Rem vs. Win: .40 Carry Ammo?


PDA






HS/LD
February 12, 2003, 02:02 AM
I have a question regarding the ammunition I carry for self defense, I am not in Law Enforcement.

I currently carry an H&K USP Compact in .40
I use:
Remington Golden Sabers in 165 grains (GS40SWA).

Practice ammo is whatever I find the cheapest at Wal Mart.

I have heard a lot of talk about the performance of Winchester Ranger T-series. My questions are about this.

Should I switch to Winchester Ranger T-Series in:
165 grain (RA40TA)
or:
180 grain (RA40T)

Should I switch to the Ranger T-series?
Why?

I would love to see testing comparisons between these Rem and Win bullets. If you know where I could find them I would appreciate that too.

If I should stay with the Golden Sabers should I purchase the BONDED variation?

Thanks in advance for any information
you can provide.

The reason I chose the Rem GS 165 is this brief: http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs31.htm

I was just wondering if the Golden Saber or the Ranger T-series had one leading the other in expansion and penetration etc. through barriers.

If someone can point me in the right direction to look at some test results.
I have already checked out Ammolab...

Regards,
HS/LD

If you enjoyed reading about "Rem vs. Win: .40 Carry Ammo?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
HS/LD
February 12, 2003, 12:51 PM
No info?

HS/LD

stiletto raggio
February 12, 2003, 06:03 PM
Ranger 180s are what my local PD carreis. I had a range session with one of my buddie (shooting police ammo) and had absolutely zero problems in nearly five hundred rounds. Good stuff.

CZF
February 12, 2003, 11:47 PM
There really isn't a lot of difference in the modern .40 loadings.
Some 165s were once very low velocity, and guns were not
cycling with them.

I like 155s, and again, most are equal in stopping power.

The 180s seem kinda Old Technology to me. However, they
are very accurate.

CZ 40B guns tend to like the lighter bullets. CZ75B .40s the
heavier stuff.

Right now there are more 155s offered than 165s. The
165 is prob better for patrol work and vehicles, or those
scenarios where tactical penetration is needed.same
can be said with the move toward heavier (124 gr) 9mm
loadings, than the once standard 115 grain.

For the Armed Citizen..like i am now. The 155s are my
choice in .40 and 10mm. The 180s @ 900 fps..might as
well have a .45. I also didn't like the recoil of the 180s
in a light gun like the 40B.

Like with any Defensive ammo. Best to find what your gun likes
and is most accurate with. I'm sure people more Expert in the
.40 or SD ammo will comment. Once you settle on what your gun
likes, or Foremost..is reliable with (155, 165 or 180) I just don't think that brand or design matters much. Even often overlooked Silvertips have shown good results in our .40 caliber CZs.

mete
February 13, 2003, 10:03 AM
It's really a moot point. A defense gun first and formost should be reliable. Accuracy should be at least reasonable. In 40 you don't need the extra penetration of the 180s. Of the brands the premium grade ammo will be better. But the most important thing is bullet placement . So practice often and have you taken a combat course ? My P7M10 choice is 155 hydrashocks.

If you enjoyed reading about "Rem vs. Win: .40 Carry Ammo?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!