TexasCHLforum.com

Also, I'll point out that I understand what Paul Harrel was thinking about using JHPs from 50 round boxes. So lets skip past Job 1 except he seemed to think accuracy can suffer in the higher velocity, higher priced loads. To a lesser extent, if we trust the USPSA shooters to know what they're doing with Major 9, adding a safety cushion of 5 PF above 165 PF a 124 gr bullet will need 1371 FPS to reach 170 PF. 2 very important things here: usually a custom pistol is used, with mostly 1911s where longer chambers allow loads to be longer than the SAAMI spec for Max OACL really intended for FMJ while the gamers are using JHPs. These barrels typically have a slower rifling twist of 1 in 16" rather than the 1 in 10" typical of 9mm service pistols. Obviously they believe the slower twist results in greater accuracy. IMO, the 1 in 10" twist is very well suited to supersonic 147 gr loads. As I mentioned before, supersonic velocity at sea level is usually stated to be 1118 FPS or very near to it. There really isn't much need in pushing them faster when excessive velocity will cause jacket/core separation. I ain't gonna touch that one except to say that some bullets like the Golden Saber that can separate, probably the most in my experience testing JHPs, their brass jacket still penetrates very close to the depth of the core.

As far as following the lead of LE. That works for me so long as it's an agency like the DPS rather than the FBI. The Hornady 135 gr. +P Critical Duty was mentioned and maybe I've already posted on that here or elsewhere. At a factory spec of 1110 FPS, I really don't get the +P rating. Unfortunately, and the loads I chrono'd were gifts to my SPs friend by a DPS trooper and fired from a tube 1/2" longer than Hornady's 4" test barrel, velocity ran 1090 FPS. Expansion would be better from their XTP if they made one at 135 grs. Reducing velocity to get deeper penetration due to less expansion is a road I won't be traveling.

Neither am I concerned about 15 - 18" of penetration. I, myself, being a fairly large human, am not that thick from front to back, and have always practiced C.O.M. shots. You simply can not practice for every contingency except the mindset of shooting until the threat is over. 12" of penetration works for me, and penetration from the same load after 4 layers of denim is going to be deeper anyway. As far as the QAS system, a stop means the aggressor is stopped within 30 seconds, and subsequently it shows greater results with each successive round fired. That's a good deal different than the OSS data collected by Marshall & Sanow and over those 900 loads Charles Schwartz has tested, he rates JHPs being very good at 70% for the first round. Very good loads get to 98% by the third, 99% by the 4th. Becuase of the extent that exponents in math can reach by a scientific calculator or computer, you could be shooting for days before you got to 100%. Realistically impossible. The percentage for 3 shots usually tells me what I want to know.

But because that 1 load failed to reach the heart by a very few millimeters, and as I've mentioned, a 115 gr JHP in 9mm at 1135 FPS doesn't even reach the very minimum I would mention for a load being considered, the FBI has had an obsession with deep penetration. They would do well, IMO, to remember what happened with a number of agencies just after Miami 1986 when the first 147 gr JHPs became available, and very much loaded subsonic. They rarely expanded enough, and cases of bystanders being struck by over-penetrating loads resulted in several personal injury lawsuits. Almost immediately, Peter Pi of Cor-Bon found a better solution by pushing those same 147 gr JHPs just barely supersonic at 1125 FPS with a +P designation.

So, if any of you are game and have a chronograph. Check the velocity at the same distance to the first water vessel you use. Recover the bullet and weigh its mass, and depending on its final shape, the calculation for average diameter in cases where the JHP expands in 6 petals, you'll need the 3 outside diameters and the 3 between the petals. The WIN 147 gr JHP I tested last week and reported on in the reloading section gave very symmetrical, nearly round expansion with maybe only a couple of differences in the expanded dia. I can run those stats in the Q-Model to give a number of different values starting with the predicted depth of penetration almost identical to the depth the same bullet will penetrate in the real FBI test gel. Other values are wound mass and wound volume. Energy expended in the 1st - 15th centimeter. Power in kW and now with the latest version, even the Ballistic Pressure Wave in PSI. So, whatever doctrine you subscribe to, it is very likely predicted in the Q-Model program. 900 loads compared with an accuracy rate that's pretty exceptional, IMO, at 95%+.

In my own estimation, I've always put a lot of emphasis on what is described as the mThor value or Delta E15 with the proper symbol used rather than the word delta being typed, energy expended in the 1st - 15th centimeter. There is a connection between that value and the power rating in kiloWatts. Pretty decent power values come at around 110 kW and up to 170 kW with some of my better 9mm loads recently. Depth of penetration will be 12" mimimum in bare gel or very close to it while I strongly suspect that this is about how rapidly the JHP expands while still penetrating 12". For me, it's pretty hard science and very few prediction tools can be realistically higher than a reliability factor of 95%+.

Sorry, I did it again!

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 8:28 pm

flechero wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 1:04 pm

K-Texas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:38 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 5:18 pm Dude's posts are longer than my own. Sumpin' ain’t right here.

Since my screen name is not Dude, I must wonder if you intended a slight insult. In my lexicon, a DUDE is a guy who dresses and tries to act like a cowboy even though he may have never sat a horse, and less likely to have ever been on a cattle drive. Myself, I could sit a horse in my pre-puberty years and in my adventurous early to mid 20s I was on a good many cattle drives out of San Angelo. A little more expedient than the 19th century kind as it involved covering most states west of the Mississippi while the cattle were driven to their destination by 18-wheel truck

Not that TAM needs me to speak for him- but you clearly mistook his post.

I'm sure TAM wasn't being ugly- if he were, you'd not have to wonder. It's just that we rib him for being so long winded and he finally had someone to pass that on to. [clearly joking] And just so you know- "Dude" in the last 30 years has evolved into a positive slang term. (more often meaning friend, compadre or buddy)

Thanks, and you’re right. I wasn’t trying to be ugly. "Dude" for me is the same as saying "that guy", or "hey, man". I don’t know how old K-Texas is, but I’m 67, and I came up surfing SoCal beaches in the 1960s. Back then, we used "dude" to express all kinds of meanings, but almost never as an insult.



As flechero pointed out, I’ve taken some friendly ribbing over the years for the length of some of my posts. So when I say "Dude's [as in, "this guy's"] posts are longer than my own. Sumpin' ain’t right here. ", that’s a joke that pokes fun at myself.....and maybe you too a little bit, the same way that others poke fun at me. I certainly didn’t mean it as an insult.

Okay, now I get it! I'm 62 and on the backside to 63. Unfortunately for you guys, when I get into technical stuff on handloading and/or ballistics, my posts tend to run a bit long. For starting threads, I'll usually post a notice for getting long-winded.

flechero wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 1:04 pm

K-Texas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:38 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 5:18 pm Dude's posts are longer than my own. Sumpin' ain’t right here.

Since my screen name is not Dude, I must wonder if you intended a slight insult. In my lexicon, a DUDE is a guy who dresses and tries to act like a cowboy even though he may have never sat a horse, and less likely to have ever been on a cattle drive. Myself, I could sit a horse in my pre-puberty years and in my adventurous early to mid 20s I was on a good many cattle drives out of San Angelo. A little more expedient than the 19th century kind as it involved covering most states west of the Mississippi while the cattle were driven to their destination by 18-wheel truck

Not that TAM needs me to speak for him- but you clearly mistook his post.

I'm sure TAM wasn't being ugly- if he were, you'd not have to wonder. It's just that we rib him for being so long winded and he finally had someone to pass that on to. [clearly joking] And just so you know- "Dude" in the last 30 years has evolved into a positive slang term. (more often meaning friend, compadre or buddy)

And here I thought maybe it was about surf boards, or Kaliforniasthan.

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 5:18 pm Dude's posts are longer than my own. Sumpin' ain’t right here.

So far, I haven’t been able to get anybody to volunteer to step in front of any load I’ve ever carried, so that I can get some kind of real world idea of its effectiveness. Maybe I’m not asking right.

And I don’t really care enough to go buy ballistics gelatin and shoot holes in all my old blue jeans to conduct my own tests and find out.

So I do what smart shoppers everywhere do....I do my research by reading articles, watching videos of other people's tests, and talking with others who been down that particular investigatory trail, and then I add it all up and see if what they all say makes sense to me. Then I go buy some of that ammo and run it through my carry gun to see (1) if it feeds reliably, and (2) if it groups reasonably accurately.

Since my screen name is not Dude, I must wonder if you intended a slight insult. In my lexicon, a DUDE is a guy who dresses and tries to act like a cowboy even though he may have never sat a horse, and less likely to have ever been on a cattle drive. Myself, I could sit a horse in my pre-puberty years and in my adventurous early to mid 20s I was on a good many cattle drives out of San Angelo. A little more expedient than the 19th century kind as it involved covering most states west of the Mississippi while the cattle were driven to their destination by 18-wheel truck.

If I start a thread, it will get my attention beyond the 1st post. If they're too long for anyone, I might suggest passing over them to the next post. I ain't gonna buy gel either. That's kind of the point you may not be getting. Some products claim that they can be used to achieve the same result found in FBI gel tests. That is not the case. And as I mentioned, in 900 direct comparisons, water testing done right has an accuracy probability above 95% in predicting penetration as FBI gel in controlled conditions some might not even be aware of.

I've seen good performance in JHP testing, and some not so good. I handloaded 9mm even back when 50 rounds could be bought for $5. For me, it's always been about easily being able to produce better handloads than what you can expect from factory ammo. Same as rifle loads. In the first of Mr. Harrel's youtube vids I mentioned, he was setting out to explain why he didn't like "Hyper" loads when greater economy could be had by loads that come 50 to a box at a much better price. Well . . . 20 rounds of the best defense ammo will likely cost more than $1 a round. At 50 rounds for $15, what kind of performance can you expect? Typically, it's the anemic kind with 115 gr. JHPs in 9mm, not so different than those infamous SilverTips rated 1225 FPS from a 4" test barrel while actual chronograph testing shows them 90 FPS slower at 1135 FPS. I ain't trustin' anyone, or anything, but my own tests when it comes to defense of those I love. Loads from the smaller ammo-makers like Double-Tap, Underwood's and Buffalo Bore are not as hyper as he may believe if you understand what the potential was before SAAMI started monkeying around with pressure ratings and creating +Phony designations that are more about velocity than they could be about pressure. There is little doubt from the tests I've seen conducted from guys like TNoutdoors9 that velocity can absolutely be high enough to warrant their +P ratings. One last quesion here: which ammo do you expect you can bet your life on while ammo-makers have to load almost generically for all of the different pistols their loads could be fired from? Handloading for the specific pistol you carry and testing it might just take more time than you want to devote to it.

Good points have been made here. This is a public forum, so by all means assume anything I type to be JMO. I don't have a video for you to buy. And, hopefully, before anyone exercises the right that comes with a concealed carry license, they're aware that there is no replacement for accurate shot placement. I also like to point out to others who may not live in a state of common sense, or local jurisdiction: know what the repercussions could be where YOU LIVE if you do find yourself in a personal defense shooting. No one who decides that the safer bet is to carry with factory ammo will ever get an argument from me.

Tex1961 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 9:25 pm Or, just watch a couple of Paul Harrel videos.

Well, since I'd never heard of him before now, I decided to act on your invitation. He seems very congenial and seems fairly well credentialed. Unfortunately, I only made it to around 3 minutes on his video, "Why I don't like 'Hyper' ammo." It seems doubtful that he handloads, and if he does, he doesn't seem to be familiar with the history of the 9 x 19mm going back to what he describes as "Miami, Dade" AKA, The Miami Shootout of 1986, we need not worry with going back to 1902.


The "Miami" Video runs 8 minutes before it gets to the actual event while another historical account precedes it, the Newhall shooting, where bad revolver tactics and no speedloaders resulted in the deaths of 4 LE Officers by 2 felons. Made it past 26 minutes of the 34 minute video.


He recalls a conversation with another shooter who mentioned the failure of the 9mm 115 gr. Winchester SilverTip and that guy tells Mr Harrel that that wouldn't have been the case had they been using .357 Revolvers. Then Mr. Harrel pointed out that some of the agents were, in fact, armed with .357 Magnum revolvers.

While I'm not a theatrical critic, not even a YouTube critic, there are some problems here. First, the S&W 3" M13 .357 Magnum was the FBI issued handgun at that time, but the standard FBI load was a .38 Special 158 gr. SWCHP. Mr. Harrel also states that maybe Winchester has improved the SilverTip load used in what he calls "the shot heard 'round the world" in 1986, while the term is usually in reference to 1776 and the beginning of the American Revolution. And if he believes that "maybe" Winchester has improved the 9mm 115 gr. SilverTip, he, or anyone else can watch this 5 and 3/4 minute test here: I mentioned that load in my last article because there are a number of lessons to be learned. I was actually a bit easy on the load stating that advertised velocity was 1200 FPS. It's actually 1225 FPS. TNoutdoors9 chronographed 5 rounds of that load at a very unsatisfactory velocity of 1135 FPS from a 4" Glock 19, the same length as the S&W 459s of the shootout. And we all know how Glock likes to hype polygonally rifled barrels giving higher velocity than conventionally rifled barrels. In 1986, the SilverTip load does what Mr. Harrel states, THE round that struck the felon in the upper arm penetrated to within just a very few millimeters of the heart. Later, in autopsy, the wound was deemed non-survivable. Unfortunately, an estimated 3 minutes passed before the felon lost consciousness.

Many a problem here! Since then an organization known as the IWBA seems to believe that they know everything there is to know about handgun cartridge effectiveness. Headed by the late Dr. Martin Fackler who took the FBI on a cartridge/pistol merry-go-round. Following the event of April 1986, and I would suggest that anyone who wants to know, follow the timeline and consider each specific I'm just gonna run through following that shooting. 1. Subsonic 147 gr JHP 9mm. 2. 180 gr 10mm "Lite" (subsonic). 3. .40 S&W 180 gr Subsonic. 4. 165 gr .40 S&W "Medium Velocity" (definitely subsonic). 5. A better performing 180 gr .40 S&W load, but still subsonic. 6, and half a dozen cartridges later, back to the 9mm. So, how many times did I type the term sub-sonic?

So, the IWBA mandate is based almost entirely on penetration and the Permanent Stretch Cavity where a stop is best attributable to dramatic loss of blood pressure. Never mind that even while the 115 gr SilverTip didn't get the job done: not for 3 eternal like minutes, the PSC went completely through an upper arm and well into the thoracic cavity coming to rest with decent expansion just millimeters from reaching the heart itself. One of the reasons today, 18" of penetration is a consideration. So we practice Center of Mass, but need 15 - 18" of penetration? And while they raked counter opinions over the coals?

I don't want to write a book here, but this is the reason I test my own ammo. I'm not looking to become a star on YouTube for whatever potential gain. Also, I'll mention what I stated previously: Charles Schwartz retired from federal Law enforcement. His experience didn't come through osmosis, it was his personally and having minored in physics at Ohio State University didn't hurt either. Now I'll mention momentum again because over a good many years of testing JHP defense loads of my own making, I've tested a great many factory and handloaded ammo. From that I've tried to simplify by stating what I consider the minimum level of momentum for myself at .6500 Lb-seconds without arguing with someone needing to reduce that to .6000 Lb-seconds for whatever reason. A 115 gr. 9mm bullet exiting the muzzle at 1135 FPS only carries 329 Ft/lbs of energy with a momentum of .5795 Lb-seconds of momentum.

What this is all about, and firstly as was well pointed out, shot placement is #1, 2, and 3. After that we need penetration, momentum and energy. Look back over some of the IWBA recommendations for and against. They do not believe that energy, at the handgun cartridge level, is as relevant as some others believe it is, nor can any significance be placed on the Temporary Stretch Cavity. Then maybe notice the performance of the rounds that they disdain supposedly as higher energy loads. Rarely are they even near the highest energy by caliber and weight.

