Joint Agency Ballistics Test for Defensive Handgun Ammo

[481]

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

 

[JohnG]

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.

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.

 

[JohnG]

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.

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.

 

[JohnG]

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.

Yet another benefit of all copper rounds

 

[481]

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.

 

[JohnG]

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.

 

[481]

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.

The 9mm 115-grain FMJs used by NYPD that resulted in 22 people being struck after they passed through a human body before striking them are known for producing 24 - 28 inches of penetration, so I am not sure that the Fort Scott design is appropriate for self-defense. What I note in the video that you referenced was that the 10mm 150-grain Extreme Hunter @ 1,425fps, the 10mm 115-grain Extreme Defender @ 1,700 fps and the 10mm Auto 140-grain Extreme Penetrator @1,500 fps all produced penetration depths of 24.25 inches, 24 inches and 26.5 inches respectively. This is penetration that I'd expect from the 115-grain FMJs used by NYPD, so I would be very hesitant to use it in the role of an HD/SD load. If any of these 10mm rounds were to strike a rather large person with a front-to-back or side-to-side depth of 14 inches, they would probably exit with enough velocity to penetrate somewhere between 10 and 12 inches in a down range bystander.

In this video test (which uses the Clear Ballistics Gel junk that does not typically accurately replicate performance in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin)---go to 5:20 in the video for the 115-grain test---



---the 9mm 115-grain TUI yaws at a depth of about 5.5 inches (much as it did with your tests, so there is that! ) and penetrates to a maximum depth of 20.5 inches, meaning that even it of does yaw as shown, it is still capable of producing about 6 inches of penetration after striking and passing through a person with a front-to-back or side-to-side depth of 14 inches.

It is up to you to choose what you want to carry, but from what I have seen so far in the tests presented by these other folks, none of these modified FMJ designs mitigate potential post-target penetration enough that I would feel comfortable tasking them for self-defense.

 

[JohnG]

Thanks for the link. I had seen that before a while back and forgotten it. That’s a similar depth to Underwood/Lehigh in bare gel!

I completely understand your over penetration concern and honestly that’s also one of the reasons I’ve now moved exclusively to FS and U/L ammo. I’ve seen too many hollow points fail to expand and subsequently over penetrate after they encountered some form of barrier (even occasionally just clothing).

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/

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

 

[481]

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

For the reasons that you state above, I just try to stick with JHPs that pass the FBI test protocols. Dr. Roberts' list of loads that meet the FBI test protocols, is kind of dated, but valid nonetheless;

9 mm:
Barnes XPB 115 gr JHP (copper bullet)
Federal Tactical 124 gr JHP (LE9T1)
Federal HST 124 gr +P JHP (P9HST3)
Remington Golden Saber bonded 124 gr +P JHP (GSB9MMD)
Speer Gold Dot 124 gr +P JHP (53617)
Winchester Ranger-T 124 gr +P JHP (RA9124TP)
Winchester 124 gr +P bonded JHP (RA9BA)
Winchester Ranger-T 127 gr +P+ JHP (RA9TA)
Federal Tactical 135 gr +P JHP (LE9T5)
Hornady Critical Duty 135 gr +P PT
Federal HST 147 gr JHP (P9HST2)
Remington Golden Saber 147 gr JHP (GS9MMC)
Speer Gold Dot 147 gr JHP
Speer G2 147 gr PT
Winchester Ranger-T 147 gr JHP (RA9T)
Winchester 147 gr bonded JHP (RA9B/Q4364)

.40 S&W:
Barnes XPB 140 & 155 gr JHP (copper bullet)
Speer Gold Dot 155 gr JHP
Federal Tactical 165 gr JHP (LE40T3)
Speer Gold Dot 165 gr JHP
Winchester Ranger-T 165 gr JHP (RA40TA)
Federal HST 180 gr JHP (P40HST1)
Federal Tactical 180 gr JHP (LE40T1)
Remington Golden Saber 180 gr JHP (GS40SWB)
Speer Gold Dot 180 gr JHP
Winchester Ranger-T 180 gr JHP (RA40T)
Winchester 180 gr bonded JHP (RA40B/Q4355/S40SWPDB1)

