My self defence ammo test 9 mm and 380

[tblt]

I am looking for good self defence ammo and have found 2 good loads.Looking to buy some up before our new president.
I tested federal 124 gr. HST 9 mm and remington golden saber 102 gr. 380
I have tested corbon,federal hydra shoks,renington hp and winchester hp in the past

not do not use remington UMC hollow points they don't expand.

Just thought I would share my results with you all

I did this test in a bucket of water,note these bullets hit nothing but water

I will be testing my 38 speer 135 gr. short barrel and federal 110 gr hydrashok in 2 weeks out of my taurus mod 85

[tblt]

I will post my 38 results in two weeks

[SaxonPig]

Unfortunately this only tells you what to expect if attacked by a bucket of water.

[FoMoGo]

Unfortunately this only tells you what to expect if attacked by a bucket of water.
If it isnt saturday... Im fighting back.


Jim

[jackslayer]

I love this kind of post. Pics and facts about how ammo responds to certain applications. I think we would all enjoy more posts like this one. No need to thank the poster for his time with sarcasm.

[M203Sniper]

Looks like valid data.


What velocity is the 9x19 traveling at compared to the 9x18?

9X19
http://www.btfh.net/shoot/bullet-test-5.html

1200 FPS x 124 gr.

9x18
http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IVG10.html

970 FPS x 102 gr.

[RyanM]

Water's fine if you know how to calculate gelatin penetrations from expanded diameter, weight, and velocity. It can be a lot more cost effective than buying ballistic gelatin.

[pps]

I don't think shooting into water is completely useless. It seems to be pretty tough on bullets in terms of core-jacket separation. Another medium I use is wet news print, or lately shredded rubber mulch. The mulch sits in a dedicated box so I can reclaim lead for bullet casting. The bullets penetrate and expand, though I don't know how well the values would correlate to gelatin.

Here is an example of a 158gr .357 sjhp recovered at 15 inches, expansion usually around .50" however some bullets had the lead fragment and peel away. Some gelatin data I've seen for the same bullet has penetration at 19"

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l96/pps_2006/ZeroBulletspic2.jpg

I'm always interested to see others findings and methods used. Even if the material is not a gelatin or human analogue, I still like to see the performance. Thanks to the OP for posting.

[Kind of Blued]

Water does work. The problem is that it works TOO well.

While you're at it with the .38s, give the 158gr. +P LSWCHP load a shot if your gun can handle them.

Here's a test I did (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=399106) on some .38/9mm loads a while back.

[CPshooter]

That looks like pretty good expansion for both of them. Are Golden Sabers considered one of the better .380 auto self-defense rounds? I have an LCP too and don't know much about the .380 guns or ammo so I figured I'd ask here.

I appreciate the testing, keep it up!

[CDH]

Unfortunately this only tells you what to expect if attacked by a bucket of water.

The house was dark, but I knew something was wrong.
As I worked my way from room to room, clearing each but finding nothing, I came to the last room in the hallway.
The door was partially open. That wasn't right.
I slowly moved the door inward with the backs of the fingers of my left hand, my 9mm in my right. The moment I heard the door creak, I knew it was time for action...
There was movement! Above! The bucket was just starting to tip as I fired off three rounds, squarely hitting it before it could dump it's load on my head.
Thoughts of sulfuric acid and other noxious liquids went through my mind as the explosion of liquid rained on my head.
But no, it was water. Just water.
"Ha, I fooled you this time, Dad!" came the voice of my son, who had been sitting on the floor behind a chair, hidden for hours just waiting for this moment..."

Moral of the story: You never know when you'll have to shoot a bucket of water.

[SaxonPig]

I once shot some water bottles. The only purpose was a direct comparison of two specific loads in the same caliber. As numerous people correctly told me at the time, water (or anything else for that matter) does not exactly replicate living tissue and bone so such tests are of minimal (maybe no) value.

My comment about being attacked by a bucket of water was meant to be humorous.

[CDH]

My comment about being attacked by a bucket of water was meant to be humorous.

Of course, and it was taken as such.
As was my little story that expounded upon the concept. :)

[ArchAngelCD]

Thanks for the post and pictures.
Are Golden Sabers considered one of the better .380 auto self-defense rounds?
Remington Golden Saber and Winchester Silvertip ammo was the top of the line for many years. With all the "new and better" ammo out there the older, time tested and proven ammo has been pushed aside. I carry nothing but 145gr Winchester Silvertip .357 Magnum rounds in my M640. It's the most accurate ammo I've found for that revolver. (and I tried A LOT of ammo)

[Zesty]

"As numerous people correctly told me at the time, water (or anything else for that matter) does not exactly replicate living tissue and bone so such tests are of minimal (maybe no) value."

The same could be said for perfectly calibrated ballistic gel, couldn't it? I mean, what kind of human tissue does it even simulate? Skin? Fat? Muscle? I know most every ballistic gel test I have seen is lacking human bone.

[KBintheSLC]

Looks like valid data.


What velocity is the 9x19 traveling at compared to the 9x18?

