[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Federal 9mm Luger 147 Grain HST (Page 1 of 4)
Posted: 1/4/2022 11:11:47 AM EDT
|
reposted with broken picture links repaired Federal 9mm Luger 147 Grain HST  Federal’s Premium Law Enforcement Ammunition line-up currently includes four different 9mm Luger loads that utilize 0.355” versions of their hollow-point HST bullet. As the title of this article states, the standard pressure 147grain load (P9HST2) will be the focus of this article. As of this writing, all versions of the 9mm Luger HST ammunition are loaded in nickel-plated, brass cases. The case-head for the P9HST2 is stamped “F C 9MM LUGER”. This version is loaded to a cartridge nominal OAL of 1.125”. The primers are sealed, but are not crimped in place. The case mouths are also sealed. The round is charged with a “flake” powder.   The individual squares in the red grid below measure one-tenth of an inch.  The 147 grain HST projectile has a nominal length of 0.680”. The bullet has a deep cannelure and six skives in the copper jakcet. The skives on the 9mm HST projectiles are the longest of any of the 9mm Luger law enforcement loads that I’ve evaluated to date.  The 9mm HST projectiles have a very unique construction, in that the lead-core directly beneath the skives has a crown-shaped cut-out.  Federal’s literature claims that the 9mm Luger 147 grain HST load has a muzzle velocity of 1000 FPS. When chronographed from my Gen 2 Glock 19 (with the factory original barrel) over an Oehler 35P chronograph, the P9HST2 load had a muzzle velocity of 1018 FPS with a standard deviation of 11 FPS! Dr. GK Roberts has stated that the 9mm 147 grain HST rounds “are among the finest 9 mm duty loads currently available.” Terminal ballistic testing in 10% ordnance gelatin conducted by the good doctor produced the following results . . .   I evaluated the accuracy of the P9HST2 load from a distance of 25 yards using two different platforms; my Gen 2 Glock 19 and a Colt 6450 with a free-floated Noveske barrel.  When using hand-loads topped with the Hornady 125 grain HAP bullet, my Noveske barreled Colt 6450 has turned in 10-shot groups at 25 yards that have extreme spreads of less than a half-inch.  A 10-shot group of the P9HST2 ammunition fired from the Noveske barreled 6450 at 25 yards had an extreme spread of 0.83”.  Firing from the bench at a distance of 25 yards, my Gen 2 Glock 19 (with the factory original barrel) produced a 10-shot group with an extreme spread of 2.05”.  …. |
.
|
Quoted: Where can I get some today? I love the 124 +p out of my current carry pistols, but want some 147 for the suppressed 9’s. The cheapest I saw it by far was 1,000 rounds loose in an ammo can for $550, I believe. Most places are in the ~$750 range for a case. I think this is where I saw it last week, but it’s currently sold out: 9mm - Federal HST 147 Gr. JHP NEW Bulk Can Lots of places have it for around $38-$45 for 50 rounds of you search with Ammoseek. Quoted: Good stuff and review. Glad I laid it in when target sports was blowing it out cheap. My last order from Bone Frog Gun Club three years ago was $17.75 per box of 50. These days, it’s hard to find brass FMJ for that price. Definitely wish I had ordered more. |
| Yep!! That's what I have in my carry piece! Same exact round and it does shoot sweet... 10 yards is a nine and ten ring player on 10 rounds using in the G19 and 26. Purchased when things were far less crazy and have a half case left after practicing with and rotating for 3 years. Good stuff anyway! |
|
These are my primary duty loads. They also work well out of a shorter barrel. They aren't as loud as the faster bullets are, and when you are in an enclosed space, that matters. They penetrate fine, and due to the reduced recoil, follow up shots are quicker. Plus, as you can see from above, they expand and stay in the target. That matters when you are working in an area where you might have to take a shot and there's people around. Fine duty load. I also have critical duty on hand, due to the ammo shortage. Have to keep enough for at least 6 mags reloads. |
|
Quoted: Are you able to make any comments about the change of the bullet design for the 147 grain HST? The added cannelure is to help retain the jacketing. The skiving was changed for better penetration. So, basically just improved weight retention and penetration through barriers. |
|
I've seen Paul Harrell test out the 150gr HSTs on the meat target. I'm not impressed by their failure to expand, and three grains won't make any difference. I don't trust the gel test here to be representative of their true expansion in a living medium. https://youtu.be/GQtmbW4uGMY?t=528 I'll stick with my 124gr HSTs out of my 4.5-inch barrel. I've seen Paul do the same test on them and they're so much better. |
|
