Analysis of Lucky Gunner's Handgun Test Data

[Propforce]

I am a data geek so I could not help myself when I found the handgun test data on various ammo brands penetration & expansion by Lucky Gunner. I have "rearranged" the data format to make it more clear for me on what it means. Perhaps others on this board will find it useful for their ammo selections. I will be posting data from 5 different calibers, .38 SPCL, .357Magnum, 9mm, .40S&W, and .45ACP.

*edit* my definition of % expansion. It is the additional diameter increase as result of bullet expansion. So if its a 75% expansion, the expanded bullet diameter is 1.75X of the original diameter.

The original test data and its test methodologies can be found on this link
http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/

Let's start with the 9mm. The gun used for testing was the Smith & Wesson M&P9c, 3.5-inch barrel. The result could vary and be more favorable if you use a longer barrel.

A little explanation is needed. I rearranged the data to sort out +P vs non-+P and by ammo weight. I also bold face the ammo that achieved 75% of its expansion from the original diameter (an arbitrary criterion on my part). Lucky Gunner stated ".. One commonly used threshold is an expanded diameter at least 1.5 times the original diameter, but that’s far from universal...". The penetration criterion Lucky Gunner chose was the FBI standard recommended penetration depth of 12-18″. Those with an * show they retained less than 85% of their original weight on average so their data were not counted.

My observation of the table:
1). Out of 52 different ammo tested, only 8 of them have expanded 75% or greater.3 of them are +P and 5 of them are non- +P

2). +P ammo did not achieve better expansion than the non +P ammo. Since penetration between 12-18" are considered adequate, they were not counted as a decision factor.

3). +P ammo did well with lighter weights, 115 and 124 gr., but not with the heavier weight such as the 147 gr.

4). Non +P ammo did well on either end of weight, 115 and 147 gr, but not in the middle, e.g., 124 gr.

5). This will probably be controversial. I consider if I carry the 9mm, what ammo would achieve the same 75% expansion diameter of a 45ACP (at 0.79 in), or of a 40S&W (at 0.7 in). I found zero 9mm ammo that can match the 45 ACP expansion, but 3 of which could match the 40S&W expansion diameter. Amazingly, one of them is at the lighter end of ammo weight, Barnes 115 gr TAC-XPD +P , and the other two are at the higher end but non +P, Remington 147 gr Golden Saber and Federal 150 gr Micro HST. But one must trade this against the benefits of higher capacity and lower recoil a 9mm brings.

Of course, this is only one test conducted by a company. It is not a definitive conclusion. Let us keep an open mind on what this means. I will update with other caliber test results. But I've found all these very interesting.

 

[Propforce]

Now on to the 40S&W


My observations:
1) Out of 40 ammo tested, 13 of them achieved 75% expansion or greater. This is significantly higher than the 9mm ammo.

2). No +P ammo was tested.

3). More of the heavier 40S&W ammo expanded. 9 of the 13 are the 180 gr weight. 3 of the 13 are the 165 gr., and 1 of the 13 is at the light end at 140 gr.

4). Same question, if I was the carry 40S&W, which ammo can achieve the 45ACP at 75% expansion diameter (0.79 in.)? There were only 2, both are 180 gr. Golden Saber, one is the ultimate defense. But the 180 gr Golden Saber bonded is just 0.01 inch shy of this arbitrary criterion. Again, one needs to decide for himself/ herself on recoil and ammo capacity.

5). Another controversial thought. Many pro 9mm folks talked about how the hollow point (HP) technologies have improved in the last 30 years, obviously those technology improvements have applied to the 40S&W as well. In fact, more 40s expanded greater than 75% than the 9 (13 of them vs. 8) and with less number of ammo tested as well (40 vs. 52).

 

[Propforce]

Now onto the 45 ACP.



My observations:
1) Out of 35 ammo tested, only 5 of them can achieve 75% expansion or greater (but these are BIG holes!). One of them achieved an expansion to 1 inch, the other to 0.99 inch.

2) +P seems to help the 45 ACP to achieve its expansion. 3 out of 5 were +P ammos.