.45 ACP:
Barnes XPB 185 gr JHP (copper bullet)
Hornady Critical Duty 220 gr +P JHP
Federal HST 230 gr JHP (P45HST2)
Federal HST 230 gr +P JHP (P45HST1)
Federal Tactical 230 gr JHP (LE45T1)
Speer Gold Dot 230 gr JHP
Winchester Ranger-T 230 gr JHP (RA45T)
Winchester Ranger-T 230 gr +P JHP (RA45TP)

I suppose that until the modified FMJ designs that you have been so kind to test for us prove themselves in actual shootings, that I am more than a little reluctant to rely on them for SD/HD.

 

[JohnG]

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!

 

[481]

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!

My suspicion, right or wrong, is that unless a large LE agency picks up one of these designs and fields it, that we'll likely never see adoption of the Underwood or Fort Scott offerings. Ammunition design is a mature technology that seems to have 'run out of room' under the immutable laws of physics with the present materials science we have. Just the same, I hope that technology eventually advances to such a point that we do see handgun ammunition that exceeds what we have today. That's going to be a 'tall order' indeed.

 

[JohnG]

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.

 

[481]

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.

While I don't believe that JHPs are infallible, any testing conducted in Clear Ballistics Gel has to be taken with the proverbial ''grain of salt''.

The density of CBG, which varies from 0.824 — 0.865 grams per cubic centimeter (depending upon when it was produced; the manufacturer routinely alters its formulation over time), is between 19% and 25% less than that of calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin (@ 1.030 grams per cubic centimeter) which means that it will produce less pressure (which supplies the force that drives expansion of JHPs) at impact according to Bernoulli's law (P = ½ρV^2). This results in a smaller expanded diameter which in turn decreases the amount of braking force impinging upon the bullet which results in a greater penetration depth than would be seen in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin. The videos provided earlier in this thread (see page 3, post #71) document this issue quite well as does the research provided here:

http://www.brassfetcher.com/Synthetic Gelatin/Synthetic Gelatin.html

Additionally, there are greater issues with how the CBG stuff fails to adequately represent specific high-speed phenomena (mainly temporary cavity) with rifle caliber testing as found in the attached PDF.

Don't get me wrong. I absolutely agree with you that JHPs--even the newest premium iterations--can fail to expand after passing through a barrier (or three), but tests conducted in CBG suggest that anyone using CBG as a test medium is either not terribly serious about their test's accuracy or unaware of the material performance deficiencies that the CBG product brings to the table.

 

[JohnG]

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

 

[481]

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

I've enjoyed it as well, John.

I also think that your tests suggest that the Underwood/Lehigh Extreme Defender and Fort Scott projectiles are much more likely to destabilize in tissue, perhaps much earlier than standard FMJs.

 

[JohnG]

A comparison of Hornady, HST, Lehigh XD, and Fort Scott I hadn't seen before. It includes penetration depth and wound cavity production.


Seems pretty damning for the hollow points and in this case Fort Scott seemed the most impressive, while none over penetrated.

 

[JR24]

Still waiting on actual usage data, not just pretty tracks on clear gel blocks.

 

[JohnG]

Ask and ye shall receiveth...

 

[JR24]

So they used a pistol caliber carbine? What barrel length, what speed?

How does using a 16+" barrel shooting a bear off a bait pile relate to a LCP at contact distance with a bad guy?

Also, with that production level and style of video, the cynic in me has trouble buying and internet hype machine video, especially with a new bullet type.

What I want is usage data from something like a police department with how effective it is in the field vs known hollowpoints, at least before I trust my life with it.

Also, i couldn't tell but the instant drop signals head or spine shot to me from my experience with hunting. A headshot or spine shot with most calibers will do an animal in, so that doesn't really help the argument.

