9mm SD ammo

[Hartkopf]

I've been carrying Federal Syntech in my carry gun lately... Seems to preform well, penetrates well, and is affordable. I'm personally am not overly obsessive or feel the need to analyze the crap out of every little thing when it comes to carrying a firearm for projection. I believe only a very small percentage of hard core gun nuts do, and more power to them. This is just my opinion, but I strongly believe that most self defense ammo will have basically the same affect if it hits it's Target in the same place... I don't obsess on about whether a bullet expand a perfect mushroom or not.. That's just me... I just think a lot of extremist in the gun community waste too much time worrying about every little thing.

Some people just want to learn all they can about whatever interests them. Guess that could be called extreme or obsessive. I like to dig deep into test results and do my own testing of what is in my gun. I like to call it redundant verification and learning. It’ll probably never matter but it beats watching reality shows or drinking. I spent 15+ years drag racing and building engines so testing is in my blood.

 

[Styx]

Some people just want to learn all they can about whatever interests them. Guess that could be called extreme or obsessive. I like to dig deep into test results and do my own testing of what is in my gun. I like to call it redundant verification and learning. It’ll probably never matter but it beats watching reality shows or drinking. I spent 15+ years drag racing and building engines so testing is in my blood.

I don't have a problem with it. To each their now is my model. I enjoy reading the debates and learning either way.

 

[MikeInOr]

I carry Gold Dots that I load myself in my 9mm's and 45 acp's. WAY too much overthinking about ammo on the internet in my opinion!

 

[Kleanbore]

This is just my opinion, but I strongly believe that most self defense ammo will have basically the same affect if it hits it's Target in the same place...

Maybe, but the stakes are too high to rely on "most".

 

[94045]

Some people just want to learn all they can about whatever interests them. Guess that could be called extreme or obsessive. I like to dig deep into test results and do my own testing of what is in my gun. I like to call it redundant verification and learning. It’ll probably never matter but it beats watching reality shows or drinking. I spent 15+ years drag racing and building engines so testing is in my blood.

Never a bad idea to have multiple sources and confirm for yourself. For instance shooting .380 Critical Defense into pig carcasses doesn't seem to conform to the Ammo Quest Results (Very Good Expansion and Drastic Under Penetration in Bare Gel) or the failure to expand seen some other test results. It seems to the look like Lucky Gunner's Results very adequate penetration with good expansion out of 2.75" Barrel. When tried out of a 3.675" Barrel I got the best performance I've ever seen out of a .380 with penetration similar to the better 9mm Duty Rounds. The petals peeled all the way back leaving you with essentially a .40+ Caliber Full Wadcutter Shape. I'm starting to wonder about the variability of ammo from lot to lot and whether you can really know without testing that lot. Based on my own testing of that lot my little sister now carries it in her .380 EZ.

 

[Hartkopf]

Never a bad idea to have multiple sources and confirm for yourself. For instance shooing .380 Critical Defense into pig carcasses doesn't seem to conform to the Ammo Quest Results (Very Good Expansion and Drastic Under Penetration in Bare Gel) or the Failure to expand seen some other test results. It seems to the look like Lucky Gunner's Results very adequate penetration with good expansion out of 2.75" Barrel. When tried out of a 3.675" Barrel I got the best performance I've ever seen out of a .380 with penetration similar to the best penetrating 9mm Duty Rounds. The petals peeled all the way back leaving you with essentially a .40+ Caliber Full Wadcutter Shape. I'm starting to wonder about the variability of ammo from lot to lot and whether you can really know without testing that lot. Based on my own testing of that lot my little sister now carries it in her .380 EZ.

I 100% agree that the performance of hollow point ammo varies from lot to lot. Especially when tested through denim. Lucky Gunner shows 40S&W 165gr Gold Dots not expanding at all and Ranger Ts performing perfectly. I got the exact opposite results.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

I'm personally not overly obsessive or feel the need to analyze the crap out of every little thing when it comes to carrying a firearm for projection. I

I feel the same. There is no harm in over analyzing and most of us do it on certain subjects. Discussing the merits of bullet x vs bullet y is as boring as last weeks ball game to me.
Where you go, what you do and who you associate with are far more important factors in self defense than the box of ammo you choose.