9X19
http://www.btfh.net/shoot/bullet-test-5.html

1200 FPS x 124 gr.

9x18
http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IVG10.html

970 FPS x 102 gr. -M203Sniper

I don't mean to be knit-picky but the 9X18 is the Makarov caliber not the .380 you are talking about. A .380 cartridge is 9X17.

[bikerdoc]

Kudo's to the TBLT for taking the time and effort to test, and then sharing the results.
next to shot placement, the best ammo is very important

[jjohnson]

Well, thanks much for starting this thread. It's kind of you to take the time to share your findings with the rest of us.

Certainly you should not be discouraged if some others have been less than cordial :mad:

I think this is good stuff - we do have some data from the manufacturers (and we really shouldn't just believe them :scrutiny: and industry writers (can't really expect them to be impartial either :banghead:). So at least some kindly civilians testing and sharing is a good thing.

I'm certainly interested in results. The mention of UMC not expanding at all is a good example - I carry .380 and 9mm for CCW when I can't hide anything bigger, and it's fairly important to know what cartridges will work.

[SsevenN]

124 grn. HST(9mm) is my ammo choice.

Glad to see you got favourable results.

[RyanM]

The same could be said for perfectly calibrated ballistic gel, couldn't it? I mean, what kind of human tissue does it even simulate? Skin? Fat? Muscle? I know most every ballistic gel test I have seen is lacking human bone.

It simulates pig thigh muscle tissue. Lab testing showed that penetration in live, anesthatized pig thighs very closely matched 10% gelatin at 4 degrees C.

But that's irrelevant. It's just a test specification. When they crash test cars, they ram 'em into some kinda solid wall. Precisely what kind of real world wall is that supposed to simulate? Brick? Hand cut granite? Wood?

They also have some kind of powered battering ram type thing to simulate a collision from the side. What precise make and model of car does that simulate?

Test protocols cannot possibly encompass every single real world scenario that laymen can think up. The general approach is to have tests which are harder to pass than 99% of real-world events, and if the product makes it through that, it should be okay.

Thus, the general consensus with the particular doctors and scientists who were consulted by the FBI way back when, is that 12" to 18" in calibrated 10% ballistic gelatin represents performance which should meet the FBI's requirements (potentially hitting the vitals from any shooting angle, including oddball ones, or shots which pass through a limb; i.e., bad shot placement can override good penetration, but they don't want bad penetration to override good shot placement).

Similarly, the IWBA 4-layer denim test does not represent any one garment. People are constantly going "where is someone going to be wearing 4 layers of denim on their body?" Yeah, well, when is a car going to be slammed into by a hydraulic ram with a bumper attached to it? The 4 layer denim test is just meant to be a very difficult test. Bullets which are able to expand and penetrate adequately after going through 4 layers of denim should be able to punch through any real-world garment (other than body armor, obviously) and still expand and penetrate.

[tblt]

From what Ive herd the remington Goldern Saber is one of the best rounds out of the 380 thats why I went with them but had to test them myself.Ive herd speer makes a good round also I may get some in 9 mm and 380.I will be testing my speer short barrel and hydrashoks and might get some regular speer law enforcement rounds also for my 38 and 9.

[Marcus L.]

Very good post RyanM.

Prior to the 1987 FBI Wound Ballistics Workshop most ammunition manufactures tested their ammunition in water tanks. This gave two inaccurate results......penetration and expansion. Human tissue is not 100% water, and shooting into the human body means that a bullet that expands well in water may not expand well in tissue. Hollow points that were designed around the water tank(around 1967-1987) suffered either expansion problems(heavier bullet weights at lower velocities), or weak penetration(light and fast bullet weights). Then of course there was no standardized method to determine adequate levels of penetration. It was for these reasons that we had spectacular ammunition failures such as that of Jerry Dove in 1986 which got him killed. Ballistic gel is MUCH more consistant with tissue and has been an excellent media for testing ammunition and getting similar results to that of real world effects.

Sure, the .380acp expanded about the same as the 9mm in this water test, but we have no indication of penetration ability. In virtually every test performed by the FBI, the IWBA, and the Firearms Institute the .380acp has had VERY weak penetration if it expands to those levels. In ballistic gel virtually all .380acp JHPs that expand to .55-.60" only penetration to around 7" in bare gel. However, with loads like the Hornady XTP 90gr JHP the bullet design limites the expansion ability to around .45" which allow for penetration right at about the 12" mark in properly calibrated ballistics gel. The Hornady load is still the best load for the .380acp.......but the .380acp is a far cry from the capabilities of the 9mm. Speer Gold Dot, Federal Hydrashok, Winchester Ranger Talon, Remington Gold Saber......all were tested and failed the penetration criteria.

[gun4funtime]

Shooting buckets and bottles may not give great data about bullet performance.

But it sure can be fun!!! Watch them blow up, big splash, good hit, big splash, different loads, different results. It's FUN!
Coffee can full of water, lid on it, see how far the lid will fly.

You can see some differences in performance in the reaction of the target and spectators.

Have fun, be safe, go shooting!

