help selecting a concealble 9mm handgun

[dwr461]

Dthunder did I understand correctly that you're a machinist? I've been a street medic for over twenty years and have treated more gun shot wounds than most people ever will. I base my opinions on what I've actually seen not what I read online. You have nothing to teach me about bullets penetrating people.

Dave


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Hattrick 22]

People say that grip angle doesn't make a difference. That is not true if you are used to a certain angle. I point a 1911 naturally. The SR9C has the same angle. This means that I am already pointing in the right direction even before my eyes see the sights.

-The Ruger has the same style of thumb safety. Coming from a 1911, this felt very natural. I don't feel comfortable without a safety.

-It has a loaded chamber indicator. It is nice to KNOW the status of the pistol without having to bump check.

-have you heard of kinesthetic alignment?

-Always treat a gun as loaded and keep your finger off the bang switch.

-Never got the hype of this it's good in theory but why not always have a round chambered in the pistol in a holster? I see it as lack of proper gun safety. You don't run your finger over it to make completely sure it's empty do you? I would hope not always visually check heck stick your finger in there and make sure. In other words don't trust something that could fail.

 

[DthunderUSA]

Jack,

I do know how to calculate energy. The point I was trying to make was that energy and momentum are two different things and there is a reason why the firearms industry measures ammunition using Energy instead of momentum. I did understand your link. And here is a link for you, and hopefully you can understand it.

http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/phynet/mechanics/energy/KENOTMomentum.html

I never said that the ammunition met anyone's minimum standard. I reference the FBI's ammunition protocol as a baseline to understand testing. Sorry for the confusion. To my knowledge it hasn't been tested by the FBI, and even if it was, it doesn't meet their "standards". But it would still be tested using the same baseline which would be helpful. There are many cartridges out there that don't meet the FBI's standards but are still viable ammunition options.

Thanks for the link on Kinetic Energy all the same.

Looking forward to hear what you guys use for your ammunition of choice.

Thanks,

 

[DthunderUSA]

How did this list of proven quality 9mm defensive ammunition compare to your new wonder round in the FBI Test?

9 mm:
Barnes XPB 115 gr
Federal Tactical 124 gr
Federal HST 124 gr +P
Remington Golden Saber bonded 124 gr +P
Speer Gold Dot 124 gr +P
Winchester Ranger-T 124 gr +P
Winchester 124 gr +P bonded
Winchester Ranger-T 127 gr +P+
Federal Tactical 135 gr +P
Federal HST 147 gr
Remington Golden Saber 147 gr
Speer Gold Dot 147 gr JHP
Winchester Ranger-T 147 gr
Winchester 147 gr bonded

Sure, I would love to compare this list of rounds. If you can send me the test data from the FBI test, or the link where you got the information from, I'd be happy to check it out. I am really curious how these rounds compare to each other as well.

Thanks

 

[DthunderUSA]

Dthunder did I understand correctly that you're a machinist? I've been a street medic for over twenty years and have treated more gun shot wounds than most people ever will. I base my opinions on what I've actually seen not what I read online. You have nothing to teach me about bullets penetrating people.

Dave,

I think you misunderstood my reply. I said
"I know they have been a machining business for 20 years. They are new to manufacturing ammunition within the last few years, but have been making bullets for longer."

I was talking about Lehigh Defense, the company. I however am not a machinist.

I appreciate that you are a street medic and have seen many gun shot wounds. I know quite a few ER nurses and other paramedics that tell me the same stories of how many GSW's come through their doors. That being said, from your experience, what are the typical calibers of the wounds that you are seeing? And how are those calibers performing? Have you seen a particular type of ammunition that is more damaging than others? I can only assume that when you see the GSW's that you probably aren't able to determine the ammunition type, or can you differentiate whether it's a hollow point vs. ball ammunition.

I am here to learn as well, and I am open to learning about "bullets penetrating people". Any information is always helpful in determining a viable ammunition.

Thanks,

 

[trout25red]

-have you heard of kinesthetic alignment?

-Always treat a gun as loaded and keep your finger off the bang switch.

-Never got the hype of this it's good in theory but why not always have a round chambered in the pistol in a holster? I see it as lack of proper gun safety. You don't run your finger over it to make completely sure it's empty do you? I would hope not always visually check heck stick your finger in there and make sure. In other words don't trust something that could fail.

