Cor-Bon DPX

[The_Armed_Therapist]

I've been trying to educate myself on ammunition options and found www.brassfetcher.com... I found their reports on "premium Defensive and Law Enforcement hollowpoints" for both 9mm and .40sw. In the case of the .40sw, only 1 out of 6 rounds tested actually expanded--Cor-Bon DPX. With the 9mm, only 2 out of 6 expanded--one of which was Cor-Bon DPX.

Is anyone knowledgeable about brassfetcher.com and/or defensive rounds that can support or refute their evidence that Cor-Bon performs the best out of those tested? I'm leaning towards buying at least a box of each for carry, but want to be fully informed. In a way, I find it hard to believe that the others did not expand... but what do I know? LOL

So, is Cor-Bon DPX the best choice? Or, is it not as simple as Brassfetcher's studies?

 

[Shawn Dodson]

The tests you're referring to involve shooting the bullets first through a "bone simulant" then into gelatin (realistic soft tissue simulant).

I'm unaware of any human that has an exoskeleton.

I'm unaware if the test protocol has been compared to actual shooting data involving rib and sternum to determine if the test results are valid (accurately represent the same kind of bullet performance in these same human tissues).

I'm aware that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police performed testing years ago in which it embedded pork ribs in gelatin blocks and discovered the rib bone had negligible affect on JHP bullet terminal performance.

Brassfetcher's test results with this "bone simulant" are interesting. Whether it mirrors actual performance under the conditions the test purports to represent is unproved, and would seem to be contradicted by actual performance in the human body.

 

[holdencm9]

I'm unaware of any human that has an exoskeleton.

True, but depending on the person, there isn't much tissue between the skin and sternum, either!

I trust DPX in 9mm. It generally seems to fare pretty well, not just in brassfetcher's tests, but numerous others. It is expensive, though.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

True, but depending on the person, there isn't much tissue between the skin and sternum, either!

How much soft tissue does it take to fill a hollowpoint cavity?

To the best of my knowledge there hasn't been a trend of JHP bullets being clogged by sternum.

 

[paramedic70002]

To tune the end result for known variables, keep shooting until the threat becomes inanimate.

 

[ugaarguy]

Is anyone knowledgeable about brassfetcher.com

Brassfetcher is a one man operation, and it's run by THR member JE223. IIRC he's an engineer in hydraulics / hydrodynamics by trade, but if you send him a PM he can tell you exactly what his background is. Needless to say, he has the education & experience to do ballistic testing. The bone stimulant tests were just a few amongst the many tests he's done.

Look at his bare gelatin tests, look at the manufacturer's test results, and any other reliable data you can find. Also, I'd not get too hung up on expansion. It's nice when it happens, but penetration is far more important in reaching vitals to incapacitate an attacker. Most important is that the load cycles reliably, and is at least combat accurate in your gun.

I'm leaning towards buying at least a box of each for carry

Buy a box of several of the big name defensive JHPs, and see what your gun likes.

is it not as simple as Brassfetcher's studies?

It's never as simple as handful of data points. The best thing ballistic gel testing can do is help us get an idea on penetration, and possibly how the bullet will behave against an adversary. There are just too many variables out in the real world. I would also not that the Federal 9mm EFMJ failed to reach the FBI minimum of 12" of penetration even against bare gel. The 40 S&W DPX, while it expanded, barely got there thru the bone stimulant. Again, just too many variables beyond our control.

We can control how much we practice & train, and we can choose a load that's accurate & reliable our firearm(s). Brassfetcher is a great resource amongst many. Still, focus on the variables you can control.

 

[The_Armed_Therapist]

Well, my main concern is that if the JHPs aren't going to expand, then wouldn't it make more sense to carry FMJs? I think I will send him a PM. Thanks!

 

[DBR]

Look here for valid info:

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Well, my main concern is that if the JHPs aren't going to expand, then wouldn't it make more sense to carry FMJs?

No.

The rubber/simulated bone/gelatin test has not been validated against any actual shootings.