Considering that first Paul Harrel video about why he doesn't like Hyper ammo. As 9mm pistols caught fire with LE agencies starting around 1990, SAAMI had reduced the Max Average Pressure of the round while changing their pressure testing method at the same time, and how we wound up with the +P designation. The new MAP became 35,000 PSI and went up to 38,500 PSI +P. Sometimes it just pays to be a handloader where beneficial things can be learned, like the MAP for the 9mm being 35,000 PSI, but also 33,000 CUP. The MAP of the 9 x 19 before the +P switcheroo was 35,700 CUP. Wanna take a stab at what that would test in PSI/SAAMI? I use that term because the Europeans also test in PSI but with their own method, CIP. Both the 9mm NATO and the 5.56mm NATO had their MAPs established in CIP.

I'll freely admit that I watch YouTube videos as well in terms of testing firearms and ammunition. I'm not much into supposed combat gurus. But I'll also admit to being skeptical about Quantitative Ammunition Selection until I put it to the test, reading the book and having the Q-Models furnished to me for several years now. The current version covers a number of different hypothesis regardless of how Charles Schwartz feels about them personally, due to broad acceptance by others. I don't know how it could be better, and is the version I hope to see offered commercially. It won't tell you what load you should use or shouldn't use; it tells you how to discern the difference.

narcissist wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 1:31 am I think its not so much the ammo as it is the shooter or accuracy of him/her. Practice in real world type situations as much as possible, learn your weapon or weapons like they are another extension to your body.

Shot placement is definitely the highest priority. Always has been, always will be. Then the other factors come into play that are about the effectiveness of your chosen load. The Black Talon and Hydra-Shok were 2 very good bullets that have just gotten better over time as the Ranger SXT and HST respectively. Well before they were available, back when bulk packs of REM and WIN JHPs were only about 1/3 the price of JHP bullets today, and when loaded correctly, performed quite well.

One of the things that rarely got mentioned in the case of JHPs getting their cavity clogged to the point they didn't expand was the lack of velocity they left the muzzle at. I loaded 115s from both, but mostly the REM 124 gr. JHP for many years, as well as Golden Sabers. Looking over different ratings for effectiveness, the REM factory loads with the standard JHPs rated about average. One thing that was consistent with the older standard REM JHPs was that they didn't expand a lot but were among the deepest penetrators. Velocity isn't the cure for everything, but it certainly improved the performance by increasing expansion where penetration became a bit less but certainly acceptable. Before the 1986 Miami incident, the best 2 loads available in 9mm were likely the "Illinois State Police" and the "Secret Service" loads that used the Win and REM 115 gr. JHPs, respectively. Both were rated +P+ and were not generally available to the public. But even then, +P and +P+ labels were overused and more about velocity than cartridge pressure. That continues today, but some of the most effective loads to include the Rangers, HSTs, Gold Dot and a few others, the bullets are better designed to work at velocities that can be achieved at standard pressure. The better loads in 9mm are often labeled +P, but they'd have to be pressure tested to know that a +P designation was actually required.

And regarding nose cavity clogging, very few "experts" ever considered the importance of momentum. Not in terms of heavier bullets giving higher momentum than lighter bullets, that's simply Newtonian Physics. The real question is about the level of momentum, particularly upon impact and the first few centimeters of penetration, where the heavier mass of the lead core tries to overcome the lighter mass of the bullet's jacket. The 2 common remedies are mechanical locks and bonding, but that's not to say that some older style cup-and-core JHPs can't perform well enough to get the job done, provided that momentum is high enough upon impact. In a case like 230 gr. JHPs in .45 ACP, at around 850 FPS, muzzle energy only runs 369 Ft/lbs while momentum is quite high at .8680 Lb-seconds. Things are not, however, always that simple. Other factors such as recoil and the shooters ability to deal with it can become looming. Not everyone practices with range loads that generate the same recoil as the loads they carry, or time themselves with their load of choice. Balance is the key, IMO, and why the DPS investigated the level of recoil that works best for all, back when they were testing to find the caliber that would replace the .357 Magnum. They measured by simple power factor which is BW x V / 1000 for those who are not aware, and the level that they found to be the ideal median was 160 PF. The 125 gr. .357 SIG loads they tested were just a bit above that. More recently, we've seen that change with recruits being issued 9mms while veteran troopers can choose what they like from among the calibers approved.