1. Not yet, but I will check it out.
2. Oh I certainly do treat them as loaded always. I am not saying that a loaded chamber indicator is a must. I am just saying that it is nice to have...like a radio in the car.
3. I don't yet carry it because I need my CCL. That leaves me to keeping it in my safe or car because I do not open carry. It is always in a holster, but I don't keep one loaded in the chamber. I know that is probably not smart, but as of now my daughter and nephews are too young to rack the slide. It makes me feel better. I don't fear making a big mistake in allowing them near my pistol when I am not around. But I do have a wife and MIL who could easily leave my car door unlocked, etc. None of these children are ever left unattended, especially outside. I just feel better that way.

Like I said, I am still learning. I am open to constructive criticism. If this sounds crazy, I am willing to listen.

 

[Jack]

Jack,

I do know how to calculate energy. The point I was trying to make was that energy and momentum are two different things and there is a reason why the firearms industry measures ammunition using Energy instead of momentum. I did understand your link. And here is a link for you, and hopefully you can understand it.

http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/phynet/mechanics/energy/KENOTMomentum.html

I never said that the ammunition met anyone's minimum standard. I reference the FBI's ammunition protocol as a baseline to understand testing. Sorry for the confusion. To my knowledge it hasn't been tested by the FBI, and even if it was, it doesn't meet their "standards". But it would still be tested using the same baseline which would be helpful. There are many cartridges out there that don't meet the FBI's standards but are still viable ammunition options.

Thanks for the link on Kinetic Energy all the same.

Looking forward to hear what you guys use for your ammunition of choice.

Thanks,

I didn't say you did. I'm saying that the FBI has an almost limitless amount of resources to figure out what is the most effective means for stopping a person with a pistol. Years of study, data collection, and experiments have lead them to 12+ inches being optimal. If this was a better round than whatever they are currently using, I'm certain they would be using this. The federal government spends OUR money, so I'm sure they aren't overly concerned with cost. This article breaks it down really simply, I hope it can help you understand why 12" is the minimum standard.

http://shootingthebull.net/blog/bullet-effectiveness-whats-the-big-deal-about-12-penetration-anyway/

Here is what their testing calls for.

http://greent.com/40Page/general/fbitest.htm

For comparison, Lehigh claims their 9mm wonder bullet expands to .82 inches. I don't see why anyone would select a bullet that has poor penetration, and a marginal increase(or actually a decrease) in expansion compared to current traditional offerings in proven firearms with 3rd party testing.

 

[dwr461]

DthunderUSA,



Watch this video it's one half hour long but more than worth it. This doctor actually understands enough about guns and the body to have a intelligent valid opinion that is entirely backed up by all of my real world experience. If you watch it my comments will make more sense. Right now your head is full of gun magazine nonsense.

Engineers and machinists who design bullets don't know very much about anatomy. They actually think that ballistics gel (what I call tactical jello) is analogous to people. It ISN'T.

What do I see? Very little high energy wounds, i.e. all rifles and shotguns. They are not used as frequently as handguns and call for a coroner more than a medic more often than not.

Low energy wounds are what we still. i.e. ANY HANDGUN round is a low energy round. They ALL are about equally as effective in duty sized handguns. But duty sized I mean 9mm Luger, 40 S&W, 45 acp, and 38 Special. Those sized. Each of those rounds produce similar effects. Some of these rounds go faster with lighter bullets and some go slower with heavier bullets but all produce similar amounts of penetration and carry similar similar amounts of momentum.

I see almost no handgun rounds that expand in human bodies. Sorry they just don't carry enough velocity. So pretty much all of them hit like very expensive FMJ's, which makes sense sine thats what they are.

I have not seen enough soft lead bullets hitting people to say this for one hundred percent but those that I did see performed extremely well. The one example I can use for that I would have be very vague about out of respect for the family. Old school lead 158 RN 38 Special from a 4" barrel equalled HUGE freaking exit wound. Honestly I thought it was a rifle round. But as I said lead bullets are used very infrequently and at this point thats only an opinion. I do however since then carry LSWC 158 Grain with a gas check in my 38 specials from now on.