There are zero reports of JHP bullets failing to expand after passing through sternum or rib bone.

 

[MICHAEL T]

I use DPX in all my carry pistols It seems to come out on top in ay test I find.

 

[legion3]

Its not my carry ammo but my wife shoots the 115 +p 9mm the best, even over standard pressure 124 or 147. So she packs the dpx for that reason, maybe I should too?

Evan Marshall and the guys at stoppingpower.net sure do love the round, if you ask what is the best round for any given calibed its always DPX.

 

[jwash3rd]

In my own informal testing with water jugs and four layers of denim, I found that DPX expands consistantly from my XD9 (4" barrel) but not from my Kel Tec P-11 (3.1"). I like Speer's GDHP 124 gr. +P Short Barrel for the KT. I currently load the Springfield with 147 gr. Gold Dots or Ranger T, both of which are quality rounds available in 50 round boxes for considerably less money than the 20 and 25 rd. boxes.

 

[The_Armed_Therapist]

Good information, guys! Thanks.

 

[mec]

The Dpx is very consistent in 9mm and 45. Speer gold dots are also reliable expanders in raw beef brisket. Hornady does a great deal of research on any loads that it puts on the market. The Critical Defense and critical duty loads are worth looking up. I was at Grand Island when they demoed the Critical duty and it really did expand in gelatin after having passed through several types of frequently encountered barriers.

 

[Mike1234567]

The tests you're referring to involve shooting the bullets first through a "bone simulant" then into gelatin (realistic soft tissue simulant).

I'm unaware of any human that has an exoskeleton.

I don't think that's the point. Shooting through a skull involves very little tissue before hitting bone and then through sensitive tissue.

Shooting through a chest cavity involves hitting very little tissue bore hitting bone and subsequently hitting sensitive tissue..

IMHO, these tests are VERY valid.

 

[willypete]

I don't think that's the point. Shooting through a skull involves very little tissue before hitting bone and then through sensitive tissue.

Then again, if you can actually penetrate the skull, expansion probably isn't that necessary to achieve instant incapacitation...

Shooting through a chest cavity involves hitting very little tissue bore hitting bone and subsequently hitting sensitive tissue..

Please pardon the pun, but shooting at the torso is very hit or miss when it comes to bone.

You might hit a rib, or you might pass completely between the ribs. You might just nick one. Also, you might hit some soft abdominal tissue and not reach bone until you find the spine or the short ribs.

 

[Mike1234567]

willypete... my argument involves my reply to Shawn Dodson's post. He argues that humans are not exoskeletal and, of course, he's right. But this doesn't negate tests. My argument is that bone (human skull and chest bone), with nearly no flesh covering it, is very nearly exposed live bone tissue with soft tissue underneath.

 

[willypete]

*snip* very nearly *snip*

Agreed, but those are the key words. "Very nearly," by which I mean that there is some nice, soft, spongy epidermal and sub-q tissue hanging out in front of those bones, which also happen to be nice and soft and spongy and liquid-filled on the inside once you break through the relatively thin outer shell. There's a matrix of hard material, to be sure, but bone isn't the hard, homogeneous substance that some people think it is.

"All models are false, some are useful," that's a paraphrase, but one that gives me pause for thought whenever I see "conclusive tests".

That hard "bone" sheet in front of a ballistic gel block is analagous to human tissue, I guess, but it's still just an analogue, not the real deal. The best we can get is just an approximation, unless you get real data, which is never gained in a controlled environment.

 

[Dean1818]

I did my own tests with wetpack

Soaked newspaper tightly packed in milkjugs

I put 4 layers of denim on the first jug to simulate heavy clothing.

I tested Winchester pdx1 ( i think that was thw spelling) both regular and short barrel Gold dot, Corbon DPX, and HST.

The corbon outperformed everything. It had almost 3/4 inch expansion

I tested it in a Kahr K9

Corbon DPX is in all my carry guns

 

[mec]

they do tend to look like this pretty much without regard to barrel length and in a wide assortment of media

 

[Shawn Dodson]

My argument is that bone (human skull and chest bone), with nearly no flesh covering it, is very nearly exposed live bone tissue with soft tissue underneath.