[denfoote]

SaxonPig: Unfortunately this only tells you what to expect if attacked by a bucket of water.


Ugly Bags Of Mostly Water we try at peace, you do not listen. Bag who drill in Sand Of Home had to die."

-- Lifeform in ST:TNG "Home Soil"

:evil: :evil: :evil:


http://www.cs.tut.fi/~albert/Quotes/TNG-quotes.html

[tblt]

I just ordered the new hornady critical defence ammo .380 90 gr. and will be testing soon along with some speer 125 gr. + p LE ammo in 38 I ordered.I will also be testing federal hydra shok 38 110 gr and speer 38 short barrel 135 gr.

[seeker_two]

My comment about being attacked by a bucket of water was meant to be humorous.

I'm glad....I'd hate to see someone talk about opening fire in response to being attacked by a bucket of water seriously... :uhoh:

[tblt]

I cant test on humans can I

[sniper7369]

Are shooting into a full five gallon bucket for these tests? I was thinking about doing that with my P-3AT with some Speer Gold Dot loads I'm working up. Just don't want to have a huge mess of water all over the garage if the bullet happens to exit the bottom. :)

[Kind of Blued]

next to shot placement, the best ammo is very important

Don't forget about carrying a gun that reliably launches those fancy bullets. :)

If anybody ends up testing the new Hornady Critical Defense load, I'd like to see how it performs, in comparison to other "normal" hollowpoints, in expansion after traveling through heavy clothing.

I think that's the whole point of the "filled" hollowpoint, and I'd like to see if it works in exactly similar situations in which standard hollowpoints fail.

[kmbrman]

Sniper 7369 I have done some 5 gal. water bucket test on 125 JHP 38 Spec.+P from Win. and Umc. Shooting off a step ladder, straight down into an open 5 gal. bucket resulted in a split bucket on several sides ! This was from a 2" snub, Water went everywhere: j:Dust glad I was in the pasture .

[jackstinson]

Shooting off a step ladder, straight down into an open 5 gal. bucket resulted in a split bucket on several sides !
You guys needed to watch MythBusters when they blew their test tank apart with a 12ga.
Then they switched to the swimming pool for testing :)

[edSky]

What about shooting something like chickens or pork shoulders. I know it can get expensive, but a small box of self-defense ammunition costs less than a few decent roasters.

I'm being serious here. I was thinking of this a few times, and when I join a private range this spring I'd like to try it.

[40jjb]

Ur question , What do i think, well let me shoot you with a 380, then you tell me!!!!:evil:

[john11139]

Has any one read or run any tests on the ammo called DRT. It is made by Dynamics Reseacrh Techonoligies. I guess it has been used and tested by the military but has been sort of "hush, hush" I think it is available from Cheaper Than Dirt. From what I understand it is a composite bullet and when it hits it disinagrates on impact. You dont have to worry about a pass through and hitting some one else. From what I have read it is deadly accurate. Typically I guess it creates a crator 5" wide and 5" deep with instant death. I bet that stuff would make your water bottles explode.:)

[JR47]

Prior to the 1987 FBI Wound Ballistics Workshop most ammunition manufactures tested their ammunition in water tanks. This gave two inaccurate results......penetration and expansion. Human tissue is not 100% water, and shooting into the human body means that a bullet that expands well in water may not expand well in tissue. Hollow points that were designed around the water tank(around 1967-1987) suffered either expansion problems(heavier bullet weights at lower velocities), or weak penetration(light and fast bullet weights). Then of course there was no standardized method to determine adequate levels of penetration. It was for these reasons that we had spectacular ammunition failures such as that of Jerry Dove in 1986 which got him killed. Ballistic gel is MUCH more consistant with tissue and has been an excellent media for testing ammunition and getting similar results to that of real world effects.

Not enough information, and generally biased, at that. Ballistic gelatin is neither flesh, nor a representative of human construction. Instead, it was a readily available medium that allowed the science of the day repeatable results of their favored combination of bullets and velocity. Too much "what if" resulted in tests that favored the adherents of Fackler's purposes.

The single important result was a data-base, flawed as it is, that allowed a comparative analysis against arbitrarily chosen barriers, and evidenced actual penetration and expansion. The arbitrary minimums are just that, arbitrary. Other agencies chose different criteria, and successfully issued other ammunition. Why the dinosaurs regard the fact that a single bullet failed to initiate an immediate stop, not just a lethal stop, against the heart, is beyond any possible reasoning. Even the total destruction of the heart allows for a time of continuing action by the injured. Yet, this is conveniently ignored in this scenario. Upon such biased, and unscientific, facts are the FBI actions based upon. The facts that one agent was literally blinded as a result of a failed tactical stop, BEFORE the first shot was fired. That several other agents lost their primary arms due to that same stop, or that NONE of the agents was actually equipped to fight against rifle-armed opponents, even though they knew of the armaments used by the robbers, has somehow been lost in the mists of time.

This was a monumental failure on the agents part to control the situation. That a single bullet is blamed for all of this, and resulted in the ensuing fiasco, is more a tribute to institutional blame-shifting than scientific research. :banghead: