Why didn't it take off?
> Less recoil than 10mm
> Hits with over 700 fpe at 25 yards
> Insane hollow point performance, rifle-like wound trauma
> Bottleneck improves feed reliability
> Just drop barrel into any 10mm pistol for conversion
> Could easily defeat armor with the right bullets
On paper it seems like the perfect pistol round. Why has remained obscure?
Ammo cost, availability, barriers to entry.
the same reason why most X meme rounds don't take off... this
Guns are fun, the gun industry is not.
I'd like lots of oddball shit but tend to stay grounded in reality so I don't take it that personal.
This is the answer to almost every single "why didn't whatever" take off /k/ question.
I honestly kind of doubt we ever see another new rifle, let alone handgun, cartridge take off ever again until we see enough new tech come together for a radical shift (like zero primer polymer cased telescoped electronic plasma fired munitions, or rail guns or something wild). The amount of cartridges that already exist and have been experimented with pretty much explore the entire space of tech. The only new-ish ones I can see maybe getting some more traction are
- 8.6bo, not because it's particularly good in its class but the first 33cal subsonic focused round SAAMI standardized, even though I think options like .375 raptor are better. If something subsonic can do ok to 200-300m out a 12" barrel maybe that'll carve a niche?
- .416 Barrett is a really solid ELR round, and should be coming out of patent protection within the next two years (final design 2005). It already has a few different rifles, once anyone can make it might become popular in that niche, ELR definitely care about small differences in performance.
Dunno, anything else come to mind for anyone else? 6.5sneed and 300bo are the last ones that really seemed to get traction. Kinda feels like the era of new factory loads is coming to an end, even if reloaders will always have fun tinkering.
Not a new cartridge but .338 Lapua seems to get by more from institutional inertia and complacency than viability. The way that it’s often used, it’s loaded to 3.6” or 3.68”, in which case it provides basically no advantage in performance over .338 Norma with heavy projectiles besides maybe a bit of barrel life. OR it’s single loaded to longer lengths which is just a pain in the ass outside of slow fire recreational shooting.
The thing is, .338 Lapua can actually provide a serious velocity boost over Norma if loaded sufficiently long since the case has more capacity. It’s also more efficient than what I see as essentially compromise cartridges like .338 RUM and Edge since the casing is both shorter AND has more capacity. And indeed we do have .338 Lapua magazines that can accommodate this longer COAL, but unfortunately, the number of actions/bottom metals/chassis available is limited. Hopefully it becomes the standard one day.
As an aside, not my own report, but a coyote that got blown in half by a .338 magnum round. Funnily enough I came across someone else by random who reported the same thing happening when he shot a coyote with his .338 Lapua.
And also, what looks to be an antelope with a gaping hole in its side after being shot with 300 gr SMK at about 800m.
Now wouldn’t you know, the exact same person who provided a second report of a coyote being blown in half, also said he’d shot a deer at 700 yards with a 300 gr SMK and it’d opened up a wound channel something like a foot wide. So this random person I ran into provided 2 independent corroborating accounts of 2 separate events involving a .338 magnum that I had pictures of, where he recounted that almost the exact same things had happened. Something of a coincidence.
Ah, I was honestly considering 338lm to have already made it long since so I wasn't counting it as one of the new-ish ones that's all. It was doing decently by the 00s for sure, and US mil started the ramp process for it end of then too. IIRC it won some pretty big contract in like, 2012, 2013? For factory loads I think it's pretty dominant at 33cal. Obviously at the top end of civvie legal 50bmg isn't going anywhere. That leaves one arguable hole, which I don't think .375ct or .408ct have dominated, so I think .416 could still do that. Then with the interest in quiet, there might be room for a "300bo but twice the range subsonic". After that it's hard to think of anything else that'd create enough market for factory.
Although one other wildcard might be changes not in bullet tech, but production tech. I'd have to find the video but I remember before they lost True Velocituy was talking about their polymer tech allowing fairly arbitrary production which could enable "BTO" cartridges (in not horrible min quantities, like 10k). That'd change things from the opposite direction, though since they lost NGSW it probably won't be them.
>8.6 Blackout
Not a new cartridge: .338 Whisper has existed for a damn long time. There is nothing new about it, except for the standardisation and marketing push. .33/.308 wildcats have existed for half a century at this point.
>.416 Barrett
Again, not a novel concept. Sticking a .416 bullet in a .50 BMg case has been done for decades before Barrett went after it. Finally: there is no such thing as patent protection for cartridges. Patent protection requires a novel idea (and there is no such a thing with wildcatters) and a unique idea that is not an obvious for a professional. The only thing you can do for cartridges is to copyright the names, as JD Jones for example did with the Whisper series (and Barrett of course is a trademark of the company). That does nog prevent anyone from straight up copying chamber and cartridge dimensions: .300 Whisper became .300 Blackout, or .300-221, or .30 Fireball, etc. The dimensions for .416 Barrett have been in the open domain since 2018, when it was CIP standardised - at that point, anyone can copy them. And they have, you can buy an awful lot of non-Barrett rifles in .416 Barrett, for example from Desert Tech.
>Patent protection requires a novel idea (and there is no such a thing with wildcatters) and a unique idea that is not an obvious for a professional
Anon please don't talk about things authoritatively when your knowledge extends solely to high school level reading of the bare theory. I don't even say this unkindly, what you say is indeed how regular patents (vs design patents which are a different beast) SHOULD work. And did, 30-40 years ago. But that was a long time ago. Nearly anything will pass the PTO at this point. IP maximalists have won, PTO is both underfunded and badly incentivized, math/"business method" patents were created out of thin air by IP court in the 80s, etc. A new cartridge would be amongst the easy patents to get at this point.
also
>Not a new cartridge
Could I buy it off the shelf factory made from a wide variety of manufacturers 15 years ago? 5 years ago? No? Then it's a new cartridge for the purposes of this discussion which is not about reloading as we repeatedly said.
>Again, not a novel concept
See above. Ideas are pretty worthless anon when it comes to mass manufactured consumer products, it's about implementation and then all the grunge work of building market support. I love reloading, but that's not what anyone means when they ask "will this cartridge take off".
Mate, this isn't my high school level understanding - I considered such an action for a wildcat of my own, but found that there is no protection in patents for such a thing after consulting with a patent lawyer. Other manufacturer changes one dimension, such as freebore (which they likely will anyways) and you're out a hefty patent fee. Can you find a single example where a patent for a caliber has been given, and has proven effective (not a cartridge type like pinfire/rimfire, or a machining operation like the Rollin White patent)?
If you consider innovation only as an invention that has reached the consumer (a valid definition): 8.6 Blackout and .416 Barrett are not available as off the shelf factory ammo from a wide variety of manufacturers either. 8.6 might for a brief while, and then it'll die, like most of the propped up novelties.
To be clear, I wasn't calling them "innovative" either, the contet anon was exclusively about whether we see a new "cartridge take off ever again" until a true disruptive shift, whether we're at "the end of history" there. Whether it exists right now or not.
Like for handguns, I'd argue we're probably done: there will be innovation in loads and guns, but not in a new cartridge, nothing like 10mm or 40S&W managing to carve a reasonable market chunk, or even 5.7 making some waves in PCCs. If you go to ammoseek and look at the top ones, that's what it'll be in 5 years now too. I was just speculating in rifles maybe there are two holes left that those two might fill (doesn't have to be them, they just seem to be reaching a tipping point).
>8.6 Blackout and .416 Barrett are not available as off the shelf factory ammo from a wide variety of manufacturers either
Yes? That's what I said anon. What I was writing about was FUTURE potential:
(You)
>"The only new-ish ones I can see MAYBE getting some more traction"
8.6 is very new but since last year seems to be getting more options at a clip that might make it hit critical mass in the next 5 years, like 300bo did. 416 also initially had just the one Barrett gun but is getting more interesting options, and there are a few places that offer it.
Either may fail but that'd just reinforce my point about it being hard to see much new in that regard under the present set of circumstances.
>Either may fail but that'd just reinforce my point about it being hard to see much new in that regard under the present set of circumstances.
Alright then, I misunderstood you. It's a fair point, if those two are your best hope of innovation, that's a pretty bad outlook.
>That .375/.50 patent
Dear God. The fricking c**ts. Idiots too, because there's probably prior art out there to claim 1. If there aren't, it'd be easy to circumvent by making a cartridge just outside of those dimensions. The US is wierd man, here in Europe we've basically found that speed of exploitation is what gives you IP protection, not some wierd patent that you can sue with - because that patent can be easily circumvented if you have clever enough engineers.
Shame to hear it has affected you, and you're right to be pissed off. As for proven to be effective: there's no .375/.50 ammo on the market right now, so that patent really is not effective. In the US, it's really only SAAMI spec cartridges that are in the public reach and those also happen to be in the public domain. You're right, most people won't touch that specific wildcat - but they might just touch another, very similar to it.
>Dear God. The fricking c**ts.
Yes, absolutely.
>Idiots too, because there's probably prior art out there to claim 1
The problem in the US though is that there being prior art matters in theory but not necessarily in practice. Way back when the PTO was good and quite strict, and all the law and precedent is mostly based around that. So once a patent is granted, it's assumed to be valid by default and that it was super carefully vetted and all that, so even if it's shit it's very expensive in the US court system to review it. And there is no "loser pays" system, you are out a lot of money even if you win.
That opens the door for patent trolls: they'll find a business making money, say they're infringing, and offer to "settle and license" for "mere" $5k/10k/15k or whatever it is. Or you can go to court and spend 6 figures minimum. Lots of places will just roll over and pay (or avoid ever touching it in the first place). It's been a huge hassle.
>that are in the public reach and those also happen to be in the public domain
It's not "happen to be", that's a core point and WHY no manufacturer tends to want to touch something not SAAMI: because they want to be sure it's fully open royalty free.
Anyway though none of this affected reloaders or wildcat developers. Nobody will ever bother them or even know. But it's a big deal when talking about whether or not major players will jump into the water.
>Can you find a single example where a patent for a caliber has been given
I can find tons of patents for small arms calibers, and not like, 20 years old either, here is one from just a few years ago:
>https://patents.justia.com/patent/20200132421
Unless it's some obvious or someone notices and challenges in the time, the PTO at this point tends to grant first and then let the legal system fight it out. And they just proposed a rule to make getting rid of bad patents via IPR much harder:
>https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/08/us-patent-office-proposes-rule-to-make-it-much-harder-to-kill-bad-patents/
Sorry if I sounded like an butthole, but it's affected me and is an area that really pisses me off. Bad patents have brutalized a lot of areas
>and has proven effective
Here I'm not really sure what you're after. In theory sure it's possible to fight it in court and get it over turned. This can easily run 6-7 figures though. In practice the mere existence of a patent is going to dissuade anyone from even touching it most of the time.
NTA, but 9x23 Winchester was rather famously held up for years by a patent lawsuit over CP's 9x23 Super; by the time the lawsuit was over, the major power factor had been reduced, so 9x19 Major was ascendant and the primary market for either 9x23 was evaporating.
Various articles report that Ricco eventually "won", but I don't know what that means in terms of whether the court actually found the patent valid and enforceable, or whether Winchester decided it was cheaper to settle than keep litigating, but either way it seems "effective" to me.
