1911Forum
Forum   Reviews   Rules   Legal   Site Supporters & Donations   Advertise


Go Back   1911Forum > Hardware & Accessories > Ammo Can


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Old 03-06-2011, 04:54 PM
JoeJ JoeJ is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: ND
Posts: 223



I provided a little reading material for your consideration Ė obviously with your vast experience in such matters, it didnít pass muster Ė so be it.

Speaking for myself, I didnít see anything that would discredit Master Gunsí information throughout that topic Ė but then again, Iíve only been up close and personal to a few people who took unfriendly rounds into their bodies, so I have very limited experience & knowledge of such things in life.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-06-2011, 04:59 PM
DeltaKilo's Avatar
DeltaKilo DeltaKilo is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Coloma, MI
Posts: 11,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeJ View Post
I provided a little reading material for your consideration Ė obviously with your vast experience in such matters, it didnít pass muster Ė so be it.

Speaking for myself, I didnít see anything that would discredit Master Gunsí information throughout that topic Ė but then again, Iíve only been up close and personal to a few people who took unfriendly rounds into their bodies, so I have very limited experience & knowledge of such things in life.
I can only tell you what I have seen, and what trauma surgeons and coroners I've talked to, have seen. I've been there a couple of times.

And his data isn't wrong per se, it's simply based on inaccurate information and thus is inaccurate as well. I detailed as to why. I'm sure that if we were to sit down and hash it out, that the data would be reconcilable.
__________________
Igitur si vis pacem, para bellum.
http://www.sofrep.com and http://loadoutroom.com -- Check us out on the web!
http://www.beast-enterprises.com Beast Enterprises - Target Stands and Cerakote Services
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rwYqGmVvzQ
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-07-2011, 12:28 AM
NonPCnraRN NonPCnraRN is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Stockton, CA
Posts: 1,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by myanof View Post
I have heard your same statement from several authoritative sources, but was wondering in the 230gr vs 185gr debate if penetration of the heavier bullet has any effect other than cavity channel. I personally only carry 230gr premium HP in my full size, but am still trying to figure out which size bullet is best for my Defender's 3" barrel. Any comments would be welcome.
The 230 gr bullet will not have the velocity loss than the 185 gr bullet out of a 3 inch barrel. The lighter high velocity bullets are very barrel length dependent to achieve optimal velocity. The heavier bullet is slower to get moving and the powder has a little longer to completely burn and build up pressure. The higher the pressure, the higher the velocity. The higher velocity low weight ammo sounds like it would be better but the opposite is true.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-13-2011, 02:00 PM
willtolern willtolern is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 56
Blah,blah,blah... Anything you choose to carry is just a guess anyways. There are too many variables to worry about. There is no magic bullet. I think you should just pick something that works in your gun and be done with it. Shoot until the threat stops. DRT makes ammo that they claim causes fatal injury on impact. Some form of granules that instantly destroy any tissue. If one was looking for the best wouldn't that qualify? I would hate to have to explain to a jury how my ammo was guarranteed to kill as oppose to stop.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-13-2011, 02:09 PM
DeltaKilo's Avatar
DeltaKilo DeltaKilo is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Coloma, MI
Posts: 11,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by willtolern View Post
Blah,blah,blah... Anything you choose to carry is just a guess anyways. There are too many variables to worry about. There is no magic bullet. I think you should just pick something that works in your gun and be done with it. Shoot until the threat stops. DRT makes ammo that they claim causes fatal injury on impact. Some form of granules that instantly destroy any tissue. If one was looking for the best wouldn't that qualify? I would hate to have to explain to a jury how my ammo was guarranteed to kill as oppose to stop.
Except they're full of crap...
__________________
Igitur si vis pacem, para bellum.
http://www.sofrep.com and http://loadoutroom.com -- Check us out on the web!
http://www.beast-enterprises.com Beast Enterprises - Target Stands and Cerakote Services
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rwYqGmVvzQ
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-13-2011, 03:55 PM
Sullybr549 Sullybr549 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 781
Personally, I carry Hornady 230gr XTP +P when I carry a 45 ACP. My main carry gun is a S&W 44 Mag with 3" barrel
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-13-2011, 04:19 PM
brzusa.1911 brzusa.1911 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,134
I think they will both perform well. I prefer Golden Saber 185gr since I mostly carry a commander. See the link below for manufacturer data then FBI tests data (part 3).

http://www.firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/45acp.htm
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-14-2011, 06:09 AM
WESHOOT2 WESHOOT2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Vermont (Caspian country)
Age: 59
Posts: 15,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by myanof View Post
Even in 3" 1911s like Defenders?
Yes; the bullet has been tested at impact velocity under 700fps.
__________________
'
"all my ammo is mostly-retired factory ammo"
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-14-2011, 10:00 AM
brzusa.1911 brzusa.1911 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack1911 View Post
I am of the opinion that if you are going to shoot a .45, you might as well shoot heavy bullets (200 grain or over), and if you are going to shoot lighter bullets (under 200 grain) then you might as well stick with the .40 or 9mm.
Would you care to elaborate?

