9mm Defense rounds #2

[481]

Because water cannot be compressed it can never be a legitimate medium for bullet testing, nor can it be compared to gelatin tests or to predict performance in living tissue.

k,

Actually water has already been long proven to be an acceptable ballistic test medium.

The FBI uses it as a screening medium as described in, "Applied Wound Ballistics: What’s New and What’s True":

Water can be used as a tissue simulant and causes just slightly more bullet deformation than gelatin or soap; the Firearms Training Unit of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation uses it as a screening mechanism to decide which bullets expand well enough to merit further scrutiny.

In Chapter 2 of Quantitative Ammunition Selection, Schwartz describes the physics (re: bulk modulus, internal speed of sound, density) that show water to be a dynamically equivalent ballistic test medium to ordnance gelatin-

From the website:

Chapter 2 addresses the principles of mechanics, fluid dynamics, and thermodynamics underlying the quantitative model and establishes the dynamic equivalence of water and calibrated ordnance gelatin as ballistic test mediums.

- and MacPherson discusses the issue at length devoting the whole of Chapter 7 of Bullet Penetration and also specifies an optional test method using water in Chapter 10.

Both models (in QAS and BP) can be, and have been, used to predict successfully and accurately the ballistic performance of bullets in ordnance gelatin using water as a test medium.

According to the QAS website, that specific model was developed using data from over 700 gelatin tests and is as accurate as one could expect-

Based upon a modified fluid dynamics equation that correlates highly (r = +0.94) to more than 700 points of manufacturer- and laboratory-test data, the quantitative model allows the use of water to generate terminal ballistic test results equivalent to those obtained in calibrated ten percent ordnance gelatin. Besides including a variable for the density of soft tissue, the quantitative model employs a material strength variable within its governing expression that allows for the computational evaluation of any type of soft tissue. Within a confidence interval of 95%, the quantitative model predicts the terminal penetration depth of projectiles in calibrated ordnance gelatin with a margin of error of one centimeter. The quantitative model accurately predicts the permanent wound cavity volume and mass, terminal penetration depth, and exit velocity of handgun projectiles as these phenomena would occur in calibrated ten percent ordnance gelatin and soft tissue.

 

[481]

481,

Yess, I would like to see your results on the 115gr rounds.

Thanks.

Sure-














Here is the Schwartz analysis for this test:

WinchesterUSA 9mm 115 gr. JHP (USA9JHP) v. four layers of 2 ounce cotton fabric

Recovered Projectile Data:
Average Recovered Diameter: 0.551 inch (1.555x caliber)
Retained Mass: 115 grains
Impact Velocity: 1172 feet per second

Predicted Performance:
Penetration Depth (S) = 33.198 centimeters (13.070 inches)
Permanent Wound Cavity Mass (MPC) = 43.508 grams (1.535 ounces)

 

[kokapelli]

481 the fact that the FBI only uses water as a preliminary test medium and that Ballistic Gelatin is used to determine how a bullet will actually perform in the field is exactly my point. Water simply does not determine how a bullet will function in tissue nearly as well as Gelatin.

The people that quote water tests in these forums just assume that if the bullet expands in water it will expand in tissue and that is simply not always the case.

Until something better comes along I'll stick with gelatin tests.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

I like standard pressure 147-gr. Winchester Ranger Bonded or Federal HST. Good penetration, decent expansion, and mild recoil compared to my former 127-gr. +P+ load.

 

[481]

481 the fact that the FBI only uses water as a preliminary test medium and that Ballistic Gelatin is used to determine how a bullet will actually perform in the field is exactly my point. Water simply does not determine how a bullet will function in tissue nearly as well as Gelatin.

The people that quote water tests in these forums just assume that if the bullet expands in water it will expand in tissue and that is simply not always the case.

Until something better comes along I'll stick with gelatin tests.

Actually, I don't see water as proof that the bullet will expand in gelatin, but rather as a negative discriminatory instrument- that is, if it won't expand in water, it probably won't expand in gelatin.

Since I have no desire to argue proven physics with you, I'll just leave it at this...

The munitions engineers, ballisticians, and their research on the dynamic equivalence of water and ordnance gelatin is thorough, accurate, and supported by numerous highly correlated data.

