Bullet weights?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Overwhelming majority of JHPs that are intended for "duty" that pass through auto glass or sheet metal do not expand -- they do deform to some extent.

Still not learning?

Evidently, you must have missed this:
I asume that youe have heard or read that ridiculous assertion somewhere.

Glad to hear that you have seen pictures of JHPs from major manufacturers after they penetrated auto glass and sheet steel, generally clearly showing lack of expansion; however, you certainly can choose to rely on some amateur's very limited test which is contrary to what those pictures show.

That's not what I said.

Misrepresenting what I actually said here—
I've already seen it. Nothing new.
—proves nothing. Resorting to this sort of disingenuous behavior suggests that your perpetual ''heart burn" is interfering with your ability to rationally discuss the topic.

As I've said before, perhaps you should spend more time reading and less time posting until you understand the subject matter at hand. Kleanbore's posts would be a fantastic start to that process.
 
Last edited:
Hint: almost invariably JHP cavity gets shut by its jacket due to impact with sheet steel. QED.
Really?

Have you stopped to consider that such ammunition would not be approved by the FBI for duty, and that the FBI does procure ammunition that does pass the FBI protocols?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 481
Really?

Have you stopped to consider that such ammunition would not be approved by the FBI for duty, and that the FBI does procure ammunition that does pass the FBI protocols?
The currently widely available JHPs from Federal, Speer, and Winchester intended for "duty" use can be seen, on respective manufacturer's data including pictures, as generally not expanding after passing through sheet metal protocols barrier but, generally, still penetrating 12-18" of gel. As previously mentioned, the impact of such JHPs on sheet steel protocols barrier generally causes the jacket to close the hollow point cavity, thus greatly reducing the likelihood of expansion, although there is increase in bullet effective frontal area due to deformation.
 
intended for "duty" use can be seen, on respective manufacturer's data including pictures, as generally not expanding after passing through sheet metal protocols barrier but, generally, still penetrating 12-18" of gel
Please show us examples of such results from 9mm ammunition for which the FBI has contracted.
 
Please show us examples of such results from 9mm ammunition for which the FBI has contracted.

As previously mentioned, I don't know what the current FBI contract ammunition is -- I have been referring to widely available "duty" ammunition from Federal, Speer, and Winchester. For 9mm that would include ammunition such as Federal HST, 124, 147 grain, likewise Speer Gold Dot, 124 and 147 grain, and Winchester Ranger, 124 and 147 grain. In the past, FBI has used widely available ammunition (certainly in .40 Winchester Ranger Bonded 180 grain) -- so if the current FBI JHPs are designed to expand after passing through sheet metal protocols barrier that indeed would be different from JHPs that are widely available for "duty" use. Certainly, from Winchester LE data/pictures, neither RA40B or RA9B (both used by the FBI/contract versions) generally expand after penetrating sheet steel protocols barrier.
Which JHPs in 9mm that the FBI currently uses expand after passing through sheet metal protocols barrier?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
As previously mentioned, I don't know what the current FBI contract ammunition is --
That's pulbicly available information.

  • on sheet steel protocols barrier generally causes the jacket to close the hollow point cavity, thus greatly reducing the likelihood of expansion, although there is increase in bullet effective frontal area due to deformation.
    Expansion is deformation, and an increase in fontal area is expansion.

There are some demonstrations on the web conducted by amateurs I would not put them in the class of the FBI tests.

The Hornady Critical Duty 135 grain and Federal HST bullets hat I have seen expanded to a diameter of more than one half inch in gel after having penetrated sheet metal.
 
That's pulbicly available information.

  • Expansion is deformation, and an increase in fontal area is expansion.

There are some demonstrations on the web conducted by amateurs I would not put them in the class of the FBI tests.

The Hornady Critical Duty 135 grain and Federal HST bullets hat I have seen expanded to a diameter of more than one half inch in gel after having penetrated sheet metal.

Yes it is public information and I just looked it up for the sake of this discussion. From NRA Shooting Illustrated (after testing it) :"Steel is tough on bullets and often makes them come apart -- the core sheds the jacket. Even though the Hornady 9mm Critical Duty load did not expand after passing through 16 gauge steel, it held together and penetrated 25.5 inches." However, it did deform -- somewhat.

I also looked at Hornady's youtube videos of the tests with 135 gr. CD +P, neither auto glass test nor sheet steel test met the 1.5x caliber diameter requirement, measured "diameters" were 0.42" (1.18x caliber) and 0.48" (1.35xcaliber), respectively.

Since JHP's cavity is often severely mashed by barriers such as angled auto glass, stagnation pressure is not transmitted efficiently reducing or eliminating expansion.
 
Last edited:
Oh, dear. Perhaps someone else can help you out.

The internet is positively replete with all sorts of information (especially of the sort that you are asking me to hunt down for you) and it is just waiting for the picking. Properly chosen keywords, typed into any search engine, should bring it all up in very short order.

The auto glass test that I referenced earlier in this thread (see post #117) took less than a minute's surfing on the 'net.

You can do it, too!