Dave

 

[DthunderUSA]

I didn't say you did. I'm saying that the FBI has an almost limitless amount of resources to figure out what is the most effective means for stopping a person with a pistol. Years of study, data collection, and experiments have lead them to 12+ inches being optimal. If this was a better round than whatever they are currently using, I'm certain they would be using this. The federal government spends OUR money, so I'm sure they aren't overly concerned with cost. This article breaks it down really simply, I hope it can help you understand why 12" is the minimum standard.

http://shootingthebull.net/blog/bullet-effectiveness-whats-the-big-deal-about-12-penetration-anyway/

Here is what their testing calls for.

http://greent.com/40Page/general/fbitest.htm

For comparison, Lehigh claims their 9mm wonder bullet expands to .82 inches. I don't see why anyone would select a bullet that has poor penetration, and a marginal increase(or actually a decrease) in expansion compared to current traditional offerings in proven firearms with 3rd party testing.

Jack,

I don't disagree with you that the standards are in place for a reason. The FBI and other Government organizations have spent a lot of money on testing, and so have the firearms ammunition manufacturers. I have yet to see a list of authorized use ammunition for the FBI. I am working on getting a list of authorized ammunition from some FBI friends of mine.
I have read both links that you posted long before you linked them, and I agree with the information that is in them.
My post originated as it was, and still is, my opinion. Ammunition is as important as the firearm it's fired from. Shot placement is a more important factor, but you can't get there with an inadequate gun or inadequate ammunition. I "personally" like the data I have been seeing from this particular ammunition. I never said anyone else had to like the data. I have an "opinion" about the data of a relatively new ammunition, I never called it a "wonder bullet" or "super ammunition" you guys did.

The list of ammunition you posted, is not an actual list of FBI approved ammunition, but rather a list of ammunition that was tested using the FBI protocol testing methods. According to the site, the test was conducted by a Dr. Gary Roberts, a highly respected dentist turned ballistics expert. So far as I can find, he is very respected and I believe his information to be accurate. He is not however considered an independent testing organization. When this list was posted, LH defense wasn't on the market, and I am sure that this in not even close to a comprehensive list of all ammunition available in the category we are looking at.

But since LH ammo wasn't invented at that point, and it wasn't tested by the good Dr., we can only compare what has been made available through individuals on the internet.
The data I am looking at for the LH ammo is what has been the general consensus from individuals testing it on the internet as well as yourself. A less than 12" penetration but more consistently a penetration of about 10". Also a .82" expansion. I am not claiming any independent test data because we don't have that right now.

Based on those "general consensus" numbers, the LH ammo under performs by 1.78"" of penetration or less on 5 out of 17 rounds on that list in "bare gelatin". Note: I want to say that I am okay with the 2" of under penetration in the "bare gelatin". I do understand that the test criteria that you posted, is that the FBI protocol method and is a minimum of 12" in gelatin. 5 of of the rounds on this list do not perform to that standard in "bare gelatin", and that is why I assume they are highlighted on that list.

In addition, out of those 5 rounds, 3 of them only expand to .68" - .72" in "bare ballistic gelatin". I believe the reason that's important is because the "bare gelatin" is the most expansion that we are going to see in any of those rounds. As soon as we move to shooting through Heavy Clothing, all of the rounds have significant reduced expansion.

What is not on the link you posted, was the minimum expansion requirements. I know I read somewhere (I can't remember where) that the recommended or preferred expansion is 1.5 times the original diameter. I'll try and find it when I have more time.

Once we get into the shooting through Heavy Clothing, all of the rounds have a significant decrease in expansion. 2 of the rounds did not even get to 1.5X expansion.


You stated that: "I don't see why anyone would select a bullet that has poor penetration, and a marginal increase(or actually a decrease) in expansion compared to current traditional offerings in proven firearms with 3rd party testing."

First off, I don't consider 10" of penetration as "POOR", is it less than desirable? Yes. Would I like it to be more? Yes. Do I think the ammunition sucks because it does not penetrate 12"? No. I'm okay with this depth of penetration for my uses.