I carry a 9mm most of the time, I am not getting into which one is better.... I just can't see how a lighter .45acp bullet would equal a .40 or 9mm, does the .45acp gets smaller?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-14-2011, 11:41 AM
DeltaKilo's Avatar
DeltaKilo DeltaKilo is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Coloma, MI
Posts: 11,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by brzusa.1911 View Post
Would you care to elaborate?

I carry a 9mm most of the time, I am not getting into which one is better.... I just can't see how a lighter .45acp bullet would equal a .40 or 9mm, does the .45acp gets smaller?
I think you misunderstand what he's saying. He's saying that in the .45 ACP, anything over 200gr is ideal, and the lighter weight projectiles are best left to smaller calibers. This I completely agree with.

In most of the studies i've read, the penetration and accuracy just aren't there for sub-230gr projectiles in the .45 ACP, and no 185gr projectile besides the Barnes TacXP/XPB bullet has been successful in the FBI protocol testing. The Barnes TacXP is the only projectile of a 185gr weight that has been sufficiently effective in this caliber.
__________________
Igitur si vis pacem, para bellum.
http://www.sofrep.com and http://loadoutroom.com -- Check us out on the web!
http://www.beast-enterprises.com Beast Enterprises - Target Stands and Cerakote Services
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rwYqGmVvzQ
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-14-2011, 12:03 PM
brzusa.1911 brzusa.1911 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaKilo View Post
I think you misunderstand what he's saying. He's saying that in the .45 ACP, anything over 200gr is ideal, and the lighter weight projectiles are best left to smaller calibers. This I completely agree with.

In most of the studies i've read, the penetration and accuracy just aren't there for sub-230gr projectiles in the .45 ACP, and no 185gr projectile besides the Barnes TacXP/XPB bullet has been successful in the FBI protocol testing. The Barnes TacXP is the only projectile of a 185gr weight that has been sufficiently effective in this caliber.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/45acp.htm
Look for Part III. FBI Ammunition Tests Data:
.45 ACP 185 grain Remington Golden Saber out of 5" barrel.

As I said, I mostly carry a commander and the lighter 185gr, for what I've read is a better match for the smaller barrel and still is very well acceptable to the 5".

Last edited by brzusa.1911; 03-14-2011 at 12:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-14-2011, 12:11 PM
DeltaKilo's Avatar
DeltaKilo DeltaKilo is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Coloma, MI
Posts: 11,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by brzusa.1911 View Post
http://www.firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/45acp.htm
Look for Part III. FBI Ammunition Tests Data:
.45 ACP 185 grain Remington Golden Saber out of 5" barrel.

As I said, I mostly carry a commander and the lighter 185gr, for what I've read is a better match for the smaller barrel and still is very well acceptable to the 5".
This data does not take into account hard barrier penetration, which in modern testing is necessary for passage of the FBI protocol test. The test you cite only covers clothed gel and bare gel.
__________________
Igitur si vis pacem, para bellum.
http://www.sofrep.com and http://loadoutroom.com -- Check us out on the web!
http://www.beast-enterprises.com Beast Enterprises - Target Stands and Cerakote Services
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rwYqGmVvzQ
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-14-2011, 12:15 PM
brzusa.1911 brzusa.1911 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaKilo View Post
This data does not take into account hard barrier penetration, which in modern testing is necessary for passage of the FBI protocol test. The test you cite only covers clothed gel and bare gel.
Can you cite the test where the 185gr did not pass the modern FBI testing?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-14-2011, 12:25 PM
DeltaKilo's Avatar
DeltaKilo DeltaKilo is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Coloma, MI
Posts: 11,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by brzusa.1911 View Post
Can you cite the test where the 185gr did not pass the modern FBI testing?
If you give me a bit to dig it up, I'm sure I can.

After a quick google search, we have this anecdotal evidence:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/arch...hp/t-6455.html

Quote:
I reported this happening to me on Glocktalk about a year ago, though I'm sure I'm not the first person to notice the jacket separation. Shawn Dodson did as well, though I don't remember when.

I basically was performing expansion tests in saturated Honolulu Yellow Pages. I don't have the ability to test scientifically, so I have to use these books. That aside, I've noticed that in terms of expansion (not penetration) that phone books seem to mimic denim covered gelatin.

Using a (borrowed) Glock 30, I wanted to test some loads to see how they expanded from the shorter barrel. Remington 185gr JHP +p performed beautifully, expanding to .87". The jacket came off after the second book was penetrated though, but the core penetrated another whole book. I was satisfied with this and keep this load in my P12 now.

However, the Remington 185gr GS standard velocity was a dismal failure. The lead core penetrated nearly four books, and the jacket separated and lodged in the second book. Core expanded to only .471, but the jacket opened up to .6. Strangley, the GS 230gr, even out of the shorter G30 barrel outperformed the faster (900fps vs. 780fps) 185 gr. load. It penetrated 3 1/4 books, expanded to .64, with NO jacket separation.

I also tested a bunch of other .45 loads that day, as well as a bunch of 10mm loads from a Glock 20. Let me know if you want me to post them.

Tom
And from here:

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/i.../t-391433.html

It is notable that these are anecdotal specifically, and do not refer to specific tests. However, the core-jacket separation is a fairly common issue I have noted.
__________________
Igitur si vis pacem, para bellum.
http://www.sofrep.com and http://loadoutroom.com -- Check us out on the web!
http://www.beast-enterprises.com Beast Enterprises - Target Stands and Cerakote Services
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rwYqGmVvzQ
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-14-2011, 03:39 PM
brzusa.1911 brzusa.1911 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaKilo View Post
If you give me a bit to dig it up, I'm sure I can.

After a quick google search, we have this anecdotal evidence:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/arch...hp/t-6455.html



And from here:

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/i.../t-391433.html

It is notable that these are anecdotal specifically, and do not refer to specific tests. However, the core-jacket separation is a fairly common issue I have noted.
Yes, I've seen those. I am not so sure as many others swear by it and the data (old data) from the link with the FBI tests support the performance. They will (IMO) all both do their job
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 03-14-2011, 04:28 PM
DeltaKilo's Avatar
DeltaKilo DeltaKilo is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Coloma, MI
Posts: 11,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by brzusa.1911 View Post
Yes, I've seen those. I am not so sure as many others swear by it and the data (old data) from the link with the FBI tests support the performance. They will (IMO) all both do their job
That's fine. You're welcome to use whatever you wish. I'm not attempting to tell anyone what to use in their guns, only attempting to provide data based on the research I have conducted. You may accept it or not. In the scheme of things, any projectile of sufficient weight and velocity will work. My one concern, and reason for not recommending them, is that the round has recurring mentions of core-jacket separations; and from this issue, it does not make it to the list of approved loads compiled by Dr. Gary Roberts, which is built off of his own research through testing and review of medical information and performance data of real world shooting incidents.

No list or study I have come across has listed any 185gr loads as suitable to the task based on the FBI protocol tests of Steel car door, plywood, wall board, 4-layer denim, and bare gel penetration criteria. I personally in my own testing have seen most 185gr projectiles not penetrate adequately and lack in accuracy, as well as have poor performance against hard barriers. From those tests, and inferring from their lack of inclusion on lists of approved loads, I draw the conclusion that the load does not perform adequately to be relied upon.
__________________
Igitur si vis pacem, para bellum.
http://www.sofrep.com and http://loadoutroom.com -- Check us out on the web!
http://www.beast-enterprises.com Beast Enterprises - Target Stands and Cerakote Services
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rwYqGmVvzQ

Last edited by DeltaKilo; 03-14-2011 at 04:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 03-14-2011, 06:46 PM
brzusa.1911 brzusa.1911 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,134
R
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaKilo View Post
That's fine. You're welcome to use whatever you wish. I'm not attempting to tell anyone what to use in their guns, only attempting to provide data based on the research I have conducted. You may accept it or not. In the scheme of things, any projectile of sufficient weight and velocity will work. My one concern, and reason for not recommending them, is that the round has recurring mentions of core-jacket separations; and from this issue, it does not make it to the list of approved loads compiled by Dr. Gary Roberts, which is built off of his own research through testing and review of medical information and performance data of real world shooting incidents.

No list or study I have come across has listed any 185gr loads as suitable to the task based on the FBI protocol tests of Steel car door, plywood, wall board, 4-layer denim, and bare gel penetration criteria. I personally in my own testing have seen most 185gr projectiles not penetrate adequately and lack in accuracy, as well as have poor performance against hard barriers. From those tests, and inferring from their lack of inclusion on lists of approved loads, I draw the conclusion that the load does not perform adequately to be relied upon.
You still fail to provide good sources of data. Here more data showing GS 185 performance against plywood, wallboard, dennin gelatin, ... the only core separation was against windshield glass, which also happened to other 230gr tested - http://www.google.com/m/url?ei=kKV-T...wsGt4KWx6DfzNA

The links (including the FBI tests above) I have provided are not backyard, phonebook anecdote tests.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 03-14-2011, 06:49 PM
DeltaKilo's Avatar
DeltaKilo DeltaKilo is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Coloma, MI
Posts: 11,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by brzusa.1911 View Post
R

You still fail to provide good sources of data. Here more data showing GS 185 performance against plywood, wallboard, dennin gelatin, ... the only core separation was against windshield glass, which also happened to other 230gr tested - http://www.google.com/m/url?ei=kKV-T...wsGt4KWx6DfzNA

The links (including the FBI tests above) I have provided are not backyard, phonebook anecdote tests.
Alright, I stand corrected on this load. Satisfied?
__________________
Igitur si vis pacem, para bellum.
http://www.sofrep.com and http://loadoutroom.com -- Check us out on the web!
http://www.beast-enterprises.com Beast Enterprises - Target Stands and Cerakote Services
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rwYqGmVvzQ
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 03-14-2011, 06:56 PM
brzusa.1911 brzusa.1911 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaKilo View Post
Alright, I stand corrected on this load. Satisfied?
Yes. Thank-you!
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 03-14-2011, 06:58 PM
DeltaKilo's Avatar
DeltaKilo DeltaKilo is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Coloma, MI
Posts: 11,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by brzusa.1911 View Post
Yes. Thank-you!
I still maintain that overall, 230gr loads are a better choice in the .45 ACP. I will accept certain 185gr loads are acceptable for use in short-barreled automatics.
__________________
Igitur si vis pacem, para bellum.
http://www.sofrep.com and http://loadoutroom.com -- Check us out on the web!
http://www.beast-enterprises.com Beast Enterprises - Target Stands and Cerakote Services
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rwYqGmVvzQ

Last edited by DeltaKilo; 03-14-2011 at 07:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 03-14-2011, 07:19 PM
brzusa.1911 brzusa.1911 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaKilo View Post
I still maintain that overall, 230gr loads are a better choice in the .45 ACP. I will accept certain 185gr loads are acceptable for use in short-barreled automatics.
I respect your opinion and thank you for the contributions you have made on this and other threads, including ones I started being a newbie on the subject.

As far as the 230gr being more suited for the government size barrels I will not dispute, I will call that the 185gr is not bad either - the tests above were from full-size barrels. If I only had full-size 1911s I would certainty have 230gr on all my magazines, since I have both commander and government I find it easier to load all my carry mags with 185gr GS as I know they will perform well out of both.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 03-15-2011, 05:06 AM
NonPCnraRN NonPCnraRN is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Stockton, CA
Posts: 1,867
I find myself in the rare situation of backing up what DK said. A test was done in Handloader Magazine with 45 ACP 185 gr ammo and 230 gr ammo of the same brand. The long and short of it is (pun intended) that the 185 gr ammo continued to increase velocity and energy up to 24 inches of barrel length. The 230 gr ammo peaked at 14-16 inches and at 24 inches was the same as at 5 inches.

So, the idea that the lighter bullet will attain higher velocity and energy sooner than the 230 gr ammo isn't true. The heavier bullet as I said previously is less dependent on barrel length to be effective whether ball or hp. One of the falacies of the "show me the data argument" is that a lot of general knowledge is achieved through experience (shooting people or hunting) but not documented. DK and I have gone around and around regarding the use of wide meplat hardcast bullets vs hollowpoints. My data is anecdotal and not contained in a study. Guys that hunt know the value of a 45cal chunk of lead with a flat nose for creating a hole much larger than what you would expect.