Looking more closely at this amateur auto glass test reveals: 1. The bullets used in this amateur test are not any bullets used by the FBI (highly relevant in this discussion), 2. The tester admits that the test is not up to FBI testing standards as the shot wasn't angled correctly. 3. Nevertheless, there is hardly any "expansion" but there is quite a bit of deformation. 4. The other shot in the test didn't expand either, it wasn't even recovered.

Your comment is mistaken and irrelevant, again.
 
Last edited:
if the guys involved in that Miami shootout were better shots, nobody would ever have had this conversation in the first place. for an average person, for self defense, just learn to be a good shot. you won't be chasing and attacking guys with Mini-14s and Shotguns unless you are in the FBI … if you are being attacked, and fire repeatedly at center of mass, with just about any firearm, and you can shoot - problem solved, regardless of caliber or bullet type. maybe if you have shot shell loaded in a .22 for popping snakes you have a problem, otherwise I just can't see caliber or bullet design being anywhere near as important as being able to shoot reasonably well under stress. if you were to dual with a .32 ACP pocket gun you could shoot, and the other guy had a .357, but was not a good shot. Follow up shots with smaller calibers are faster and more accurate, you would probably win such a face off if you were talented/practiced and a good shot. You would probably have hit the other guy 2 or 3 times, before he even got a shot fired, if he ever got a chance to fire at all.
 
if the guys involved in that Miami shootout were better shots, nobody would ever have had this conversation in the first place.
The 9mm shot by agent Dove, early in the fight, was nearly perfectly placed -- headed for ascending aorta (short of CNS, most rapidly incapacitating) but lacked sufficient penetration to disrupt it. Hence the FBI realized that adequate penetration is a very important bullet requirement.
 
From NRA Shooting Illustrated (after testing it)
from: your article

"Duty ammunition meets or exceeds FBI standards. Hornady reports that when Critical Duty ammo is subjected to the FBI's intermediate barrier tests—auto glass, heavy clothing, plywood, drywall and sheet steel—you can expect at least 13 inches of penetration and expansion of between 1.2 and 1.6 times the bullet's original diameter."​

I do not know whether the 1.5X diameter requirement, which you earlier contended did not exist, is stated as a minimum or as a goal.

The round was accepted for duty by the FBI.

I also looked at Hornady's youtube videos of the tests with 135 gr. CD +P, neither auto glass test nor sheet steel test met the 1.5x caliber diameter requirement, measured "diameters" were 0.42" (1.18x caliber) and 0.48" (1.35xcaliber), respectively.

That is consistent with their claim.

And one more time, that is expansion.

I cannot tell whether you are being deliberately obtuse for the sake of arguing, or if you just cannot comprehend English.
 
from: your article

"Duty ammunition meets or exceeds FBI standards. Hornady reports that when Critical Duty ammo is subjected to the FBI's intermediate barrier tests—auto glass, heavy clothing, plywood, drywall and sheet steel—you can expect at least 13 inches of penetration and expansion of between 1.2 and 1.6 times the bullet's original diameter."​

I do not know whether the 1.5X diameter requirement, which you earlier contended did not exist, is stated as a minimum or as a goal.

Some increase in effective bullet diameter or area over caliber is generally required if the bullet is not going to over penetrate, meaning penetrate more than 18". Other than increase in bullet diameter or area necessary to limit penetration to not more than 18", my comment that there is no expansion requirement implied no specific number for expansion/deformation over caliber, such as 1.5x caliber.
In your thread about FBI handgun requirements you state that " ammunition submitted in response to FBI procurement solicitations for duty ammunition must meet or exceed performance requirements of 12-18 inch penetration in the gel in each test and show uniform repeatable penetration, and 1.5 times caliber expansion, and high bullet weight retention."
The above seems like an expansion requirement that is not met in the tests for auto glass and sheet steel from Hornady's own tests (although 12-18" penetration is).
Here's another test of the Critical Duty through auto glass by "DocGKR": Penetration: 15.5", Recovered diameter: 0.48"(1.35x caliber).

Critical Duty rounds do not show repeatable increase of bullet diameter (expansion/deformation) of 1.5X caliber in auto glass or sheet steel protocols tests -- if that, indeed, is the FBI requirement for expansion/deformation as suggested by your quoted statement. However, if the requirement is 12-18" penetration in gel with whatever expanded/deformed diameter, Critical Duty seems to pass that test reasonably reliably.

And as previously mentioned, if the requirement for expansion is 1.5xcaliber, then that limits penetration to about 15" -- instead of 18" set previously as maximum acceptable penetration.




The round was accepted for duty by the FBI.

There is no doubt about that; it's public information.



That is consistent with their claim.

Yes, they accepted the round even though Hornady's own tests, as well as other professional tests, show that Critical Duty does not expand to at least 1.5xcaliber after penetrating through auto glass and sheet steel protocols barriers. That certainly raises a question of whether 1.5x caliber expansion is a requirement that must be met with all protocols tests.

And one more time, that is expansion.