Quoted: I've seen Paul Harrell test out the 150gr HSTs on the meat target. I'm not impressed by their failure to expand, and three grains won't make any difference. Quoted: I've seen Paul Harrell test out the 150gr HSTs on the meat target. I'm not impressed by their failure to expand, and three grains won't make any difference. Just three grains, maybe not. Bullet design, construction and muzzle velocity/striking velocity: absolutely. Quoted: I don't trust the gel test here to be representative of their true expansion in a living medium. I'll be sure to mention to Dr. G.K. Roberts your dissatisfaction with his work in comparison to a guy on YouTube shooting watermelons.  .... |
|
Quoted: I've seen Paul Harrell test out the 150gr HSTs on the meat target. I'm not impressed by their failure to expand, and three grains won't make any difference. I don't trust the gel test here to be representative of their true expansion in a living medium. https://youtu.be/GQtmbW4uGMY?t=528 I'll stick with my 124gr HSTs out of my 4.5-inch barrel. I've seen Paul do the same test on them and they're so much better. |
|
Quoted: This is some scary logic right here. Quoted: Quoted: I've seen Paul Harrell test out the 150gr HSTs on the meat target. I'm not impressed by their failure to expand, and three grains won't make any difference. I don't trust the gel test here to be representative of their true expansion in a living medium. https://youtu.be/GQtmbW4uGMY?t=528 I'll stick with my 124gr HSTs out of my 4.5-inch barrel. I've seen Paul do the same test on them and they're so much better. No, it's not. There's nothing scary about choosing your carry ammo based on diverse ballistics tests conducted on video by a person who has extensive experience in firearms instruction. |
|
Quoted: Just three grains, maybe not. Bullet design, construction and muzzle velocity/striking velocity: absolutely. .... Quoted: Just three grains, maybe not. Bullet design, construction and muzzle velocity/striking velocity: absolutely. .... That's usually not the case. The vast majority of lines of hollow-point ammo used scaled-up versions of lighter projectiles when making the heavier ones; you'll see powder count and type remain either minimally or totally unchanged. This is why you'll see terminal inconsistencies between certain ammo like 124gr and 147gr JHPs, like differences in expansion. Quoted: I'll be sure to mention to Dr. G.K. Roberts your dissatisfaction with his work in comparison to a guy on YouTube shooting watermelons. .... I never said I was dissatisfied with Dr. Roberts's work, I said I didn't trust the gel test to adequately represent the true expansion 147gr JHPs have in a living medium, one where bone, muscles and organs are a factor. Ballistics gel isn't useless, but if you rely upon it to be the deciding factor in what you choose as carry ammo or especially what you call "good," then that's a mighty rickety bridge you're trying to sell me. I'll take video proof from a guy with extensive firearms experience and more qualifications than you or I will ever have, over this doctor. I'm sure he knows a lot, but he's not infallible and he'd surely acknowledge the video proof if it was placed in front of him. |
|
Quoted: No, it's not. There's nothing scary about choosing your carry ammo based on diverse ballistics tests conducted on video by a person who has extensive experience in firearms instruction. |
|
The 150 grain HSTs do perform significantly different than the 147s, even in gel. So I wouldn't take Paul's tests to be indicative of what the 147s would do in his meat target. E.g. from lucky gunner, the 147s are almost 100 fps faster than the 150s: https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/#9mm Or from ShootingTheBull (which I prefer because he uses calibrated 10% ballistic gel, instead of clear gel which can be misleading), where he finds a similar difference in velocity, and has one 150 that doesn't expand properly in the denim test, while the 147s are perfect: 150s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LFFqHR62TE 147s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3VfWkWMzOI The difference is more than just 3 grains because the 150s are loaded differently. I'm not sure about the details, but the 150s are marketed as lower recoil. |
|
Quoted: The 150 grain HSTs do perform significantly different than the 147s, even in gel. So I wouldn't take Paul's tests to be indicative of what the 147s would do in his meat target. E.g. from lucky gunner, the 147s are almost 100 fps faster than the 150s: https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/#9mm Or from ShootingTheBull (which I prefer because he uses calibrated 10% ballistic gel, instead of clear gel which can be misleading), where he finds a similar difference in velocity, and has one 150 that doesn't expand properly in the denim test, while the 147s are perfect: 150s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LFFqHR62TE 147s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3VfWkWMzOI The difference is more than just 3 grains because the 150s are loaded differently. I'm not sure about the details, but the 150s are marketed as lower recoil. Welcome, fellow firearms enthusiast. 