My own desert o' truth. 9mm ammo test.

Status
Not open for further replies.
You seem obsessed with penetration. This being the case then by all means go with the 147s. They always punch deeper than the 115s due to mass and inertia and all that Newtonian theory stuff.

But in testing they tend to not expand worth a dang in living tissue. Again, you mention the desire for penetration several times so I wonder why even bother with HPs at all? FMJ is the way to go for deep penetration.
 
cowssurf, you are taking the snide comments on this site very well. You are my hero for the day. Thanks for posting your test results. Any of the other [censored] guys who are giving you a hard time want to spend the time to do a test like that, let them. I've got to check out those Fiocchis. I also like that the Magtech JHPs are much cheaper than Golden Sabre. I wonder how they penetrate. Maybe somebody here can do a test.
 
Physics?

anybody had any experience with 9mm Hornady Custom 147gr JHP/XTP ?

I just ordered some, figured the heavier the weight the better, but so far in this thread it is not sounding that way.


I also got Hornady .38 Special (std pressure), 158-Grain JHP/XTP, 800 fps. anyone know anything about that?



How do you determine what is a "good" bullet weight for a particular round? when is it too heavy? or too light?

:confused:
 
Saxonpig:Why do want the 147 grain bullet? IMO too heavy for the caliber. The 9x19 was designed around the 115 grain bullet and I think this is still the best balance between speed and mass for the caliber.
Click to expand...

If memory serves the original 9mm loading was a 127grain TCMJ @ around 1400fps. SAAMI downloaded it because of the cheap Italian blowback pistols brought back from the big one.

I favor Ranger 127 grain +P+ HPs . They make a gallon jug vanish.
 
C-D-P, you said: "That is a good thing. But at the same time. Many ammo companies do conduct both tests in gel, and live animal testing. Check them out before you set on a round."

I've never heard of an ammo company shooting live animals to test their ammo. Which of the many ammo companies have done this? I must admit, I find it repulsive.
 
SaxonPig, allow me to respond to you again.

"You seem obsessed with penetration."

I don't know. Maybe. I think I'm more obsessed with responding to your posts.

"This being the case then by all means go with the 147s."

Done deal.

"They always punch deeper than the 115s due to mass and inertia and all that Newtonian theory stuff."

Good.

"But in testing they tend to not expand worth a dang in living tissue."

Crap. That sucks. (I have to say though, that those kinds of tests sound a little like homicide. Unless the tests are on animals, in which case, I'd like to know which animals, and which orginization did the tests with the 147 grain JHP in 9mm in this living animal tissue.) Nevertheless, I'm still going to go with them because:

"Again, you mention the desire for penetration several times so I wonder why even bother with HPs at all?"

Hey, I like that.

"FMJ is the way to go for deep penetration."

Forget it. I'm going to get a harpoon gun.
 
SaxonPig, I'm ready for our third installment.

"Not sure why you want to bother testing ammo at all."

Oh boy. Wow. Perhaps you've only been to shooting ranges. Well let me share the joy with you. Having a vast desert for a legal plinking ground is the most fantastic gift for a gun owner. I can't think of a time when I haven't tested ammo when I go shooting in the desert. I love it. Love, love, love it. I don't know who wouldn't love it. I've tested ammo on tires, potatos, huge drum barrels. computer parts, tvs, speakers. It's a blast, and SaxonPig, if you ever have a chance to plink outside the range, I highly recommend it. So I guess that's my answer to the question. I do it for the intrinsic joy of shooting things.

"It's already been done many times and the results can often be found on the Internet."

I know, and every time I read about those tests, I've thought, I'd love to try that.

"I found several such sites with ease."

I love Google.

"I note in the first tests that although the 147s did expand, the 115s actually penetrated slighter more."

It sounds like your original premise just got flip-flopped, and I need to shoot the rest of my hunk of junk 147s and buy as many of your 115s as I can so I can get back to penetrating and testing ammo in the dessert. Actually, though, I'm just a dumb idiot, and I'll probably keep my 147 grains.
 
Cowssurf said
I've never heard of an ammo company shooting live animals to test their ammo. Which of the many ammo companies have done this? I must admit, I find it repulsive.
Click to expand...

Sorry, maybe I misspoke. A few ammo companies do test with live animal. But a majority of thoes who do test with them are DOD, and independant mediums, like tactical works.

Some of the companies that have used live animal testing; Lemas (yeah they were selling snake oil), Hornady Michigan ammo company, and a few others.

My next question is not intended as an attack. I am just trying to understand your stance on it being repulsive. Are you a vegetarian or vegan?

Know that (AFAIK, and from what I have heard) when conducting these tests, they use the hogs that could not be sold to market for various reasons such as illness, deformities, and any one of the other million reasons they are not fit for human consumption.

Live animal testing is the best medium for terminal ballistics testing, and by killing a couple 200 pound hogs, the knowledge gained may just provide you with a better round that is the difference between killing the badguy, and him killing you.
 