In a broad sense any deformation can be referred to as expansion (increase in size), however, my point was that when referring to JHPs specifically, expansion (or mushrooming) is caused by stagnation pressure which generally requires a JHP cavity that is not closed -- unlike when JHPs penetrate through sheet steel and auto glass. An example that I have previously given was that a FMJ can deform after impact with some barrier resulting in increase in the bullet frontal area, but such deformation would not ordinarily be referred to as "expansion" but deformation. And, of course, unless a JHP "mushrooms" it is generally not likely to increase its average recovered diameter to 1.5x caliber -- the stated or implied FBI requirement in your above quoted statement.


cannot tell whether you are being deliberately obtuse for the sake of arguing, or if you just cannot comprehend English.

Actually, I am interested in technical, factual discussions
 
Last edited:
The 9mm shot by agent Dove, early in the fight, was nearly perfectly placed -- headed for ascending aorta (short of CNS, most rapidly incapacitating) but lacked sufficient penetration to disrupt it. Hence the FBI realized that adequate penetration is a very important bullet requirement.
Yea, I get it. Do you know what bullet was in that 9mm, and do you know how it performs in current FBI tests? Does anything new actually perform any better? What about the huge majority of rounds that were fired that were complete misses. Would bullet design make those perform better - or maybe better training and marksmanship might be the only way to do that. If they were better trained or prepared, nobody would have needed to study that one shot, because it would have been over much much sooner. My other gripe about that shootout, and how people discuss it - is, why were agents rushing in with pistols, to take on guys they knew had rifles, and they knew trained with them regularly. That is like showing up to a gun fight with a knife and thinking it might go your way. Those agents management made a wicked bad call, but - let's focus on bullet design. If they had rifles, design of a pistol bullet would be moot. Pretty sure today, those guys would have rifles or shotguns, so - I think the endless discussions on pistol ballistics, is just to distract from the real failures on that day.
 
Yea, I get it. Do you know what bullet was in that 9mm, and do you know how it performs in current FBI tests? Does anything new actually perform any better? What about the huge majority of rounds that were fired that were complete misses. Would bullet design make those perform better - or maybe better training and marksmanship might be the only way to do that. If they were better trained or prepared, nobody would have needed to study that one shot, because it would have been over much much sooner. My other gripe about that shootout, and how people discuss it - is, why were agents rushing in with pistols, to take on guys they knew had rifles, and they knew trained with them regularly. That is like showing up to a gun fight with a knife and thinking it might go your way. Those agents management made a wicked bad call, but - let's focus on bullet design. If they had rifles, design of a pistol bullet would be moot. Pretty sure today, those guys would have rifles or shotguns, so - I think the endless discussions on pistol ballistics, is just to distract from the real failures on that day.
115 grain Winchester silvertip was the "famous" or "infamous" round that changed the FBI; in bare standard gel it penetrated about 9", more than 10" through clothing. Current version of this round seems to penetrate well over 11" after passing through 4LD (per TNoutdoors9 test).
 
115 grain Winchester silvertip was the "famous" or "infamous" round that changed the FBI; in bare standard gel it penetrated about 9", more than 10" through clothing. Current version of this round seems to penetrate well over 11" after passing through 4LD (per TNoutdoors9 test).
Do you have a link to testing of the historic round that drives this discussion? So, ball ammo that penetrates better would have been more effective.
 
Do you have a link to testing of the historic round that drives this discussion? So, ball ammo that penetrates better would have been more effective.

It seems that Canadian police (CPRC) tested that round back around '94, which at that time was probably quite similar to what it was in '86. It certainly seems that ball ammo would have penetrated sufficiently and thus we would likely not be discussing that '86 event. Hence, FBI and all who are informed about terminal ballistics as it applies to wounding recognize that penetration is key, along with placement. Yes, indeed, sacrificing penetration to get a bit more expansion doesn't seem like a well-informed decision.
 
Last edited:
In a broad sense any deformation can be referred to as expansion (increase in size),
"In a broad sense"??? Only if the diameter is in fact increased.

however, my point was that when referring to JHPs specifically, expansion (or mushrooming) is caused by stagnation pressure which generally requires a JHP cavity that is not closed --
Quibbling.

...such deformation would not ordinarily be referred to as "expansion" but deformation.
When the diameter is increased? That's patently ridiculous.

Here's another test of the Critical Duty through auto glass by "DocGKR": Penetration: 15.5", Recovered diameter: 0.48"(1.35x caliber).
Yes, Hornady's website does report an expanded diameter of .485 inches in the steel barrier test for the 135g grain 9mm+P Critical Defense load.

And as previously mentioned, if the requirement for expansion is 1.5xcaliber, then that limits penetration to about 15" -- instead of 18" set previously as maximum acceptable penetration.
Anything wrong with that?

And, of course, unless a JHP "mushrooms" it is generally not likely to increase its average recovered diameter to 1.5x caliber --
Would,nt that depend entirely upon the construction and design of the bullet?

Actually, I am interested in technical, factual discussions
I'm afraid that's not coming through.

Moderator hat on: Those who insist on arguing, on making statements without substantiation, explanation, or supporting reference, and on using their own personal definitions of English words would be well served to find another venue
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top