1. The 147s still only put out an average of 977 FPS in the test. While you're right that it's significantly more than what the 150s put out, you're forgetting two things: one, 977 FPS still isn't enough to achieve optimal expansion, and two, the 150s are Micro HSTs, so that might not be the most compatible comparison. 2. Gel tests incorporating denim still aren't sufficient to represent the composite nature of a human torso. I still don't see anything that represents bone or muscle to a sufficient degree. Again, while ballistics gel isn't useless, it's just meant to constitute a homogenous medium for repeatable, measurable testing. That's it. It's not an "end all, be all" test. I don't think the meat target test is, either, but when a man with considerable experience in shooting and in dealing with wound patterns tells me that he's not impressed with the performance, I have to recognize my lack of experience there and simultaneously recognize that he's got way more experience in that field. I appreciate the sources and civil discourse, though. |
|
Quoted: How does extensive experience in firearms instruction correlate to real world bullet performance? What is Paul's instruction background? I left the comment on his background half-written. Let me fix that. Paul Harrell has served in both the United States Marine Corps and in the Oregon National Guard. He has served as a firearms instructor in both the military as well as in the private sector. He has extensive experience in shooting and hunting. He's been in a DGU (more than one, it was two if I remember correctly) and he's shot a variety of animals while hunting with different types of firearms and bullets. He's also got some experience/knowledge about how wound channels and bullet performance apply to humans, as he's at least seen the coroner's report from his DGU at the campground in Washington. That's a basic rundown. While I recognize that he's not infallible and can be wrong too, if I see him demonstrate something and explain his conclusion on it, I'm gonna take his word for it until definitively proven otherwise. I don't need a doctor to tell me that the sky is blue, or that I could trip if my shoes are untied. |
|
Quoted: Welcome, fellow firearms enthusiast. 1. The 147s still only put out an average of 977 FPS in the test. While you're right that it's significantly more than what the 150s put out, you're forgetting two things: one, 977 FPS still isn't enough to achieve optimal expansion, and two, the 150s are Micro HSTs, so that might not be the most compatible comparison. 2. Gel tests incorporating denim still aren't sufficient to represent the composite nature of a human torso. I still don't see anything that represents bone or muscle to a sufficient degree. Again, while ballistics gel isn't useless, it's just meant to constitute a homogenous medium for repeatable, measurable testing. That's it. It's not an "end all, be all" test. I don't think the meat target test is, either, but when a man with considerable experience in shooting and in dealing with wound patterns tells me that he's not impressed with the performance, I have to recognize my lack of experience there and simultaneously recognize that he's got way more experience in that field. I appreciate the sources and civil discourse, though. Quoted: Quoted: The 150 grain HSTs do perform significantly different than the 147s, even in gel. So I wouldn't take Paul's tests to be indicative of what the 147s would do in his meat target. E.g. from lucky gunner, the 147s are almost 100 fps faster than the 150s: https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/#9mm Or from ShootingTheBull (which I prefer because he uses calibrated 10% ballistic gel, instead of clear gel which can be misleading), where he finds a similar difference in velocity, and has one 150 that doesn't expand properly in the denim test, while the 147s are perfect: 150s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LFFqHR62TE 147s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3VfWkWMzOI The difference is more than just 3 grains because the 150s are loaded differently. I'm not sure about the details, but the 150s are marketed as lower recoil. Welcome, fellow firearms enthusiast. 1. The 147s still only put out an average of 977 FPS in the test. While you're right that it's significantly more than what the 150s put out, you're forgetting two things: one, 977 FPS still isn't enough to achieve optimal expansion, and two, the 150s are Micro HSTs, so that might not be the most compatible comparison. 2. Gel tests incorporating denim still aren't sufficient to represent the composite nature of a human torso. I still don't see anything that represents bone or muscle to a sufficient degree. Again, while ballistics gel isn't useless, it's just meant to constitute a homogenous medium for repeatable, measurable testing. That's it. It's not an "end all, be all" test. I don't think the meat target test is, either, but when a man with considerable experience in shooting and in dealing with wound patterns tells me that he's not impressed with the performance, I have to recognize my lack of experience there and simultaneously recognize that he's got way more experience in that field. I appreciate the sources and civil discourse, though. Organic gel may not have bones or replicate the human body exactly but for the most part studies have shown that performance in organic gel equals performance in human bodies. |