Taken from here refering specifically to the QAS model- http://quantitativeammunitionselection.com/endorsements_-_faq

"I believe this model to be viable, logically deduced, and no more complicated than it should be for its intended purpose. It offers the armed professional a method of acquiring vital information about the performance of his/her own self-defense ammunition, shot from his/her own handgun, without the expense and complications of full-scale laboratory tests."
-Mr. Thomas Johansson, Development Engineer
CBJ Tech AB, Kungsbacka, Sweden

Although I acknowledge your right to disregard all of these works, it is of no consequence to those bodies of research and the proven methodology therein- they still remain quite valid.

 

[BSA1]

While Internet discussions and really cool videos of shooting things are informative they are meaningless until you test your ammunition in your gun. It is not hard to sit up test media, (clothing, water jugs, blocks of ice, sheetrook, 2x4's), of materials you will commonly encounter in the real world.

Plus shooting things is fun.

 

[9mmforMe]

Thanks 481...impressive.

Kokapelli,
Though I agree that the gel is the standard, I think we need to consider the use of water as well. Both are useful and both still only approximate results found if an actual person were to be shot given the varied composition of the human body. Very helpful, yes...definitive, no.

Both you guys certainly know more than I, and thanks for your continued input.

 

[otasan56]

Don't forget CorBon.

 

[481]

Thanks 481...impressive.

No problem.

If you haven't read the books (Quantitative Ammunition Selection and Bullet Penetration) that I've mentioned, I recommend both of them highly.

I have also tested the 9mm Hornady 147 gr. XTP (a couple of times) and the 9mm Winchester 147 gr PDX1 in water if you wish to have a look at those test results.

 

[Godsgunman]

Alright, not sure if I'll be tarred and feathered for this or not, but I'm not a big fan of the "FBI standard testing". Sure the calibrated gelatin probably gives a decent enough representation of soft tissue penetration. For me personally that doesn't mean much. I would like to see more data with rib/bone penetration. Lets face it, if you hit where you are taught (COM) then the bullet will most likely have to penetrate sternum and/or ribs plus far enough to severly damage the heart or lungs. From the small testing that I have done personally has lead me to the conclusion that while the ideal is to have both good expansion and penetration, I lean more towards the penetration factor. I have learned through my own testing through my main carry gun that Hornady XTP for instance is not a good choice for me, great expansion but to little penetration for my likings.
The data we get from the FBI and similar tests are good for what they are worth. The best advise I can say is to do your own tests and see what works best for what you want it to accomplish with the gun you will be using it in.

 

[mavracer]

I look at it this way Winchester Ranger T series will expand consistantly through a wider range of medium and a wider range of velocity than WWWB. So no matter how often WWWB will work, Rangers will work more often.
It's not the odds that matters here it's the stakes.

 

[mavracer]

Alright, not sure if I'll be tarred and feathered for this or not, but I'm not a big fan of the "FBI standard testing". Sure the calibrated gelatin probably gives a decent enough representation of soft tissue penetration. For me personally that doesn't mean much. I would like to see more data with rib/bone penetration.

You do realize that FBI testing includes putting several other medium in front of said gel.

 

[481]

Here is the Schwartz analysis for this test:

Winchester 9mm 147 gr. PDX1 JHP v. four layers of 2 ounce cotton fabric

Recovered Projectile Data:
Average Recovered Diameter: 0.579 inch (1.634x caliber)
Retained Mass: 146.9 grains
Impact Velocity: 1006 feet per second

Predicted Performance:
Penetration Depth (S) = 34.483 centimeters (13.576 inches)
Permanent Wound Cavity Mass (MPC) = 49.902 grams (1.760 ounces)




ETA: This bullet is the same bullet that Winchester loads in the Winchester Ranger 147 gr Bonded JHP (RA9B).