>A niche version of an already niche round that creates massive fireballs.
Wow, why wouldn't people order this from like 1 supplier in existence and set up their own wildcatting jig for it?
Ballistics are a meme the difference between different handgun cartridges are so little it does not matter. 9mm and 10mm is all you need. Anything below, over and inbetween are just meme placeholders.
People aren't based enough.
>Differences are a meme
>Except for 10mm
The eternal Centennial shitposter strikes again.
He's right though. 10mm is the only widely available auto cartridge that gives meaningfully better performance than 9mm because you have almost twice as much energy but also enough impact velocity for that energy to actually do anything. 10mm can produce wounds similar to what you see in deer hunting with rifle cartridges, whereas .40 and .45ACP merely make slightly bigger holes than 9mm... IF they expand. 9mm and 10mm are the only pistol rounds that matter anymore, there's no point to anything else.
>muh energy
Please STFU.
Wound ballistics authorities largely disregard energy. So do I.
You can have rifle rounds with 1000 ft lbs energy that perform worse than handgun rounds with 400. You can have rifle rounds with 2500 ft lbs of energy that perform worse than rifle rounds with 1200. You can have 2 rounds with practically the same energy and completely different levels of wounding.
Want proof? Look up Fackler’s 5.45 pig testing and assault rifle wounding profiles, the Port Arthur shooting analysis (IWBA Volume 3 #4), any of the numerous accounts regarding the performance of 5.56 GP90, TSX, and 77 gr TMK.
According to Dr. Roberts, TSC damage in flexible tissues isn’t even expected to begin in good .357 magnum JSPs until about 1600 FPS. Assuming the formula for tissue drag and TSC generation is basically the same as the standard fluid drag formula, as former IWBA engineer Duncan MacPherson insinuates, a 10mm at 1350 FPS that expands to 0.7” would not be expected to create a TSC much if any more severe than a .357 magnum that expands to 0.6” at 1600 FPS.
Energy dumped into a target can matter, but even then is only one factor of several.
What's the formula, anon? I've never been able to find a mathematical model for terminal ballistics.
I usually don’t even look at energy ft lbs these days. The components (weight, velocity), yes, but the actual specific product of energy, no.
The drag formula is more complicated than this but really the primary components are frontal area and instantaneous velocity. For the purposes of simple comparison you can essentially simplify it as BulletDiameter^2 x Velocity^2.
This assumes that tissue type (medium density) remains the same, which it should be, since we should be comparing apples to apples. This also assumes that bullet drag coefficient is the same; in practice it’s unlikely to be exactly identical, but *most* JHP profiles are likely to be more similar than different to each other in this regard (switch to FMJ or hardcast and it’s a different story). Note also that we can’t predict instantaneous velocity without an inch-by-inch analysis of high speed video, but since .357 magnum 125 gr Gold Dot and 10mm 165 gr and 180 gr Gold Dots seem to have fairly similar overall penetration, it’s probably not THAT different.
Now this is just a baseline guesstimate for TSC generation, the actual permanent cavity is a combination of temporary cavity damage and crush cavity (much easier to predict) damage.
>you’re wrong because…you just are okay!
Indeed, it’s such common knowledge that I can’t think of a single former IWBA member who has held up 10mm as any kind of paradigm shift or even substantive improvement over many other service caliber handgun rounds.
*to clarify, by *that different*, I mean that the velocity slope itself probably isn’t so different that we can’t use the initial impact velocity as a rough proxy for comparison purposes
For handguns I don't look at anything but real world use data. And that shows everything from 380 up works about the same. If you aim at the right spot and put in a bunch of rounds before whoever or whatever animal you're aiming at can hurt you then you win. There are no statistically significant differences. Everything else is theorycrafting.
For rifles it's in theory more complicated but in practice you have so much extra power to work with that generous energy guidance at a given range is a gudenuf heuristic for people not doing ELR.
I don’t feel like going over this again in detail but there is practically no good publicly available real world statistical data comparing bullet effectiveness (no, Ellefrotz doesn’t count) and even if there were, MacPherson explains how it would take a ridiculously large sample size to rule out the effect of random variation.
Likewise rifle bullets differ vastly in effectiveness based on bullet construction, you can have nondeforming FMJ bullets that make completely puny wounds for their caliber, hard bonded bullets that produce wound channels of moderate size, or heavy fragging bullets that make holes several times the diameter of hard bonded rounds, and everything in between. There is, as a general rule, more difference within a caliber than between calibers - and this is true for both rifles and pistols.
>no, Ellefrotz doesn’t count
Yeah it does when it comes to practical choices vs theorycraft (also "Ellifritz" is the spelling fwiw). It was a solid enough survey effort given the US government is banned from stats.
>MacPherson explains how it would take a ridiculously large sample size to rule out the effect of random variation.
That isn't how probability and statistics works. First if it's a population survey then sample doesn't even come into it. If it's a sample the question is if it's random or biased, and if biased to what extent that can be corrected. You can do accurately polling on tens of millions of people with a few hundred samples so long as they're fully random. Bigger samples shrink error bars and can make up for imperfect real world, that's it.
So going back to Ellifritz and his documenting/collating 1785 shootings over a decade, taking the average rounds until incapacitation, the % of people not incapacitated at all, the groupings that shake out given uncorrelated rounds into 3 buckets is pretty straight forward. The difference between rifles/shotguns and everything else is big. The difference between .22/.25/.32 and 380-44 is also major. And everything else is noisy but close.
If you wanted to autisticly answer what is the "best" caliber/load combo sure, that'd take a totally different effort. But for the question of
>"if I use a decent load and can shoot decent groups at <15yd am I at any major disadvantage with any mainline centerfire handgun caliber"
the answer is clearly no. It's up to YOU to provide hard data otherwise. Good luck.
>Ellifritz
Please look where the O and I are in relation to each other on the keyboard.
>That isn't how probability and statistics works.
...yes? We cannot be confident of a difference between 2 groups when repeatability is poor, and that is not something we can guarantee with sample sizes of just several hundred.
>So going back to Ellifritz and his documenting/collating 1785 shootings over a decade
And we have no public dataset for this, no peer review, nor any multivariate analysis and assignment of coefficients, no adjustment for bullet type (again - please refer to my comment that differences within calibers are greater than differences between calibers) and target physiology, with only limited correction for psychological stops and affected organs.
Wound ballistics SMEs predominantly rely on damage-based metrics rather than 'street data' to compare the efficacies of various rounds, now how much any given metric matters is subjective, but I have not found them to generally promote such studies to the extent that they even exist.
>am I at any major disadvantage with any mainline centerfire handgun caliber
Did I say you were? Although if you wanted to advance that you were practically just as well armed with .380 FMJ as anything else then yes I probably could provide some limited amount of evidence that would qualify as "practical data" even by your standards.
>...yes? We cannot be confident of a difference between 2 groups when repeatability is poor, and that is not something we can guarantee with sample sizes of just several hundred.
Yes you can. We have to deal with this IRL all the time anon, like with most of medicine. You can't do double blind experiments at will that involve fatal risk to humans, so we have to do our best anyway. Again if you really want to drill into specifics for the fun of it then yes, that takes more, better data. But you can get broad trends and answer questions like "is the limit the gun or is the limit me as the operator".
>with only limited correction for psychological stops and affected organs.
This is you going into theorycraft again. Nobody in a defensive shooting cares about anything but stopping the threat to their life. How that's accomplished doesn't matter, just that the target is incapacitated. A "psychological stop" that still results in "incapacitated" is fine.
There just isn't any hint of data out there that there is a dramatic difference in handguns when it comes to the specific case of civil defense. Sure one caliber might be +/- 4% "better" then another in the abstract, but is that a limiting factor? Particularly when we can absolutely quantify that rounds like 9x25 can't go into as compact guns which makes concealment much harder, are much more expensive to train with, much harder to get certain useful loads, have far fewer options in terms of platform, have significantly more recoil, etc. Those are all important performance factors too. The gun I don't have on me is worthless.
>that you were practically just as well armed with .380 FMJ
I'm assuming the best load within any given caliber because there is zero barrier to entry there. There's no reason to carry FMJ in any caliber at all vs quality HPs or XDs or whatever else is called for/current state of the art. There is plenty of room for innovation in loads without touching the caliber at all.
Basically all defense boils down to:
>There is something <10-20yd away that is a threat to my life/those I have a duty or wish of care to/my property.
>Retreat cannot effectively reduce that risk.
>I need an option that will let me change the threat to one I can at least retreat from (if only behind cover) at range until the threat ends or reinforcement can arrive.
Obviously killing it instantly will accomplish that, threat over. Someone bleeding out on the ground who won't die for another half hour but now can't effective operate their own firearm or pursue (or could be trivially shot again if they tried as they'd be staggering around or whatever) also works. Or merely disabled. Or if they run. Or just surrender and throw away weapons, keep hands behind head facing away/face down and stay still until police show up even. This just isn't a challenging scenario from a pure ballistics/tech perspective. But then:
>I need to be able to do it before the threat can turn into a reality.
>I need to be able to have it ready to go when a threat happens, which is entirely unpredictable.
>I usually need to be able to have it ready to go without letting other humans know ahead of time.
That's where a lot the rub comes in. Most of the performance comes down to me, not the gun/caliber. And for the last two bigger is worse. That's the fundamental tension of handguns.
Sure. If what you're looking at is "Does this thing generally work" then I am a staunch advocate of the idea that anything at least .30 SC and up (and sure, we can throw in .380 too) can work consistently well if you can aim properly. If the biggest issue for you is concealment then by all means carry a smaller caliber.
I am speaking from the perspective of someone who may be interested in the finer nuances of terminal ballistics and/or is willing to accept tradeoffs of concealability and ammo price. Such discussion may be derided as of minimal practical relevance, but then again, so would most other factors relating to choice of gear and then there might be little to talk about at all.
>Sure. If what you're looking at is "Does this thing generally work" then I am a staunch advocate of the idea that anything at least .30 SC and up (and sure, we can throw in .380 too) can work consistently well if you can aim properly. If the biggest issue for you is concealment then by all means carry a smaller caliber.
>I am speaking from the perspective of someone who may be interested in the finer nuances of terminal ballistics and/or is willing to accept tradeoffs of concealability and ammo price. Such discussion may be derided as of minimal practical relevance, but then again, so would most other factors relating to choice of gear and then there might be little to talk about at all.
OK then, I guess we don't have any argument. I'm genuinely all in favor of reloaders having whatever fun they wish (and that includes me, I have carried the torch for stuff like 375 raptor which I know is never going to get any real traction in factory loads), and 100% in favor of nerdy autism statistics efforts at seeing what can be done.
But FWIW anon, the thread OP (which may have been another anon not you) was
>Why didn't it take off?
THAT question is about "Does this thing generally work for the general pop" taking into account practicality of accuracy for normal people, CC and economics and everything else. Does 9x25 have enough advantages to make enough of the market accept the major expense of a switch? The answer is no. It's all shaving yaks vs existing stuff. So you shouldn't be surprised most of the discussion ended up being in that framing.