Since he knows I value penetration (being a hardcast large meplat bullet shooter) he recommended the DPX ammo. That is what I carry. He says it penetrates better than most other HPs. He has done the research and probably mumbles it in his sleep. So I am not going to get eyestrain reading all the material he can provide. I have come to the conclusion that if DK has done the research and says something about HP ammo I don't make him reinvent the wheel. I just take his word for it. Now if I could just get him to say WFN instead of wadcutter....... But us old curmudgeons don't change easily.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 03-15-2011, 06:27 AM
Rifter's Avatar
Rifter Rifter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The People's Republic of Illinois, most corrupt state in the Union.
Posts: 4,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by NonPCnraRN View Post
I find myself in the rare situation of backing up what DK said. A test was done in Handloader Magazine with 45 ACP 185 gr ammo and 230 gr ammo of the same brand. The long and short of it is (pun intended) that the 185 gr ammo continued to increase velocity and energy up to 24 inches of barrel length. The 230 gr ammo peaked at 14-16 inches and at 24 inches was the same as at 5 inches.

So, the idea that the lighter bullet will attain higher velocity and energy sooner than the 230 gr ammo isn't true. The heavier bullet as I said previously is less dependent on barrel length to be effective whether ball or hp. One of the falacies of the "show me the data argument" is that a lot of general knowledge is achieved through experience (shooting people or hunting) but not documented. DK and I have gone around and around regarding the use of wide meplat hardcast bullets vs hollowpoints. My data is anecdotal and not contained in a study. Guys that hunt know the value of a 45cal chunk of lead with a flat nose for creating a hole much larger than what you would expect.

Since he knows I value penetration (being a hardcast large meplat bullet shooter) he recommended the DPX ammo. That is what I carry. He says it penetrates better than most other HPs. He has done the research and probably mumbles it in his sleep. So I am not going to get eyestrain reading all the material he can provide. I have come to the conclusion that if DK has done the research and says something about HP ammo I don't make him reinvent the wheel. I just take his word for it. Now if I could just get him to say WFN instead of wadcutter....... But us old curmudgeons don't change easily.
I'll have to back up what you just said. The Hornady FMJ-FP that I use was designed to provide increased lethality via the flat nose, and better penetration than standard round nose FMJ. I can attest to both of those facts, as I've stated before.

I was also going to note that jacket separation is not uncommon in light for caliber bullets when they are not bonded to the core. The 230 gr. GS bullets I've bought from two different places are bonded and penetrated as well as the FMJ loads I've tested.

Just another alternative to add to the list of choices.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 03-15-2011, 12:44 PM
BurntEyes BurntEyes is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 801
Quote:
Originally Posted by brzusa.1911 View Post
R

You still fail to provide good sources of data. Here more data showing GS 185 performance against plywood, wallboard, dennin gelatin, ... the only core separation was against windshield glass, which also happened to other 230gr tested - http://www.google.com/m/url?ei=kKV-T...wsGt4KWx6DfzNA

The links (including the FBI tests above) I have provided are not backyard, phonebook anecdote tests.
Just an FYI, if you look at all the data, through glass, the toughest barrier, the 185 grain failed.

"Auto Glass is the toughest and most difficult of all barrier tests. Federalís new HST
performed amazingly for non-bonded technology. HST retained its core jacket integrity
3 out of 4 shots Ė 75%. Winchester SXT and Remington Golden Sabre bullets
experienced core jacket separations 100% of the time. It is important to note that in the
event of a core jacket separation, FBI Test Protocol measures only the single deepest
penetrating fragment of the bullet for expansion, retained weight, and penetration. Both
the core and the jacket were mounted separately on the board."
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 03-15-2011, 12:52 PM
DeltaKilo's Avatar
DeltaKilo DeltaKilo is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Coloma, MI
Posts: 11,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by BurntEyes View Post
Just an FYI, if you look at all the data, through glass, the toughest barrier, the 185 grain failed.

"Auto Glass is the toughest and most difficult of all barrier tests. Federalís new HST
performed amazingly for non-bonded technology. HST retained its core jacket integrity
3 out of 4 shots Ė 75%. Winchester SXT and Remington Golden Sabre bullets
experienced core jacket separations 100% of the time. It is important to note that in the
event of a core jacket separation, FBI Test Protocol measures only the single deepest
penetrating fragment of the bullet for expansion, retained weight, and penetration. Both
the core and the jacket were mounted separately on the board."
Good point.
__________________
Igitur si vis pacem, para bellum.
http://www.sofrep.com and http://loadoutroom.com -- Check us out on the web!
http://www.beast-enterprises.com Beast Enterprises - Target Stands and Cerakote Services
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rwYqGmVvzQ
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:43 AM.


NOTICE TO USERS OF THIS SITE: By continuing to use this site, you certify that you have read and agree to abide by the Legal Terms of Use. All information, data, text or other materials ("Content") posted to this site by any users are the sole responsibility of those users. 1911Forum does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity, or quality of such Content.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2011 1911Forum.com, LLC. All Rights Reserved