 

[481]

I look at it this way Winchester Ranger T series will expand consistantly through a wider range of medium and a wider range of velocity than WWWB. So no matter how often WWWB will work, Rangers will work more often.
It's not the odds that matters here it's the stakes.

mav,

Guessing that the Ranger "T" stuff appeals to you, here are the water test results of the Winchester 9mm 147 gr Ranger T-






-and the Schwartz model analysis for this test:

Winchester Ranger Talon 9mm 147 gr. JHP v. four layers of 2 ounce cotton fabric

Recovered Projectile Data:
Average Recovered Diameter: 0.497 inch (1.403x caliber)
Retained Mass: 141.4 grains
Impact Velocity: 1085 feet per second

Predicted Performance:
Penetration Depth (S) = 48.869 centimeters (19.240 inches)
Permanent Wound Cavity Mass (MPC) = 52.108 grams (1.838 ounces)


Hope you like it.

 

[KMB]

I have also tested the 9mm Hornady 147 gr. XTP

I would like to see your test results for the 147gr. XTP's. I will be carrying 147gr. rounds in my Gen 4 G17.

 

[tuj]

Check out ASYM Precision's (Stan Chen's company) 9mm loads. They have an SDX 115 +P offering that I'm using in my defense gun. I also use their competition loads in my bullseye guns and they are very very good.

http://store.chencustom.com/category_s/113.htm

 

[9mmforMe]

I'd like to see as many 9mm tests you feel like posting, 481, if thats not asking too much, you seem to be doing your homework quite well.


Godsgunman, you've got a good point there with regard to the FBI tests.

 

[Godsgunman]

Hey mavracer,
Do you know where I can see such data of the FBI tests with bone material? I would appreciate it. I have only seen bare gelatin and gelatin with denim results. Thanks

481,
What barrel length are your tests done with?

 

[481]

I'd like to see as many 9mm tests you feel like posting, 481, if thats not asking too much, you seem to be doing your homework quite well.

OK, I have a few that are ready to post.

 

[9mmforMe]

Thanks 481, and I"ll look into those two books you recommended.

 

[481]

I would like to see your test results for the 147gr. XTP's. I will be carrying 147gr. rounds in my Gen 4 G17.

KMB,

Sure.

I have three tests for the 9mm 147 gr. XTP, so here is the first one-





The Schwartz model analysis for this test:

Hornady 9mm 147 gr. XTP JHP v. four layers of 2 ounce cotton fabric

Recovered Projectile Data:
Average Recovered Diameter: 0.493 inch (1.391x caliber)
Retained Mass: 146.0 grains
Impact Velocity: 998 feet per second

Predicted Performance:
Penetration Depth (S) = 48.711 centimeters (19.178 inches)
Permanent Wound Cavity Mass (MPC) = 51.106 grams (1.803 ounces)

 

[mavracer]

Do you know where I can see such data of the FBI tests with bone material?

FBI doesn't use bone although I've seen brassfetcher uses a bone simulated material.
in addition to the bare and heavy clothing test FBI protocol uses auto glass, plywood, sheet rock and sheet metal I think there are 10 total tests. I figure if it'll go through laminated auto glass a rib would be easy.

 

[481]

I would like to see your test results for the 147gr. XTP's. I will be carrying 147gr. rounds in my Gen 4 G17.

Here is the second one-







The Schwartz model analysis for this test:

Hornady 9mm 147 gr. XTP JHP v. four layers of 2 ounce cotton fabric

Recovered Projectile Data:
Average Recovered Diameter: 0.523 inch (1.476x caliber)
Retained Mass: 142.8 grains
Impact Velocity: 1014 feet per second

Predicted Performance:
Penetration Depth (S) = 42.230 centimeters (16.626 inches)
Permanent Wound Cavity Mass (MPC) = 49.863 grams (1.759 ounces)

 

[481]

I would like to see your test results for the 147gr. XTP's. I will be carrying 147gr. rounds in my Gen 4 G17.

And here is the third one, KMB...







The Schwartz model analysis for this test:

Hornady 9mm 147 gr. XTP JHP v. four layers of 2 ounce cotton fabric

Recovered Projectile Data:
Average Recovered Diameter: 0.550 inch (1.552x caliber)
Retained Mass: 146.6 grains
Impact Velocity: 991.9 feet per second

Predicted Performance:
Penetration Depth (S) = 38.214 centimeters (15.045 inches)
Permanent Wound Cavity Mass (MPC) = 49.900 grams (1.760 ounces)

 

[481]

481,
What barrel length are your tests done with?

All of my tests are done with a Gen 3 Glock 17- so barrel length is 4.49 inches.