3). All 5 that achieved 75% expansion or greater are in the 230 gr. weight class. +P and non +P.

4). I don't know why they used a short-barrel gun for testing, the Kahr CW45, 3.64-inch barrel, presumably more people are interested in a CCW. But more ammo choice could achieve better expansion if a longer barrel is used.

5). Two old "work horse" ammo, the Federal HST and the Winchester Ranger T, are still the "king" in 45 ACP caliber. Both of them achieved impressive expansions.

 

[Propforce]

OK I am going to attempt summarizing what I see in these 3 popular calibers. Again, these are my opinions only. They are not gospel. Feel free to comment to any of them but please don't get into a pi$$ing contest just because I may not like your favor ammo or caliber of choice.

1) When it comes to punching big holes, 45 ACP is still the king. 9mm can not expand to what the 45 ACP can expand. The 45 ACP still expands better than what the 40 S&W can do.

2). For non +P ammo, the heavier in each caliber still expand better, i.e., 147 gr in 9mm, 180 gr in 40 S&W, and the 230 gr. in 45 ACP.

3) The FBI penetration criteria is for 2-legged soft pink flesh varmints. It will be a different criteria for tough-skinned 4-legged creatures.

4). For me, this data provides me with a "shopping guide" for each caliber. I become a "smarter buyer" as result.

Again, this is only one test series performed by one company. Great data nevertheless, the results are in no way definitive. We all must judge for ourselves. We all need to trade terminal performance against size, recoil and capacity. The writer for Lucky Gunner was smart and careful not to reach any conclusion. Since I am not selling anything, I am therefore free to express my "observations". I own all 3 popular semi-auto calibers so I am not looking to eliminate any of them.

 

[pblanc]

If you look at the Lucky Gunner ballistic gel testing, you find that the best .45 ACP JHP loads expand to .85-1.00" diameter. The best 9 mm Luger JHPs expand to .65-.74" diameter. The difference is .20-.26".

The difference in non-expanded diameter for 9 mm Luger FMJ (.355") and .45 ACP (.45") is a tad less than .10". If you gave someone a 9 mm Luger cartridge and a .45 ACP cartridge for comparison, the vast majority would say the .45 ACP projectile is significantly larger in diameter. Yet we are talking about a difference in expanded diameter between the two of as much as 2 1/2 times that difference, or more.

There is also a fairly widely held perception, rightly or wrongly, that if one is limited to FMJ ammunition, .45 ACP has significantly greater wounding potential than 9 mm Luger. Now, if you subscribe to that notion, how could a difference in expanded diameter of up to 2 1/2 times greater not be of significance when it comes to wounding potential?

 

[Propforce]

Interesting observations PBlanc,

Here's another perspective I want to throw at you. If we go with the FMJ on both 9mm and 45ACP, in the 1980s too many PD saw Perts hit with the 9mm would not go down. Yet we have many veterans swearing by the 45 ACP from their personal experience even if it's FMJ. It has probably saved their hides a few times.

But the difference is only 0.1" in diameter!!! How do you explain the difference in effectiveness between the 2 calibers?

I think there are other factors than just the 0.1" difference but I only have "speculation" but not evidence. I think the difference is mass. A 230 grain retains its energy better and destroys bones & damages muscles much more so than a 115 gr. But that's just a theory. Is the 115 gr enough to damage muscles, tear apart blood vessels and causes Perts to stop? I am sure there are plenty of data that would say yes. But maybe the 9mm is only good if using the hollow points.

Everything being equal, I am a big believer the bigger the expansion the higher probability it will cause bigger damage. But when it comes to choosing a caliber, there are other mitigating factors such as shot placement, capacity, follow-up shots, etc. The 9mm may not expands as big as the 45, but if you hits where it counts and the bullet stops the Perts, plus you can hit with multiple shots or deal with multiple hostiles. That's all it matters.

So perhaps others with insights can chime in?