 

[JohnG]

I understand your concerns and questions. I’m looking forward to that day too, but that may take some time. I think I’ve just seen so many videos of both these rounds compared to hollow points that I’m certain they are better.

For sure we know that hollow points can, and often do, clog on barriers. And these solid copper rounds act nearly identical after penetrating barriers.

Like I mentioned before, I’ll be the first to chose the really cool Nosler hollow points in my closet when I see shirtless zombies approaching me head on and when I’m certain they are equipped with boneless torsos.

 

[JohnG]

I spoke with someone at near or the top at Lehigh and he said they are working on a 22 Long Rifle version of their defensive ammo line, and were trying to work out the kinks with the rim-fire's inherent lack of reliability. Just think if they could make a 22 defensive load for a small 8 shot revolver that penetrates barriers, penetrates at or near the required depth, all the while producing similar wounding paths. I'm ready for that!

 

[Kano383]

I've been a firm believer in "newfangled solids" for some years now. Not due to Internet hype, but after seeing results in the field, on live animals. First, I switched from lead/copper expanding bullets to pure copper expanding, Barnes TSX in their various iteration.

Consistent results shot after shot, whether through hard hide, soft tissues, and bones, won the day for me.

Later, on large animals, I started using monometallic solids with wide meplat: they penetrate deep, track straight, and cause more tissue damage than round noses. Cutting Edge Bullets (CEB) manufactures stellar bullets, and Michael McCourry spent years and tons of money studying these designs together with CEB. Elmer Keith knew long ago that flat nose bullets hit hard, BTW, but Michael quantified and experimented till he got the data in details.

Then I tried the Woodleigh Hydro: these were the first "Funny Shape" solids I gave a try to.

Well... That's now what I put in my rifle when I go after things that can kill. And believe me, I do think hard before putting rounds in my magazines...

These are not pistol rounds, velocities are much higher, but the principle is the same: solid monometallic bullet, with the nose shaped so that it tracks straight, and disrupts soft tissues, causing damages far wider than the wound channel expected from the diameter of the bullet alone.

The picture below is the entrance wound on a buffalo shoulder. The round in the picture is a .458 Lott, there for scale (2.8" case). The bullet that made that hole is a Woodleigh Hydro, 480gr, at 2150 fps, second picture.

With all this said and done, I tried Lehigh Xtreme Penetrators in .380, and now have Underwood Xtreme Defense in 9mm and .45 ACP on order...

 

[SharpDog]

An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power
Posted on March 18, 2012 by Greg Ellifritz in Articles
http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/an-alternate-look-at-handgun-stopping-power





IMHO he goes off the rails a bit when discussing .410 handguns. But the rest of it is interesting.



I'd still rather have 'the biggest chihuahua in the dog park'

 

[the Black Spot]

Good info.
I wonder how wadcutters would compare

 

[Richard Jay King]

Now..don't get me wrong...I LOVE to experiment and LOVE the science behind trying to determine the "incapacitation" factor for such and such caliber and such and such bullet design...All good stuff..but why should I worry about this stuff personally? I mean the potential assailent that I am likely to run into never "wants" to be shot with ANYTHING! Not even a .32 acp so in most cases if a guy is trying to mug you showing him a gun of any caliber will likely stop him..That is why I believe having a gun is more important than what caliber it is! Thus it is more likely that I will have my LC9 than my .44 mag Mod 629 with me...All I want to do is try to keep the guy from attacking me, shoot him if absolutely necessary to keep him from getting to me and then run like hell if I can! In the case of the LEO it is a little different...He WILL have a gun and if I were a LEO my first desire would be to be carrying a gun that gave me the best opportunity to actually hit the perp..regardless of caliber! I have shot enough deer (over 40 or so) with handguns from a .357 Herrett with over 1300 fp of ME to a .45 Super with about 500 fp of ME to know that an instant stop is NOT predictable unless the brain or spine is hit. Which leads me back to the most important criteria for me as a civilian is to HAVE a gun stuffed with what ever ammo provides enough penetration to get into a bad guys boiler room..At that point I will depend on my sneekers to get me safe!