 

[94045]

I feel the same. There is no harm in over analyzing and most of us do it on certain subjects. Discussing the merits of bullet x vs bullet y is as boring as last weeks ball game to me.
Where you go, what you do and who you associate with are far more important factors in self defense than the box of ammo you choose.

Got to do something with all the wild pigs I and my buddies kill. With a rifle and thermal scope we stack them up like cordwood and they are like hydras. Two more for everyone you kill.

 

[Kleanbore]

I 100% agree that the performance of hollow point ammo varies from lot to lot. Especially when tested through denim. Lucky Gunner shows 40S&W 165gr Gold Dots not expanding at all and Ranger Ts performing perfectly. I got the exact opposite results.

I seriously doubt that those observations have anhthing to do with manufacturing variations.

It is much more likely hat they have to do with differences among the test media and conditions.

 

[Hartkopf]

I seriously doubt that those observations have anhthing to do with manufacturing variations.

It is much more likely hat they have to do with differences among the test media and conditions.

Yea I knew you would say that. Everything else expanded in my clear gel so I choose not to trust ammo that will not. I’m definitely not trying to convince you but many others have gotten contradictory results from other tests. Could all be the testing variables. But as I’ve said before, if you understand manufacturing, lot variations are not just plausible, they are likely. If a bullet design is “on the edge” of expanding, a minute variation in dimensions, hardness, or velocity can make a huge difference in a pass/fail expansion test.

 

[Kleanbore]

. Could all be the testing variables.

Most likely.

if you understand manufacturing,...

I do. Expensive stuff, on which lives depend.

...lot variations are not just plausible, they are likely.

Today's in-process controls reduce variation, and lot acceptance testing minimizes the delivery of bad product.

That's particularly true in pyrotechnics, pressure vessels, pharmaceuticals and other chemicals, medical equipment, flight instrumentation and safety of air and space flight critical hardware, and a number of other things.

Anyone who seriously believes that an ISO certified manufacturer that supplies ammunition under FBI contract would not take extraordinary measures to minimize lot variation is naive.

The consequences of default would be severe, and the resultant harm to the brand would be financially devastating.

If people want to perform their own testing as a hobby, that's fine, but if they attribute anomalies in results to lot variations in premium defensive ammunition, they do not understand the problem.

And if they find that ammunition that passed FBI protocols and was contracted for by the agency consistently does not perform in their testing, the problem lies in the testing.

 

[Hartkopf]

Most likely.

I do. Expensive stuff, on which lives depend.

Today's in-process controls reduce variation, and lot acceptance testing minimizes the delivery of bad product.

That's particularly true in pyrotechnics, pressure vessels, pharmaceuticals and other chemicals, medical equipment, flight instrumentation and safety of air and space flight critical hardware, and a number of other things.

Anyone who seriously believes that an ISO certified manufacturer that supplies ammunition under FBI contract would not take extraordinary measures to minimize lot variation is naive.

The consequences of default would be severe, and the resultant harm to the brand would be financially devastating.

If people want to perform their own testing as a hobby, that's fine, but if they attribute anomalies in results to lot variations in premium defensive ammunition, they do not understand the problem.

And if they find that ammunition that passed FBI protocols and was contracted for by the agency consistently does not perform in their testing, the problem lies in the testing.

I agree, modern manufacturing and quality control is impressive and way better than it’s ever been. Failures and variations are less likely than ever.

 

[94045]

Most likely.

I do. Expensive stuff, on which lives depend.

Today's in-process controls reduce variation, and lot acceptance testing minimizes the delivery of bad product.

That's particularly true in pyrotechnics, pressure vessels, pharmaceuticals and other chemicals, medical equipment, flight instrumentation and safety of air and space flight critical hardware, and a number of other things.

Anyone who seriously believes that an ISO certified manufacturer that supplies ammunition under FBI contract would not take extraordinary measures to minimize lot variation is naive.

The consequences of default would be severe, and the resultant harm to the brand would be financially devastating.

If people want to perform their own testing as a hobby, that's fine, but if they attribute anomalies in results to lot variations in premium defensive ammunition, they do not understand the problem.