Second, I do understand how you came to the conclusion that a .82 is a "marginal increase (or actually a decrease)" in the top 3 performing rounds. 2 of those top 3 performing rounds however did not meet the 12" penetration requirements. On the other hand, I don't understand how you come to the conclusion that a 36% (.52 was the lowest performing round) increase in expansion is a marginal increase. And we are still talking the optimal conditions in "bare gelatin".
The largest expanding round on the list only penetrates to 10" in bare gelatin and expands to .87". This is pretty dam close to the LH Defense Ammo. We are talking a .05" difference. But as soon as it is shot through Heavy clothing, it drops down to .61".
The denim tests for the LH defense ammo that I have been able to find on the internet say that the .82" expansion is still consistent, even through 4 layers of denim. I'd like to see the test done exactly like the above mentioned rounds, but that might have to wait.

So, do I think any of these rounds on the list suck? No. Would I buy every round on this list? No. Would I use the LH defense ammo ahead of some of these posted rounds? Yes, because I am willing to trade 2" of penetration for, IMHO, a more consistent expansion through clothing.

I'm glad you guys are pressing me on this issue, because I am forced to learn so much about other ammunition. I still like the LH defense. I do wish it had about 14" of penetration. Hopefully they will improve their design and get it up there. The way I look at it, is that we have a sliding ruler when we talk about tests in bare gelatin and heavy clothing + bare gelatin. On one side we have penetration, and on the other we have expansion and there is a big trade off with many of these rounds. I think there is less of a trade off with the LH defense ammo compared to some of these rounds. You are giving up so much more expansion once you start shooting through clothing with these traditional rounds.

In my research I found some other good info on some other rounds that have entered the market post list. I don't necessarily like the ammo performance overall but what I really like is the format in which they present the information. http://www.hornadyle.com/assets/site/files/Hornady-LE-Military-Application-Guide.pdf


I am still waiting to hear what everyone else uses as "GO TO" ammunition.

Thanks for reading,

 

[DthunderUSA]

Low energy wounds are what we still. i.e. ANY HANDGUN round is a low energy round. They ALL are about equally as effective in duty sized handguns. But duty sized I mean 9mm Luger, 40 S&W, 45 acp, and 38 Special. Those sized. Each of those rounds produce similar effects. Some of these rounds go faster with lighter bullets and some go slower with heavier bullets but all produce similar amounts of penetration and carry similar similar amounts of momentum.

I see almost no handgun rounds that expand in human bodies. Sorry they just don't carry enough velocity. So pretty much all of them hit like very expensive FMJ's, which makes sense sine thats what they are.

I have not seen enough soft lead bullets hitting people to say this for one hundred percent but those that I did see performed extremely well. The one example I can use for that I would have be very vague about out of respect for the family. Old school lead 158 RN 38 Special from a 4" barrel equalled HUGE freaking exit wound. Honestly I thought it was a rifle round. But as I said lead bullets are used very infrequently and at this point thats only an opinion. I do however since then carry LSWC 158 Grain with a gas check in my 38 specials from now on.

Dave

Dave,

Your response is pretty much what I anticipated. I would think it would be extremely difficult to gather all the information on every gun shot wound you come across. And I am sure they probably all start to look alike in general. Small entry wound, slightly larger exit wound, if it even exits. I would be curious to talk to some of the trauma surgeons to see if they are seeing any trending with wound cavities. I do have to wonder why the rounds aren't expanding in the targets. I don't have enough information that tells me if the round failed to expand because of clothing or velocity. The black talon rounds of years ago were failing because of clothing keeping the rounds from full expansion. This seems to be the same problems with expansion loss in the FBI tests as well. Heavy clothing = less expansion in general.

I have heard about the Wad Cutters being used in the past. Forgot where I heard it but I can see it working. I mean, popular hunting rounds use soft lead noses as well.

I appreciate you taking the time to reply. I will be watching your video here shortly. I do have to say though, that my head is not filled with gun magazine nonsense. I am not so gullible to believe every thing I read. I try to do as much background research as possible and when I can I do my own physical tests. Probably why we are having the conversation we are having.

I'll let you know my thoughts on the video. Thanks again,

 

[Jack]

The list of ammunition you posted, is not an actual list of FBI approved ammunition, but rather a list of ammunition that was tested using the FBI protocol testing methods. According to the site, the test was conducted by a Dr. Gary Roberts, a highly respected dentist turned ballistics expert. So far as I can find, he is very respected and I believe his information to be accurate. He is not however considered an independent testing organization. When this list was posted, LH defense wasn't on the market, and I am sure that this in not even close to a comprehensive list of all ammunition available in the category we are looking at.