Still, sorry if I took you as the OP and talked sideways to what you were after! Indeed, the stats I posted are not relevant to your interests/question.
Fair enough, indeed I am not the OP. Many /k/channers are incredibly ignorant about terminal ballistics, perhaps even beyond the average redditgoer or arfcom boomer, so I've gotten into the habit of just assuming that most of the people I talk to are trying to argue about a subject that they have little knowledge about. It is my opinion that most calibers are simply series of trade-offs and, contrary to what many believe, there is rarely a clear objective best or free lunch from a technical standpoint. But if the question is simply "are most non-moronic handguns likely to work similarly in terms of DGU results" or "do the differences in caliber trump having a caliber to use at all" then I will not broadly disagree. Likewise my comment on HST results largely relate to popular conceptions that all handguns suck no matter what, when in reality, I strongly suspect that many incidents held up as examples of the alleged ineffectiveness of handguns are in reality better demonstrations of poor marksmanship. But I would never keep an AR loaded with 77 gr TMKs around for HD if I didn't believe rifles were generally superior once deployed.
Btw, if you're willing to select the best rounds available (which is honestly a vast improvement over the average idiot who seems to think bullet choice is dependent on a roulette wheel or something), I consider 99 gr Hydra-Shok Deep to be the premier .380 round available today, for 9mm probably 124 gr +P HST nowadays as 147 gr HST got nerfed although there are some number of competitive options.
Fair enough to you too, and if you ever have any reports or data or just fun experiments to report hope you post 'em (and I'm around to read 'em).
>Btw, if you're willing to select the best rounds available (which is honestly a vast improvement over the average idiot who seems to think bullet choice is dependent on a roulette wheel or something)
I have zero data or even serious anecdote but in some ways it kind of surprises me people would just use the same stuff for training as EDC. Although at the same time I know the reality is a lot of people buy whatever cheap gun is at the LGS, maybe shoot it once while there, throw it in a sock drawer and that's it. We always have to be careful about our bubbles.
>I consider 99 gr Hydra-Shok Deep to be the premier .380 round available today, for 9mm probably 124 gr +P HST nowadays
I'm in a sort of ultra weird niche in that regard, honestly I mostly am open carrying a full size 9mm HG (specifically a maxim 9) in a shoulder holster because I'm in a rural area and almost all my usage is vs animals on the farm (pests or the occasional rabid racoon/porcupine which sadly have gotten more common) or woods, or threats of bears. I've got a cc 9mm and 380 but they don't see much use. Over penetration is a non-existent consideration, nothing is within a mile and that's through heavy forest and hills. So I'm happy enough at this point with +P or +P+ XDs. They perform fine, they're even lower recoil though that's near non-existent anyway, they're lead free which is nice with a suppressor, and I have more confidence in them from other guys who have shot bears vs hollow points. I'm getting down to reliably 2" groups at 10yd so I assume they'll be alright in the ultra unlikely case of any home defense (there hasn't been any crime around here in like, literally decades) and even more unlikely case I couldn't grab one of my rifles.
Happy to take the suggestion on 380 however!
Also as kind of a random note on value of niche rounds that normally you wouldn't use, dealt with this few weeks ago and others using frangible ammo. A few ground hogs had managed to burrow their way fricking INSIDE a barn lower basement, and then were making a huge mess and couldn't actually get out. Basement is all concrete, but on the older side, building is from over 100 years ago, and turned out there was room between foundation wall and wood/asbestos upper where enterprising vermin could burrow in, then they'd drop down to floor and be stuck. Concrete, piping, tanks and such everywhere, how it always is in older many times retrofitted building. So I grabbed frangible training rounds and ended up being perfect weird tool combo, took them down with zero risk of ricochet even if I missed (though I didn't) even in a confined space, also not loud even in confined space with hard walls. Polar opposite of what one would normally want. But I was thankful to have it on me. A caliber that has specialty loads can be handy sometimes.
I do have some 77gr TMK ballistic gelatin testing data in shear-validated 10% (more like 11% actually due to measurement sloppiness/errors) ordnance gel.
Black Hills loading, fired out of a 24" and 16" barrel. Penetration was about 11.5" on the 24" shot (may be a bit of an underestimate in retrospect due to perspective errors), averaged about 12.6" across 3 shots from the 16".
Recovered bullet weights were about 30-35 gr, unfortunately we forgot which bullet was which bullet. Average expanded diameter about ~0.45". Temporary cavities about 5" wide on the 16" shots, neck lengths were sub-1".
Also tried .30-06 FMJ, .223 55 gr FMJ, 9mm Hornady Critical Duty (? can't remember if it was duty or defense) out of a 3.1" barrel and Black Hills 124 gr +P (probably using an XTP bullet) out of a 4" barrel on a gel block that warmed up and went out of spec. Expansion and fragmentation is primarily determined by gelatin density so that probably wouldn't have changed much vs an in spec gel block, it's mostly just penetration that does since warm gel blocks have less shear resistance.
Anyways the .30-06 FMJ yawed and exited, don't recall seeing any fragmentation nor would I have expected it. .223 55 gr FMJ failed to fully fragment even though it was traveling over 2900 FPS though it did squeeze some lead out the rear like a toothpaste tube. Hornady round out of the subcompact had modest expansion, might not have mushroomed at all if we tried a 4LD test. Black Hills 124 gr +P XTP had good expansion, probably near 0.6" average diameter if I recall.
>147 gr HST got nerfed
hol up what happened.
>Yes you can.
Yet the authorities on wound ballistics have by and large not promoted the practice of comparing terminal effect using 'street data'.
>This is you going into theorycraft again.
That would be ignoring not only the myriad of other issues I just mentioned but also the fact that variations in psychological stop rate can affect the broader trends.
>There just isn't any hint of data out there that there is a dramatic difference in handguns when it comes to the specific case of civil defense.
If you just need justification to carry whatever the hell you want then go straight ahead. If you are truthfully using the best loadings available then I don't think it makes much of a statistical difference either. Hell some evidence would suggest a literal blank gun would work the vast majority of the time.
>Those are all important performance factors too.
By the same standard, Ellifritz also does not suggest that any of those things make a large difference. Not even merely having a gun since it doesn't adjust for the likelihood and severity of defender injury. (Some actual studies do, albeit they do not segregate by caliber, however Ellifritz does not.)
>I'm assuming the best load within any given caliber because there is zero barrier to entry there. There's no reason to carry FMJ
Well I'm glad you realize that at least. But since we're on the topic of best loadings for caliber I'll relay my own account, and frankly, there is just as much physical proof of any of that happening.
According to one LEO I have spoken to who tracked department OIS shootings, 147 gr HST and 230 gr +P HST had a 100% incapacitation rate when vitals (head, heart, lungs) were hit. The latter also had a 100% fatality rate with vital hits and the former appears to have been close to that.
This would suggest 9mm and .45 are not strongly limiting factors even compared to rifles, if the limit as you, the operator, includes the ability to hit the thoracic cavity and/or CNS.
>If you just need justification to carry whatever the hell you want then go straight ahead
Well, that's the whole argument. If you accept it makes no practical difference and just enjoy it, then that's completely unironically cool by me.
>By the same standard, Ellifritz also does not suggest that any of those things make a large difference
Don't be moronic. Necessary to any use of a gun is you having the gun at all. That's a foundational element not a performance factor. There are objectively as a matter of law let alone social norms lots of places where you cannot (let alone should not) open carry. The end.
>This would suggest 9mm and .45 are not strongly limiting factors even compared to rifles, if the limit as you, the operator, includes the ability to hit the thoracic cavity and/or CNS.
In terms of sheer ballistics in typical personal defense? Of course. But how a gun ties into operator ability to hit critical zones is a core issue anon. You can't just handwave that when talking general population. And rifles are fantastically easier to control then handguns by humans. That's just objective fact. Any guy in even sort of vaguely ok shape, who has shot anything before and isn't a total spastic, can take a quality AR or BR and do <3-4moa groups at 100yd on the very first magazine they shoot it. Did that with someone last weekend. That's not at all impressive shooting. Whereas if the same brand newguns took a full size 9mm and got all rounds somewhere on a 12" target at 10yd on their first time I'd consider that an excellent first try.
Rifles and shotguns are just better weapons then handguns in raw performance, they greatly reduce effective felt recoil, angular momentum to correct etc. They couple the recoil better to your body. So they're easier to shoot accurately even with significantly more powerful ammo, and easier to shoot at all with enormously more powerful ammo. But they're vastly bigger and heavier. That's the tradeoff.
>According to one LEO I have spoken to who tracked department OIS shootings, 147 gr HST and 230 gr +P HST had a 100% incapacitation rate when vitals (head, heart, lungs) were hit. The latter also had a 100% fatality rate with vital hits and the former appears to have been close to that.
That’s pretty meaningless. We don’t know how many shots it took to get to 100%. We do know cops have a propensity to mag dump and mag dump. If I stab someone in the lungs 20 times with a toothbrush shiv he’d be incapacitated and die.
>when vitals are hit
Again that doesn’t tell us anything. We know you have to hit those with a pistol to be effective
I think HSTs are excellent but that data doesn’t mean anything
>We don’t know how many shots it took to get to 100%.
Neither do I but he mentioned 3 shots fired on average across all (both fatal and non-fatal) shootings in general involving both calibers, car shootings exempted. Not 3 hits, just 3 shots.
>Again that doesn’t tell us anything. We know you have to hit those with a pistol to be effective
The thoracic cavity is a fairly large target. What all that demonstrates to me is that, at least in his sample size (consisting of some dozens overall), premium handgun rounds were effective without fail if the shooter did their part.
He also mentioned some number of incapacitations where vitals were not struck albeit the fatality rate was not 100%. Since he didn't mention the exact rate and for all I know they could all be psychological stops I don't know that it is very relevant; for the purposes of determining efficacy, I simply assume thoracic cavity hits.
Okay, but:
1) I'm not sure how this relates to what I'm saying. Again, I don't dispute that 55 gr TSX produces TSC damage, that's why those lung holes are bigger than the bullet itself. What I am saying is I don't see clear evidence that this rather moderate TSC damage, by rifle standards, is improving the overall permanent wound channel vastly beyond what a 230 gr +P HST would do. If one bullet does 0.5" of crush damage and another 0.5" of TSC damage for a total wound channel diameter of 1" then I expect efficacy to be similar to a bullet that does 1" of crush damage and 0" TSC damage.
2) Hanging beef briskets don't necessarily have the properties of living tissue. In fact Dr. Roberts actively rejects the 'JABT' document as a good source of info.
3) I have read the THV document itself - the wider-than-bullet wounding was quite shallow and not really anything we wouldn't expect from a light high velocity high drag bullet. In addition, Lehigh bullets often tumble shortly after entry, which diminishes the importance of the meplat shape.
All things considered if they are so close in tissue damaging capacity but one is soft armor blind and the other isn’t I’m still choosing the soft armor blind bullet also none of them are specifically testing 68gr XDs going 2400fps
>All things considered if they are so close in tissue damaging capacity but one is soft armor blind and the other isn’t I’m still choosing the soft armor blind bullet
I don't think anyone ever disputed the improved capability of 55 gr TSX to penetrate soft armor.
>also none of them are specifically testing 68gr XDs going 2400fps
Alright? I mean I didn't bring it up although I'd be surprised if it averted the general tendency of XDs to start tumbling quickly.
>IWBA member who has held up 10mm as any kind of paradigm shift
Why don't you ask handgun hunters. You know, the people who actually kill stuff with handguns? 10mm is a whole different level than any other service rounds.
And you can get a bunch of different reports all over the place from people who may misremember things, choose ammunition poorly, or completely misunderstand why they got the results they did.
But I can tell you some of the information I *have* remembered hearing from handgun hunters, and indeed, their anecdotes are widely variable.
>9mm was fine for small-medium dogs but subpar for larger ones, 10mm worked well on larger dogs but didn't seem to expand fast enough on smaller ones, .45 JHP worked well, 5.7 was roughly equal to .45 JHP
>5.7 loadings, at least including VMAX and Gold Dot, were literally worse on deer than .38 JHP loadings out of a snubnose
>9mm took down medium game with thoracic hits with ease
>no notable difference on coyotes between 9mm and .45
>230 gr HST +P did better than 124 gr +P HST on deer, consistent one shot kills
>230 gr HST +P did better than 124 gr +P Gold Dot on deer (different person)
>230 gr HST effects on deer appeared fairly similar to 124 gr +P Gold Dot and/or HST, relatively drama-free one shot kills across the board (another different person)
>230 gr Gold Dot does better than 9mm Gold Dot on deer (yet another different person)
>230 gr HST out of a subcompact was marginal on hogs compared to .357 or whatever
>230 gr HST and XTP rounds out of a full size 5" put down hogs with ease (couple different people)
You won't find one single person who killed a deer with pre-FBI spec 10mm hollow points who will say it performed worse than any entry level deer hunting rifle cartridge like 30-30. You don't have a rudimentary grasp of ballistics if you don't understand why it's different from .45ACP and 9mm.
Actually at this very moment I can think of one youtube commenter on a tnoutdoors video who stated that 10mm did not perform as well on medium game in practice as 5.56.
>You don't have a rudimentary grasp of ballistics if you don't understand why it's different from .45ACP and 9mm.
Do you?
If you think that a .40 caliber bullet with a sectional density of .161 impacting at over 1350 fps with over 650 fpe is remotely comparable to any other service auto cartridge then you're simply an idiot.
You don't, then.
>Sectional Density
Irrelevant if the bullet doesn't actually penetrate more (can be determined to some extent through gel testing) or if the bullet would penetrate enough anyway (as many service caliber JHPs likely already do).
>over 1350 fps
And? If the total combination of bullet frontal area, form, and velocity is not sufficient to cause TSC damage then it's just making a hole the size of itself most of the way through and 10mm JHPs are not the biggest expanders out there. If it does cause TSC damage then the statements from a prominent wound ballistics authority as well as limited wound tract data from other calibers would suggest it is relatively minor in flexible tissues.
>650 fpe
Don't care. See my earlier comments about ft lbs energy.
Well I already know you're wrong because I've tested all of these rounds on fresh pig carcasses and have seen the difference myself. I hope you get the opportunity to expand your understanding of terminal ballistics as I have, because you are definitely not correct.
>just trust me bro
Noted but at the present I have more faith in the authorities who study this shit and have at various times studied gunshot wounds for a living. If you have any empirical evidence and context to present, you're more than free.
Literally anyone who hunts knows that everything you just said is complete bullshit. Energy usually isn't a huge factor in handgun wounding, that is true, but 10mm is literally twice as much energy as .45ACP on top of having radically higher impact velocity. It is common knowledge that 10mm represents a fundamentally different type of terminal ballistics than what has historically been associated with service pistol rounds. The only question is whether the recoil is worth it.
No one’s buying your dumbass meme rounds that are $3/rd and always out of stock. There are .45 ACP meme rounds with similar numbers as 10mm. 10mm is not the end all be all handgun cartridge you dirty shill.
Anon go on ammoseek. S&B 10mm is .37-38cpr. 45 acp is .33cpr for factory reloads. It’s the same price for new.
Defensive HPs are around $1/rd for everything except 9mm
I was assuming anon was talking about those 60 gr 2000 fps rounds since he was talking about double the muzzle energy of .45 ACP. I know the FMJ and standard JHPs are readily available online.
>No one’s buying your dumbass meme rounds that are $3/rd and always out of stock
NTA but fwiw I don't consider cost/rnd relevant in these discussions short of ludicrous money, wouldn't matter if it was $6/rnd, because you don't have to train with it. I just use 9mm but I do carry fancier underwood ammo for EDC, because it's a drop in replacement and if I ever needed to use it obviously even fractions of a percent would be worth the cost. I can train with whatever, and just mix in a few mags per year of EDC ammo to double check but while different loads matter a lot at range I've never notice it cause me issues at <15yd. If you can do tight groups fast with FMJ you can do them with gold dots or XDs or CDs. There's also light fast training ammo that closely matches the feel of light fast edc if one really wants.
So I don't think going by the cheapest stuff is wrong, that's what 99.9% of consumption will happen with.
45 super can't achieve the same impact velocity with bullets of the same sectional density. It's incredible how ignorant of basic physics /k/ users are.
And yet 10mm and 9mm are very close in ballistic gel performance. 9x25 Dillon might be a substantive enough jump, but I haven't been able to find good gel test results. Theoretically you could ramp up 10mm with extra spicy loads, but the issue seems to be related to expansion more than anything. .357 Sig is also kind of disappointing in gel relative to 9mm.
Granted, a big part of that may be due to greater projectile development due to the popularity of 9mm, but you'd think a lot of it would be transferable stuff.
Thanks anon. That math does indicate 9x25 is a pretty feisty step up, assuming it holds true and consistent.
Sometimes I wonder about using Pi for an ogive tangent.
>You can have rifle rounds with 1000 ft lbs energy that perform worse than handgun rounds with 400.
Like what? Bullet selection is probably the most crucial component but come on. Even a 50gr vmax at 3000fps (shorter barrel) is better than a hot 9mm or .40.
>Even a 50gr vmax at 3000fps (shorter barrel) is better than a hot 9mm or .40.
I would disagree but even if we do assume this is the case, I could point to an even more extreme example of Federal 40 gr TRU, which penetrates as little as ~6” in gel lol.
https://le.vistaoutdoor.com/downloads/catalogs/223RifleDataBook_vol-1.pdf
Here’s also a pair of documented accounts where 55 gr TSX at 2500-2900 FPS is probably not doing much more damage than say 230 gr + HST (not included but the wound channel can be fairly inferred based off of expanded diameter), maybe the TSX is still somewhat better, but probably not by much and it certainly doesn’t scale with the massive energy difference.
https://www.ballisticstudies.com/site/ballisticstudies/files/223%20Rem%2055%20gr%20TTSX%20PDF.pdf
The most glaring example however is this 5.45x39 FMJ test where wounds in many flexible tissues were merely the size of the bullet itself - this is also by extension a fair proxy for other non-deforming intermediate rounds, e.g. 7.62x39 M43 (which is probably even worse), 5.56x45 GP90, L31A1, brass solids, etc.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090219104944/http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler_Articles/ak74_wounding_potential.pdf
>Here’s also a pair of documented accounts where 55 gr TSX at 2500-2900 FPS is probably not doing much more damage than say 230 gr + HST (not included but the wound channel can be fairly inferred based off of expanded diameter),
No it can’t. Because rifle rounds hitting at 2500+ fps can stretch tissue beyond its elastic bounds. TSXs have dropped all sorts of game in single shots that .45s wouldnt. The effects on humans is wildly different and we see that frequently.
>Because rifle rounds hitting at 2500+ fps can stretch tissue beyond its elastic bounds.
No arbitrary threshold required, but yes, that is what the TSX is doing. It just ends up happening that the combination of its crush cavity and TSC damage appears to yield an overall permanent cavity that is not vastly different from what 230 gr +P HST would create in this organ.
>TSXs have dropped all sorts of game in single shots that .45s wouldnt.
I'm not sure how you intend on proving that.
>The effects on humans is wildly different and we see that frequently.
Conditionally? Sure. The larger TSC can produce more damage on inflexible tissues and it can concuss and temporarily disable nerve cells even without doing permanent damage. But those are situational shots and/or involve less vital organs, if you want to provide some evidence that 55 gr TSX at those velocities is dramatically superior for bread & butter thoracic cavity shots that don't hit the CNS, then again by all means go ahead.
https://pdfhost.io/v/QYyCGvZz1_201617_JOINT_AGENCY0ABALLISTICS_TEST_FOR_DEFENSIVE_HANDGUN_AMMUNITION
Actually in fairness I will say that if 50 gr VMAX can reach about 10”ish penetration at 3000 FPS then I’d probably put it above many good service caliber JHPs. I frankly just don’t bother to remember the specs on its terminal performance because almost everything else in 5.56 would be better, it just isn’t relevant to me.
It comes pretty close. The 55 or 60gr can sometimes. There aren’t many but some PDs use (used) them because of overpenetration concerns and there are anecdotes of it working really well. I’d take .223 in anything besides a 36gr varmint grenade or similar vs a service caliber pistol.
>a 10mm at 1350 FPS that expands to 0.7” would not be expected to create a TSC much if any more severe than a .357 magnum that expands to 0.6” at 1600 FPS.
Ok, so what about one expanding to about .8", fragmenting moderately, and impacting at around 1500? You know, like one of those 155gr handloads
Not aware of any off the top of my head that do that. 155 gr XTP fired into 4LD-covered organic gel at 1450 FPS had an average expanded diameter of 0.73", with 3 gr of fragmentation and 11" of penetration. If it were traveling even faster, expanded and/or fragmented more, or were fired into bare gelatin, I'd expect penetration to be less.
Now could this do some TSC damage earlier on in the track, yeah, sure, but you are likely dealing with not only underpenetration as a whole (maybe you could argue 11" is -barely- acceptable, personally I think it's pretty bleh, but even then the bare gel figure is likely to come in under that) but also the bullet is likely going to slow down quickly which means the magnitude of the TSC will also decrease quickly as the bullet continues to penetrate forward; and, therefore, the length of the TSC damage track is not likely to be all that long.
Where can I read/learn about this stuff?
Glad you're interested. This comment here has some links to the correlation between tissue and gel penetration.
Here's some links to effects seen from 55 gr TSX and 7n6.
Lots of real world 77 gr TMK kills here:
https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/223-for-bear-deer-elk-and-moose.130488/page-161#post-2961500
Also, some gel stats:
Effects of GP90:
https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/GP90/16-236826/
^See post #25.
https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/Fragmentation_Experiment__3___GP90_pics_/16-139085/
Analysis of the Port Arthur Shooting & M193 vs M80 effects can be found here:
https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/0B_PmkwLd1hmbd3pWYVVJeGlGaFE
Go to 1998 - Volume 3, #4, page 35. Some of the IWBA info in general (not necessarilyin this article) may be a bit dated and/or subjective, so it requires a bit of a critical eye to really get the most out of it, but nevertheless these were basically the largest compilations of ballistics info assembled by the world's leading experts on the topic.
Dr. Roberts' comments on .357 magnum and TSC thresholds:
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?34904-Temporary-Cavitation-Wounding-Rifle-vs-Pistol&p=841160&viewfull=1#post841160
Military rifle wounding profiles by Fackler:
http://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/papers/misc/paper.x.small-arms.wounding-ballistics.patterns_of_military_rifle_bullets.fackler.unk.html
As for drag resistance and its correlation to temporary cavity, I believe I've read it at some point in MacPherson's bullet penetration book, but honestly the Kindle version I have is a complete pain in the ass to scroll through. If I feel like plodding through it later I'll see if I can post a screenshot of the relevant excerpt.
Thank you. I've always wanted to get into this but I've always been met with very basic "look at number/ballistic gel" or "just trust me" stories without any explanations
No problem, happy to help. I'm always glad when someone wants to learn about the details and nuances of what is, in my mind, a rather interesting subject that frequently gets glossed over or inaccurately summarized. If you have any questions I can try to answer them as my knowledge and memory of the subject allows me to.
Is there a link to the IWBA doc that doesn't require me to email some rando for permission?
Didn't realize that whoever was managing that collection is restricting it for new viewers now. I tried manually uploading it, see if this link works.
https://docdro.id/Shxp9h9
Expansion was reduced in favor of barrier blindness and possibly additional penetration. Tnoutdoor's testing of this isn't quite as specific as I'd like, but I think it gets the idea across well enough.
Now if the reduction in average expansion was all that had changed I wouldn't mind it *that* much, it'd probably still be at least on par with 124 gr +P HST. The problem is that, according to several people, not only did the average expanded diameter decrease; but the likelihood and consistency of expansion also decreased.
https://www.glocktalk.com/threads/147-grain-9mm-self-defense-loads.1911081/post-30735518
This was IMO a totally unnecessary change, as the performance of 147 gr HST through barriers had already been very good, relatively speaking.
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?7205-New-Service-Caliber-Handgun-Tests&p=122604&viewfull=1#post122604
Though not a total surprise since the FBI and their scoring index has been rather single-mindedly fixated on the consistency of barrier penetration after 1986, even though even the most shallowly penetrating handgun round in those tests I just linked above still penetrates far deeper after passing through auto glass than 80s era 115 gr Silvertip did in bare gel.
Buffman has tested M993 loaded in .300 Win Mag, and 8mm SmkH which is very similar in weight and velocity to DM131, but not DM131 itself.
I expect DM131 would perform somewhere in between those 2 loadings, as it is more massive than M993 (which, as previously alluded to, might help reduce shattering of what is presumably a relatively brittle tungsten carbide core) but seems to have a smaller penetrator for its size than SmkH (which also likely uses more suitable tungsten alloy).
Whoops, forgot to add the other link relating to 147 gr HST changes:
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?43447-New-Duty-Load
Also, if you want the source for the gel testing stats listed in
, you can find them here:
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?7205-New-Service-Caliber-Handgun-Tests
https://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/DocGKRData/40_155grDT_155gr165grGDHP.htm
Note that some of the .40 S&W Gold Dot measurements are probably a bit generous given that they fall outside the usual 8.5 +/- 1.0 cm BB validation range, also the Hornady Critical Duty and 147 gr HST data is likely outdated due to rolling changes made to bullet design (though accurate at the time).
This is a decent primer on basic terminal ballistics facts:
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4328-Basic-Wound-Ballistic-Terminal-Performance-Facts
I have a few nitpicks with it (for example, Dr. Newgard's comments - I can explain in greater depth if you want to) but it's a good starter if you're just looking for somewhere to begin.
If you want me to look for links to the anecdotes listed in
and some of the comments made by the LEO mentioned in
, I can look for those too, though I'll warn in fairness that I've forgotten exactly where to find some of these accounts and some of the other information I was told through forum DMs.
Anything you can provide will be greatly appreciated and chewed through thoroughly when I have time, probably tomorrow.
Sure thing.
147 and 230 gr +P HST report:
https://www.thearmorylife.com/forum/threads/10mm-vs-40-was-the-fbi-wrong-or-right-about-this.13935/page-3#post-199983
See page #59 for more. For reference, in this context, preferred hit zones = heart, lungs, head. Areas not considered preferred hit zones but still sometimes 'effective' (though not always fatal) included stuff like the liver and kidneys, as well as at least one case where a 147 gr HST shattered a subject's arm.
Dog shooter:
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/54721012/#54731294
Paul Harrell's comments on 5.7 vs .38 Special on deer (note, I don't endorse the use of the meat target, but live deer can obviously still provide information):
?t=697
230 gr +P HST vs 124 gr +P Gold Dot on deer:
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/46804025/#46804154
230 gr +P HST vs 124 gr +P HST on deer:
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/28650682/#28654963
.45 Gold Dots vs 9mm Gold Dots for deer: 03RN on arfcom has spoken about them some number of times before, though I don't have the links to his posts. To tell the truth I am not really a big fan of .45 Gold Dot but it seems they've been working well for him.
The last 230 gr HST (std pressure) vs 9mm Gold Dot and HST account comes from someone I DMed. 2 deer shot in the chest with .45, one ran ~30 yards, other fell on the spot. 3 deer shot with 9mm Gold Dots and HSTs. 2 were CNS head/neck shots that fell on the spot, one was shot in chest and ran ~30m.
9mm kills medium game easily:
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/58356367/#58356635
I think the coyote hunting account was on pistol-forum but I can't remember where. Can't quite find the hog comments either.
Think the hunter's remarks about 5.56 doing better than 10mm were from this video, don't feel like scrolling through 1000+ comments.
I wouldn't rely on most anecdotes too much, they're often just that after all, but they can be interesting.
That’s a lot of words in those links and very little images. Pretty cool but also unless. Here’s a boomer shooting a decent sized pig with freedom munitions 10mm 180gr xtp. Splattered gore onto the tree behind the pig. A bonded bullet pushed to greater velocity would probably do even better. Nothing magic, but better than 9mm. I’m gonna keep carrying my G20 knowing it’s better than other calibers. Have a good one.
Pretty passive aggressive, but yes,
I have seen that video before and it doesn’t change my mind on anything.
What are your issues with Newgards (and potentially anything else you have provided) comments?
What gaps are there currently with the information that is available?
What should be ignored, what should be focused
The issue that I see with Dr. Newgard's comments are that, if the aorta is destroyed, the heart isn't pumping any blood to the brain at all. All that's left, presumably, is a degree of residual inertia in the bloodstream and cranial autoregulation. At that point, I really don't think it matters much whether you lose 1.1 L of blood or 0 L; in other words, I don't think systemic volume loss is a good measure of the time before incapacitation.
I'll note that the 1.1L threshold Dr. Newgard references was also, to my knowledge, derived from a medical trial. Obviously they couldn't safely and ethically drain blood as fast as a bullet, which likely would have allowed the body's compensatory mechanisms to kick in to a much greater degree. But that's kind of a side tangent.
I'll also note: The alleged 10-15 seconds of free activity claimed by Fackler after the heart is destroyed, doesn't generally seem to exist from what I can tell. In fact I can think of at least one study off the top of my head that disproves that. I've never actually seen any real evidence for a 'grace period' that long, nor does Fackler ever really cite any if you go back far enough, to my knowledge.
I feel like Roberts' article should also clarify that the inflexible organs he alludes to, often are vulnerable to handgun TSC damage. Situationally, normally flexible tissues may be susceptible as well, e.g. an entirely full heart or the small space of a forearm. Granted most inelastic organs tend to be less vital.
This isn't an article I specifically alluded to, but Dr. Fackler basically alleges in one writing piece that .223 55 gr TBBC wouldn't do any serious TSC damage in flexible tissues, which is highly doubtful. Some of his wounding profiles, I think, are also not strictly accurate and/or are misleading. This is maybe a less egregious example but I've found at least one study which evidences that nonfragging M80 ball does do temp cavity damage in muscle.
There's some other stuff of interest I could list really, for example there's some discrepancy between Fackler and Roberts' view on minimum penetration standards, and on issues like .45 vs 9mm and the effectiveness of 5.56, although granted a lot of that is really quite subjective. Also some info that's probably more a product of insufficient information at the time than anything, for example the IWBA articles & Fackler seem to suggest that M855 is equal or even better than M193 terminally, which now we know seems to not be the case.
>What gaps are there currently with the information that is available?
I don't know that there are really huge gaps although there's definitely information I'd like to know that's hard to predict in advance. For example, the actual average time it takes for someone to lose effective fighting capability if blood flow to the brain ceases while standing, exact effect of wound volume on blood flow interruption, gauging the effectiveness of fragmentation in various rounds, being able to predict the precise degree of TSC damage caused by a round. (I should point out that this is something gelatin can't model exactly.) To some extent, I don't think the conversion ratio of bone to muscle is known either, although I'm pretty sure we do know that it's inconstant and depends on the bullet characteristics as one of the IWBA issues mentions.
>What should be ignored, what should be focused
Tbh:
In general, practice aiming for the thoracic cavity. Maybe CNS and pelvis (I'll disagree with Roberts and Fackler there) for failure to stop drills.
Handguns, choose bullets that expand larger and penetrate deeper in your caliber of choice.
Rifles: Don't use nondeforming FMJs if possible. Bonded/monolithic rounds tend to have better barrier performance, fragging rounds often have better damage. Expansion preferable over yaw-based fragmentation all else equal.
12" of penetration is a good standard, it doesn't have to be absolute.
Thank you for your time. You have helped me get a proper footing in this but I must sleep now. Know I will review everything you have provided and none of your effort was wasted. You will probably see me in discussions regarding this eventually. Best wishes
My appreciation, glad I could help. Well wishes to you too.
Preach, too many morons here don't know basics
holy shit bro just enjoy guns and have fun shooting them who the frick cares if one bullet turns someone into slightly more shredded cabbage than the other.
why don't you tell that to every moron who also brings up bullet damage but gets it completely wrong?
Firearms are weapons, is it so difficult to believe that some people might be interested in their qualities as weapons?
Yes but then you have to ask the question of whether the cost and trouble of making AP rounds is worth it. 5.56 and even 7.62 are already likely to have difficulty penetrating many Level IV plates with Wc-Co (sure, M993 will defeat the vast majority of Level IVs at near-perfect NIJ testing conditions at M240 velocities, but this changes with shorter barrel lengths at increasing angles and distances) and a lot of the more potent cartridges don't actually have 'handguns' chambered in them so you're not constrained by materials. At some point you have to ask whether it wouldn't be a better idea just getting many more non-AP rounds that would also do better against unarmored targets/other parts of the body or alternatively stepping up to a non-restricted caliber.
>Yes but then you have to ask the question of whether the cost and trouble of making AP rounds is worth it
What do you mean by "worth it"? If you're talking any sort of practical use then duh of course not. AP ammo for civilians is a 100% total meme. The odds of any of us ever needing to use our gun for anything but animals in the first place are super low, and the odds of a home invader or whatever having body armor are super ultra low on top of that, and even then the ranges are so short that body armor still isn't necessarily going to stop incapacitation. Not like body armor makes someone Iron Man, at <10yd if they're just getting unloaded on with 15+ rounds odds of hitting something sensitive, repeat hits on armor and so on are high. Body armor or no I wouldn't want to have copper 308 unloaded at me from home defense range.
