Totally unscientific amateur ballistic test


PDA






TarDevil
June 8, 2012, 01:17 PM
I use both Speer Gold Dots and Winchester PDX1 ammo for self defense.

Below, Speer Gold Dot on the left, Winchester PDX1 on the right.

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff298/TarDevil/Firearms/2012-06-08110023.jpg

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff298/TarDevil/Firearms/2012-06-08105927.jpg

Both were shot at 4 gallon milk jugs of water lined up from a distance of 6 feet with a Ruger SR9c.

Both expanded to approximately .63 (point .68 on the PDX1 if you include the little spurs on the petals... wonder if those spurs do any extra damage transiting through the body?)

The PDX1 ripped some big holes in the first jug, decent holes in the second, entered the third and stopped with only an entry hole. None of the jugs were displaced.

The Gold Dot shredded the first jug (covering my hands, gun and face with water) and knocked it into the air over and behind the other three. Bullet proceeded through the second with significant damage, entered the third and stayed, though it created holes on both sides of the jug. The fourth jug was knocked on it's side.

I don't know how to scientifically evaluate my little game, but that Gold Dot created one heck of shower! Think I'll use up the PDX1's and get more Gold Dots.

If you enjoyed reading about "Totally unscientific amateur ballistic test" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Skribs
June 8, 2012, 01:28 PM
Just curious - what were the bullet weights on each?

TarDevil
June 8, 2012, 01:35 PM
Just curious - what were the bullet weights on each?
Oh, sorry. Both 124 gr +P.

Texan Scott
June 8, 2012, 01:41 PM
hmmm... good photography, btw... my totally unscientific amateur ballistic opinion is that both look like very good SD rounds, and neither is likely to be capable of anything the other isn't.

TarDevil
June 8, 2012, 01:54 PM
hmmm... good photography, btw... my totally unscientific amateur ballistic opinion is that both look like very good SD rounds, and neither is likely to be capable of anything the other isn't.
Yeah, I'm confident in either... just was impressed with the explosive reaction created by the Gold Dot. Don't know if that means squat in real life situation.

Thompsoncustom
June 8, 2012, 01:57 PM
To answer your question about the pedals doing any damage....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJeuBJez-As

JEB
June 8, 2012, 02:04 PM
pretty good results from both. gold dot is just about my favorite SD bullet. nice pics too!

C0untZer0
June 8, 2012, 02:22 PM
IMO PDX is a good round, I have my HD handgun loaded with the 9mm 147gr version. But I am going to get Winchester Ranger T 147gr - RA9T

lathedog
June 8, 2012, 02:29 PM
If it is repeatable then it actually is "scientific".

That, and you need to be wearing a labcoat.

TarDevil
June 8, 2012, 02:30 PM
Pics were made with a Samsung phone. Thanks for that video, Thompsoncustom. Quite a mess of meat! I was actually wondering about the little spurs on the tip of the petals... like little hooks sticking up.

If it is repeatable then it actually is "scientific".

That, and you need to be wearing a labcoat.

Working on it! I drink a lot of milk (with Nestle's Quik... just something I never grew out of!)

Wishoot
June 8, 2012, 03:00 PM
Now you need to compare HST's with the GD's and PDX1's.

NG VI
June 8, 2012, 10:05 PM
Jug reaction may not be much different, but I really like the design of the HSTs and the non-bonded Ranger-Ts. If you see them on Brassfetcher, their recovered diameters are averaged, so pretty much every single legit defense bullet comes out with apparently identical expanded diameters.

With the HST and Ranger-T though, that doesn't really tell the whole story. The human body does not average out it's wounds, if each petal reaches a little further from the core of the bullet, each petal is going to be drastically more harmful to the body, even if there is some space between the petals that tissue can pass through. I actually think a six-pointed star is probably a more destructive object to pass through the body than a round object with the same frontal surface area.

But the water jugs will react to frontal surface area, mass, and velocity, especially velocity. Which is why you've got be careful with them. People react differently, and have a lot more volume than a gallon jug of water, so you can't really get any explosive effects out of pistol-speed bullets. It's all psychological and physiological effects you are aiming for with a human attacker.

It's fun shooting jugs though and these days good bullets tend to look about identical whether they go through water, gel, or soft tissue. Definitely helps inspire confidence in your carry ammo though. That alone is enough reason to self-test bullets.

TarDevil
June 9, 2012, 01:05 PM
NG VI:

Completely agree with you. Much like the blades of an arrow broadhead, massively cutting arteries as it passes through. Then you wait for the bleed-out.

Again, I can't help but be impressed with the violent results to the Speer milk jug. Damage is damage, and though the human body IS different than water and plastic, energy is being imparted nonetheless and seemingly with more blunt trauma.

I was also impressed that the Speer seemed to penetrate further. but that seems at odds with the notion (not necessarily yours, mine) that the PDX was doing more cutting while the Gold Dot was doing more clobbering. If any of that reasoning makes sense or holds water (no pun intended), I would've thought the PDX would penetrate further.

I've learned a lot, but the more I learn the more I realize how much I don't know.

If you enjoyed reading about "Totally unscientific amateur ballistic test" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!