Joint Agency Ballistics Test for Defensive Handgun Ammo

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok, this video speaks for itself. This is the Phase 4 testing done, apparently for the "DOD" whose emblem is used on the intro slides.

 
Interesting take -- what do you think the motivation is if this is all a ruse?

Commo

To imply credibility to the report.

The testing and the opinions put forth in the report are no different than many of the personal experiences, anecdotal evidence, and opinions that are put forth in "caliber war" arguments on Internet forums all the time. But in this case, the author behind Viper Weapons Training is attempting to imply more credibility to his experiments and concluded opinions by suggesting that Federal agencies commissioned the opinions.
 
But in this case, the author behind Viper Weapons Training is attempting to imply more credibility to his experiments and concluded opinions by suggesting that Federal agencies commissioned the opinions.

The first paragraph of the Forward on page 3 of the test does more than imply agency involvement -- it says "The 2016/17 Joint Agency Ballistic Test for Defensive Handgun Ammunition was conducted by several Federal, State and Local government agencies as well as security teams, contactors and ballistic experts." (my emphasis)

The anonymous aspect of this release of the test is troubling in that it makes the motives of the author(s) suspect, as we're seeing here...let's hope someone in the know sees this and can clarify..

Commo
 
"The average human male is 10" thick. Most human tissue is elastic. Organs, skin, muscle, intestines and blood vessels are capable of substantial stretching with minimal damage. Medical and military studies have shown that the outward velocity of tissue caused by the temporary stretch cavity is between 8-15% of the velocity of the projectile at the depth the stretch is created. Furthermore in these studies it was shown that human muscular tissue (other than brain or liver tissue) can stretch much faster than that velocity. Also, the distance created by the stretch cavity does not exceed the capability of the muscular tissue to stretch without tearing. At greater than around 2,000 fps it was tested, seen and measured that our test tissue did show signs of over-stretching and damage. This was noted on the rounds that were extremely high speed at impact (>2,000 fps). It was difficult to measure but is a contributing factor to overall wounding."


All of those conclusions without citing a single source. This report reads less authoritatively than a lot of anonymous forum posts.

I thought most of that was accepted as common knowledge since at least 1989 when Fackler came out with "Wounding Patterns of Military Rifle Bullets."
 
I am really hoping the resurgence of the 10mm Auto will lead to better bullet selection. The 10mm does as well as can be expected of it considering it is hampered by bullets designed for the .40 S&W, which tend to fragment or over-expand and curl back over their shanks. If we could get manufactures to offer full power 10mm Auto with bullets designed for the 10mm Auto, it could be so much more impressive.

Lots of good data here. I am bullet geek and eat this stuff up. Thanks for sharing.
Have you looked at the Cutting Edge .40/10mm 190 gr copper monolithic bullet? It has a lot of potential for deep, straight penetration, but given the cost, I don't know that I can warrant buying them over hard cast.
The first paragraph of the Forward on page 3 of the test does more than imply agency involvement -- it says "The 2016/17 Joint Agency Ballistic Test for Defensive Handgun Ammunition was conducted by several Federal, State and Local government agencies as well as security teams, contactors and ballistic experts." (my emphasis)

The anonymous aspect of this release of the test is troubling in that it makes the motives of the author(s) suspect, as we're seeing here...let's hope someone in the know sees this and can clarify..

Commo
I agree. Better citation of participants and credentials is needed.
 
Last edited:
The first paragraph of the Forward on page 3 of the test does more than imply agency involvement -- it says "The 2016/17 Joint Agency Ballistic Test for Defensive Handgun Ammunition was conducted by several Federal, State and Local government agencies as well as security teams, contactors and ballistic experts." (my emphasis)

Commo

Pretty sure it was conducted by this guy:



In his backyard. Or the same Galveston club yard you see in this video as well as the Phase 4 testing video.
 
Go to YouTube and search Lehigh and Underwood Extreme Penetrator and Extreme Defender ammo tests. Lots of videos there. Both are solid copper, non deforming bullets.

I’ll post one from Lehigh showing the difference in them, and another from IraqVet8888 on the .45 ACP EXD




 
The main thrust of the question has been not how those bullets perform in gel. Well, and they should as they were developed with gel tests as the standard.

The question is how well they work in actual, real world situations aa gel is only a rough analogue of real world results, useful mostly only as a standard comparison tool.