Of course, same could be said of reloading period. Point of AP ammo yourself is just the fun and challenge, seeing how far an individual can push things. Same as if I'm spending time making plain 375 raptor or some other such ammo, I don't "need" to do so right? It's just fun to try to push certain things farther then one otherwise could. "Cost effectiveness" doesn't really factor in, except to the extent of it being so expensive it's out of our reach entirely.
port arthur allegedly was with an AR10 in .308
FAL and AR-15. The authors of the article remark that 55 gr .223 FMJ did more damage than 144 gr .308 FMJ.
>doesn't mention 357 SIG
.357 sig isn't much better than 9mm +p+.
Grizzly Ammunition 90 gr JHP @ 1900 ft/s for 721 ft lbs
Why do 9mm and 10mm gays always need special pleading for their rounds? "Oh all pistol calibers are equal EXCEPT when you go below 9mm, and also 10mm manages to circumvent my stupid made up rule somehow"
Because 9mm is cheap and ubiquitous, more so than any other full power pistol cartridge bar none, and that's a far more valuable quality than a marginal increase in diameter or kinetic energy could ever be. To a lesser extent, the guns that shoot it are also cheap and ubiquitous compared to those that shoot other rounds.
10mm, I don't know really. I don't make a special exception for it, but if I had to guess I'd say because it gives you magnum revolver cartridge levels of power, but it plays nicely with semi-autos.
>it gives you magnum revolver cartridge levels of power
If one of these companies would hit on the idea of naming their meme cartridge "9mm Magnum" they wouldn't be able to keep them on the shelves.
It's a marketing question.
Specifically, it's about marketing to Americans who see 100 different calibers on the shelf and don't know (or care) about the difference between them, but they do know a few specific memes - things like "muh NINE" and "muh FAWDY" (.40 S/W) and "muh FOH FIVE" and oh yeah, "muh MAGNUM"
If you renamed one of these cartridges to "9mm Magnum" it'd be an instant success.
Why don't you actually study the ballistics of 10mm. It's a whole different league from the other auto cartridges and actually outclasses most .357 Magnum ammo by every measure.
Fake and gay
.40 scholar and warrior has no problems expanding. It is similar in velocity to 9mm with a larger meplat.
You 10mm Black folk look at everything like it’s a video game. Please touch grass. If I was in charge of /k/ I’d make the mention of 10mm or any other dumbass meme round a bannable offense.
You have absolutely no understanding of terminal ballistics. You've probably never even killed an animal.
Lol I know more than you. Never getting rifle performance like this out of a semi auto handgun, just stick with 9mm.
10mm 155 grainers could definitely do that
Ok buddy post yours then. Oh wait you can’t because 75% of 10mm shills are larping homosexuals who don’t even own guns, while the other quarter never shoots anything besides paper at the range.
stfu 9mm is a STRONK WOMYN round that can barely pen thick leather and exclusively used by limp wrists and poors that is known fact
>no verification required
I just like the metric system
Gay
Double dubs of truth
They're coping consoomers rationalizing their meme purchase because they don't want to admit they're just overpaying for .40
>9mm and 10mm is all you need. Anything below, over and inbetween are just meme placeholders.
See, this is that moronic boomer Fudd mentality that unironically holds weapon design back. How are you supposed to innovate if you're constantly being told doing so is "moronic" because we already have "gUd NuFf." If people listened to Black folk with this mentality, we'd never get the automatic pistol, the hollowpoints, or even fricking ARs, all the things the asshats of today tell you are all you'll ever need.
You neither look nor sound cool, in-the-know, or anything approaching "smart" for saying moronic ass shit like this, grandpa.
Your moronic Fudd grand-kids will be telling their contemporaries that "all they'll ever need" are things that probably don't even exist right now lmao.
I bet you would've been the type to shit on buying an AR-15 back in the 70s or 80s, and looked suspiciously at these new-fangled "wonder-9s" and their double-stack magazine voodoo.
Fricking Luddite.
Cost and barriers to entry. Supposedly .30SC was supposed to blow the socks off 9mm and give me a free handy when I'm cleaning it. There's 2? guns on the shelf chambered in it and it's 35cpr.
And .300 Whisper went nowhere, but it made the way for .300 Blackout.
Innovation requires a lot of iteration (chaff) that ultimately provides genuine breakthroughs (wheat). No one is making *you* adopt every new concept that comes along. But you don't need to adopt something to see the potential in a concept, and wanting to see how it develops. The weird habit of people in the community to shit on new things cuz it makes them look cool, basically, is actively, aggressively hampering innovation and it's been that way for decades.
The best innovations in firearms over the past 70 years happened *despite* ankle-biting and naysaying, not because there was an absence of it.
Yeah and getting mad over the general consensus is pretty stupid. There's been plenty of innovation. .45 gap, .357 sig, .327, .32 NAA, etc. One day the breakthrough will happen like with some wildcats. To piss and moan about people stating the obvious is just pointless though.
When the "general concensus" is shitting on something new just *because* it's new and therefore different, pissing and moaning is the order of the day.
This shit has knock-on consequences, too. The Army's search for mythical 6mm caliber performance wouldn't need to settle on an AR-10 frame to get it if people didn't naysay mid-sized-frame ARs (with associated calibers and case lengths) being redundant and stupid. So instead of a 6x47 or 6.5x48, we get a whole billion dollar song and dance to get what is in-effect a fricking necked-down .308. No real breakthroughs, no real advancement.
Meanwhile Textron gets shit on for genuine innovation.
>When the "general concensus" is shitting on something new just *because* it's new and therefore different, pissing and moaning is the order of the day.
But that's not the case for handgun rounds, and doubly so when talking conventional tech (ie, brass case, primer, smokeless, bullet) wielded by a human. Handguns are about tradeoffs, they're for situations where great portability (and often concealment as well) is the primary consideration and the only expectation is a (low) chance of close range threats (<25yd at max, normally <7-10yd).
If you want to talk sports competition and such sure, you can push whatever there. But in terms of real world usage there just plain isn't much room and handguns are a solved problem. We've got the stats.
The only potential likely improvements would be tech that improves economics/cost, namely some kind of refined polymer cased telescoped ammo (like you say with Textron) and electronic plasma firing (as that would eliminate the primer). In terms of power there just isn't a need. And the typical new stuff suggested on /k/ is just "MOAR POWER" which ignores that is WORSE for the vast majority of the handgun market, which cares about concealment. Compact or smaller are the overwhelming majority of handgun sales, not full size.
Frankly, most people would be better served going in the other direction from 9mm, namely 380.
/k/ loves to shit on 6.5GRN though it's ballistically superior to both 5.56 and 7.62x39 in every way
9mm and glocktards are quite literally the new generation of boomer fudds.
Because we have 100 years of data showing that you need greater energy AND greater velocity to tangibly increase wounding beyond 9mm. The reason 9 vs 45 is still debated is because 45 isn't any better, or the debate would be settled by now. The reason it's not better is because of it's low velocity. 10mm is bigger AND faster AND has 2X as much energy as 9mm. It isn't comparable to any other standard auto cartridges. It's a whole different thing just like comparing .357 Magnum to .38 special.
Tbqh I chose 45 because 230 gr fmj is cheaper/easier to come by and natively subsonic commared to 147gr 9mm and my moron EU country don't regulate suppressors.
I sometimes dream of a desert eagle/automag derivative chambered in 300blk with an adjustable gas system.
Shit would be so cash.
Oh and 10mm has the advantage of (sorta) using the 40 sw as "38special"...
..
Three types of falsehoods — lies, damned lies, and statistics.
I want a 10mm AR pistol.
I just want my MP10 bros. Its been too long.
.45 ACP is a versatile round. .22 LR is a cost-effective round. 5.7x28mm is an excellent premise.
Id pick 9mm and 10mm as my only two, but .45 would come almost together with 10mm as the second.
for me it’s 380, 9mm, 10mm
extended to 22lr on one end and 44mag on the other end
Indeed, I have five guns I carry in these calibers
>what is .460 Rowland
don't most people who die of gunshot wounds get shot with .22lr?
God. 9mm really is the new fudd round.
>All you need, sonny! Ain’t no difference between pistol rounds unless you go lower than blessed nine!
because NATO standardization has stifled pistol caliber development
>because NATO standardization has stifled pistol caliber development
This tbh.
Autism is not a reason to change what works well enough. Pistols don't win battles or wars.
Let's break down possible consumers of this product and where they might come down on it
>normies who shoot only 9mm
Lmao
>speed is king guys
5.7x28 is faster, that doesn't mean it's more powerful but it is what it is
>powerful autoloader guys
10mm is just a little weaker on average if we measure fpe. But that might not matter to them, since 10mm is bigger boolit.
>handloaders
Adding a bottleneck is a big decision for a cartridge. It makes them twice as complicated to hand load. I'll also add that finding .356 projectiles designed to expand properly at these velocities is not easy
>competitors
Looking to shoot major? No problem fampai, we lowered the power factor required so you can put a better recoil spring in a glock and just shoot 9mm major instead of fricking around with wacky bottlenecked cartridges that will reduce your magazine capacity.
So who does that leave? Autists basically, and that's it. It's just not filling any niches.
>5.7x28 is faster, that doesn't mean it's more powerful but it is what it is
Fastest 9x25 loads beat 5.7
I guess you could probably put a sub 100g meme bullet in the 9x25 case but I have concerns over stability with such a short bullet. The 5.7 still has the spitzer shape which gives it an advantage with respect to external ballistics. Nothing I care about because I hate 5.7 but if we want to present the image of being objective we should at least try
The s4 round by ea will do 2500 from a 5" barrel. What 9x25 does that? And yes ita civilian legal.
A 50gr Civil Defense handload, don't give a shit about inferior barrel lengths.
Reducing the major power factor so 9mm could be used was such a homosexual move that I'm astounded at to this day. The whole point was to use big, powerful handgun rounds that were difficult to control. It's like patching a video game to lower the highest difficulty.
Because 9mm does the job at 1/3 the cost. No one but gun forum autists are comparing ballistics gel tests before purchasing their daily carry.
Same reason all "newer" bottlenecked pistol cartridges don't take off. They're much more expensive than similar established cartridges and reloading for them is more difficult due to the bottleneck. Even if it is truly superior to everything else on the market, it won't matter if people can't afford to shoot it.
>Why
Because
The only type of shill whose ignorance rivals the 10mm ones has arrived
Many many years ago, long before reliable information on terminal ballistics was widespread, I thought Tok was actually a great way forward if brought to modern production. Great external ballistics and decent performance.
I feel like 9x25 kind of is the successor, intentionally or otherwise. Maybe it's the FK BRNO.
> the FK BRNO
aka 7.62x25mm +P+ at 100x the price.
It's fake, gay, and unimaginably moronic.