 

[JohnBiltz]

There is a lot more to it than just expansion in gel. I'm guessing all the test data is from 5 inch barrels. Not many people carrying a gun with a five inch barrel. You don't list penetration. I carry 125g +P Gold Dots which gives pretty good expansion and penetration even out of a 3 inch barrel. It also has a track record in real world police shootings. Gel testing may be the best testing medium we have but its far from perfect. I'm not going to buy separate rounds for my G17 and my G26, I'm going to get something that will work in both with the preference going to my carry.

 

[JohnKSa]

Here's a thought experiment.

The goal is to destroy a battleship. One must choose one of two deck guns. One destroys 0.08% of the battleship's weight when it makes a hit, the other destroys 0.12% with each hit. There are 12 shells for the first gun and 8 for the other. Assume that half the shots hit.

What effect will cannon choice make on how often the battleship is disabled?

 

[AZAndy]

There is a lot more to it than just expansion in gel. I'm guessing all the test data is from 5 inch barrels.

No, they used common carry-length barrels:
.380-- 3.25"
9mm-- 3.5"
.40-- 3.4"
.45-- 3.6"

In their .38 and .357 tests, they used both 2" and 4" for each load.

 

[Haxby]

Over the last 50 years there have been lots of well financed handgun ammunition tests done by a number of major law enforcement and military organizations. I've seen references to tests performed by, or financed by, the FBI, DOJ, Army, Navy, Air Force, Treasury Department, and by police departments in several US States, as well as in Europe and Canada.
As far as I know, none of those tests tracked bullet expansion. They test for penetration in gel, or for energy lost by the bullet going through a section of gel.
Almost all bullets that meet the desired criteria are expanding hollowpoints, but it is the energy and the (limited) penetration, not the amount of bullet deformation, that predict a round's effectiveness.
The 38 wadcutter looked OK in the Lucky Gunner test, and the Polycase ARX looks OK in some other tests, without expansion or over-penetration.

 

[tipoc]

No, they used common carry-length barrels:
.380-- 3.25"
9mm-- 3.5"
.40-- 3.4"
.45-- 3.6"

In their .38 and .357 tests, they used both 2" and 4" for each load.

Thanks for rearranging and posting the data.

These are sub compact barrel lengths. In the figures above, post #1, the length of the 9mm barrel is not given nor the type of gun (I looked at LG and it's a S&W M&P 9C). That information is provided for the 40 S&W (the sub compact Glock 27), and for the 45 acp (Kahr CW45). I think that this information is an interesting proviso and wonder if the results would vary with an extra inch or so of barrel (the Glock 19 has a 4.01" barrel)...probably not enough to shout about. Meaning the overall picture would remain roughly the same.

Interesting to note the differences in muzzle velocity +P to non +P. In the case of the 9mm some +P is slower at the same bullet weight than standard velocity. This may be related to barrel length but should be noted. +P doesn't always give you what you want it to. It does not automatically correlate to added penetration and expansion.

One added factor: While LG presents it's data in a very accessible form it uses clear synthetic gelatin that is not calibrated block to block. In the FBI, law enforcement and military tests ordnance gelatin is used and each block is calibrated to ensure some uniformity of one block to the next. Law enforcement uses 10% ballistic gelatin and the military 20%. A comparison of the data from LG and that from Brass Fetcher where they use ordnance gel and calibrate it, could be useful.

http://www.brassfetcher.com/Handguns/9mm Luger/9mm Luger.html

The great advance and achievement of ballistic gel is that it allows manufacturers anywhere to construct a better bullet that can meet specific criteria relating to barrier penetration and expansion. It won't tell you how the bullets work in reality. But nothing can do that in advance. It does make it easier to select a bullet more likely to do what we want it to though.

All in all though the information is useful and readable thanks for the effort!

tipoc

 

[AZAndy]

Thanks for rearranging and posting the data.

I'll gladly take credit, but Propforce did the work that starts the thread.

 

[Sistema1927]

I'm guessing all the test data is from 5 inch barrels.

You are guessing wrong. Lucky Gunner shows their test barrel lengths, and they are standard carry numbers. For example, in .38 Special and .357 magnum they published data from both 2" and 4".