Never said it was a list of FBI approved rounds(that should be obvious just by looking at the calibers), never said it was a comprehensive list, and never said doc Roberts was an organization. He is an independent individual conducting tests using reliable methods. The list was posted as a sample, one where rounds using proven technology out preform Lehigh defense's rounds. That list is actually pretty old and handgun rounds have improved further since.

But since LH ammo wasn't invented at that point, and it wasn't tested by the good Dr., we can only compare what has been made available through individuals on the internet.
The data I am looking at for the LH ammo is what has been the general consensus from individuals testing it on the internet as well as yourself. A less than 12" penetration but more consistently a penetration of about 10". Also a .82" expansion. I am not claiming any independent test data because we don't have that right now.

Based on those "general consensus" numbers, the LH ammo under performs by 1.78"" of penetration or less on 5 out of 17 rounds on that list in "bare gelatin". Note: I want to say that I am okay with the 2" of under penetration in the "bare gelatin". I do understand that the test criteria that you posted, is that the FBI protocol method and is a minimum of 12" in gelatin. 5 of of the rounds on this list do not perform to that standard in "bare gelatin", and that is why I assume they are highlighted on that list.

In addition, out of those 5 rounds, 3 of them only expand to .68" - .72" in "bare ballistic gelatin". I believe the reason that's important is because the "bare gelatin" is the most expansion that we are going to see in any of those rounds. As soon as we move to shooting through Heavy Clothing, all of the rounds have significant reduced expansion.

What is not on the link you posted, was the minimum expansion requirements. I know I read somewhere (I can't remember where) that the recommended or preferred expansion is 1.5 times the original diameter. I'll try and find it when I have more time.

Once we get into the shooting through Heavy Clothing, all of the rounds have a significant decrease in expansion. 2 of the rounds did not even get to 1.5X expansion.


You stated that: "I don't see why anyone would select a bullet that has poor penetration, and a marginal increase(or actually a decrease) in expansion compared to current traditional offerings in proven firearms with 3rd party testing."

Why are you comparing it to every round on the list? I'm suggesting someone find the best round they can and shoot that. It is out preformed in both penetration and expansion.

First off, I don't consider 10" of penetration as "POOR", is it less than desirable? Yes. Would I like it to be more? Yes. Do I think the ammunition sucks because it does not penetrate 12"? No. I'm okay with this depth of penetration for my uses.

In school, if you fail to meet minimum standards you are a failure. Would you prefer that terminology?

Second, I do understand how you came to the conclusion that a .82 is a "marginal increase (or actually a decrease)" in the top 3 performing rounds. 2 of those top 3 performing rounds however did not meet the 12" penetration requirements. On the other hand, I don't understand how you come to the conclusion that a 64% (.52 was the lowest performing round) increase in expansion is a marginal increase. And we are still talking the optimal conditions in "bare gelatin".
The largest expanding round on the list only penetrates to 10" in bare gelatin and expands to .87". This is pretty dam close to the LH Defense Ammo. We are talking a .05" difference. But as soon as it is shot through Heavy clothing, it drops down to .61".

147 gr hst expanded to .85" and penetrated 12". Better expansion and penetration independently verified and in a proven package.

The denim tests for the LH defense ammo that I have been able to find on the internet say that the .82" expansion is still consistent, even through 4 layers of denim. I'd like to see the test done exactly like the above mentioned rounds, but that might have to wait.

Link?

 

[dwr461]

Dave,

Your response is pretty much what I anticipated. I would think it would be extremely difficult to gather all the information on every gun shot wound you come across. And I am sure they probably all start to look alike in general. Small entry wound, slightly larger exit wound, if it even exits. I would be curious to talk to some of the trauma surgeons to see if they are seeing any trending with wound cavities. I do have to wonder why the rounds aren't expanding in the targets. I don't have enough information that tells me if the round failed to expand because of clothing or velocity. The black talon rounds of years ago were failing because of clothing keeping the rounds from full expansion. This seems to be the same problems with expansion loss in the FBI tests as well. Heavy clothing = less expansion in general.

I have heard about the Wad Cutters being used in the past. Forgot where I heard it but I can see it working. I mean, popular hunting rounds use soft lead noses as well.

