27" Penetration Standard 45Acp HardBall:
- Thread starter gvf
- Start date
- Status
JTQ
Member
The flat nose helps. Of course it is very heavy and probably packed with powder too.
Here is some penetration info on flat nose bullets.
http://www.gsgroup.co.za/articlepvdw.html
Here is some penetration info on flat nose bullets.
http://www.gsgroup.co.za/articlepvdw.html
another good option from Double Tap.
http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_34&products_id=428
http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_34&products_id=428
hard ball and hard cast are not meant for hunting in any respect (Possibly woods Protection ...different than hunting.)... that penetration is meant to avoid expansion and penetrate through obstacles.... NOT what you want in a hunting bullet and NOT what most want in a self defense round....
Nice, but out of curiosity I wonder if the following .40 S&W load would penetrate more deeply since it has nearly the same momentum with a smaller cross section:
http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_26&products_id=210
Or you could say that it has nearly identical sectional density with higher velocity. Yes, it's a different caliber, but it's kind of lumped into the same "service" class, and I wonder which would be more effective in a pinch as a marginal "woods carry" load.
I'm not sure what kind of distinction you're trying to make between "woods protection" and hunting/self-defense. I think it's a way for weaker calibers to potentially be effective against some mighty large, tough creatures such as bears. The main obstacle that may need to be penetrated in this case would be the bones of attacking animals.
Geckgo
Member
My little penetration equation calls for 23-25" of penetration at the velocities listed for that bullet, another test to verify my results!!! Course, they don't actually show any ballistics stuff to demonstrate their 27", just nice to see things line up 
Ridgerunner665
Member
I've seen Hornady 230 grain XTP's penetrate 30" of deer (obviously, not broadside shots)...expanded and all.
481
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,415
Geckgo: said:My little penetration equation calls for 23-25" of penetration at the velocities listed for that bullet, another test to verify my results!!! Course, they don't actually show any ballistics stuff to demonstrate their 27", just nice to see things line up
G-
Having a sincere interest in all things both "mathematical" and "ballistic", I am inclined to inquire, "What equation might that be?"
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
From BB's site...
I am curious. Standard 230 gr. ball ammo, if to original spec, should run about 830 fps. How is BB getting higher velocities out of a heavier bullet along with deeper penetration and have it operate at standard .45 acp pressures?
How would you get better performance out of a shorter barrel because of higher tolerances and not exceed standard .45acp pressures?
I am curious. Standard 230 gr. ball ammo, if to original spec, should run about 830 fps. How is BB getting higher velocities out of a heavier bullet along with deeper penetration and have it operate at standard .45 acp pressures?
How would you get better performance out of a shorter barrel because of higher tolerances and not exceed standard .45acp pressures?
Geckgo
Member
481,
I got bored offshore one day and with a background in physics I took off with a couple assumptions and derrived an equation for calculating relative penetration in balistics gel. Then calibrated it by putting in the requirements for the FBI bb and adjusting to coefficient until the right penetration was reached. Now in testing, I'm going to post it on my website in a blog entry when I feel more confident in it. For now, every time I run across a gel test I run my equation side by side with it, it's always within an inch or two, except for one "test" that came out funny, but I can't even remember what test it was anymore. PM for more details, no need to hi-jack the thread.
I got bored offshore one day and with a background in physics I took off with a couple assumptions and derrived an equation for calculating relative penetration in balistics gel. Then calibrated it by putting in the requirements for the FBI bb and adjusting to coefficient until the right penetration was reached. Now in testing, I'm going to post it on my website in a blog entry when I feel more confident in it. For now, every time I run across a gel test I run my equation side by side with it, it's always within an inch or two, except for one "test" that came out funny, but I can't even remember what test it was anymore. PM for more details, no need to hi-jack the thread.
I wonder about this myself!
If the standard pressure is merely a peak pressure, then hotter loads can be made by generating more gas in a way that ensures that the pressure stays closer to the peak pressure for longer without ever exceeding it. Think of it as having a pressure curve that covers a greater area of the graph even though it is limited by the same maximum value.
Ideally, for maximum power I suppose that a load would reach peak pressure very quickly and stay right there until the bullet exits the barrel. In reality, this probably cannot be accomplished by a single type of propellant that is simply poured into the case. A fast powder reaches peak pressure so quickly that you can only use so much of it, and that means the pressure may drop quickly while the bullet is still in the barrel, wasting potential. A slow powder builds pressure more gradually and can often trade off a louder blast and brighter flash for extra power even in handguns, but one needs enough case capacity and barrel length to take full advantage of it, and even in that case potential is wasted at the beginning of the pressure curve. In order to more precisely control the pressure curve (usually to achieve "progressive burning" in addition to an early peak), one could vary the physical geometry of the propellant (e.g. grains, balls, rods, perforated cylinders, etc.) or use a carefully designed mix of two or more different propellants, the former technique being common in artillery shells and the latter undoubtedly being more common in some of the hottest personal firearm loads.
Perhaps the newer barrels, like the test barrels at the ammo factory, actually reach or get close to the standard pressure, while the older barrels leak so much gas that they never actually do. Just a theoretical guess.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
If this is the case, then I am guessing recoil is going to be more substantial than just a simple +P comparison. I would also bet that muzzle flash is going to be substantial as well unless they have figured out some magic formula for extending the period of standard pressure without exceeding it and also have a way to stop the poweder from burning quicker.
Perhaps, or perhaps it is just all mathematical and nobody actually verified the pressures in the barrels.
It all just seems a little too good. Maybe it is actually as claimed and if so, it sounds terrific, but isn't exactly "standard hardball" as indicated in the thread's title.
I think a detailed study would reveal that "standard pressure" on most of the ammo we think of fondly is far below SAAMI limits. This is where the likes of DT and BB step in and load up to limits or standards and employ the tricks mentioned, like longer dwell time at standard pressure, etc.
With the right equipment, this is very easy to quantify. And I'm sure that DT and BB employ this equipment in their load developments.
The momentum of the bullet will be greater, so naturally the recoil impulse will be greater in equal measure. However, a lower pressure load may feel less "snappy" to some, depending on how individuals perceive recoil.
With all of the additional gas generated from a more energetic load, I'd expect a greater blast & flash. Flash can be controlled to some degree by adding flash suppressant compounds, but it still may have more flash than standard loads.
Hot loads are not too good to be true, they just take more effort to design (and require specific propellants, whereas this can vary in commercial ammunition based on market price), require additional precision in loading, and involve well understood trade-offs such as greater recoil and blast & flash. Sometimes the trade-offs are a bit downplayed, but then again we're not talking about huge differences in most cases.
It's quite possible, and such conservative loading would have a greater safety margin, especially if their tolerances for powder charge are a bit loose. It should go without saying that one must be more careful when manufacturing hot loads, and with that comes additional cost. The latter is not an issue for handloaders who visually inspect each cartridge anyway, but is a big deal for factories that mass produce ammunition for public consumption.
Quote from the above website:
Wonder what makes them so sure about that?
If they've done ballistic testing, then they should show/give the results. Stating what to expect a bullet will do in "live flesh and bone" is just a little iffy.
Wonder what makes them so sure about that?
If they've done ballistic testing, then they should show/give the results. Stating what to expect a bullet will do in "live flesh and bone" is just a little iffy.
- Status