 

[straightshooterjake]

I appreciate the effort put into analyzing these statistics, but there is a lot of information in the lucky gunner results that is not shown in the averages. Some rounds did not expand consistently, and these rounds may overpenetrate if they fail to expand. But even with inconsistent behavior, it is possible for the averages for these rounds to be pretty good after many rounds are averaged together.

So I think the averages are useful to identify which rounds deserve further examination. But then I examine the details of the penetration and the pictures of the expansion to find rounds that behave consistently. Some famous defensive rounds are prone plug up with clothing and sometimes fail to expand. The average performance for these rounds may look OK, but I prefer rounds with more consistent performance.

 

[Propforce]

I appreciate the effort put into analyzing these statistics, but there is a lot of information in the lucky gunner results that is not shown in the averages. Some rounds did not expand consistently, and these rounds may overpenetrate if they fail to expand. But even with inconsistent behavior, it is possible for the averages for these rounds to be pretty good after many rounds are averaged together.

So I think the averages are useful to identify which rounds deserve further examination. But then I examine the details of the penetration and the pictures of the expansion to find rounds that behave consistently. Some famous defensive rounds are prone plug up with clothing and sometimes fail to expand. The average performance for these rounds may look OK, but I prefer rounds with more consistent performance.

I agree with you. It is not my intent to replace LG's web data. I encourage everyone to go to their website and examine the original data. I am just trying to sort the data to where it makes sense to me, and hopefully others find it useful as well.

 

[Propforce]

OK onto the 357 magnum data.



My observations:

1) The test used same ammo and fired out of a 2 inch and a 4 inch barrels. This is to see the effects of barrel length.

2) Out of 20 ammo tested, 12 of them achieved 75% expansion.
But interestingly, 7 of them are from the short barrel (2-inch) and 5 of them are from the longer barrel (4-inch)

3) For the short barrel (2-inch), 5 of them are in the 125 gr. class, and 2 are in the 140 gr. class. None of the heavier ammo, 158 gr. achieved 75% expansion out of the 2-inch barrel.
Both Remington 125 gr Golden Saber and Remington 158 gr Semi-Jacketed Hollow Point expanded to 74% which is impressive but it's just 0.01" shy of my arbitrary standard of 75%.

3). For the 4-inch barrel, 2 out of 5 are in the 125 gr. class, and 3 out of 5 are in the 130 and 140 gr. class. Again, none of the heavier ammo, 158 gr. achieved 75% expansion out of the 4-inch barrel.
Both Remington 125 gr Golden Saber and Barnes 140 gr XPB VOR-TX expanded to 74% which is impressive but it's just 0.01" shy of my arbitrary standard of 75%.

4). Surprisingly, some ammo performed better in a 2-inch barrel instead of a 4-inch barrel.
Take the Remington 158 gr Semi-Jacketed Hollow Point for example, it expanded 74% in a 2-inch barrel but only expanded to 57% in a 4-inch barrel with a lower muzzle velocity as well.

5). None of the ammo tested could expand to the 45 ACP 75% expansion, 2 of them achieved 40 S&W 75% expansion, and 16 of them achieved 9mm 75% expansion.

6). Perhaps the most surprising observation to me was that more ammo expanded better from a 2-inch barrel. Maybe the ammo-makers are responding to the market demand for short-barrel powders.

7). OK this ought to be interesting. If I compare the 2-inch barrel 357 magnum performance with the 3.5 inch barrel 9mm performance, I see similarities. Take the 357 mag Remington 125 gr Golden Saber vs. the 9mm +P Remington 124 Golden Saber, for example.

327 mag Remington 125 gr Golden Saber 2-inch: expansion = 0.62 inch, MV= 1096 fps, penetration= 18.7 inch
327 mag Remington 125 gr Golden Saber 4-inch: expansion = 0.62 inch, MV= 1182 fps, penetration= 17.6 inch
9mm Remington 124 Golden Saber +P: expansion = 0.66 inch, MV= 1170 fps, penetration= 18.2 inch
9mm Remington 124 Golden Saber non +P: expansion = 0.43 inch, MV= 1114 fps, penetration= 17.5* inch
* = bullet weight retained less than 85%

One could argue that the +P 9mm can duplicate a short barrel 357 magnum and matching the 4-inch barrel performance.