You left out:
>Requires L frame handgun
>No projectile available that actually perform well at those velocities
>Mediocre reliability at best, frequently take significant tinkering
>Only offers about 100fps over comparable .357 sig loads out of the same barrel length until you get to SBR lengths
I used to think 9x25D was cool as frick until I actually looked in to it.
Imagine even talking about anything other than the 9 inch barrel. Imagine even considering anything below the perfect barrel length.
You nerds are talking giant circles around the fact that 9x25 dillon was developed as an ipsc competition round to easily and safely meet major power factor while pumping lots of gas into a comp to reduce muzzle flip. And then they changed the rules to make it irrelevant
I cc a Glock 40 with a 7.25” 9x25 dillon barrel shooting handloaded 68gr Lehigh XDs ~2400fps
91 rounds appendix
I knew dillonfriend was going to show up eventually.
Can’t stay away
Do you plan to take on half the Crips at once?
No just like SBR rifle performance in my pants
autism
>muh finer nuances
Autism and also psychological defense
I’m gonna stop grumbling about carrying my Glock 17 now.
357 sig 50 grain Civil Defense rounds get up to 2300fps out of a 4 inch barrel, I'd love to see how a similar round could go out of a long barreled 9x25.
Believe me I am aware. The 40k mak saami psi on 357sig makes it better in any barrels under 5” but beyond 5” the 9x25 Dillon gains and you can load it above the 37500psi and really get the edge
The most patrician CC I have ever seen. What is that RMR front cover thing, on the extended mags do you use the standard 10mm followers? What holster do you carry the G40 in, and what about the extended mag and shorter mags?
it's one of the CHPWS RMR plates
Now THIS man BigIrons.
>Why didn't it take off?
greedy patent owner
>WOW, a new round that is 2% better than what is already widely available.
9mm round that goes significantly faster than mach 2 out of Man sized pistol barrels, beats the frick out of 5.7 and .357 sig and 7.62 Tok
_______________________________
^^^Aspergers line. All posts above the line have ASD.
Hey, hey, you forgot me!!! Behold! The 2700fps 9mm!
>Hey, hey, you forgot me!!! Behold! The 2700fps 9mm!
Even without crazy pressures/velocities there is room in 9mm. Like someone could do a sintered ram or APS round utilizing tantalum/ceramics, which has quite favorable properties close to tungsten, but is NOT a listed material under the GCA 1968 so A-OK totally not armor piercing. ]
>sintered ram or APS round utilizing tantalum/ceramics
Elaborate pls? I know what sintering is (roughly), but what is "ram" and "APS" in this context?
Googling "APS sintering" results in two things as the higher results:
>Arc Plasma Sintering
-or-
>Air Plasma Spray
I've been curious about non-tungsten penetrator designs/materials for a while, especially more relevant since NGSW, but as an unabashed SCHV stan, by God I'll get my turbo-charged, hybrid-cased 5.56 with Level IV (or higher)-defeating projectiles at range, and I'll fricking make it in my garage if I have to.
Also, semi-related, are there more... esoteric(???) designs for small arms like there are for older tank shells such as APCBC and such? Strikes me as odd that jacketed bullets tend to have not changed much apparently in the past 200+ years or whatever, but other projectiles have literal papers written on them easily available and so on...
I have the same question about the sintering. If it significantly increases the density and shatter resistance of already tough ceramics like zirconium oxide, it could be worth exploring. Also, I have to laugh anytime tantalum gets brought up. It's insanely stupidly expensive to source. For shits and giggles, I got a quote from a specialty metals supplier last year. Its was like $3k for a .160"×72" rod. The tooling to work with materials that hard is hella expensive as well. Probably cheaper to shoot tungsten carbide and retain a really good criminal defense attorney.
>picrel
>I'm just trying to homebrew depleted uranium at this point.
Ultimately there exist extremely few plates, that will stop "legal" 5.56 rounds moving at peak speeds (i.e. from a very long barrel, twenty inches or more) but will not stop home brewed tungsten core rounds.
If I was trying to get AP performance out of 5.56 legally and with pre made ammunition I would use a long ass barrel and solid copper ammunition from Fort Scott. Lead core FMJs will punch through most level three steel plates when they get above 3000 fps, and the solid copper bullets can supposedly get over 3400fps out of the right barrel, and needless to say copper is harder than lead.
If I was making my own legal 5.56 AP I'd make Aluminum bullets with a copper jacket. Aluminum is generally harder than the copper used in bullets, and much lighter.
>If I was making my own legal 5.56 AP I'd make Aluminum bullets with a copper jacket. Aluminum is generally harder than the copper used in bullets, and much lighter.
Titanium isn't on the list either.
If I was ultra rich but still wanted to operate entirely inside the law, sure I'd use titanium for legal AP cores. But if it was just me and a lathe I'd use Aluminum.
I unironically wouldn't be surprised if there is some private FFL manufacturer that makes tantalum/titanium/ceramic/whatever "legal AP" ammo exclusively for ultra rich (9-11 figure net worth) clients, that doesn't advertise and the ATF makes no waves over since they could actually defend themselves and from the very beginning various gun control laws (like the NFA) always were intended to include carveouts for the ultra rich anyway (they made a "blunder" in having the tax stamp be fixed price, if it adjusted with inflation it'd be like $4500 today).
>TFW no mach four synthetic diamond core gucci 22-250
feelsbadman
>into guns and get rich
>be rich and get into guns
>either way first advice is have personal lawyer etc set up trust
>they just order 50 of every suppressor for every caliber and a bunch of transferrable mgs and stick 'em in your mansion-castle's armory
>you only briefly have to pay attention and thereafter you just have all the stuff you ever want instantly
Picrel
I'd be surprised if they bothered with akirting things legally. Why not set up a private security firm for these vip's, get them deputized by some state LEA, then set up your own 10/02 ffl and issue real AP. On the off chance your guys have to use it, you'd rather maximize your chance they get your ass put of a sling, and then have your lawyers deal with any police/atf inquiry about holes in the "bad guys" body armor.
I remember that thread. Looks like he used regular HPs, wonder how those would have worked in liberty CDs with vastly more velocity instead.
I have the same question. He also had them "point down" to the rear of the projectile. I'd bet they'd make an even deeper divot if he had reversed them. Add more velocity behind them, and again, larger divot. I'd also like to see this against soft armor. LibCDs defeat kevlar, but the large diameter of the base is stopped with uhmwpe backing. Perhaps having a hard conical face would allow it to defeat that. But penetration of a vest type material doesn't mean much energy left over on the other side to do damage. That's the benefit of a subcal, hardened and dense core. It has the potential to both penetrate, and retain enough energy to incapacitate on the other side. An elongated core, like that of a rifle projectile, might even begin to upset and tumble in soft tissue. The VBR projectile is meant to do that, while not relying on expensive, exotic materials like tungsten. Some flavors of exotic tool steels can be pricey, but on the legal civilian side, Ti could work well with a polymer sabot. Even better with a split/discarding sabot. Not as well as a steel core, and way behind what a tungsten alloy core could do, but for maximizing velocity with something dense enough to retain energy to intermediate pistol range, a VLD rifle projectile shaped TI core with a discsrding sabot would be difficult to beat. Aluminum is tempting, as a material, but due to its even lower density, it would bleed energy too quickly, even with a very aerodynamic profile. I don't think the extra velocity would be enough to have high(er) enough energy to carey out to those same 30-50yd engagement distances.
>APS
A wrong term that floats around the community a lot. It means "armor piercing sabot" without the discarding, but what they actually mean is APCR, a high density rod embedded in something light like aluminum or ultra light copper+poly or whatever. The point being the ballistic outer is on throughout flight but strips away on hitting armor without impeding the penetrator. Less performant than APDS but vastly easier for a reloader to make themselves. There's a lot of those kind of terms where someone knows what they want to say but doesn't know the right language and it's irritating, like "clip" vs "magazine".
>sintered ram
see for a commercial example https://npaammo.com/helo-sr-defense-duty/
>I got a quote from a specialty metals supplier last year. Its was like $3k for a .160"×72" rod
Anon you silly goose you don't go to "specialty metals suppliers" for stuff like that when you want it cheap with their huge markup and paper trails and all that shit government wants, you go to the chinks (who at this point are the actual source for like 99% of this sort of thing):
>https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/tantalum-rod-price.html
Something like $500/kg converted to grains * 40 grains say (with another 20-50 for the shell of another material, so a 60-90gr final round in 9mm which loaded at least +P or more will be reasonably zippy) would add about 130cpr in terms of raw materials. You can get the rods in nearly whatever diameter you want so no machining there, need to cut them the right length and sharpen the tip which isn't nothing but not extreme. Total cost might come out to 310cpr all said and done. Certainly pricey for handgun ammo in general but nothing crazy for AP.
atlasarms has been around for years, all they work on is ammo, yet I don't know of one product they have released. all they do is beg for donations. their ideas seem interesting, but what the hell man.
I think they realize the scrutiny they are under, especially given the shift in political winds in the past few years. That, and the material they spec in their patent application has tripled in price as well, due to supply constraints, inflation and increased EV/lithium battery demand. However, their "Atlas" spec r&d is well worth supporting them. They have the ability to push 9x19 into territory far beyond what has been even remotely done before. And they are willing to share that information where it can be used, rather than locking it up with some company trying to corner the market and being locked up in litigation for years while any market interest withers on the vine. I can only speculate, but if I had the ability to test pressures like they can, I would be testing to see if mixing commercially powders, slow and fast burning, in differing ratios, can cause maximal gas volume with minimum chamber pressures. Pushing velocity is something anyone can do by checking brass for pressure signs and running a chronometer... up to a point, and only up to a point. And that point is somewhere between a casehead seperation under extraction, and blowing your hand apart while sending a slide through your teeth. Now, powder lots and chemistries are subject to change, but publishing such information in tables would allow more accurate loading information for others to work with. It would also show how quickly things can cross into that stupiddangerous territory for all the bubbas out there, reloading while daydrinking.
.223 pistol length performance still mogging handguns has me thinking it'd be easier to just design a handgun around handling higher pressures than all this ultra high pressure 9mm juice squeezing.
Remember that the current state of body armor makes current service rifles not great but still tolerably good against them since plates that can stop a rifle are only on the torso for then ear future and even if they stop a bullet that's still a minor casualty. Shit like exoskeletons and full body rifle protection are decades off which is plenty of time to react to that threat when it becomes more immediate. Hell even if an exoskeleton-armored chineesium supersoldier were unveiled tomorrow you could always just give soldiers an underbarrel loaded with HEDP.
>.223 pistol length performance still mogging handguns has me thinking it'd be easier to just design a handgun around handling higher pressures than all this ultra high pressure 9mm juice squeezing.
Can certainly design a handgun with higher pressures in mind, 5.7 is up there at 50k. Question is the tradeoffs vs all the other important aspects of handguns. Size/weight/action/how big a fireball it is etc.
Fair but while penetrating IIIa isn't that hard if you want more than that maybe the real solution is a bigger handgun. Has Atlas actually put anything out I keep seeing them linked and it's always for stuff with minimal details that "will be released later."
nta
With civilian legal materials beating level 3 in anything I'd call a pistol (i.e. a barrel length under 12 inches, ideally mag-in-grip) is theoretically possible, but to my knowledge it's never been done. I'd love to see the exact speed when lv3 steel plates begin to fail to either copper conicals or one of the various cross-headed bullet designs.