The point I'm trying to make is the test protocol has not been validated against actual shootings to ensure the test results mirror actual results in the human thorax when a bullet perforates the sternum or ribs.

What's needed are bullets recovered from actual shootings (and wound profile data) to compare with bullets tested using the rubber/bone simulant/gelatin protocol to prove that the test protocol produces a reasonably realistic indication of actual bullet performance in the human body.

I strongly suspect that a bullet that first perforates rubber, then perforates bone simulant, then penetrates ordnance gelatin does not perform the same as when the same bullet perforates a thin layer of soft tissues, then perforates sternum/rib, then penetrates soft tissues in the thorax.

 

[marine 97-03]

I always liked the hornaday XTP for 9mm

 

[Loosedhorse]

The point I'm trying to make is the test protocol has not been validated against actual shootings to ensure the test results mirror actual results in the human thorax when a bullet perforates the sternum or ribs.

Your point is valid. But that is also true of all ballistic gel testing.

Ten-percent ballistic gel was selected as the standard test medium because its density and viscosity is close to pig muscle. There have been no attempts to "correlate" or "validate" actual human shooting results to gel results. Well, none other than Marshall and Sanow's data, and the Fuller index--I take it you're not referring to that "validation"?

Synbone bone simulant has (like balistic gel) been designed to provide "realistic" ballistic testing (and training for orthopedic surgeons), and apparently behaves:

in a similar manner to real bone when struck by projectiles.

It will be difficult to try to use swine to simulate human sternal hits, as humans (and apes) have a more shallow (anterior to posterior) thorax than pigs, with the porcine sternum being relatively narrow and thick.

 

[The_Armed_Therapist]

Dean, thanks for the information!

Another question I have... Any knowledge or information about how the Cor-Bon DPX performs compared to Cor-Bon's standard JHPs?

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Loosedhorse writes:

Ten-percent ballistic gel was selected as the standard test medium because its density and viscosity is close to pig muscle. There have been no attempts to "correlate" or "validate" actual human shooting results to gel results.

When the FBI was deciding to adopt 10% ballistic gelatin as its standardized test medium it compared terminal performance data from over 200 shooting incidents to terminal performance data obtained from shooting bullets into ordnance gelatin.

When Fackler developed 10% ordnance gelatin as a test medium he compared terminal performance observed in gelatin with actual gunshot wounds to establish it as a realistic soft tissue simulant.

Fackler took his validation efforts further:

Extracts from “The Wound Profile & The Human Body: Damage Pattern Correlation.” (Martin L Fackler, MD, Wound Ballistics Review, 1(4): 1994; 12-19)

The test of the wound profiles’ validity is how accurately they portray the projectile-tissue interaction observed in shots that penetrate the human body. Since most shots in the human body traverse various tissues, we would expect the wound profiles to vary somewhat, depending on the tissues traversed. However, the only radical departure has been found to occur when the projectile strikes bone: this predictably deforms the bullet more than soft tissue, reducing its overall penetration depth, and sometimes altering the angle of the projectile’s course. Shots traversing only soft tissues in humans have shown damage patterns of remarkably close approximation to the wound profiles.

The bullet penetration depth comparison, as well as the similarity in bullet deformation and yaw patterns, between human soft tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin have proven to be consistent and reliable. Every time there appeared to be an inconsistency…a good reason was found and when the exact circumstances were matched, the results matched. The cases reported here comprise but a small fraction of the documented comparisons which have established 10% ordnance gelatin as a valid tissue simulant.

San Diego PD Criminologist Eugene Wolberg compared terminal performance of SDPD's issue duty ammunition used in officer involved shootings to terminal performance observed in ordnance gelatin.

The US military Joint Service Wound Ballistics - Integrated Product Team compared guinshot wound trauma data to the damage and disruption caused by the same bullets fired into ordnance gelatin.