User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/25/2022 12:40:29 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/25/2022 2:43:47 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: 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. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Originally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Originally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Originally Posted By Bradd_D: 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. It's not just 3 grains. It's a different bullet. Try reading through this to see if you learn anything |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2022 12:01:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Molon]
[#3]
Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: 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. Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: The 150gr is pretty close to the 147gr, so I'd say it's gonna have similar performance. Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: 3 grains of difference isn't enough difference to make a difference. And you continue to post stupid shit. Post some data from actual experts in the field of terminal ballistics showing that the 147 grain HST doesn’t perform similar to the test results from Dr G.K. Roberts, or STFU already. .... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2022 4:32:28 PM EDT
[#4]
@CherokeeGunslinger : This is a technical forum, and as such, you're not supposed to substitute opinion for fact. You're posting directly contradicts science and I have to ask you to stop posting this nonsense. Please find another board if you want to post your opinions about this topic. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2022 5:57:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: CherokeeGunslinger]
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zhukov: @CherokeeGunslinger : This is a technical forum, and as such, you're not supposed to substitute opinion for fact. You're posting directly contradicts science and I have to ask you to stop posting this nonsense. Please find another board if you want to post your opinions about this topic. Thanks. Science? The position that ballistics gel is purely scientific is, in and of itself, an opinion. I'm not allowed to question the scientific validity of a test that's been shown to not always be correct? I'm not debating the validity of what you're saying, I'm well aware that there are rules to be had on technical forums, but I specifically read the forum rules before posting and this sort of thing wasn't included, though it should be. |
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2022 6:01:51 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 03RN: It's not just 3 grains. It's a different bullet. Try reading through this to see if you learn anything Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Originally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Originally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Originally Posted By Bradd_D: 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. It's not just 3 grains. It's a different bullet. Try reading through this to see if you learn anything @03RN Thank you for posting this, it seems way better than any of the gel testing I've seen. Can you give me a rundown of the acronyms he's using, like RD? Does that stand for "round diameter"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2022 6:11:02 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Science? The position that ballistics gel is purely scientific is, in and of itself, an opinion. I'm not allowed to question the scientific validity of a test that's been shown to not always be correct? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Originally Posted By Zhukov: @CherokeeGunslinger : This is a technical forum, and as such, you're not supposed to substitute opinion for fact. You're posting directly contradicts science and I have to ask you to stop posting this nonsense. Please find another board if you want to post your opinions about this topic. Thanks. Science? The position that ballistics gel is purely scientific is, in and of itself, an opinion. I'm not allowed to question the scientific validity of a test that's been shown to not always be correct? Where has it not been shown to be correct? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2022 6:12:20 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: @03RN Thank you for posting this, it seems way better than any of the gel testing I've seen. Can you give me a rundown of the acronyms he's using, like RD? Does that stand for "round diameter"? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Originally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Originally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Originally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Originally Posted By Bradd_D: 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. It's not just 3 grains. It's a different bullet. Try reading through this to see if you learn anything @03RN Thank you for posting this, it seems way better than any of the gel testing I've seen. Can you give me a rundown of the acronyms he's using, like RD? Does that stand for "round diameter"? Recovered diameter. Other ones are recovered weight, BG is bare gelatin, etc |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2022 6:25:35 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 03RN: Where has it not been shown to be correct? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 03RN: Where has it not been shown to be correct? I've explained this before in the thread. Ballistics gel is usually right about terminal performance, but certain loads just don't play nice in a comparison between live targets and ballistics gel. I'm rethinking my position on 9mm 147gr HST as you're about to read, but I'm still certain that .45 ACP 230gr JHPs suck. Originally Posted By 03RN: Recovered diameter. Other ones are recovered weight, BG is bare gelatin, etc Thank you. Based on what I'm reading about the tests performed by the poster you linked, I'd have to say you're correct about the performance of 147gr HST. Thanks for not being a dick about it, you seem like you know your shit. By chance, did the guy videotape the testing? I'm not going to base my decision on whether there is or isn't as he clearly knows what he's talking about, I'd just like to see visual representation of the performance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2022 7:10:03 PM EDT
[#10]
Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: @03RN Thank you for posting this, it seems way better than any of the gel testing I've seen . . . Based on what I'm reading about the tests performed by the poster you linked, I'd have to say you're correct about the performance of 147gr HST. Thanks for not being a dick about it, you seem like you know your shit. By chance, did the guy videotape the testing? I'm not going to base my decision on whether there is or isn't as he clearly knows what he's talking about, I'd just like to see visual representation of the performance.  ... |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2022 7:13:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Zhukov]
[#11]
{This is a technical forum, not GD - Z}
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2022 7:25:19 PM EDT
[#12]
Amazing.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2022 9:08:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Zhukov]
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Science? The position that ballistics gel is purely scientific is, in and of itself, an opinion. I'm not allowed to question the scientific validity of a test that's been shown to not always be correct? I'm not debating the validity of what you're saying, I'm well aware that there are rules to be had on technical forums, but I specifically read the forum rules before posting and this sort of thing wasn't included, though it should be. 1) No, you're not really allowed to keep bringing up junk science. I wasn't asking actually. 2) http://thinlineweapons.com/IWBA/1991-Vol1No1.pdf - refer to "Performance of the Winchester 9mm 147 Grain Subsonic JHP Bullet in Human Tissue and Tissue Simulant" |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2022 9:24:57 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: I've explained this before in the thread. Ballistics gel is usually right about terminal performance, but certain loads just don't play nice in a comparison between live targets and ballistics gel. I'm rethinking my position on 9mm 147gr HST as you're about to read, but I'm still certain that .45 ACP 230gr JHPs suck. Thank you. Based on what I'm reading about the tests performed by the poster you linked, I'd have to say you're correct about the performance of 147gr HST. Thanks for not being a dick about it, you seem like you know your shit. By chance, did the guy videotape the testing? I'm not going to base my decision on whether there is or isn't as he clearly knows what he's talking about, I'd just like to see visual representation of the performance. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Originally Posted By 03RN: Where has it not been shown to be correct? I've explained this before in the thread. Ballistics gel is usually right about terminal performance, but certain loads just don't play nice in a comparison between live targets and ballistics gel. I'm rethinking my position on 9mm 147gr HST as you're about to read, but I'm still certain that .45 ACP 230gr JHPs suck. Originally Posted By 03RN: Recovered diameter. Other ones are recovered weight, BG is bare gelatin, etc Thank you. Based on what I'm reading about the tests performed by the poster you linked, I'd have to say you're correct about the performance of 147gr HST. Thanks for not being a dick about it, you seem like you know your shit. By chance, did the guy videotape the testing? I'm not going to base my decision on whether there is or isn't as he clearly knows what he's talking about, I'd just like to see visual representation of the performance. I can assure you that modern .45, 230gr jhp don't suck Keep reading Perhaps read more and shoot some large mammals before you become to certain. I've had 9mm gold dots fail to penetrate a deer shoulder where I've never had that problem with a .45 gold dot. The heavier bullet works much better through bone. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2022 10:41:52 PM EDT
[#15]
147 grain HST vs 150 grain HSTs aren't just a different bullet. They're loaded differently. I already said this earlier in the thread, and provided links with proof to back it up, but I'll say it again: 147 grain HSTs are almost 100 FPS faster than 150 grain HSTs. You simply cannot tell what the 147s will do in the meat target test by looking at the results of the 150s.
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 3/28/2022 7:29:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Zhukov]
[#16]
{This is a technical forum, not GD - Z}
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2022 11:08:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TheOldRepublic]
[#17]
I regret not buying more at $399.00/case shipped.
