Strike Three® Ammo

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Alan Fud

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
1,444
Location
Sol-III
Does anyone have any experience with Strike Three® Security Ammo which claims to deliver " ... stop-'em-in-their-tracks knockdown power ... " ?

19666.jpg

... and would this be a good carry load for self defense against wild animals (not hunting but encountering a coyote or a wolf or rabbid dog while hiking or something) instead of regular hollowpoints?
 
I don't have any experience with these rounds, but even just looking at their posted numbers, they're advertising what is really pretty pathetic performance. E.g., for .357 mag, 3 balls at 850 fps for 105 ft/lbs (each, I assume). If you care about this kinetic energy rating, that's pretty poor for .357. Their 315 ft/lbs total should be compared to a plain old Remington 158 SJHP at 1235 fps (4" barrel) and 535 ft/lbs.

I'd say that the more vital question in the situation you envision--protection from wild animals--would be adequate penetration; and here will be the critical failing of this kind of load. A #1 ball going 850 is not going to penetrate to the vital bits of any wild animal that's big enough to worry about shooting in the first place. I'd say you'd be much better off with a 158 HP of almost any description, or even a 158 or heavier SWC.

Others may think differently, but I wouldn't bother with this stuff at all--even at a fraction of the $1.20 a round (!!) they want for it.
 
I would have some serious doubts about the accuracy of this round too. They may claim a 2" spread at 7 yards but that still doesn't mean that they will hit anywhere close to your point of zero or even consistently in one spot.
 
This is not a new idea. Remington even tried it back in the 1980s.
There was even an article in one of the major gun mags about loading 3 or 4 light wadcutters (55gr I think) on top of each other in .38 or .357 case.

Just remember that this ammo will give you the ability to hit your target three times as much.

As well as the ability to MISS your target three times as often.


As for me, if I want multiple round balls I'll use a shotgun. In my handgus I just want to shoot one big, heavy, mugger-thumpin' bullet at a time.
 
Any manufacturer that claims that their handgun cartridges have "knockdown power" immediately gets X-ed off the list of possibles in my book.

brad cook
 
Posted by BluesBear: ... In my handgus I just want to shoot one big, heavy, mugger-thumpin' bullet at a time ...
Click to expand...
RE: mugger-thumpin -- what about if you live in the country and wild animals are an issue? I've seen a coyote on the far edge of my property. My neighbor CLAIMS to have had a black bear on his porch. I'm not going to carry a shotgun everytime I want to spent time in my backyard but it's no big deal for me to tuck a SP101 in my hip pocket under my shirt inside of a pocket holster.

Would this type of ammo be a better option over the .38 +P that I got loaded in there now or would it be a waste of money?
 
What's your .38 load? If your sp101 is limited to .38, and animals are your primary concern, I'd take a 158 gr. LSWC +P over anything out there.
 
My SP101 is a .357 but I have trouble shooting .357 loads accurately out of small guns. I can shot the SP101 better than my S&W640 but not as good as my S&W686+.

The 'animal issue' is not that big of a deal for me to carry my 686+ with me all of the time. As I said, in several months of living here, I only saw a coyote on my property once and when he saw me he ran off but if the situation should arise, and since I'm normally armed with a compact gun anyway (either a J-frame or a compact pistol in either 9mm, .40S&W or .45ACP), I want to be armed with what will do the most damage to four-legged creatures.
 
JohnKSa scores a bullseye.

This ammo is not a new conept. As I said Remington did it 15-20 years ago. Since it isn't in their catalog any more you might think there's a reason.

And that reason is that its gimmick ammo. It's like those shotgun shells you see at the gun shows that are loaded with birdshot and nails. And the ones with two big lead balls connected together by a steel cable. It's all a gimmick.

As for the Strike Three, it uses a Speer shot cap which means it's either 00-Buck or 0-Buck. You could do the same thing minus the shot cap with a .357 Magnum case and 3 pieces of 000-Buck. You won't have to worry about the shot-cap opening up and causing the shot to scatter. The 000-Buck will engage the rifling and therefore have better accuracy. Shot in the shot cap will dispurse due to centrifigal force.

Just keep in mind that we stopped using round ball ammo a long time ago because it's not the most ballastic coefficient projectile out there. Nor the most accurate. It's not that I doubt that 3 little pieces of buckshot wouldn't do the job, just that a nice bigger bullet that shoots where you aim it will do a better job.
Most states will let you hunt deer with a handgun. How many states will let you hunt deer with buckshot? And a deer ain't considered to be dangerous game.