Thanks for the info Cowssurf, and putting up with the peanut gallery:). I will have to check out those Fiocchi rounds-sound promising. I wish I had the desert to test in, I can't put out water jugs at a local range.

Two friends of mine did some similar informal testing with wet phone books on some 9mm hollowpoints. I will see if I can dig up more info, but their conclusion was Hydra-Shok had inconsistent expansion, but Ranger T and Gold Dot bullets expanded very consistently
 
C-D-P,

I'm not at all vegetarian. I like meat a lot. That's why I don't criticize hunters, although I personally don't want to do it.

I can see where you're coming from with your last argument. I guess where I'm coming from is this: if you had a brother on deathrow (heaven forbid obviously, but stay with me), would you rather he die by lethal injection, or get a gutshot, and then be dispatched afterwards? My view is, if we can be more human in killing, I do think it is less barbaric.

All that said, I can still see your point about the value of it. Still, I wonder if ballistic gelatin is more representative of human flesh than animal flesh is. Again I said I wonder. I honestly don't know the answer to that.

Ultimately though, beyond my personal feelings, I was surprised, and quite frankly, didn't believe any of the major manufacturers would ever engage in that kind of testing in the modern world--for political reasons if for nothing else.
 
Two Pistol Packer at www.ktog.org has done extensive 9mm "wetpack" testing. He and others have found the Winchester "Personal Protection", aka "white box" offer good performance, especially for a value brand.
His tests also seem to indicate that the Rem/UMC JHPs penetrate well but expanded poorly.
I believe he has also done some .380 testing.
 
[qutoe]I can see where you're coming from with your last argument. I guess where I'm coming from is this: if you had a brother on deathrow (heaven forbid obviously, but stay with me), would you rather he die by lethal injection, or get a gutshot, and then be dispatched afterwards? My view is, if we can be more human in killing, I do think it is less barbaric.[/quote]

I hear ya, and can respect your view on it. But do not agree with your comparison. My brother is a human, a hog is a hog. AFAIK they are testing with vital organ hits. So a gut shot would be a rarity. They are trying to be more efficient.

All that said, I can still see your point about the value of it. Still, I wonder if ballistic gelatin is more representative of human flesh than animal flesh is. Again I said I wonder. I honestly don't know the answer to that.
Click to expand...

It is recognized by medical professionals that hog skin and flesh is the closest representation of any animal save some species of monkey.

Ultimately though, beyond my personal feelings, I was surprised, and quite frankly, didn't believe any of the major manufacturers would ever engage in that kind of testing in the modern world--for political reasons if for nothing else.
Click to expand...

Major manufactures are in the business of making quality rounds, a better testing medium was needed. Not everyone in the world worries about being PC. And yes, there was a huge outcry when Lemas was started their live animal trials. They did it anyway. I guess they figure that their customers don’t care about PETA.

I know that this subject may be somewhat emotionally charged. I am not trying to offend anyone, I am just a blunt person.
 
I've read many places that most of what is said about 9mm, especially the nonsense about 147gr not expanding, is old information. Buy yourself any modern (HydraShok is not modern) premium ammo that you can shoot comfortably and wel and don't worry about the specific ballistics. But if you want to have some fun, shoot some soda bottles - with soda in them- they make a WONDERFUL mess!

Be Safe
 
C-D-P,

No worries, I'm very difficult to offend, and you didn't offend me. I also agree that a human is a human and a hog is a hog. I was just trying to illustrate my point a little. And I think the whole point of treating an animal humanely is trying to empathize with it a little, although in no way to I consider animal lives to be as important as human lives. I'm not an animal nut. I don't even think I'd consider myself an animal lover. I think I'd consider myself an animal liker.

As far as my quote about the major manufacturers, I'm still wondering. I thought I heard Hornady. I didn't hear of any others that were familiar to me. The biggest of course are Remington, Federal, Winchester. Have they engaged in live animal testing of their ammo?
 
Obviously raising questions and making observations is not allowed. So I will take my "snide comments" elsewhere.

Signed,
The Peanut Gallery
 
"As far as my quote about the major manufacturers, I'm still wondering. I thought I heard Hornady. I didn't hear of any others that were familiar to me. The biggest of course are Remington, Federal, Winchester. Have they engaged in live animal testing of their ammo?"

Not to my knowledge.
 
Yeah, I wouldn't think so. I would think they would consider it a PR nightmare.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Browning
  • Locked
Federal Syntech Defense SJHP 9mm 138 grain
Replies
13
Views
3K
gotboostvr
gotboostvr
D
  • Locked
A very small test
Replies
14
Views
1K
hoptob
H
B
  • Locked
I tested 5 different 9mm JHP at the range
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
W.E.G.
W.E.G.
K
  • Locked
Fiocchi 9mm maroon box ammo vs blue box ammo
Replies
9
Views
3K
PeteRR
P
luzyfuerza
SD Ammo Tests Through 442, LCR, and 856
Replies
12
Views
909
aaaaa
aaaaa
Back
Top