The only way that you'll get identical results to FBI testing is by testing with an identical gel block of the correct composition, and then at the controlled temperature.

The real science behind Quantitative Ammunition Selection comes from predicting penetration and statistics by firing into water. It will accurately predict performance in FBI controlled testing with a confidence factor above 95% with 900 loads tested. Let me explain something here: I don't gain anything financially from sharing this info. It is simply the best method for testing and evaluation I've seen in my 40+ years of reading other opinions on the subject vs what I've seen with my own 2 eyes.

Let me explain, if I can; QAS is not about a comparison to anything other than the results by firing and recovering the bullet tested, in comparison to FBI gel testing. So let me stop right there. How many parameters is your defense load capable of improving upon? How many parameters should you be concerned about? To my way of thinking, the high capacity advocacy is about how many rounds you can fire accurately in a small segment in time while there might be multiple adversaries.

Just when I thought the Speer 124 gr +P Gold Dot was the favored by all Law Enforcement, I saw that Hornady seems to have made them a 135 gr. load rated +P @ 1110 FPS that's on the menu. I dunno, maybe James Comey mandated such a load. IMO, I wouldn't even bother except that I did test where the velocity spec was not reached, even from a longer barrel while expansion isn't much in comparison to better JHP loads in 9 x 19mm. The actual numbers for such a load I won't even investigate beyond muzzle energy and momentum while it does get above the .6500 Lb-second minimum momentum requirement of any defense load I'd choose for myself, but expansion and every other data point will not be favorable.

Over the past 3 decades, people advocating penetration (and with tunnel vision) were right in one respect, or 1/2 correct: a minimum depth of penetration is required. But that's only half the science where the Hornady 135 gr. +P Critical duty load only generates 369 Ft/lbs of muzzle energy even if it could match its overly optimistic velocity spec. Don't even ask me about screwdriver bullets; I won't be offering data for an opinion. I'll just say that they're not for me. Subscribe to your favorite guru if you want, but you can do better by testing for yourself for any load you contemplate for a carry load. I've already mentioned the shortcut I take in water testing, and it is different than how Charles Schwartz conducts his tests, but I do not want to see an expanded JHP penetrating completely through 4 1-gallon water jugs. My minimum is through 2 jugs and well into the 3rd, and that standard was established by what some might not even consider worthy, with the Winchester 230 gr. JHP White-Box load, where with lighter bullets, more velocity is gonna be required, accordingly, to match that load's momentum at around 850 FPS delivering .8680 Lb-seconds.

It might be fairly considered that water testing is harder on JHP performance than any other medium involving gel of one kind or another. And as I mentioned, penetration is but 1 data point that I want to consider where 12" without barriers is fine by me. Shoot through 4 layers of denim? The same load will penetrate even greater.

Summation: I ain't gonna choose a defense load based on how it rates in FBI tests. Job #1, without a close 2nd is shot placement. That to be followed by a an equal consideration of penetration, energy and momentum. I don't practice contingencies like what occurred to the FBI in Miami 1986, and needing to consider 18" of penetration. My practice is, and always has been about the best accuracy C.O.M. also known as center-of-mass, and shooting until the threat is stopped. And as far as Miami 1986 goes, 12" of penetration might have prevented a great deal of speculation rather than science. Had the FBI chosen the load advocated and originated by Peter Pi of Cor-Bon just shortly after, 10mm Lite/subsonic, .40 S&W Lite/subsonic, and then going back to 9mm . . . think about the taxpayer money.

The thing is, there's a really easy way to evaluate your defense loads. You do not have to be a handloader, but you will need access to a chronograph that maybe a shooting buddy has, if you don't want to invest $100 to do it yourself. Other than velocity, diameter and weight of the recovered bullet can tell you what you really want to know.