Yeah, I don't know about that 147 gr HST. 9mm, 147gr Federal HST (P9HST2), VS Pork Shoulder |
|
Quoted: I just find it odd that you'd put more stock in Paul's test than you would in data provided by IWBA medical professionals and actual street performance. I would say that the FBI's research trumps Paul's. Even qualified professionals can get it wrong. Ever wondered what event it was that made them come up with ballistics gel in the first place? Hint: Paul has done a video on it. |
|
Quoted: Organic gel may not have bones or replicate the human body exactly but for the most part studies have shown that performance in organic gel equals performance in human bodies. The key phrase is underlined. Yes, for most rounds and loads, ballistics gel is representative of how they'll perform. However, there are some rounds and loads that just won't work so well in actual use as compared to ballistics gel tests. A good example would be 230gr .45 ACP JHPs. Blocks of ballistics gel don't accurately demonstrate how expanding bullets perform against composite targets, such as human torsos. This is why I really like the composite torso targets that Garand Thumb has been using lately. If you want a testing medium that accurately represents the human torso, then something similar will need to be created. Blocks of ballistics gel just don't realistically represent a human torso. They're great for repeatedly measuring penetration and expansion in a translucent medium, but they're homogenous. Humans aren't made out of gelatin. Until a better medium comes out, I'll stick with the meat target. That's not an entirely accurate medium either, but it's more realistic than gelatin. Perhaps ballistics gel may be of more scientific validity if meat targets were used to validate the results of gel tests. |
|
Quoted: Wow. Just incredible. Why isn't the "meat target" an industry standard? Because the margin of error for gel testing isn't as high to justify non-standard testing protocol. You can put all this stock into what the IWBA professionals are saying, but when I see video proof that their testing doesn't work for some types of ammunition, I'm going to believe what I see with my own eyes. I can tell that the sky is blue with my own eyes, I don't need a Yale graduate to tell me that. |
|
Quoted: Because the margin of error for gel testing isn't as high to justify non-standard testing protocol. You can put all this stock into what the IWBA professionals are saying, but when I see video proof that their testing doesn't work for some types of ammunition, I'm going to believe what I see with my own eyes. I can tell that the sky is blue with my own eyes, I don't need a Yale graduate to tell me that. |
|
Quoted: So, one video lead you to this epiphany? I bet you tithe 10% to Paul's Patreon account don't you? Quoted: Quoted: Because the margin of error for gel testing isn't as high to justify non-standard testing protocol. You can put all this stock into what the IWBA professionals are saying, but when I see video proof that their testing doesn't work for some types of ammunition, I'm going to believe what I see with my own eyes. I can tell that the sky is blue with my own eyes, I don't need a Yale graduate to tell me that. I see you want to resort to ad hominem. Have a good one. |
|
Quoted: Because the margin of error for gel testing isn't as high to justify non-standard testing protocol. You can put all this stock into what the IWBA professionals are saying, but when I see video proof that their testing doesn't work for some types of ammunition, I'm going to believe what I see with my own eyes. I can tell that the sky is blue with my own eyes, I don't need a Yale graduate to tell me that. Quoted: Quoted: Wow. Just incredible. Why isn't the "meat target" an industry standard? Because the margin of error for gel testing isn't as high to justify non-standard testing protocol. You can put all this stock into what the IWBA professionals are saying, but when I see video proof that their testing doesn't work for some types of ammunition, I'm going to believe what I see with my own eyes. I can tell that the sky is blue with my own eyes, I don't need a Yale graduate to tell me that. What video proof? |
|