I appreciate you taking the time to reply. I will be watching your video here shortly. I do have to say though, that my head is not filled with gun magazine nonsense. I am not so gullible to believe every thing I read. I try to do as much background research as possible and when I can I do my own physical tests. Probably why we are having the conversation we are having.

I'll let you know my thoughts on the video. Thanks again,

Yes please watch the video then ignore all the other crap you read that doesn't conform to its truth. Believe me when I tell you, he's telling the truth. This is an area that of study that is full of junk science that sounds great and has lots of data to back up wrong conclusions.

As far as what I carry, 9mm Luger and 38 Special. When I was young and dumb I was member of the 45 cap crew. Don't get me wrong 45acp is a proven stopper and it'll work very well with proper shot placement. But so will 9mm and I got less recoil with more magazine capacity. As far as the round I carry?

38 Special 158 grain LSWC-HP with gas check. It's the old Elmer Keith FBI load.
For 9mm Luger 124 grain Speer Gold Dot. I assume it won't expand but it penetrates at least 16 inches, which is my minimum, is accurate and reliable in my semi automatics.

Dave


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[DthunderUSA]

Why are you comparing it to every round on the list? I'm suggesting someone find the best round they can and shoot that. It is out preformed in both penetration and expansion.

I am comparing to every round on the list, because you posted the list. Isn't that what you are doing, comparing each individual round? The only thing you have suggested that I can tell is that you use and old list to reference ammunition to choose from. Recommend something else instead of crapping on 1 individual round.

As for your quote: "It is out preformed in both penetration and expansion."

That's not a true statement. It is out performed in penetration by 13 of the rounds. But those same 13 rounds were out performed by expansion. Only 4 of the rounds "out performed" it on both the penetration and expansion in "bare gelatin". As soon as we move to shooting through Heavy Clothing, they all under perform based on expansion.

The 147 gr HST that you referenced had a 19% loss in expansion in the heavy clothing section. I think it's one of the best rounds compared to the rest of them. Is it better than the LH Defense ammo, yes, if you are willing to have a reduction in expansion shooting through heavy clothing. I have no problems stating that.
But, if you want to use a pass / fail terminology then 7 of the rounds that you use as a sample, shouldn't been on the list because they failed to meet the minimum standards. You might want to at least take a look at the list before you use it as a sample of tried and proven technology. Because by your standards you are recommending 7 rounds that failed.

And you keep saying independently verified. I have yet to see any HP White ballistic test papers or any other formal testing agency's write up's on any rounds. Everything that I have seen so far is either from the manufacturer or from individuals trying to test as close to an industry standard as they can, given their circumstances. We can only assume the information that keeps getting referenced on other forums comes from some reputable source. But so far, I haven't seen one white paper on any of the ammunition we have discussed. All I keep seeing is blog posts from other forums and ripping off regurgitated information from 8 years ago. Show me something I haven't seen.

My intent is to do exactly what you suggested, find the best round I can and shoot that.

The search continues...

 

[Jack]

The point of the list isn't to suggest every round on the list, it is to show how rounds performed. Some did well, some didn't. I'm not claiming every round on that list out performs Lehigh, they don't. I'm saying that SOME of the rounds do. A test doesn't need to be done by an agency to be independent. I think you're confused about what independent means. Where is that link about Lehigh through heavy clothing anyways?

This whole arguement comes down to what you think is more credible, a guy who is defending a purchase based on his unqualified opinion and unverifiable nonrepeatable manufacturer claims or the FBI standards and an independent ballistics expert conducting tests to industry standards.

I personally carry whatever bonded 147 gr ammo I can find. I've seen how well it performs against barriers, know it gets at least mediocre expansion, and has enough penetration that it will reach what I need it to. I've seen this in both the testing of others and in person against car doors, auto glass, and other barriers.

 

[dwr461]

I love you internet heros. A 19% loss of expansion? Bull crap. That isn't how the real world works. Do you think if the movie hero drink poison that'll kill him in 24 hours and he drink the antidote at 23:56 he'll be fine. Sorry that isn't how the world works. In the real world his metabolism might end up killing him at 20 hours or he might live to 28 hours, drink the antidote, and still be fine.

