Water Jugs with .40 JHPs; Q4369, Fed. HST, Fed. Hydra-Shok, etc.

[180gr40]

I thought that I'd add this info here because, though it's quite archaic, it has been greatly valuable and informative to me as a beginning enthusiast. I'll let the images tell the rest of the story and then pipe in if I find a discussion on it. I also have images of data out of a Kel-Tec Sub-2000 .40 and a Kahr MK40 - Just wasn't allowed to get it on this post.

 

[180gr40]

Water Jugs with .40 JHPs; Q4369, Fed. HST, Fed. Hydra-Shok, Kel-Tec Sub2K, Kahr MK40

Here's some more info from a Kel-Tec Sub2000 and a Kahr MK40. Though I don't have access to a chrono, notice the deeper penetration of these same rounds in the Kel-Tec Carbine over all of the Pistols.

 

[ku4hx]

If you've never been to this site, it's worth a visit:
http://www.brassfetcher.com/40 S&W.html

Of course there are many more tests than .40 S&W. One thing that sticks out in my mind is the comparison between 38 Special and 357 Magnum. Though not scientific in the traditional sense either, the results in calibrated ballistic gelatin is fun to read about and see.

 

[NG VI]

Neat! Extremely consistent performance out of the 180 grain HST, just like I was expecting to see.

 

[180gr40]

I love brassfetcher! Many of my .22LR and 12 gauge decisions took data from that website into consideration.

I do really like the Federal HST 180 gr., but I have had several 165 grain HST's either come apart or not expand like they should. This makes me wonder that the 180 grain HST might be somewhat likely to do the same thing, but then again, these ARE water jugs we're talkin' about - no denim, no SIM test, just straight plastic and water.

I am completely, 100% sold on the Winchester Q4369 - I have 3000 rounds of it stashed away and just rotate through it. It's relatively cheap, it's 100% reliable at feeding/ejecting/etc., and it's bonded. I have always found them expanded after shooting and recovering them. On the other hand though, Q4369 is dirty and stinky so cleaning after every one-to-two sessions is a must for me.

I have had HST 180's FTF in my G23 several times at the same time that I shot Q4369 without problems. After some simple examination, I think that the outer shape of the bullet might have a bearing on this. The Winchester isn't as rounded as the HST and the round shape of the HST might make it more vulnerable to FTF. Maybe a feed ramp issue? BUT, the HST's do expand larger than the Winchesters, plus they've got some nasty, sharp edges while the Winchesters are mostly smooth.

When I carry a .40, which is all of the time, I am carrying one or both of these two fine rounds.

 

[kokapelli]

Water is a poor medium for testing bullet performance.

There was a study done some years back comparing water and ballistic gelatin to test bullet performance and the results showed that many of the jhp rounds that expanded in water did not expand in gelatin.

 

[180gr40]

I agree with you about the water jugs being a poor choice, but they are the only choice I have as of yet. I'd love to form my own ballistic gel and do it myself, but have very little time to do it. As you can see by the dates of these tests, I don't get to be able to do it very often.

 

[Brass Fetcher]

Water is an excellent medium for testing expansion - water at room temperature has a density of about 998 kg/m^3 and 20% gelatin is 1007 kg/m^3. If you were to give me either $998 or $1007, for nothing, I would take either. The difference between the two numbers is very small.

Not so good for penetration measurement, however.

 

[2zulu1]

Expansion in ballistic gel, pig gut and water is about the same for all practical purposes, with water somewhat conservative. Duncan MacPherson's Bullet Penetration Modelling the Dynamics and the Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma has a chart that calculates water data to gel data.

Criteria needed for this conversion is bullet expansion, recovered weight and impact velocity. Conversion can also be calculated by crunching numbers in complex formulae. I've also used one gallon water bottles for testing; however, I prefer using double zip one gallon plastic bags.