Quoted: The key phrase is underlined. Yes, for most rounds and loads, ballistics gel is representative of how they'll perform. However, there are some rounds and loads that just won't work so well in actual use as compared to ballistics gel tests. A good example would be 230gr .45 ACP JHPs. Blocks of ballistics gel don't accurately demonstrate how expanding bullets perform against composite targets, such as human torsos. This is why I really like the composite torso targets that Garand Thumb has been using lately. If you want a testing medium that accurately represents the human torso, then something similar will need to be created. Blocks of ballistics gel just don't realistically represent a human torso. They're great for repeatedly measuring penetration and expansion in a translucent medium, but they're homogenous. Humans aren't made out of gelatin. Until a better medium comes out, I'll stick with the meat target. That's not an entirely accurate medium either, but it's more realistic than gelatin. Perhaps ballistics gel may be of more scientific validity if meat targets were used to validate the results of gel tests. Quoted: Quoted: Organic gel may not have bones or replicate the human body exactly but for the most part studies have shown that performance in organic gel equals performance in human bodies. The key phrase is underlined. Yes, for most rounds and loads, ballistics gel is representative of how they'll perform. However, there are some rounds and loads that just won't work so well in actual use as compared to ballistics gel tests. A good example would be 230gr .45 ACP JHPs. Blocks of ballistics gel don't accurately demonstrate how expanding bullets perform against composite targets, such as human torsos. This is why I really like the composite torso targets that Garand Thumb has been using lately. If you want a testing medium that accurately represents the human torso, then something similar will need to be created. Blocks of ballistics gel just don't realistically represent a human torso. They're great for repeatedly measuring penetration and expansion in a translucent medium, but they're homogenous. Humans aren't made out of gelatin. Until a better medium comes out, I'll stick with the meat target. That's not an entirely accurate medium either, but it's more realistic than gelatin. Perhaps ballistics gel may be of more scientific validity if meat targets were used to validate the results of gel tests. A block of organic gel may not look like a human torso but the results are in line with what bullets do in a body. Factor in that bullets perform very similar after hitting bone as the laminated glass used in the FBI protocol tests and you can gleam what happens in the body after hitting bone. Gimmick are just that. A gimmick. Sold to the uninformed because they look cool. |
|
Quoted: The key phrase is underlined. Yes, for most rounds and loads, ballistics gel is representative of how they'll perform. However, there are some rounds and loads that just won't work so well in actual use as compared to ballistics gel tests. A good example would be 230gr .45 ACP JHPs. Blocks of ballistics gel don't accurately demonstrate how expanding bullets perform against composite targets, such as human torsos. This is why I really like the composite torso targets that Garand Thumb has been using lately. If you want a testing medium that accurately represents the human torso, then something similar will need to be created. Blocks of ballistics gel just don't realistically represent a human torso. They're great for repeatedly measuring penetration and expansion in a translucent medium, but they're homogenous. Humans aren't made out of gelatin. Until a better medium comes out, I'll stick with the meat target. That's not an entirely accurate medium either, but it's more realistic than gelatin. Perhaps ballistics gel may be of more scientific validity if meat targets were used to validate the results of gel tests. |
|
Quoted: The vast majority of lines of hollow-point ammo used scaled-up versions of lighter projectiles when making the heavier ones; you'll see powder count and type remain either minimally or totally unchanged. This is why you'll see terminal inconsistencies between certain ammo like 124gr and 147gr JHPs, You post some really stupid shit. The 147 grain HST is charged with flake powder. The 124 grain HST is charged with flattened ball powder. 147 grain HST 124 grain HST  …. |
|
Quoted: You post some really stupid shit. The 147 grain HST is charged with flake powder. The 124 grain HST is charged with flattened ball powder. 147 grain HST https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/147_hst_powder_04-2199214.jpg 124 grain HST https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/federal_124_grain_hst_powder_001-2324747.jpg …. Quoted: Quoted: The vast majority of lines of hollow-point ammo used scaled-up versions of lighter projectiles when making the heavier ones; you'll see powder count and type remain either minimally or totally unchanged. This is why you'll see terminal inconsistencies between certain ammo like 124gr and 147gr JHPs, You post some really stupid shit. The 147 grain HST is charged with flake powder. The 124 grain HST is charged with flattened ball powder. 147 grain HST https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/147_hst_powder_04-2199214.jpg 124 grain HST https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/federal_124_grain_hst_powder_001-2324747.jpg …. If you want to post dickish things because I was wrong about one specific line of ammo, I don't know what to tell you. |