If you have a 4 legged critter coming at you head on you need enough penetration to get to the innerds.

And that's when you need to, (with apologies to the phone company)
Reach out, reach out and thump someone.
Reach out, reach out and just say, BYE.
 
Last edited:
Thanks BluesBear. You just saved me $1.20 a round on ammo that might have done me more harm than good.

Thanks for the link Quartus ... I found that thread very informative.
 
http://www.advancedtactical.com/strike3.html ...
The Strike Three is on track to becoming one of the best specialty ammo buys in the industry. We have been averaging over a thousand rounds a day with one of our customers alone! When things get up close and personal you need the Strike Three advantage. The Strike Three's unique features provide a high "shock" effect to the target while minimizing the danger of over-penetration.
Click to expand...
:confused:
 
Sounds pretty good. Since they're not trying to sell you anything, you can take their word on it... ;)

1. Ask them how they're measuring "shock" effect. Ask what a "unit of shock" effect is, and then ask them by that measure, how much more "shock" effect is produced by their ammo than by a standard full power JHP round.

2. Since overpenetration is clearly not a problem (if you believe their ad), the next question is: "Is penetration adequate?" Ask them what kind of penetration numbers their ammo puts up in standard gel. If you're not getting penetration that roughly equals the penetration offered by a full power JHP premium self-defense round in that caliber then it's not worth messing with.

3. Sales figures don't mean squat. What about the folks who sell exercise equipment via television informercials? Those folks sell a 'sierra'-load of equipment--does that mean that equipment is a great buy and very effective? Or does it simply mean that the informercial is convincing?

The bottom line is that the people/entities who have the money to conduct extensive/expensive tests on ammunition are all using pretty much "standard" bullets. Since these entities can afford to buy whatever they want, that's a pretty high endorsement.
 
As Even Marshall says
You may occasionally encounter
"Omni-Shocks," "Terminators," "Annihilators," and other such marginalia
in gun shops. Stay away. If you want to gamble, go to an Indian
reservation. Don't gamble with your life, or the lives of others.
Click to expand...
 
FWIW.
StrikeThree cartridges are made by Armscor in the Philippines.
IIRC, neither on their website nor in their printed literature have Armscor claimed their StrikeThree cartridges deliver "knockdown power".

The design, general properties, velocities and average spread are presented quite simply, so if some third party retailer wants to spread "knockdown" bullpoop just to sell 'em, even misrepresenting the spread over distance, don't go blaming the manufacturer or the product.

I'd personally have no reason to shift from JHP or FMJ.
Nevertheless... do the StrikeThree cartridges work?
I dunno.

Because, I've never properly used them in a defense sitch,
and even if I'd had, that'd still be only one statistical sample
with a myriad of situational variables limiting its utilty as a sample.
I've had neither reason nor opportunity to test their terminal
performance in gel or other media, because they don't interest me.

However...
It seems some people are utterly convinced they don't work.
Maybe they have the weight of data and personal experience to rest
their convictions on.

Or not.



horge
 
Setting aside the issue of effectiveness and looking at the numbers, how much do you trust a blurb that has purportedly equal projectile mass at velocities from 700fps to 1200fps all coming up with 105 foot pounds kinetic energy?

How much do you trust an outfit that loads 122 grains of projectiles to 1200fps in 9mm but only 850fps in .357magnum?

These loads might have some play value, but I cannot imagine the play value of 10 rounds coming anywhere near the play value of a brick and a half of cheap .22s.
 
Horge, I think you're mistaking caution for hubris.

When I say I wouldn't trust this ammo, it's not because I have concrete evidence that it doesn't work; it's because I have no good reason to believe it would work (despite the manufacturer's claims), and plenty of reason to SUSPECT it wouldn't (e.g., they are selling it, and are thus likely to exaggerate claims about it; light projectiles have consistently been shown to fail to penetrate adequately in handgun rounds; if it were as great as all that, I doubt this would be the only company loading it, instead of JHPs, which is what virtually everyone else loads and recommends for SD, including organizations like the FBI with complex lab facilities and testing regimens).

To analogize: I don't have any positive evidence that ground rhinocerous horn is not an effective aphrodisiac, and a considerable number of people have claimed that it is; but I have lots of reasons to suspect it's not, and no good reasons (i.e., tests supported by empirical methods) to suspect it is; so I'm sure not going to depend on it in a critical aphrodisiac-related episode. :uhoh:

That's not pretending to know what I don't; it's just depending on what I know most reliably in a critical situation--which is what self-defense is.
 
