9mm 124 Grain HST Underpenetration?

Yeah that report in BS. Here a just a few red flags.

A) "Classified" versions exist? Why? It's a ballistics test, not a DARPA project.

B) If you read the acknowledgements at the bottom the test was put together and the records held by a firearms training company and gun store.

C) If you read the acknowledgements at the bottom you will see that the testers "come from" various government organizations. That means those credentials are just their job. If it was an official test it would say those organizations were involved and name them, not just that the people are from them.

D) Combining points A and C...... how are there "classified" versions of this report if it wasnt a government test/program to begin with? It's just dumb **** added to try and spice up the paper. Actually pretty dishonest if you ask me.

C-grunt said:

Yeah that report in BS. Here a just a few red flags.

A) "Classified" versions exist? Why? It's a ballistics test, not a DARPA project.

B) If you read the acknowledgements at the bottom the test was put together and the records held by a firearms training company and gun store.

C) If you read the acknowledgements at the bottom you will see that the testers "come from" various government organizations. That means those credentials are just their job. If it was an official test it would say those organizations were involved and name them, not just that the people are from them.

D) Combining points A and C...... how are there "classified" versions of this report if it wasnt a government test/program to begin with? It's just dumb **** added to try and spice up the paper. Actually pretty dishonest if you ask me.

Click to expand...

Are you saying this is just some made up info? Are you inferring no testing was conducted?

I think you are looking at this through the eyes of a person used to the overwhelming bureaucracy of a major fed gov endeavor. This clearly states it was a joint effort between state and a couple fed offices.

also, the fact that it was conducted by a commercial source isn’t a big deal to me…my organization (I work for the AF) uses commercial vendors all the time for all manner of services, from flight training to security ops training. The testing parameters would have been outline in the solicitation for bid.

As far as the “sanitized” or “classified” references, again, I suspect it’s NOT referring to a USG or DOD type classification…probably based on whatever material was releasable by the customer.

I still think the material is interesting, and the report is written pretty well…better and more clear than a lot of federal reports I’ve read.

I think it has value, or I’d not have posted it. But since it came from the Internet, as all things, it is to be viewed with some level of mistrust.

I think it's a fine round if your gun likes it and you can put it where it needs to go.

Buzznrose said:

Are you saying this is just some made up info? Are you inferring no testing was conducted?

I think you are looking at this through the eyes of a person used to the overwhelming bureaucracy of a major fed gov endeavor. This clearly states it was a joint effort between state and a couple fed offices.

also, the fact that it was conducted by a commercial source isn’t a big deal to me…my organization (I work for the AF) uses commercial vendors all the time for all manner of services, from flight training to security ops training. The testing parameters would have been outline in the solicitation for bid.

As far as the “sanitized” or “classified” references, again, I suspect it’s NOT referring to a USG or DOD type classification…probably based on whatever material was releasable by the customer.

I still think the material is interesting, and the report is written pretty well…better and more clear than a lot of federal reports I’ve read.

I think it has value, or I’d not have posted it. But since it came from the Internet, as all things, it is to be viewed with some level of mistrust.

Click to expand...

"2016/17 Joint Agency Ballistics Tests for Defensive Handgun Ammunition" was written by somebody with an agenda, and who possesses an incomplete knowledge about wound ballistics and is unqualified. It has zero credibility. There are no references provided to support any of the claims made. The video shows amateur-level testing:



In the early 1990s a similar document called "The Strasbourg Tests" was anonymously mailed to several individuals in the popular gun press and government organizations, including the FBI. It reported about hundreds of goats that were allegedly hooked up to monitors and shot with various handgun cartridges. "The Strasbourg Tests" is regarded as an elaborate hoax.

Shawn Dodson said:

"2016/17 Joint Agency Ballistics Tests for Defensive Handgun Ammunition" was written by somebody with an agenda, and who possesses an incomplete knowledge about wound ballistics and is unqualified. It has zero credibility.