|
Quoted: A block of organic gel may not look like a human torso but the results are in line with what bullets do in a body. Factor in that bullets perform very similar after hitting bone as the laminated glass used in the FBI protocol tests and you can gleam what happens in the body after hitting bone. Gimmick are just that. A gimmick. Sold to the uninformed because they look cool. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Organic gel may not have bones or replicate the human body exactly but for the most part studies have shown that performance in organic gel equals performance in human bodies. The key phrase is underlined. Yes, for most rounds and loads, ballistics gel is representative of how they'll perform. However, there are some rounds and loads that just won't work so well in actual use as compared to ballistics gel tests. A good example would be 230gr .45 ACP JHPs. Blocks of ballistics gel don't accurately demonstrate how expanding bullets perform against composite targets, such as human torsos. This is why I really like the composite torso targets that Garand Thumb has been using lately. If you want a testing medium that accurately represents the human torso, then something similar will need to be created. Blocks of ballistics gel just don't realistically represent a human torso. They're great for repeatedly measuring penetration and expansion in a translucent medium, but they're homogenous. Humans aren't made out of gelatin. Until a better medium comes out, I'll stick with the meat target. That's not an entirely accurate medium either, but it's more realistic than gelatin. Perhaps ballistics gel may be of more scientific validity if meat targets were used to validate the results of gel tests. A block of organic gel may not look like a human torso but the results are in line with what bullets do in a body. Factor in that bullets perform very similar after hitting bone as the laminated glass used in the FBI protocol tests and you can gleam what happens in the body after hitting bone. Gimmick are just that. A gimmick. Sold to the uninformed because they look cool. I'm familiar with laminated automotive glass, so that sounds about right for a comparison to human bone. Tell you what: find me video of testing done under these protocols with 124gr and 147gr HST 9mm loads, and if they both do good, I swear to God, my mind will be changed. |
|
Quoted: What video proof? Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wow. Just incredible. Why isn't the "meat target" an industry standard? Because the margin of error for gel testing isn't as high to justify non-standard testing protocol. You can put all this stock into what the IWBA professionals are saying, but when I see video proof that their testing doesn't work for some types of ammunition, I'm going to believe what I see with my own eyes. I can tell that the sky is blue with my own eyes, I don't need a Yale graduate to tell me that. What video proof? As mentioned before, Paul Harrell did some videos where he tested HST 124gr and HST 150gr rounds on the meat target. The 124gr did pretty well, the 150gr did poorly. The 150gr is pretty close to the 147gr, so I'd say it's gonna have similar performance. Anyway, he also illustrated expansion issues with certain .45 ACP JHP ammunition, ammunition which did well in gel tests but failed to expand in the meat target. I'll see if I can find that video, because it drives the point home that certain rounds which perform well in gel tests, don't perform well in other types of testing. |
A quick search revealed this. Federal 9mm 147 HST vs. Car Windshield |
|
Quoted: As mentioned before, Paul Harrell did some videos where he tested HST 124gr and HST 150gr rounds on the meat target. The 124gr did pretty well, the 150gr did poorly. The 150gr is pretty close to the 147gr, so I'd say it's gonna have similar performance. Anyway, he also illustrated expansion issues with certain .45 ACP JHP ammunition, ammunition which did well in gel tests but failed to expand in the meat target. I'll see if I can find that video, because it drives the point home that certain rounds which perform well in gel tests, don't perform well in other types of testing. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wow. Just incredible. Why isn't the "meat target" an industry standard? Because the margin of error for gel testing isn't as high to justify non-standard testing protocol. You can put all this stock into what the IWBA professionals are saying, but when I see video proof that their testing doesn't work for some types of ammunition, I'm going to believe what I see with my own eyes. I can tell that the sky is blue with my own eyes, I don't need a Yale graduate to tell me that. What video proof? As mentioned before, Paul Harrell did some videos where he tested HST 124gr and HST 150gr rounds on the meat target. The 124gr did pretty well, the 150gr did poorly. The 150gr is pretty close to the 147gr, so I'd say it's gonna have similar performance. Anyway, he also illustrated expansion issues with certain .45 ACP JHP ammunition, ammunition which did well in gel tests but failed to expand in the meat target. I'll see if I can find that video, because it drives the point home that certain rounds which perform well in gel tests, don't perform well in other types of testing. The 147 and 150gr bullets are different so do infer results are the same. Using unrepeatable media you can always gets failures due to inconsistencies. I've had gold dots fail to penetrate deer shoulders and fail to expand in fisher cats but still think they are one of the best bullets out there. |
|
Quoted: Using unrepeatable media you can always gets failures due to inconsistencies. This. And while the conversations on terminal effectiveness are Germain to the thread - Molon's test design-of-experiment philosophy is obviously focused on defined, controlled, and repeatable conditions. Which is what makes his posts so fantastic. Tests on gel or gel+denim is consistent with that. Shooting a ham with a bone, is not. And on that - thanks Molon - yet another fantastic post! |
|
Quoted: The 147 and 150gr bullets are different so do infer results are the same. Using unrepeatable media you can always gets failures due to inconsistencies. I've had gold dots fail to penetrate deer shoulders and fail to expand in fisher cats but still think they are one of the best bullets out there. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wow. Just incredible. Why isn't the "meat target" an industry standard? Because the margin of error for gel testing isn't as high to justify non-standard testing protocol. You can put all this stock into what the IWBA professionals are saying, but when I see video proof that their testing doesn't work for some types of ammunition, I'm going to believe what I see with my own eyes. I can tell that the sky is blue with my own eyes, I don't need a Yale graduate to tell me that. What video proof? As mentioned before, Paul Harrell did some videos where he tested HST 124gr and HST 150gr rounds on the meat target. The 124gr did pretty well, the 150gr did poorly. The 150gr is pretty close to the 147gr, so I'd say it's gonna have similar performance. Anyway, he also illustrated expansion issues with certain .45 ACP JHP ammunition, ammunition which did well in gel tests but failed to expand in the meat target. I'll see if I can find that video, because it drives the point home that certain rounds which perform well in gel tests, don't perform well in other types of testing. The 147 and 150gr bullets are different so do infer results are the same. Using unrepeatable media you can always gets failures due to inconsistencies. I've had gold dots fail to penetrate deer shoulders and fail to expand in fisher cats but still think they are one of the best bullets out there. 3 grains of difference isn't enough difference to make a difference. As for the whole "unrepeatable media" part, it's true that the meat target is very unconventional and measuring the results to the same metric as ballistics gel isn't possible. You probably won't be able to match up two meat targets exactly enough to have a complete, perfect repeat of testing conditions, but then again, are any two uses of JHPs to incapacitate an attacker the exact same? What's the dilemma, that ballistics gel is a homogeneous testing media and the meat target isn't? Oh, I'll agree with you 100% on that. But, notwithstanding the laminate glass and ballistics gel testing mentioned earlier (which I asked for, and I'm still waiting on that, as it would be enough to change my mind), the meat target represents a composite medium that gets pretty close to a human torso. As I mentioned before, I like the composite torso targets that Garand Thumb has been using for testing, but our dear friends at the IWBA and FBI can't seem to realize how much better a composite torso target would be for testing. I wouldn't say that the composite, non-uniform nature of the meat target disputes its validity: in fact, quite the opposite. The fact that such failures of JHP rounds can occur would likely be parallel to failures in human/animal targets, and I've seen Paul test plenty of different JHP rounds that didn't have those failures you've described. Most ballistics gel tests on Youtube and elsewhere aren't done to the same standards as what professionals do, so maybe I'm missing something. |