Oh salad days how I miss thee |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2022 7:24:54 AM EDT
[#18]
I'm getting ready to test some 147gr hsts I've got loaded to 1275fps. Let's see if they hold together.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2022 2:47:19 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 03RN: I'm getting ready to test some 147gr hsts I've got loaded to 1275fps. Let's see if they hold together. Are you going to shoot them through denim ? Ala FBI test ( Just askin' ) And what barrel length are the 147gr HST's going to be fired from ? Sorry if I missed it. How are you getting that velocity from a 9MM case ? No offense intended at all and I don't want the load data... but , chamber pressures can do odd things to standard pressure designed HP handgun bullets. As an example, 10MM v. 40S&W when using the same standard pressure bullets. Or a better example would be the 9MM 124gr Gold Dot v. the 357 Sig 124gr Gold Dot... that short HP difference isn't just because of the velocity differences and case length. Anyway, I guess my point is, if the pressures of a +P+ loading are used with a standard pressure designed bullet... you can get wonky, unpredictable performance. At higher pressures a standard pressure designed HP bullet, can obtrude to the bore , and result in dramatically different performance ... IE the HP cavity can become "shorter" and "wider". Or vs versa. Basically it isn't just the added velocity that can distort a handgun bullets expansion / fragmentation. I wonder if a bonded HP bullet would work "best" at higher velocities ? ...retaining more mass. I am looking forward to your testing results. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2022 3:16:20 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bfoosh06: Are you going to shoot them through denim ? Ala FBI test ( Just askin' ) And what barrel length are the 147gr HST's going to be fired from ? Sorry if I missed it. How are you getting that velocity from a 9MM case ? No offense intended at all and I don't want the load data... but , chamber pressures can do odd things to standard pressure designed HP handgun bullets. As an example, 10MM v. 40S&W when using the same standard pressure bullets. Or a better example would be the 9MM 124gr Gold Dot v. the 357 Sig 124gr Gold Dot... that short HP difference isn't just because of the velocity differences and case length. Anyway, I guess my point is, if the pressures of a +P+ loading are used with a standard pressure designed bullet... you can get wonky, unpredictable performance. At higher pressures a standard pressure designed HP bullet, can obtrude to the bore , and result in dramatically different performance ... IE the HP cavity can become "shorter" and "wider". Or vs versa. Basically it isn't just the added velocity that can distort a handgun bullets expansion / fragmentation. I wonder if a bonded HP bullet would work "best" at higher velocities ? ...retaining more mass. I am looking forward to your testing results. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bfoosh06: Originally Posted By 03RN: I'm getting ready to test some 147gr hsts I've got loaded to 1275fps. Let's see if they hold together. Are you going to shoot them through denim ? Ala FBI test ( Just askin' ) And what barrel length are the 147gr HST's going to be fired from ? Sorry if I missed it. How are you getting that velocity from a 9MM case ? No offense intended at all and I don't want the load data... but , chamber pressures can do odd things to standard pressure designed HP handgun bullets. As an example, 10MM v. 40S&W when using the same standard pressure bullets. Or a better example would be the 9MM 124gr Gold Dot v. the 357 Sig 124gr Gold Dot... that short HP difference isn't just because of the velocity differences and case length. Anyway, I guess my point is, if the pressures of a +P+ loading are used with a standard pressure designed bullet... you can get wonky, unpredictable performance. At higher pressures a standard pressure designed HP bullet, can obtrude to the bore , and result in dramatically different performance ... IE the HP cavity can become "shorter" and "wider". Or vs versa. Basically it isn't just the added velocity that can distort a handgun bullets expansion / fragmentation. I wonder if a bonded HP bullet would work "best" at higher velocities ? ...retaining more mass. I am looking forward to your testing results. This might answer some of it: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/You-like-HSTs-Look-at-these-beauties-/5-2537700/ |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 3/30/2022 3:20:28 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 03RN: I'm getting ready to test some 147gr hsts I've got loaded to 1275fps. Let's see if they hold together. Interested in your results, I know that the factory 147s HSTs go supersonic out of my PTR9 (9 inch pipe). Never checked the speed. Shot five, they all cracked coming out of the can so I moved on to other loads. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2022 5:00:03 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FDC: This might answer some of it: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/You-like-HSTs-Look-at-these-beauties-/5-2537700/ Thank You |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 3/30/2022 5:59:14 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 03RN: I'm getting ready to test some 147gr hsts I've got loaded to 1275fps. Let's see if they hold together. Please do. Videotape it if possible, I'd love to see your results. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2022 3:55:51 PM EDT
[#24]
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 3/31/2022 5:57:30 PM EDT
[#25]
Molon thank you for the work you put into these test/post!
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 3/31/2022 9:10:17 PM EDT
[#26]
Thanks for posting that test Molon.