In the early 1990s a similar document called "The Strasbourg Tests" was anonymously mailed to several individuals in the popular gun press and government organizations, including the FBI. It reported about hundreds of goats that were allegedly hooked up to monitors and shot with various handgun cartridges. "The Strasbourg Tests" is regarded as an elaborate hoax.

Click to expand...

I won’t disagree.

Everyone has an agenda, though. Don’t believe for a second US Gov tests are all “honest broker” written.

I will not argue the point further.

LookAtYou,

I would go with the 124 grain HST. That is in fact what I carry in my 9m.m. pistols. My agency used the 180 grain HST when we were still carrying the .40 S&W round and had no problems with it. It hit, it expanded and that worked for us. Also, we did not have a 12 inch minimum. We found out that 9 inches was enough.

The FBI wants to shoot through windshields, walls, doors and glass, so they want their ammo to penetrate. My agency does not permit shooting at a car unless it is coming straight at you. We also do not shoot through doors or walls because you really cannot see what you are shooting at. If you worry about deep penetration, you should really ask yourself why you think that is going to be needed.

Jim

How does it do in the real world? That is the question to ask. I don't expect to ever encounter an angry block of gelatin. From what I can tell, the HST has a proven track record where it really counts, on the street.

LookAtYou,

Yes, exactly.

My agency went to a minimum of 9 inches penetration after we had problems out in the field with the then issue .38 Special +P+ 110 grain ammo (popularly called the "TREASURY LOAD"). This round was popular with a number of large agencies at the time. We had mixed results. Sometimes great, sometime not. We replaced it with the .357 magnum ammo and found that a 9 inch penetration was enough.
If we could get at least 9 inches of penetration, an expanding bullet would do the job.

We then went to a .40 S&W load and found that expansion was still most important. Out results with the .40 S&W were just as good as the .357 ammo.
We started off using a 155 grain jhp at 1200 fps. It expanded well, even though it was a traditional lead core and cup jacket design. Eventually we went to the 180 grain FEDERAL HST. Even though it had a velocity of only 1000 fps, it still worked very well. The HST design would expand and hold together and do what it was designed to do.

The newer design premium bullets can expand and still hold together to get some expansion. Older bullet designs might expand like the SILVERTIP or they might penetrate, but expand little or not at all.

The GOLD DOT, GOLDEN SABRE and WINCHESTER PDX designs are all similar to the HST, in that they are designed to hold together so that they can get some penetration and still expand.

NOTE: HORNADY, early in the stopping power debate designed the XTP bullets to meet the FBI penetration goals and they did, but they did not expand well and have not been popular with law enforcement agencies that I am aware of.


Jim

golden said:

NOTE: HORNADY, early in the stopping power debate designed the XTP bullets to meet the FBI penetration goals and they did, but they did not expand well and have not been popular with law enforcement agencies that I am aware of.

Click to expand...

On a side note, the XTP bullets are a great choice for weaker rounds like 380ACP and 38 Spl, standard pressure. In that case, the mild expanding characteristics are ideal to maintain decent penetration depth in said rounds, which would fall short otherwise just from lack of energy... but yes, in the service cartridges it's a poor choice in my opinion.

Ethan,

There have been some good reviews of XTP bullets in unusual calibers like .32ACP. I used FIOCCHI .32ACP ammo in my COLT 1903 and BERETTA 82. Those are txceptions, I think. In .380ACP, I like the HORNADY FTX and WINCHESTER Defend ammo. For .38 Special standard pressure, I again like WINCHESTER Defend ammo, but usually go with FEDERAL HST +P if I am using a steel frame gun.

I have also used DOUBLE TAP 110 grain jhp standard pressure ammo in my S&W model 12. It is loud and has a flash, but the 110 grain jhp really moves. I expect over a 1000 fps with it from a 4 inch barrel, maybe 1100 fps.

Jim

LookAtYou said:

So do you think the FBI requirement of 12-18" is a bit much? Maybe 8-14" could still be sufficient for self-defense?

Click to expand...

The FBI came up with that number after comparing what bullets that were known performers did in the gel. The gel tests are used to compare rounds against each other and then predict how it will perform in the real world. But the real world is the actual test. In the real world the 124 HST is a known good performer.

