Your Chosen Defense load: How much can you trust it?

[K-Texas]

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.

[Tex1961]

Or, just watch a couple of Paul Harrel videos.

[WTR]

I believe at the moment I am going to put my faith in the Lucky Gunner ballistic tests.

[crazy2medic]

When choosing my defensive load I did alot of Reading, at the time of my doing the research their wasn't alot of the current defensive ammo, I believe the "top" ammo used by LE at that time was the Winchester Black Talon, data from actual shootings compiled from both LE and Self Defense use showed that the Federal Hydrashoks had the best expansion and stopping rating, from this I chose the 230gr Hydrashoks, I have yet to read or hear of anything that would justify using a different ammunition!
My opinion!

[narcissist]

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.

[Paladin]

When choosing my defensive load I did alot of Reading, at the time of my doing the research their wasn't alot of the current defensive ammo, I believe the "top" ammo used by LE at that time was the Winchester Black Talon, data from actual shootings compiled from both LE and Self Defense use showed that the Federal Hydrashoks had the best expansion and stopping rating, from this I chose the 230gr Hydrashoks, I have yet to read or hear of anything that would justify using a different ammunition!
My opinion!

Like a lot of hollow points, the old hydrashoks tended to plug with denim or other heavy clothing. Once plugged they did not expand normally.

Modern hollowpoints (i.e. HST) are designed to expand reliably even against heavy clothing. Not sure what the new hydrashok performance is.

[crazy2medic]

When choosing my defensive load I did alot of Reading, at the time of my doing the research their wasn't alot of the current defensive ammo, I believe the "top" ammo used by LE at that time was the Winchester Black Talon, data from actual shootings compiled from both LE and Self Defense use showed that the Federal Hydrashoks had the best expansion and stopping rating, from this I chose the 230gr Hydrashoks, I have yet to read or hear of anything that would justify using a different ammunition!
My opinion!

Like a lot of hollow points, the old hydrashoks tended to plug with denim or other heavy clothing. Once plugged they did not expand normally.

Modern hollowpoints (i.e. HST) are designed to expand reliably even against heavy clothing. Not sure what the new hydrashok performance is.

A good deal of my reading was a compilation of autopsy reports from actual shootings, and the Hydrashoks did well!

[Paladin]

When choosing my defensive load I did alot of Reading, at the time of my doing the research their wasn't alot of the current defensive ammo, I believe the "top" ammo used by LE at that time was the Winchester Black Talon, data from actual shootings compiled from both LE and Self Defense use showed that the Federal Hydrashoks had the best expansion and stopping rating, from this I chose the 230gr Hydrashoks, I have yet to read or hear of anything that would justify using a different ammunition!
My opinion!

Like a lot of hollow points, the old hydrashoks tended to plug with denim or other heavy clothing. Once plugged they did not expand normally.

Modern hollowpoints (i.e. HST) are designed to expand reliably even against heavy clothing. Not sure what the new hydrashok performance is.

A good deal of my reading was a compilation of autopsy reports from actual shootings, and the Hydrashoks did well!

This and other testing shows that the traditional hydra shok generally fails to expand when hitting denim:
9mm Ammo Quest: Federal Premium Hydra Shok

That is one of the reasons why HST was developed. The new Hydra Shok Deep is said to have improved performance over the original.

[K-Texas]

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.

[K-Texas]

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.

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

I have the capacity to handload my pistol ammo, but I don’t bother. I have a single stage press, and it’s just a lot easier to buy 9mm by the 1000 round box. I reload for .308 and .223/5.56, and will soon begin reloading for .30-30. But for my pistols, I just don’t bother. I carried HST in my .45s when I carried them. I carry 135 grain +P Hornady Critical Duty FTX in my 9mm Glocks. And I carry 125 grain Hornady Critical Defense FTX in my .357 Magnum revolvers.

Regarding Paul Harrell, he does reload some of his rifle ammo....or at least, he used to. One thing he DOES do—which so far as I can tell, you do NOT—is that he frequently states and restates that these are his opinions, that work for him, with his guns, and he explains why. He doesn’t very often make blanket statements that cavalierly dismiss the reasoning of other people ... as long as they actually reasoned...and he also doesn't call out and disparage the work of other testers/writers. He also frequently ends his demonstrations of performance/accuracy with "You be the judge".

I haven’t always agreed with some of his conclusions. For instance, I remain convinced that a suppressed AR15 SBR loaded with 55 grain soft points is a better home defense choice—FOR ME—than a 12 gauge shotgun, which Harrel says is the superior choice....FOR HIM. But I also recognize that a LOT of people put their faith in the shotgun, and have done so for as long as there’s been shotguns. There must be something to it. So I won’t ridicule or be dismissive of someone's choice to rely on a shotgun instead of an AR. Another example....I carry what he would term "hyper ammo" (or whatever he called it), instead of the plain old cheap Remington JHPs. Yeah, it costs more; but it also gives me more confidence in its performance—especially when it’s backed up by the research I did before deciding to try some of it in my gun.

There are humble experts, and then there are arrogant experts. Both may have something to offer, but I know to which ones I pay attention, and those to which I do not.

[Jago668]

Just my opinion. I carry whatever the largest police force in my area is allowed to carry. Which tends to be stuff most people would carry anyways. Speer Gold Dots, Federal HST, Hornady Critical Duty. Generally has a good reputation for on the street performance, and reliability. Plus for my legal peace of mind I figure it eliminates the chance for the prosecutor to make something of my ammo if it is what his police department uses. How true that is I don't know, but I figure it can't hurt.

I'd love to be able to get my hands on the 50 round LE boxes of the Hornady Critical Duty 135gr +P, but Hornady really cracked down on it.

[Lena]

I carry a G32 357 SIG daily and have since it was new, along time ago in the early 90's. All that it has ever shot was Ranger T, Gold Dots and a small amount of Cor-Bon, I trust all 3 completely, never had a malfunction and everything that needed shooting did not create anymore problems. I did shoot 1 box of Blazer in it just to see if it would work back when they made it in 357 SIG, it worked fine. All I carry is Ranger T or Gold Dot 125hp. I know they work well.

[K-Texas]

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.