 

[Propforce]

Finally, the 38 SPCL data



My observations:

1) The test used same ammo and fired out of a 2 inch and a 4 inch barrels. This is to see the effects of barrel length.

2) The test further divided to +P and non +P ammo.
11 ammo were tested in +P between a 2-inch and a 4-inch barrels (total of 22 tests).
7 ammo were tested in non +P between a 2-inch and a 4-inch barrels (total of 14 tests).

3). Out of 18 ammo tested, only 2 of them achieved 75% expansion.
One single ammo achieved that expansion in both the 2-inch and a 4-inch barrel. (Winchester 130 gr PDX1 Defender +P). The Remington 125 gr Golden Saber +P in a 2-inch barrel expanded to 74% which is impressive but it's just 0.01" shy of my arbitrary standard of 75%.

4). Some ammo performed better in a short barrel (2-inch). For example, the Remington 125 gr Golden Saber +P.

5). The so-called "FBI load" (158 gr LSWCHP +P) did not performed well at all. It was dismal in a 2-inch barrel and at best achieved 57% expansion in a 4-inch barrel. The Federal 158 gr LSWCHP +P in a 4-inch barrel achieved an impressive penetration (22.9 inches) but with essentially no expansion.

 

[AZAndy]

5). The so-called "FBI load" (158 gr LSWCHP +P) did not performed well at all. It was dismal in a 2-inch barrel and at best achieved 57% expansion in a 4-inch barrel. The Federal 158 gr LSWCHP +P in a 4-inch barrel achieved an impressive penetration (22.9 inches) but with essentially no expansion.

I was very disappointed by that. That load has always had a good reputation and I've seen it recommended frequently by revolver cognoscenti, here and elsewhere. Gold Dots likewise. Between one of my beloved .38s and a 9mm, I'll be choosing the 9mm nowadays.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

With the .38 Special I care less about expansion and more about adequate penetration. 50% expansion is plenty for me as long as it consistently hits 13"+.

 

[azrocks]

I personally don't worry much about how one bullet expands vs another in artificial test medium.

For one, artificial test medium is just that - artificial. It doesn't include bones, tissue-density changes, realistic clothing, or other variables, all of which could dramatically change a bullets behavior & stopping ability. Even if the medium weren't artificial, the inability to exactly duplicate one bullet path vs those tested would, to my mind, make any results questionable, at best. In a realistic shooting, chance plays as much a role of any controllable factor in determining what path a bullet or bullet fragments will take, and what impact they'll have.

I also think that focusing on expanded diameter - even if your aggressor was a chunk of ballistic gelatin - is splitting hairs. I place MUCH more emphasis on penetration differences - measured in inches - vs diameter changes measured in fractions of an inch. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Bullets that are designed to expand well naturally give up something to penetration, regardless of what bullet manufacturers may say to the contrary. In gelatin we can pretend that we can get just the right amount of expansion without sacrificing anything regarding penetration. But in reality, it's quite easy to stop a bullet from penetrating as far as would be ideal, particularly when its designed with expansion as the primary focus.

My idea of a perfect self-defense round is one that makes both an entry & exit wound, which means it has the greatest chance of encountering a structure (aka CNS) that's going to stop your attacker RFN. To that end, I try to favor the heaviest bullet weights in a particular caliber, driven as hard as possible within the bullet's performance limits and in delicate balance with controllability. Something with the mass & momentum to best overcome clothing, fat, bones, and (hopefully) make it to a vital nerve center necessary for an immediate stop. I don't care if I missed nicking a blood vessel that might cause the guy to bleed out 2 hours later. All I want is for them to stop - not die slowly. Heck - I'd rather they didn't die at all.