Jesus, quit with the crap, the real world isn't like that. Put the bullet where it's effective and hope. That's all anyone can do.

Dav


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[DthunderUSA]

I appreciate your view on the list of rounds. I'd like to better understand what you think is a credible independent source though. You keep referencing the FBI when that is merely the standard being used, and I think everyone is trying to apply the same standard, which I think is a good thing. It gives us a clear consistent picture. But what independent data are you using? It's just a question.

This isn't an argument in my opinion, so I apologize if you feel like it is. I think it's a good discussion about data sets. I'm not defending a purchase, I am trying to compare ammunition so that I better understand what works for my requirements. I would be more than excited at this point to have an independent ballistics expert conduct a test to industry standards instead of the two of us keep referencing data from 2006.

Congratulations on doing your own testing, I try to do the same, and I intend to do my own physical testing of this and many more rounds that I find useful. If / when I do a gel block test I'll let you know how it turns out. I've got a variety of ammunition in many different grain weights and I think it's all good, and acceptable ammo. I just wish there was more consistent information out there.


And Dave,

I agree with you on putting the bullet where it's effective, but I don't believe in hoping or wishing. I'll just keep shooting if necessary.


Maybe we can all get together for a beer at some point and BS about ballistics or whatever.

Thanks,

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

Do you know what the LeHigh Ammo used to be called or what the Inventor's Name is? Does it make use of a polymer ball in the nose of the bullet to gurantee expansion? Lastly is the the ammo formerly known as LeMas and before that as RCBS created by Stan Bulmer?

 

[dwr461]

And Dave,

I agree with you on putting the bullet where it's effective, but I don't believe in hoping or wishing. I'll just keep shooting if necessary.


Maybe we can all get together for a beer at some point and BS about ballistics or whatever.

Thanks,

That's exactly the point that you're missing. You internet guys act like if you do enough research and select the perfect round that you'll be fine.the real world isn't like that. Buy whatever bullet you want. Make a hole through the bad guy's heart or aorta with it. Make it a .85 caliber hole and he can still pull the trigger and kill you.

19% expansion or 18% expansion or whatever. It's a low energy handgun round. Period. It doesn't matter. Low energy is low energy.

Dave


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

That's exactly the point that you're missing. You internet guys act like if you do enough research and select the perfect round that you'll be fine.the real world isn't like that. Buy whatever bullet you want. Make a hole through the bad guy's heart or aorta with it. Make it a .85 caliber hole and he can still pull the trigger and kill you.

19% expansion or 18% expansion or whatever. It's a low energy handgun round. Period. It doesn't matter. Low energy is low energy.

Dave


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Pistol = Stand Off Ice Pick.

 

[DthunderUSA]

Do you know what the LeHigh Ammo used to be called or what the Inventor's Name is? Does it make use of a polymer ball in the nose of the bullet to gurantee expansion? Lastly is the the ammo formerly known as LeMas and before that as RCBS created by Stan Bulmer?

Vanilla,
I don't know what Lehigh used to be called. I do know that they have been a firearms industry part manufacturing company before they got into the bullet business, at least that's what a friend of mine told me. He is actually the one who brought me by their booth two years ago at Shot Show. He was going to talk to them about manufacturing some parts for an invention he had and I was with him. At that point, I don't think they had the ammunition up and running. This year at Shot Show is where I saw the ammunition. So, short answer is I don't know what they used to be called or who the inventor is. I do not think there are any patents on their handgun rounds, at least none that I have come across. The ammunition does not have a polymer insert in it. It is basically a hollow cavity. They have scored the edges vertically which is how I believe they are able to get the consistent expansion.

No this ammo is not the same stuff as the RCBS stuff. That sounds a lot different than what this is. I guess the Stan Bulmer stuff is some kind of multiple metal process. I couldn't really get a good understanding of what they were trying to do or sell, but it didn't sound like it made it very far.

The Lehigh Defense bullets are made with a Swiss machine and are milled out of a solid piece of copper. I don't think this is any kind of new process though. I have heard of stories that monolithic bullets made with swiss machines have been around for a while but have just never taken off because of inconsistent expansion.

I have a box of the Barnes Tac-XPD ammo that is another all copper ammunition. It is relatively new to the market but it looks promising. I plan on researching this more as well.

Thanks,