And if they find that ammunition that passed FBI protocols and was contracted for by the agency consistently does not perform in their testing, the problem lies in the testing.

Hmmmm.... So all the Gold Dot G2 Testing post FBI was suspect. Ignore if you choose to but do you really think the test variables are larger than you might see in real life use? I think the explanation given was worn skive cutters.

 

[bearcreek]

It's kind of interesting... back in the Old Days, SD ammo function was more of an issue than expansion, bullet design being what it was back then, and maybe that's why I'm more concerned with that over a gel block wound channel. If memory serves, the Federal HydraShok was pretty notorious for poor feeding, and that may have been more an issue with the pistols of the day, not necessarily the ammunition. Even when I was carrying a .380, I never really drilled down that much to what the bullet was 'supposed' to do, I was more concerned about it cycling properly... and that may have been because of what I was carrying... an AMT DAO 380. Fast forward to today, we have excellent SD bullets that function in probably 4 times as many available pistols... you really can't go wrong with any of them as long as they feed and fire properly.

That was kinda my point. You don't have to choose between function and expansion. The days when HP wouldn't reliably feed in a quality semi auto are long gone.

Bullet expansion tests remind me of vehicle mileage ratings on new cars... you don't really expect to get that, do you?

No, I don't necessarily (not that I would ever consider buying a new car ). That doesn't mean that the mileage ratings are totally useless, however. They can be a good, consistent way to compare one vehicle to another, just like gel block tests with bullets.

 

[Trey Veston]

I roll my own with Gold Dots in the Summer months and XTPs in the Winter months due to clothing barriers.

Just like target ammo, high-dollar defense loads vary wildly in accuracy in various pistols. I used to only fire my defensive loads at 7yds to check for functionality, which none have ever failed in the last 30 years. A couple of years ago, I started doing accuracy testing and was amazed at how inaccurate my expensive factory carry loads were. A pistol that would do 2" at 25yds with target reloads did 8" with Hornady Critical Defense. Hence the reasons for reloads using quality bullets. Not only can I afford to verify accuracy, but I can tailor the loads to each pistol to maximize performance.

So throw not only bullet performance and functionality into the mix, but also how accurate that super-duper FBI-approved load actually is in YOUR pistol.

 

[Charlie98]

No, I don't necessarily (not that I would ever consider buying a new car ). That doesn't mean that the mileage ratings are totally useless, however. They can be a good, consistent way to compare one vehicle to another, just like gel block tests with bullets.

Not really. Just like mileage estimates, that's all gel block test are... estimates. They show performance under very controlled conditions. That is not to say the results shown are not achievable, but like most advertising gimmicks, rather unlikely in the Real World.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

I roll my own with Gold Dots

Rebellious risk taker kudos to you.

 

[bdickens]

Not really. Just like mileage estimates, that's all gel block test are... estimates. They show performance under very controlled conditions. That is not to say the results shown are not achievable, but like most advertising gimmicks, rather unlikely in the Real World.

Actually, research has found that gel test performance correlates rather closely with how ammunition performs in shootings on the street. Not perfectly, of course, but closely. "Close enough for government work. "

Here is what someone from Federal says:

"...And then us being very lucky having very good relationships with numerous law enforcement agencies over the decades, we have learned that what works in this gelatin and looks good in the gelatin ends up being correlated and proven out on the street...."

https://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/why-ballistics-gel-works/amp/

 

[bearcreek]

Not really. Just like mileage estimates, that's all gel block test are... estimates. They show performance under very controlled conditions. That is not to say the results shown are not achievable, but like most advertising gimmicks, rather unlikely in the Real World.

Not really what? How are different bullets supposed to be objectively compared to each other unless the conditions are controlled and consistent?

 

[Kleanbore]

They show performance under very controlled conditions.

Of course. That's essential to good engineering and good analysis.

like most advertising gimmicks, rather unlikely in the Real World.

Why do you believe it to be rather unlikely"?

By the way, the tests were not designed as an "advertising gimmick". They are intended (1) to support the development of effective defensive ammunition and (2) to define performance criteria for ammunition procured by the FBI and by othe agencies that rely on the same information.

 

[herrwalther]

124gr +p Golden Saber in my big Walther.
147gr HST in my small Walther.
165gr HST in my 40 caliber Walther.

 

[Charlie98]

Actually, research has found that gel test performance correlates rather closely with how ammunition performs in shootings on the street. Not perfectly, of course, but closely. "Close enough for government work. "

Here is what someone from Federal says:

"...And then us being very lucky having very good relationships with numerous law enforcement agencies over the decades, we have learned that what works in this gelatin and looks good in the gelatin ends up being correlated and proven out on the street...."

https://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/why-ballistics-gel-works/amp/

Not really what? How are different bullets supposed to be objectively compared to each other unless the conditions are controlled and consistent?

Of course. That's essential to good engineering and good analysis.

Why do you believe it to be rather unlikely"?

By the way, the tests were not designed as an "advertising gimmick". They are intended (1) to support the development of effective defensive ammunition and (2) to define performance criteria for ammunition procured by the FBI and by othe agencies that rely on the same information.

*sigh* Here we go again...

Here's what I'm saying:

There is no doubt that gel block analysis is important, showing a number of things like expansion, penetration, stability, and proving (or disproving) bullet construction and materials. I got it.... and I agree. Those tests are done under laboratory conditions to minimize the variables, and they produce a result under those conditions.

To quote meself, in my original post...

If you are carrying to defend yourself against gel blocks, then all the research is valid, but there will be nothing text book about performance if and when you would have to fire that ammunition in the Real World... there are simply too many variables.

Gel blocks aren't moving, they aren't wearing clothes, they don't have bones, their arm isn't in the way, they aren't standing 45^ to the shooter, they aren't standing next to a tree, it isn't raining, and... they aren't shooting back. As the shooter, you are not performing under laboratory conditions, with the exact same ammunition, with the exact same firearm with the same barrel and barrel length (unless by coincidence.)

Now... here is the crux of what I'm saying... Like bdickens relates, Federal, in his example, gets feedback from LE shootings, and that the bullet performance is generally admirable, although I will take that comment with a grain of salt given the source ('someone' at Federal isn't going to say 'wow, our bullets didn't perform well at all.') In this same thread, Hartkopf relates LuckyGunner's experience where he had dissimilar results in his own testing (between GoldDots and Ranger T's.)

So, who's right?

Take the bullet out of the laboratory and introduce variables and you are bound to arrive at different results. In the Real World, a bullet proven to expand in a gel block fired in self-defense MAY expand perfectly, it may not, it may come apart, it may tumble, it may turn and come out his pinky... you don't really know. That is not to say it isn't likely to expand as it did in testing, but it is not guaranteed, and I wouldn't be surprised either way.

That's what I'm saying.

 

[Trey Veston]

I don't understand the contention...

Common sense says gel block testing is useful and shows a bullet's tendency to perform in the real world. Common sense also says that in the real world, there are a number of variables that can affect performance.

I think if one chooses a bullet that does consistently well in gel block tests then they have a pretty good chance that it will do well in the real world.

Unless it hits a metal button, or a zipper, or...

 

[Hartkopf]

I don't understand the contention...

Common sense says gel block testing is useful and shows a bullet's tendency to perform in the real world. Common sense also says that in the real world, there are a number of variables that can affect performance.

I think if one chooses a bullet that does consistently well in gel block tests then they have a pretty good chance that it will do well in the real world.

Unless it hits a metal button, or a zipper, or...

Or a lemon! Sorry just had to post that again.

 

[bdickens]

.. Federal, in his example, gets feedback from LE shootings, and that the bullet performance is generally admirable, although I will take that comment with a grain of salt given the source ('someone' at Federal isn't going to say 'wow, our bullets didn't perform well at all.') ....

So, just what are you insinuating? That a this guy is lying?

Here in the year 2020, thanks to the internet, people are still regurgitating nonsense about Glock kabooms, Beretta 92 locking blocks, and Kimber's long-since corrected issues they had on some pistols.

If Federal's ammo was junk, and did not perform as claimed, don't you think word would have gotten out by now?