Here's a sampling of 4 layer denim tests I've done in .40 S&W;

(***where Vcav equals the lower velocity limit of the cavitation regime, Mw equals the predicted mass of the tissue within the wound cavity and Xcm equals the predicted penetration in soft tissue/calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin)

Federal .40S&W 165 gr. HST JHP (P40HST3) v. four layers of denim
Vi = 1130 feet per second
Mr = 165.3 grains
Dr = 0.643 inch (1.61x cal)

Vcav = 397.316 feet per second
Mw = 50.993 grams (1.799 ounce)
Xcm = 33.807 centimeters (13.310 inches)

Federal .40S&W 180 gr. JHP (P40HST1) v. four layers of denim
Vi = 1010 feet per second
Mr = 180.0 grains
Dr = 0.700 inch (1.70x cal)

Vcav = 383.596 feet per second
Mw = 53.780 grams (1.897 ounces)
Xcm = 30.398 centimeters (11.968 inches)

Winchester .40S&W 180 gr. PDX1 JHP
Impact velocity: 1080 fps (466 fpe)
Recovered weight: 180 gr.
Average recovered diameter: 0.609"

Vcav = 405.563 fps
Mw = 52.229 grams (1.842 ounces)
Xcm = 39.008 cm (15.357 inches)

The greater drag coefficient and lower velocity of the 180gr HST resulted in significantly less penetration than the bonded 180gr Winchester JHP.

 

[kokapelli]

Expansion in ballistic gel, pig gut and water is about the same for all practical purposes, with water somewhat conservative. Duncan MacPherson's

This is just the way I see it.

If water is the same as ballistic gelatin for testing bullet performance, the FBI, Law Enforcement Agencies, Bullet manufactures, cartridge manufacturers and the Military sure waste a lot of money using ballistic gelatin.

I include the following link and note what he says in the first paragraph regarding water and wet newsprint.

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm

 

[2zulu1]

For whatever reason, that sentence posted before the rest of the text.

 

[kokapelli]

I added an interesting link in my last post you might look at.

 

[ku4hx]

As long as all bullets are fired into the same material, that material is fine for comparison purposes but likely not valid conclusions relative to real world events. The material may not simulate the human body, but whatever it is it will yield a useful comparison.

Fact is, water is cheap and plentiful compared to ballistic gelatin. Brassfetcher's site says "Starting at $125". I'll take old milk jugs or chlorox bottles filled with water any day. Or soaked phone books or whatever.

 

[rcmodel]

Expansion in ballistic gel, pig gut and water is about the same for all practical purposes,

I used to think that too, for about 50 years.

Until a recent experience with Speer Short Barrel Gold-Dot .38 Spl bullets completely changed my mind.

They were so unfazed by gallon water jugs I could have reloaded them again.

But shot into mud or wet phone books, they turn inside out!!

I think the wide HP was plugging with plastic jug disks.

rc

 

[kokapelli]

As long as all bullets are fired into the same material, that material is fine for comparison purposes but likely not valid conclusions relative to real world events. The material may not simulate the human body, but whatever it is it will yield a useful comparison.

Fact is, water is cheap and plentiful compared to ballistic gelatin. Brassfetcher's site says "Starting at $125". I'll take old milk jugs or chlorox bottles filled with water any day. Or soaked phone books or whatever.

Yes water is cheap and dirt is even cheaper, but they don't simulate human tissue and that's what I'm interested most in.

 

[2zulu1]

That's a great website with lots of info for making intelligent choices for ammo carry. My go to town carry is RA45B in a Colt 1911.

I live in a very rural high desert environment and this is the time mountain lions come down from the surrounding mountains. Another Colt 1911 gets carried at my place, handloaded with 125gr XTP (.357cal) at 1491fps which is good for about 15" + penetration.

Anyway, has anyone read/studied MacPherson's book?

 

[2zulu1]

I used to think that too, for about 50 years.

Until a recent experience with Speer Short Barrel Gold-Dot .38 Spl bullets completely changed my mind.

They were so unfazed by gallon water jugs I could have reloaded them again.

But shot into mud or wet phone books, they turn inside out!!

I think the wide HP was plugging with plastic jug disks.

rc

Try plastic bags filled with water.