Interesting result. Pleasantly surprised it did not fragment even a little. Again Thanks. |
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 3/31/2022 11:47:00 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zhukov: I wasn't asking actually. You don't need to go that route, I'm 100% fine with there being rules to this subforum. It doesn't bother me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 11:24:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: vanilla_gorilla]
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Molon: Just three grains, maybe not. Bullet design, construction and muzzle velocity/striking velocity: absolutely. 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. .... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Molon: Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: 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. Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: 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. .... 03RN, I had planned to try to push some pulled 147 HSTs to failure velocity, but it looks like that may be more difficult than I'd first imagined |
|
|
|
WY, USA
|
Posted: 4/7/2022 6:03:48 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By vanilla_gorilla: I giggled 03RN, I had planned to try to push some pulled 147 HSTs to failure velocity, but it looks like that may be more difficult than I'd first imagined Got a .35 Whelen handy? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2022 9:30:45 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By  :Got a .35 Whelen handy? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By :Originally Posted By vanilla_gorilla: I giggled 03RN, I had planned to try to push some pulled 147 HSTs to failure velocity, but it looks like that may be more difficult than I'd first imagined Got a .35 Whelen handy? I get 1860 FPS out of 158 gr XTPs in my .35 Whelen. This is the standard pistol bullet not the flat point designed for lever guns. The flat point version is a considerably tougher bullet. I asked Hornady how 158 pistol XTP bullet would work on medium sized game at a velocity of 1860 fps. Their advice was to use one of their .35 caliber rifle bullets because the XTP would probably not perform like it typically does at that velocity.I still want to shoot a coyote with that load. |
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 4/19/2022 11:09:06 AM EDT
[#31]
Thank you for a well-done review!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2022 10:24:29 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: 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. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Originally Posted By SullanMarch: 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. Get more experience |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2022 1:45:45 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By davidL24: Thank you for a well-done review! De nada.  ... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2022 1:21:18 PM EDT
[#34]
My understanding is the 150gr load is intended for the ultra-short sub-compacts like the Sig 365, Glock 43, 43X and Glock 26 models.
Likely including reduced recoil characteristics. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2022 1:58:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Molon]
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Based on what I'm reading about the tests performed by the poster you linked, I'd have to say you're correct about the performance of 147gr HST. Thanks for not being a dick about it, you seem like you know your shit. By chance, did the guy videotape the testing? I'm not going to base my decision on whether there is or isn't as he clearly knows what he's talking about, I'd just like to see visual representation of the performance. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Originally Posted By 03RN: Recovered diameter. Other ones are recovered weight, BG is bare gelatin, etc Based on what I'm reading about the tests performed by the poster you linked, I'd have to say you're correct about the performance of 147gr HST. Thanks for not being a dick about it, you seem like you know your shit. By chance, did the guy videotape the testing? I'm not going to base my decision on whether there is or isn't as he clearly knows what he's talking about, I'd just like to see visual representation of the performance. How does if feel to be so wrong, so often? You’ve been here for only TWO MONTHS and in that time, you’ve done nothing but vomit false information in technical forums due to your shear ignorance on the subject matters. You try to pretend that you’re some deep thinker with keen insight into the subject matters when it’s painfully obvious that you have no experience on these subject matters and that for most of your posts you’re just regurgitating ignorant shit that you saw posted somewhere else on the Internet. In this thread . . . https://www.ar15.com/forums/handguns/HST-ammo-testing-for-3-inch-barrels-/20-204242/ . . . you made retarded statements about 147 grain loads due to your fundamental ignorance on the scientific standard for terminal ballistic testing and you were proven to be wrong. How does is feel to be so wrong, so often? You also posted in that thread . . . Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: In the future, I'm gonna have to do my own ballistic gel testing with laminated glass because nobody's done it with the HSTs. Yet another demonstration of your ignorance on the subject matter. I posted data here years ago from an expert in the field of terminal ballistics showing the results of HSTs fired through auto safety glass. I also posted that data here in the very first post of this thread. You’re proven wrong again. You continued in that thread . . . Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: your knowledge seems to be based on testing that isn't easily verifiable (testing done off-camera and the pictures are of a quality that I find to be somewhat lackluster). Those “lackluster” pictures that you’re whining about, are from one of the foremost experts in the field of terminal ballistics in this country, but you’re too ignorant on the subject matter to know that. He doesn’t shoot watermelons and pork-chops on YouTube; his articles on the subject matter have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, but you’re so ignorant on the subject matter that you haven’t read any of those articles. This terminal ballistic expert has been a presenter at NDIA conferences, but you’re unaware of the data he has presented at those conferences due to your ignorance on the subject. This terminal ballistic expert worked with Dr. Martin Fackler at the Army Wound Ballistic Research Laboratory at the Letterman Army Institute of Research, but you aren’t aware of that due to your ignorance on the subject matter. This terminal ballistic expert served on the Joint Service Wound Ballistic IPT and has been a consultant to the Joint FBI-USMC munitions testing program, but as always, you’re ignorant of the results from actual experts in the field of terminal ballistics. Instead of worrying about pretty pictures, take an extra dose of your Ritalin and try actually reading the words and numbers that I’ve posted from this expert in the field of terminal ballistics. How does if feel to be so profoundly ignorant of a large body of knowledge on a subject matter that you try to pretend that you’re so knowledgeable about? In this current thread, you shit on the work of Dr Roberts that I posted. Yet, when 03RN posted a link to data on Pistol-Forum from a poster with the user name DocGKR, you raved about that data; because you were so incredibly fucking ignorant on the subject matter that you didn’t know that Dr Roberts and DocGKR ARE THE SAME PERSON. You were so incredibly ignorant on the subject matter that you weren’t familiar with the data contributed to the subject matter of terminal ballistics by one of the foremost experts on terminal ballistics in this country. How does it feel to be so incredibly fucking ignorant on a subject matter, so fucking often? In this current thread, you also made the moronic statement that ammunition manufacturers just drop a 147 grain bullet onto the same powder and powder charge used for 124 grain bullets, thereby demonstrating that you have absolutely no experience in loading ammunition and that you just parrot stupid shit you saw posted somewhere else on the Internet. Once again, you’re proven to be wrong. In this thread, https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/I-need-62gr-non-M855-FMJ/16-771704/ you once again made it painfully obvious that you have ZERO FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE on a subject matter and that once again you were just regurgitating Internet Commando BS that saw somewhere else. You’re were proven to be wrong again. How does it feel to be so wrong, so often? You can run along now and start typing words into your Google search-bar so that you can come back here and pretend that you were knowledgeable about all of that all along. .... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2022 1:34:58 AM EDT
[#36]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2022 11:13:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Crashtastic]
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: In the future, I'm gonna have to do my own ballistic gel testing with laminated glass because nobody's done it with the HSTs. This is awesome!  Being that I work in ballistics at Federal (not a gunner)... I work with the gunners, and seeing how often they shoot HST through auto glass and gel, it's actually pretty ridiculous. I wish I could say more. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 6:55:22 PM EDT
[#38]
 .... |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 1:40:32 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Crashtastic: This is awesome! Being that I work in ballistics at Federal (not a gunner)... I work with the gunners, and seeing how often they shoot HST through auto glass and gel, it's actually pretty ridiculous. I wish I could say more. Cool. Many years ago when I was a rookie cop I actually bought an old windshield from some auto-body shop and snuck it out to my gunclub. (They would have shit if they caught me) I shot a bunch of various rounds through the windshield at various angles into wetpack (phone books soaked in water). It was very interesting with most bullets losing at least 50% of their weight. This is a time when I was carrying CorBon 115 +P+... If we had ballistic jell, digital cameras, and internet back in the 90's, I would have been one of those youtubers testing bullets. |
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 1:42:40 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Molon: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/hst_147_grain_gen_1_and_gen_2_002-2431960.jpg .... Very interesting Molon. What does that second cannelure do? I've never heard or seen HST shedding their jackets so I doubt it's to solve that "problem"... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 2:15:13 PM EDT
[#41]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2022 5:30:46 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: Very interesting Molon. What does that second cannelure do? I've never heard or seen HST shedding their jackets so I doubt it's to solve that "problem"... I’ve seen 147 HST shed it’s jacket in ballistics testing. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2022 6:37:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Molon]
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: Very interesting Molon. What does that second cannelure do? I've never heard or seen HST shedding their jackets so I doubt it's to solve that "problem"... An employee of Federal has stated it helps lock the jacket to the core. Since the second generation of the 147 grain HSTs tend not to expand to the same diameter as the gen 1 projectiles, it seems that other changes have been made. In the picture that I posted above, it appears the dimensions of the skives are slightly different, though that could be just lot to lot variation. .... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2022 4:34:47 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dave_Williams: I’ve seen 147 HST shed it’s jacket in ballistics testing. Circumstances? ... |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 9/1/2022 9:46:20 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By darkd0r: Got a .35 Whelen handy? Better yet a .350 Legend. The bullets in it are .355 diameter, not .358 like the .35 Whelen. Also there are actually loads that use a 147 grain bullet, so........ |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2022 8:22:04 PM EDT
