Not sure if this is the proper forum, but figured I'd start here.

Yes, OP may be splitting hairs, but I'm okay with that. Yes, I'm also aware of the innuendo and jokes possible with this title and topic.

But what's more important - penetration, or expansion?

In specific, I recently picked up an HK45C that I'll be moving to my primary carry, and am trying to figure out what to load it up with. I've narrowed it down to two options.

1. Winchester Ranger-T 230gr / 14.2in penetration, 1.01in expanded, 417ft.lbs


2. Remington Golden Saber +P 185gr / 15.7in penetration, 0.76in expanded, 426ft.lbs

So the ranger carries an extra 0.25in of expansion, but it gives up 1.5in penetration and 9ft.lbs. The energy is close enough that I'm not worried, I'm just not sure if it's more important to look at the penetration or expansion, or if the difference is small enough to just leave it up to price/whichever the gun likes shooting more. Price difference would be $0.44/rd for the Remingtons and $0.76/rd for the Winchesters, so a notable difference but not enough that I'd take a less-optimal loading because of it.

So what say you ballisticians - Rangers for expansion, Sabers for penetration, or a completely different recommendation?

inb4 9mm/40sw and g19 comments.

I prefer greater penetration but out of the loads you have chosen there is probably very little real world difference.

Penetration is more important because you have to penetrate deep enough to hit something vital and you probably don't get to choose which angle you shoot from.

Hence why I like 10mm.

Yeah, I have a habit of splitting already-split hairs when it comes to this sort of thing.

I've seen that a lot and it makes perfect sense, but blood lose and damage to what you reach along with missing vitals by millimeters is where I see expansion making sense....six of one, half-dozen the other for an unlikely and wholly unpredictable situation.

Haven't actually shot one, but I would love a 10mm. Just haven't found it in a gun yet that I'd carry.

I have been carrying Golden Sabres for years. They work, very well.

A millimeter or two of additional radius is incredibly small and matters much less than most other factors I can think of.

More ammo, more hits on target, penetration depth, etc are all going to matter a lot more than the bullet expanding to 1-2mn closer to what you are trying to hit.

That's how I see it anyway.

OP you are rather out of the loop in your thought process. The utterly minimal differences between the two loads in question are not the least bit relevant in my mind. They simply are different in the world of ballistic lab testing protocol. Practical real world bullets in bodies, I would say the two are a wash.

FAR, FAR more important is which of the two loads functions with BOTH THE HIGHEST DEGREE OF ACCURACY AND RELIABILITY OF FEED, FIRE, EXTRACT, RELOAD in the pistol you have chosen to carry. If I could only carry a 45 caliber round lead ball loaded in a 45 ACP pistol because that was the load that for whatever reason was the most accurate and functionally reliable, guess what. That is exactly the load I would saddle up with every day. All of the theoretical ballistics lab data points don't mean crap in the real world if the gun isn't spitting lead when you need it to.

I'm definitely going to be running a bit through it to make sure that it does function reliably and accurately with them. As it is, that pistol is more accurate than I and more durable than I could manage to abuse it in a lifetime. If for whatever reason a loading doesn't perform, then I'd immediately defer to the other, and continue down the line until I either found something that did work, or reluctantly found a different gun that would run more than ball ammo.

But, I'm comfortable in the assumption that both of these loadings will run more reliably and accurately than I'll be able to tell the difference between, so I figure I might as well satisfy my penchant for annoying arfcom with minutiae in other ways.

Well it looks like penetration is taking the poll by a wide margin, as I somewhat suspected it might, so I'll be getting some Sabers to test function and accuracy while I wait on holsters to get in.

With your longer barrel than the test gun you may get different results. Either way, flip a coin.

For my carry guns I test with 5 to 8 different ammunition loads. I test it for maximum velocity that remains consistent with accuracy. I have been surprised by the results! Loads I expected to do well didn't while some that I wasn't expecting much from performed very well. I'm not going to list them because the results differ too much from gun to gun.

Accuracy trump all for me. Doesn't matter if it expands or penetrates well if it doesn't hit where I want it to

Being able to put fast, accurate rounds on target is the most important thing. I carry a 9mm for CCW but IMO if you can put 6-8 rounds of .45 in someone at the same speed as 6-8 rounds of 9mm then you'd be better off with the .45. As it is the bigger round that carries more weight and makes bigger holes. As far as penetration goes I'd say there has to be a sweet spot.  If your round exits the subject your not getting the full effect of the energy of the round on target.  At least that's my logic.

I've a buddy that put 12 rounds of 9mm into someone before he went down (Transitioned to a head shot). Perhaps a .45 would have put the guy down. Perhaps not. At the end of the day he's still around because he was accurate. The rounds to the chest (All center mass except 1) didn't stop the guy from shooting/moving. Didn't even slow him down.

Lots of penetration. Decent expansion. Hit vitals. Didn't hit spinal cord.

With that said very few engagements end up with someone taking that many rounds.

As long as it expands enough to limit penetration to ~20" or less then it's done its job. If it fails to reach 16-18" then it's expanded too much. All these manufacturers bragging about the expanded diameter of a bullet that only reached 12" are simply preying upon the ignorant.

Penetration is the more important thing.
But 16” or so of penetration is probably plenty.
So, if you have two loads that both achieve excellent penetration, then the better load would be the one that expands the most.

These considerations matter the most when one is contemplating the less powerful chamberings; .380 Auto, .38 Spl. and .32 Auto.

With these chamberings, the most important thing is to first achieve adequate penetration.

IMO, as a general proposition, people make a little bit too much out of expansion anyway, because you do not control this.  There are many factors that affect the terminal performance of bullets; clothing layers, whether or not the bullet strikes bone, the angle of entry, distance, barrel length, etc.

Regardless of what you decide, for me, I always remind myself that there are only three things that are directly under my control.
1) Caliber; the diameter of the bullet when it leaves the barrel
2) Muzzle velocity; the speed of the bullet as it exits the barrel
3) Bullet weight; the weight of the bullet when it leaves the barrel (may NOT be the same after it strikes its target!)

Everything else is a variable to one extent or another.

Shot placement matters!!!!!!!

I would go with the bonded bullet. If they are both bonded, I would go with the Rangers. I think they perform better overall. The numbers are basically a wash. Price, in this situation, is really a non-issue. I didn't vote.

All handguns are relatively poor 'stoppers' regardless of caliber or bullet used. Shot placement and sufficient penetration are paramount, all else is secondary. Barring a hit to the CNS, the only way to stop a determined and aggressive BG is shutting down the brain by oxygen deprivation caused by blood loss. Even a solid hit to the heart can leave 10+ seconds worth of oxygen in the brain, plenty of time for the BG to inflict serious/lethal injury. Splitting hairs about expansion differences between rds that achieve sufficient penetration is moot.
Bottom line: Choose the caliber/load w/sufficient penetration that *you* shoot best, as all handguns are underperformers (but some underperform worse than others).

Tomac

I want it to consistently penetrate to a sufficient depth while still expanding as large as possible.

I’ve carried the .45 ACP round for years.  I like the 185 gr Remington as it does not drop much at 100 yards.  With some time and practice bbq propane tanks at that range are no match!  Accuracy/shot placement trump ballistics and expansion, so pick what you and the gun like.

The Remington's are what I ended up with, but I'm still keeping my eye out for some rangers if I see them. Looks like both these loadings can be hard to find in stock, and given that I like to periodically shoot and cycle through my defensive ammo more round and different options can't hurt.