There's no question they're gonna punch holes in someone if they don't have to go through something else first. I just don't think the wound channel volume is going to exceed what you could get from a premium expanding self-defense round.

That's still not the deal breaker for me--the problem is that most of these "specialty" rounds don't allow enough penetration to get to the spine with a frontal shot. That's a bummer since your only chance for a real quick stop is to hit the spine or the brain.

Problems.

1. Accuracy isn't going to be worth a bucket of warm spit past just a few yards. Rifled barrels and multiple projectiles is an excellent recipe for really bad accuracy.

2. I'll bet leading/plastic fouling is going to be horrendous.

3. Penetration in the target medium as already mentioned.

4. Penetration through concealment such as auto glass or heavy clothing is going to be much poorer than with a standard premium JHP.

5. Price.

6. If this is such a great idea why don't you see military and law enforcement using this stuff. Those entities have a TON of money to spend to try and figure out if something works or not.

Probably others I'm not thinking of right now.
 
ChristopherG,

Hi.
I was countering unfair accusations against the manufacturer of having made false claims for their product. I was also making a dig at unreasoned, soundbite dismissals of the product. Certainly, reasoned criticism is fair, and mercifully, there's a fair amount of it on this thread. I apologize for any inclarity.


As for the cartridges --
Based on a relative's experience, the spread can be more severe than a US retailer is pretending, meaning that, WHATEVER the terminal performance of the pellets turns out to be, the cartridge looks to be a niche application, for civilian-domestic CQ.

I'm thinking, with numerous instances of dangerous JHP overpenetration in home-defense situations here in my country (we can be quite a bit lighter-framed than some of you might be), they were looking to flog it as a safer home-defense cartridge: the distances involved in such local scenarios are quite short:

The curious QSPR comes to mind, for though there are telling differences, the narrow confines of a home and a Viet Cong tunnel both restrict maneuverability AND the option to seek cover. The QSPR offered relatively silent operation and more pellets, while the StrikeThree (like its many coevals and predecessors) is a true combusting cartridge offering rapid follow-up shots that may or may not incapacitate an enemy.

Just reflecting on its possible nature, as again, I have no experience with its use, nor its effects.




John,
While I see your point regarding immediate stoppage:
arguing for CNS hits can go out the window IF (and it is admittedly a big if, but hang on) a primary desire is avoiding overpenetration in one's home. If a round can crank it up to go all the way to the back of a torso and even defeat vertebrae, then it can almost certainly overpenetrate if you MISS the backbone.

So if it isn't going all the way back:
Three small holes or one slightly bigger one that goes deeper?
The tried and tested or the reiteration of an alternate idea?
Without terminal performance data on the StrikeThree, it's going to remain a philosophical, and very personal choice. I respect those who choose to avoid or to stake their lives on these cartridges, so long as they are aware of just how they arrive at those choices.

The dealbeaker for me is simple:

I train for POA=POI.
So, now, I'm facing a moving, hostile target and this cartridge adds a significant fuzz factor to what I get out of my weapon and training?
No thanks.

If my uncle's related experience is any guide (six shots of the StrikeThree .45 ACP, and no, I wasn't there) this cartridge is not going to cut it beyond ten-fifteen feet. He says the spread gets funny about there, some going much wider than a torso. Did he buy a bad batch? If he did, isn't that bad enough?


JM2P
horge
 
I agree that the accuracy problem is one of the major issues with this particular type of "wonder-ammo."

Overpenetration is something that a lot of folks worry about. However, if I'm ever in a lethal force encounter, I'd much rather have something that shoots through and through. An exit wound is another hole, and even if you miss the spine, two holes bleed better than one--ask the hunters--they'll confirm this.

The quicker the BG is incapacitated (bleeds out/CNS hit/broken down) the quicker you can get good medical attention to anyone else who's been hurt--whether by the BG or an overpenetrating round.

Fact is, the odds of an overpenetrating round hitting someone are very small. Case in point is the Miami Dade shootout where over a hundred rounds were fired in a suburban neighborhood without a single injury due to overpenetration. On the other hand, the chances of failing to stop a BG due to lack of penetration is pretty high. Case in point, once again is the Miami Dade shootout where the primary BG was dealt a mortal blow at the very beginning of the fight and yet took so long to bleed out that he was able to kill and injure several FBI agents before he succumbed.

First you have to eliminate the threat rapidly--THEN you worry about the bystanders. As long as the BG is a threat, everyone is in far more danger from him than from your overpenetrating rounds.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top