My duty rifle round is the Federal TRU 223E. It gel it shows a lot of under penetration. In the real world it is a known performer and has good penetration in non barrier shots and adequate penetration through many barriers.

WrongHanded said:

But if you're worried the 124gr HST isn't penetrating bare gelatin far enough, I suggest moving to a cooler climate, where all the gelatin blocks wear shirts that will result in deeper penetration. Though at the cost of some reduction in expansion.

Click to expand...

Thank you. Now I can't get the image of gelatin blocks with shirts out of my head.

TheotherMikeG said:

Thank you. Now I can't get the image of gelatin blocks with shirts out of my head.

Click to expand...

New testing medium:

LookAtYou said:

As far as a rifle round, what do you think of Hornady .556 NATO 75gr T2 TAP (#8126N)? Or if focused on barrier performance, the Federal XM556FBIT3/XM556SBCT3?

Click to expand...

I dont have experience with either but they are all known performers. A neighboring agency issues or issued the 75 grain TAP and Ive seen the crime scene photos of the aftermath. It works.

LookAtYou said:

Judging off the photos you've seen, would you prefer a 12 gauge or the 75 Grain Tap for human defense? Which one do you think does more damage? Some say 12 gauge, some say .556 due to expansion, fragmentation, and the hydrostatic shock effect. Idk.

Click to expand...

At common home defense distance the 12 gauge loaded with buckshot or slugs does more damage. No question about it. That's from investigating assaults, homicides, and suicides. I personally use an AR for home protection over a shotgun for other reasons (recoil, accuracy, ammo capacity, etc..).

Here is a Tom Givens Rangemaster article on the "Defensive Shotgun"

https://rangemaster.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2016-03_RFTS-Newsletter.pdf

A lot of stuff is "hair splitting". Is one hollow point round better than another, probably. Will that difference make a difference in a real world situation, maybe, but probably not. People have been shooting other people and creatures with bullets for hundreds of years, and they've worked, and we've only had hollow point ammo since the 1960's/1970's.

Pick some well regarded round that functions in your firearm, and learn to shoot it accurately, and stop worrying about it.

Gentlemen,

I think that the reason that the M-4 carbine in .223/5.56 has displaced the 12 gauge shotgun has to do with ability of officers to qualify with it. I opted out of qualifying with it a couple of years ago and many other officers did as well, so now we have only M-4 carbines at my office.
Officers were having a hard time qualifying. The last time I qualified with the REMINGTON 870, I did it on the first try. Fine, but when I went home, I had a bruise on my shoulder for 3 days and yes, I did firmly tuck the gun into my shoulder.
Another officer said that shooting the shotgun injured his shoulder.
Our guns were made for buck and slugs with ghost ring sights, 14 inch barrels and 1 inch thick, very soft shoulder pads. They were first rate guns, but just kicked to hard.

Now we have M-4's and everybody seems to be happier with them.

Even better, we started hiring recent military veterans, so many of these new officers are very familiar with the M-4.

I imagine that has a lot to due with the popularity of the M-4 carbine.

Jim

A lot of the time I use the old green box Remington 115 grain jhp Walmart used to sell for like 20/100...

LookAtYou said:

As far as a rifle round, what do you think of Hornady .556 NATO 75gr T2 TAP (#8126N)? Or if focused on barrier performance, the Federal XM556FBIT3/XM556SBCT3?

Click to expand...

The XM556SVCT3 is what I have in my home defense rifle. All the tests I have seen online suggest it's a top performer.

LookAtYou said:

What about the higher velocity round of the .556 75 Grain T2 TAP vs the slower, yet bigger round of the 7.62x39? Again, some say .556 due to higher velocity which lends to more hydrostatic shock effect, while others say 7.62x39 due to larger round. Idk.

Click to expand...

At close ranges any difference is going to be more academic than real world. At ranges above 200ish yards, i do believe the 5.56 is better, but again I don't think it's going to make a difference in a firefight.