BTW, did you put any clothing in front of the bottles?

From another test;

.38 Special 135 gr. Speer Gold Dot JHP as fired from a 3" S&W M64

Vi = 1049 feet per second
Dr = 0.494 inch (1.38x cal)
Mr= 135.5 grains

Vc = 131.068 meters per second (430.013 feet per second)
Mw = 38.594 grams (1.361 ounces)
Xcm = 41.915 centimeters (16.502 inches)

 

[Brass Fetcher]

Fact is, water is cheap and plentiful compared to ballistic gelatin. Brassfetcher's site says "Starting at $125". I'll take old milk jugs or chlorox bottles filled with water any day. Or soaked phone books or whatever.

This has since changed to 400USD and up.

 

[180gr40]

I'd greatly appreciate it if someone from brassfetcher.com or someone else would conduct a gel test with the rounds I've mentioned in my archaic tests here; Winchester Q4359, Federal P40HST1, Federal P40HST3.

As I had expected, this has been a very thoughtful & valuable discussion thus far!

 

[AZ Hawkeye]

I love brassfetcher! Many of my .22LR and 12 gauge decisions took data from that website into consideration.

I do really like the Federal HST 180 gr., but I have had several 165 grain HST's either come apart or not expand like they should. This makes me wonder that the 180 grain HST might be somewhat likely to do the same thing, but then again, these ARE water jugs we're talkin' about - no denim, no SIM test, just straight plastic and water.

I am completely, 100% sold on the Winchester Q4369 - I have 3000 rounds of it stashed away and just rotate through it. It's relatively cheap, it's 100% reliable at feeding/ejecting/etc., and it's bonded. I have always found them expanded after shooting and recovering them. On the other hand though, Q4369 is dirty and stinky so cleaning after every one-to-two sessions is a must for me.

I have had HST 180's FTF in my G23 several times at the same time that I shot Q4369 without problems. After some simple examination, I think that the outer shape of the bullet might have a bearing on this. The Winchester isn't as rounded as the HST and the round shape of the HST might make it more vulnerable to FTF. Maybe a feed ramp issue? BUT, the HST's do expand larger than the Winchesters, plus they've got some nasty, sharp edges while the Winchesters are mostly smooth.

When I carry a .40, which is all of the time, I am carrying one or both of these two fine rounds.

I wouldn't worry about failures with the 180 HST based on the performance of the 165 since the 165 bullet is a totally different design. Just look at the length of the "petals" in an unfired bullet. In the 180 HST, the petals extend nearly to the case while the 165 petals extend only about half way to the case.

The 180 gr HST is one of the best bullet designs out there, and I've carried it every day for quite awhile now in my G23.

I do, however, find it interesting that you've had failures in your G23 with HST 180. What Gen is it? Mine is a Gen 3 with ~ 8k flawless rounds through it, and ~ 600 rounds were 180 HST. (I got a really, really good deal on some government contract 180 HST =P ).

In all honesty, I wouldn't be comfortable carrying 180 HST in your gun considering the "several FTFs" comment.

 

[180gr40]

My G23 was a Gen 3 like yours. The tolerances in it were annoyingly tight (you really had to smash a loaded mag into it to get it to stay put). My wife's G19 wasn't nearly as tight as my G23 and hers was a flawless shooter - even though it routinely spat spent cartridges in her face. With those tight tolerances, I made sure that I cleaned that pistol specifically after every single range trip. Unfortunately, the G23 had several FTF's with both the 165 and 180 grain rounds in the Federal HST on different occasions. The Winchesters never, never gave me a problem. They've just always been noticeably dirtier.

I do know about the difference between the two heavier HST rounds in .40. You can see it clearly in the cuts - This is why I favor the 180 over the 165 in that round. I want to make it clear here that I am not dissing anybody's products. I just think that certain firearms have their preferences of what they like to eat; i.e. G23 with Fed. HST 165 or 180 gr. = Yuck; G35 with Fed. HST 180 gr. = Delicious!