Until I see real data on these rounds actually working better in real world results than the standard JHP, I'll remain dubious of the magical properties of their spinning screwdriver head design.
 
My only question is, Does the fluted rounds plug up like HP's and fail to do as they are intended when hitting clothing of all types. Only time and use will tell I think.
 
My only question is, Does the fluted rounds plug up like HP's and fail to do as they are intended when hitting clothing of all types. Only time and use will tell I think.

They appear to act barrier blind, if my memory of the gel tests is correct.
 
They really cannot plug up in the flutes. They are solid copper and pretty much hold their shape unless shot through concrete.

Pretty much act like hard cast with big grooves from all the videos I’ve seen.
 
I have an email in to the coordinator (Viper Weapon Training) asking if Viper conducted the training independently or in cooperation with the government agencies..will be interested to see the response..

Commo
 
Ok, this video speaks for itself. This is the Phase 4 testing done, apparently for the "DOD" whose emblem is used on the intro slides.



This "testing" is a joke! Using an old pair of denim jeans is not "standard" and the dead meat (brisket) has not been validated against living tissue.
 
Something like the Underwood Extreme Defender is what I anticipated the Army to consider when it chose its new 9mm handgun and ammo combination. It's entirely Hague Accord compliant and has the POTENTIAL to increase wounding effectiveness over standard FMJ-RN bullets and possibly expanding JHP bullets.

I don't like the term "wound channel." It is an undefined and misleading term. It implies the disruption observed in gelatin is all "permanent disruption," which most of it is not. "Permanent disruption" is the term used to describe tissues that are permanently destroyed by both the permanent "crush" cavity and the temporary "stretch" cavity. The majority of the "wound channel" exhibited in ordnance gelatin is produced by the temporary cavity. Whereas the gelatin tears to relieve the stress caused by the stretching of the temporary cavity, many soft tissues are more resilient and do not tear; and if they do tear or rupture the permanent disruption produced is not of the same severity as the permanent disruption produced in ordnance gelatin. The tears in the gelatin simply record the temporary cavity; it does not represent "permanent disruption."
 
Last edited:
Yes, ballistic gelatin does a poor job of simulating animal tissue. It is roughly the same density as muscle tissue, and that is about all. It is a non-compressible fluid medium and tissue is not. It is uniform in density and presents no boundary layers of increasing and decreasing density which can slow and deflect projectiles. It has no elastin fibers to provide elasticity and no collagen fibers to maintain integrity. And yes, the "wound channels" seen in gelatin have little bearing on actual permanent tissue damage that would occur in living animal tissues.
 
I have no doubt that at some point in the future there will be advancements in bullet technology that will offer additional benefits. Whether that's today with the Defender or something comparable, I can't say. What I do know is that hollow points such as Gold Dots and HST's have proven effective in real world shootings. I'll let someone else experiment with the new technology. When or if it establishes a good track record, I'll consider it. Until then I'm sticking with what I know works.
 
If memory serves me the defenders did pretty well on Paul Harrell's meat targets, for whatever that's worth. I haven't experimented with them at all but they're pretty intriguing.
 
If memory serves me the defenders did pretty well on Paul Harrell's meat targets, for whatever that's worth. I haven't experimented with them at all but they're pretty intriguing.

They did, but they were like 4 inches off in his 92 at 15 yards, which wasnt good.
 
There is no way a federal agency commissioned this.

"conducted by several Federal, State and Local government agencies" - he's seriously stretching the truth. Just cuz he has a few shooting buddies who are LEOs and wanted to shoot up some brisket doesn't mean a federal agency officially conducted this study.

The video set to electronica music ? Seriously ?

This thing is a commercial for Viper.
 
After watching those two videos, I can't help but agree. There's no way this was put on by any federal agency and there's no way they would accept an evaluation with this poor of quality control and just plain corny of a product.

No credibility. Disappointing
 
Last edited:
Stepping back into time I got hold of an FBI documented one shot stop by actual bullet & barrel length. This was in the early 80's & one of the best was the .357 mag. as loaded by both Federal & Remington. Barrel length made little difference & as I recall they were good for 97%.
 
Those lens flares are legit.

:scrutiny:




And if you think government testing looks like jr's dungarees blowing in the wind behind a swinging lump of meat, then go ahead and buy some 34 grain 5.7 for your carry gun. Because you can't be swayed.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top