Note that this is all just my opinion, and as I'm only going off of what I rationalize to be true and not actual data, I could very well be 180-degrees in error. Thankfully - due to the nature of the beast - there will likely never be definitive proof (actual data) of what truly works the best in regards to handgun stopping power. So I'll never be proved wrong

I honestly think our disproportionate focus on bullet expansion was driven by manufacturers looking to make a buck. No way you're going to be able to sell SD ammo for $1 a round with the slogan "Our bullets have the most mass". Even with the pretty display-cases they come packaged in these days

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Interesting analysis. Some of the ammo I carry seems a little less desirable now, or I may at least think a little more carefully about which gun I carry what in. However, gel tests are exactly that, a test. They may not fully represent the actual effects of a bullet entering flesh. None the less, we need testing criteria.

Good thoughts in this thread.

 

[CDW4ME]

Interesting, thanks for sharing.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

And now on to the 10mm Auto?

 

[fastbolt]

I was very disappointed by that. That load has always had a good reputation and I've seen it recommended frequently by revolver cognoscenti, here and elsewhere. Gold Dots likewise. Between one of my beloved .38s and a 9mm, I'll be choosing the 9mm nowadays.

I remember receiving a list of Winchester in-house factory testing from back around '02, using a S&W M60 "2-inch", and the 158gr +P LHP results for observed expansion were pretty much caliber diameter in most conditions of the test, as I recall.

Yes, this was a popular load back in the revolver days, and it appeared to offer some potential for deformation, and perhaps expansion, even when fired from snubs.

I remember being told by the former head of our firearms training unit (long since retired), back about the same time (early 2000's), that he'd learned of some gel testing results done by a large CA agency in which the softer swaged Remington version of the 158gr +P LHP bullet had apparently demonstrated more potential expansion in the 4LD testing than some other brands tested. I never saw the listed results, myself, but it was his job to remain aware of that sort of thing.

I did observe a hosted "gel test" event where a couple of the .38 Spl loads were allowed to be tried, and from another event hosted at our range (I was busy and couldn't attend that day). Due to the limited results, I eventually decided to replace the 158gr +P LHP loads I'd typically carried with either Rem 125gr +P GS, Speer 135gr GDHP or W-W 130gr RA38B (same as PDX1, according to the W-W LE distributor with whom I spoke) in my own +P capable .38 snubs (and my couple of M&P 340 .357's). The penetration may have fallen shy of the FBI's own 12-in "minimum" for duty ammunition testing in a couple of instances, but then I wasn't carrying my snubs as "duty" weapons, so some trade-off in penetration v. expansion didn't keep me up at night.

I still keep some W-W & Rem 158gr +P LHP (or, LSWCHP, as it used to be called) in my ammo collection, as well as some of the original 125gr +P GDHP, but I've come to prefer the more modern middleweight +P loads made by the major makers.

It's trying to find decent standard pressure JHP loads for my M37-2 which might have good potential for expansion that's been interesting. I won't use +P loads in that pristine M37-2, as it's built on the old, shorter pre-Magnum aluminum frame, and it's one of the factory DAO versions from that canceled overseas LE sale. I've primarily been using a couple of standard pressure 110gr JHP's, and even picked up some Hornady American Gunner 125gr XTP loads to try sometime, but I might have to try some of the W-W "Defend" 130gr JHP's.

Of course, the old style 148gr WC and even the standard pressure 158gr LSWC would still punch .36 holes, or maybe even yaw and cause larger wounding. Who knows? I just won't willingly use RNL.

Several years ago, just before my retirement, I was discussing this with Gary Roberts one day. At that time he was helping a large city agency with some testing & review of using J-frame snubs as secondary weapons. He said that during the range testing it was observed that many of the cops participating did better using standard WC's, compared to using a +P JHP load. The standard pressure 148gr WC's gave most of the cops the ability to get more accurate, faster hits. I didn't keep in touch with him about it, but the thinking at that time seemed to be that it was considered preferable to get better hits with standard WC's (faster, more controllable and more accurate), than slower hits with some heavier recoiling +P JHP (slower, less controllable and less accurate - meaning misses). It's hard to argue with the advantages of getting faster, more accurate and controllable hits on the intended threat target.

Just some thoughts. A short barreled revolver is what it is, and at the end of the day it's not a 4-6" service revolver. Heavier bullet weight than the typical .380 ACP, though.

 

[owlhoot]

Thank you, Propforce. Yours is a useful posting, and the results are interesting.