[#46]
 .... |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 10:40:59 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Molon: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/147_grain_hst_vs_m1153_001-2606682.jpg .... They look very different. The one on the right appears to be a typical Win. SXT, Ranger or whatever. |
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 11/29/2022 1:01:12 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Molon: How does if feel to be so wrong, so often? You’ve been here for only TWO MONTHS and in that time, you’ve done nothing but vomit false information in technical forums due to your shear ignorance on the subject matters. You try to pretend that you’re some deep thinker with keen insight into the subject matters when it’s painfully obvious that you have no experience on these subject matters and that for most of your posts you’re just regurgitating ignorant shit that you saw posted somewhere else on the Internet. In this thread . . . https://www.ar15.com/forums/handguns/HST-ammo-testing-for-3-inch-barrels-/20-204242/ . . . you made retarded statements about 147 grain loads due to your fundamental ignorance on the scientific standard for terminal ballistic testing and you were proven to be wrong. How does is feel to be so wrong, so often? You also posted in that thread . . . Yet another demonstration of your ignorance on the subject matter. I posted data here years ago from an expert in the field of terminal ballistics showing the results of HSTs fired through auto safety glass. I also posted that data here in the very first post of this thread. You’re proven wrong again. You continued in that thread . . . Those “lackluster” pictures that you’re whining about, are from one of the foremost experts in the field of terminal ballistics in this country, but you’re too ignorant on the subject matter to know that. He doesn’t shoot watermelons and pork-chops on YouTube; his articles on the subject matter have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, but you’re so ignorant on the subject matter that you haven’t read any of those articles. This terminal ballistic expert has been a presenter at NDIA conferences, but you’re unaware of the data he has presented at those conferences due to your ignorance on the subject. This terminal ballistic expert worked with Dr. Martin Fackler at the Army Wound Ballistic Research Laboratory at the Letterman Army Institute of Research, but you aren’t aware of that due to your ignorance on the subject matter. This terminal ballistic expert served on the Joint Service Wound Ballistic IPT and has been a consultant to the Joint FBI-USMC munitions testing program, but as always, you’re ignorant of the results from actual experts in the field of terminal ballistics. Instead of worrying about pretty pictures, take an extra dose of your Ritalin and try actually reading the words and numbers that I’ve posted from this expert in the field of terminal ballistics. How does if feel to be so profoundly ignorant of a large body of knowledge on a subject matter that you try to pretend that you’re so knowledgeable about? In this current thread, you shit on the work of Dr Roberts that I posted. Yet, when 03RN posted a link to data on Pistol-Forum from a poster with the user name DocGKR, you raved about that data; because you were so incredibly fucking ignorant on the subject matter that you didn’t know that Dr Roberts and DocGKR ARE THE SAME PERSON. You were so incredibly ignorant on the subject matter that you weren’t familiar with the data contributed to the subject matter of terminal ballistics by one of the foremost experts on terminal ballistics in this country. How does it feel to be so incredibly fucking ignorant on a subject matter, so fucking often? In this current thread, you also made the moronic statement that ammunition manufacturers just drop a 147 grain bullet onto the same powder and powder charge used for 124 grain bullets, thereby demonstrating that you have absolutely no experience in loading ammunition and that you just parrot stupid shit you saw posted somewhere else on the Internet. Once again, you’re proven to be wrong. In this thread, https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/I-need-62gr-non-M855-FMJ/16-771704/ you once again made it painfully obvious that you have ZERO FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE on a subject matter and that once again you were just regurgitating Internet Commando BS that saw somewhere else. You’re were proven to be wrong again. How does it feel to be so wrong, so often? You can run along now and start typing words into your Google search-bar so that you can come back here and pretend that you were knowledgeable about all of that all along. .... Sorry, I just had to quote this for the glorious burn that it was. While I realize it disrupts the tech forums a bit, it’s fun when the riff-raff saunters in once in awhile and gives us a chance to have a laugh, lol. The cult of personality that foams at the mouth over Uncle Paul continues to amaze me. He may be a great guy, but he’s no expert. I can fly the shit out of a helicopter, but that doesn’t make me an aerospace engineer, much like Paul’s experience as a “shooter” doesn’t make him a ballistics expert or medical professional, lol. Some people’s children…Aside from that, another hearty thanks to Molon for all his work, and to DocGKR (and countless others) for their labors in providing us with documented data we can use to make educated purchases when it matters most. And yes, the last case of 147HST I bought set me back about $400 shipped. Salad days, indeed… |
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 12/1/2022 4:36:20 PM EDT
[#49]
The 147 grain HST is my carry load, so I am glad to see Molon's post. I feel affirmed. :)
|
|
|
MN, USA
|
Posted: 12/3/2022 8:16:25 AM EDT
[#50]
My carry 9mm load for low flash vs 124 gr +p & 147gr +p HSTs.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File
Attached File
Attached File