the table for me. I cam across two test series (380 & 9mm) under the handle of Ammoquest. The reviewer did extensive JHP testing of both calibers over more than a year complying with FBI standards for gel and gel with denim. Keep in mind I am referring to test out of a 3" barrel of al the popular JHP rounds.

For 380 ACP the winner was Precision One JHP. I achieved the deepest penetration while expanding 100% of the time. For 9mm it as Winchester Defend JHP (part of Train and Defend ammo) that has the deepest penetration with 100% expansion. Federal HST ha better expansion but less penetration. I am a believer that penetration is more important than expansion. I went with the Winchester JHP Defend round. And I subscribed to the channel.

Sometime later the reviewer posted an update to the 380 test. He tested Lehigh Extreme Defense ammo, which is not JHP. It is a fluted, solid copper bullet that rely on fluid transfer to create wound channel. It penetrated to consistent levels and created wound channels that were double that of the JHP he had previously tested. Being a solid copper bullet there was no separation issue. So I thought I it so good in 380 why not check it out in 9mm. I did.

Back to extensive watching on YouTube of expert ammo testers. Turned out that nearly all the tests were of Underwood Extreme Defender ammo. It puts the Lehigh bullet on a hotter round. What I saw was a bullet that was barrier blind, achieving consistent penetration, and creating wound channels twice the size of the best JHP rounds. So the Underwood round is now my EDC ammo.

For the record I do know that gel testing is only comparative testing and does not necessarily indicate what a bullet will do to a human target. But I did see tests of the bullet being fired into Paul Harrell' meat target, a wounded wild hog, and tissues of similar density. I saw it achieve FBO penetration standards through all sorts of barrier. So no I do not care about jacket separation.

Would it be bad if the slide came off, the magazine fell out, or a case stuck in the chamber? There is no such thing as a "good" malfunction. When the chips are down, everything has to perform as designed, or your chances of survival go way down.

JTQ said:

Is that the only gap in ammo physics you've noticed?

".40 S&W and .45 Auto recoil more and are harder on the gun and the shooter, they are also harder to shoot well at speed due to this extra recoil. The 9mm is just as effective on the target as .40 S&W and .45 Auto."

Click to expand...

NO, there is A LOT of ignorance out there! But this one I have NEVER seen addressed ANYWHERE in all the material I have encountered in the last 50+ years I have been studying this. And it shoots the 'energy transfer' THEORY all to pieces, if you are smart enough to 'grasp' (understand) the facts.