If I had to design a pistol projectile to legally punch level 3 plates I guess I'd make something like the liberty Civil Defense with a core of synthetic crystal in a maxed out pressure 9x25, that or something similar to the Dagny Dagger or Thunderzap (i.e. a plastic bullet) with a core of Aluminum, synthetic gemstone or if I could afford it, Titanium. Pushing anything sharp and harder than lead above 3kfps has a good shot of beating level III.
If I could design the cartridge and gun from the ground up I guess I'd make something like a massively over pressured 50AE necked down to .30 caliber.
You can't beat lvl 3 with a pistol without the no-no metals. I've tried cranking up Liberty Civil Defense in 9x25 and I only got 2700 FPS with 50gr. I've even experimented with .308 using .32 ACP bullets in an AR10 pistol and 60gr barely broke 3k FPS in an 8" barrel.
The problem is that nothing is going to fit in a grip and have good case capacity without being ULTRA bottlenecked. The steeper the neck down is, the longer of a barrel it needs to accelerate. If you crank the pressure to something moronic high, maybe you'll get there, but you're in uncharted waters if you try and make a pistol that can eat 80k+ PSI with zero issue.
In theory, a saboted 7.62mm projectile fired out of a .50 AE handgun ought to attain crazy velocities. Now make the bullet out of a tantalum or manganese-copper rod, and you're in business.
>You can't beat lvl 3 with a pistol without the no-no metals.
You can it's just a matter of resources. A titanium dart in a Thunderzap out of a long barrel at maximum theoretical pressure is going to punch through a quarter inch of steel.
>I've tried cranking up Liberty Civil Defense in 9x25 and I only got 2700 FPS with 50gr. I've even experimented with .308 using .32 ACP bullets in an AR10 pistol and 60gr barely broke 3k FPS in an 8" barrel.
Like I said my only requirements were barrel under 12 inches and mag-in-grip.
.38 special polymer rounds can hit 3kfps, clearing it with something much much more powerful is definitely possible even with a small "payload".
I'd bet a titanium projectile with a 3piece discarding sabot would be effective. Delrin might be suitable, as its fairly impact resistant, and glues/epoxies/resins don't have much of a bite, so a thin layer of superglue might be strong enough to keep the pieces together while loading, but with a weak enough bond to split apart upon leaving the muzzle. Much easier to do this way than to try to homebrew an injection molded or 3dprinted sabot that is formed with its petal "opening" away from the core and relying on the case and barrel to keep it all together. Oxide tested a russian AP 9x19 round with an ACH??? I think? It defeated it at close range from a sub12" bbl length ak PCC. A ti core would be light, therefore faster, but depending on the exact steel and heat treat, might deform more than a steel core round.
Picrel, solid subcal projectile with a groove turned into its meplat to be pulled by the sabot.
>is theoretically possible, but to my knowledge it's never been done.
Use buffmans Special Threat 9mm test as a resource. Take DM91. The exact dimensions and mass of the tungsten carbide core are unknown, but can be roughly estimated. The velocity is known. The total projectile mass is known, and from that the weight of the aluminum cup and gilding metal jacket can be estimated. This leaves a narrow window of mass, length and diameter where the sectional density of the tungsten core can be estimated. From there, other, inferior materials can be evaluated, based on their ability to meet or potentially exceed the sectional density and energy levels of DM91. Now, buffman only had a single round to test, and he tested against a uhmwpe plate, no ceramics to attempt to defeat. So a suitably hard material, of reasonably close mass, meeting or exceeding the velocity of dm91 should be a reasonable design to achieve. I would suspect that the cobalt alloy core that the atlas people spec is hard enough and tough enough to defeat that same plate.
Some of the special threat rated 3A plates with uhmwpe backing defeat 5.7, and the lib CD base makes a dent, but is too large a diameter to penetrate. Harder materials than copper are needed, either heat treated manganese alloyed copper, or perhaps titanium. Again, strictly if you want to stay in the realm of civilian legality.
>keep seeing them linked and it's always for stuff with minimal details that "will be released later."
It is frustrating, but the load date is the biggest thing they can offer. Especially the Atlas spec info. Now, loading that hot may be most safely done with an alloy steel barrel tougher and with a significsntly higher tensile strength, but if a standard oem barrel can handle it (e.g. they don't need to cha ge the locking log geometry to moron unlocking), then 3dprint or home turn polymer sabots and roll your own...whatever, if thats your inclination.
>even if they stop a bullet that's still a minor casualty.
Ultimately BFD has never been a reliable or effective way to remove a man from combat.
Fpe is quick and dirty but it offers an excellent comparison of the relative per-shot effectiveness of cartridges. If you disagree, it should be easy to prove me wrong. Just show me an example of two centerfire cartridges where one has decisively more fpe than another, with the weaker cartridge performing demonstrably better in shot-to-shot performance utilizing a similar style of projectile.
>utilizing a similar style of projectile
…that’s part of the point, higher “energy figures” are often meaningless if projectile design is not as well optimized.
Since you asked, though, Dr. Roberts claims that one LEO agency observed better terminal performance after switching from .357 magnum to .40 S&W.
I can also point out loadings where .40 is on the receiving end of this, in that it had noticeably more energy but no or only marginally better performance than 9mm. E.g. 155 gr Gold Dot at ~1200 FPS was tested to achieve about 0.61” expansion and 16” of penetration, and 155 gr HST at ~1150 FPS achieved about 0.64” of expansion and 14” of penetration, compared to 9mm 147 gr HST at ~1000 FPS which achieved about 0.63” expansion and 15” of penetration.
For that matter, 140 gr Barnes BH TAC-XP @1267 FPS had almost twice as much energy as 185 gr BH Barnes TAC-XP @810 FPS as tested in 2013, yet the former had about 14” of penetration with 0.62” expanded diameter, and the latter had about 13” of penetration with 0.64” expanded diameter.
And if we use a more liberal definition of “similar projectile”, we can also compare 147 gr HST’s 2013 stats to 220 gr +P Critical Duty @951 FPS, which had ~16” of penetration and 0.64” expansion.
>Since you asked, though, Dr. Roberts claims that one LEO agency observed better terminal performance after switching from .357 magnum to .40 S&W.
I'd love to see the details.
>look at what happened when we shot some jello
lol
>Just show me an example of two centerfire cartridges where one has decisively more fpe than another, with the weaker cartridge performing demonstrably better in shot-to-shot performance utilizing a similar style of projectile.
You have failed to do so and as such fpe remains a useful metric for determining per-shot effectiveness. Thanks for trying~
>haha the primary measurement standard used by all the leading wound ballistics researchers doesn't count
Okay moron, nice way to move the goalposts.
>You have failed to do so and as such fpe remains a useful metric for determining per-shot effectiveness.
It seems I have infinitely more evidence that ft lbs energy does not correlate strictly with terminal performance in handguns, than you have evidence that it does.
I don't need to provide evidence because it is self evident that extreme differences between fpe of different gun and cartridge combinations generates equally extreme differences in effect to target, and it stands to reason that smaller differences would generate differences similar in scale. Or is this point in dispute as well?
>haha the primary measurement standard used by all the leading wound ballistics researchers doesn't count
I'll just ask you one question. Is the amount of penetration in ballistic gel meant to be in any way analogous to the amount of penetration in human tissue by people who actually developed ballistics gel as a test medium? Your answer here will determine whether or not I close this thread and laugh my way to bed.
>I don't need to provide evidence
Yup, there we have it.
>Or is this point in dispute as well?
Evidently you're unfamiliar with the basics of wound ballistics.
Increasing the velocity of a bullet that is already producing TSC damage, will increase the magnitude of temporary cavitation further if the expansion and penetration remain the same. Increasing velocity without raising bullet resistance sufficiently to overcome the resiliency of tissue will not improve wounding, thus absent any improvement of expansion and penetration, any increase in effectiveness is likely to be minimal and highly circumstantial at best.
>Is the amount of penetration in ballistic gel meant to be in any way analogous to the amount of penetration in human tissue by people who actually developed ballistics gel as a test medium?
You don't actually know anything about this subject, do you? Otherwise you would not be asking this question.
Here, I'll provide an education for you: The 10% ordnance gelatin standard at 4 deg C was originally developed by Martin Fackler, by comparing projectile penetration and deformation in live pig muscle (very similar to human muscle) with gelatin.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120218212956/http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler_Articles/effects_of_small_arms.pdf
Since then, the usefulness of gel as a tissue simulant has been further validated:
https://www.lignod.com/winchester_9mm.pdf
http://thinlineweapons.com/IWBA/1994-Vol1No4.pdf
Pages 12 - 19
Before you bring up differing tissue types, bone is likely to have a relatively small effect on bullets unless they are underpenetrating to begin with, or traveling at very low velocity:
http://shootingthebull.net/blog/dem-bones-dem-bones/
Lung tissue has reduced density and similar shear resistance, so penetration is not likely to decrease here.
Now, riddle me this: Why would all the leading researchers be using ballistic gelatin if it were totally worthless for comparisons of bullet performance?
And lest you bring up skin: This is largely irrelevant since 1) its increased shear resistance is of minimal relevance until the bullet velocity has dropped precipitously and 2) skin on the entrance side is supported and the muscle behind it can only move so far before perforation, skin on the exit side is unsupported and free to stretch.
Because we benefit from standardization.
>9mm
>.380 if you need smaller
>10mm if you need bigger
Those are your 3 options, or you're trans.
You are gay, 5.7 small, 10mm regular, 460rowland/.45 winmag, 10mm Magnum for large, 500 sw or .475 wildey Magnum for huge
>500sw
Lol. There's nothing worse than an underperforming meme cartridge, at least 9x25 Dillon does something better than other cartridges.
how does 500 underperform
What in the motherfrick are you talking about you crazy Black person
Let's start easy, what is 500SW for?
shooting big game, i purchased my 500 magnum carbine from a gentleman who had used it to hunt extensively in bush africa
And you think 500SW is better for taking big game than other big game cartridges?
i think it’s a far more efficient cartridge that offers a very good balance of rifle size and weight, terminal ballistics, and the necessary power to legally hunt big game in africa
it is also, obviously, one of the best choices for big game revolver hunting - the gentleman i purchased mine from keeping a 500 magnum revolver in inventory for gazelle and buffalo
a lot of power in a handgun. i like the package it offers while having a good supply for it
Handgun hunting large game.
Also seems to beat .45-70 when adapted for use as a lever action cartridge. More powerful, shorter, and you can maintain ammunition commonality with your handgun.
A meme, but .460SW is superior ballistically, and even .454 is more practical.
According to whom? I've never found someone who preferred 500 as a lever cartridge to 45-70, which has seen extensive use taking all the big game that walks the earth.
>10mm Magnum
It’s too long to be relevant. What semi-auto short of a desert eagle, with more powerful existing options, could even chamber it?
>niche round designed by gaymers for gun gaymes
>designed to feed compensators with large amounts of gas to eliminate muzzle rise
>works, but wrecks metal targets and muzzle blast is fricking brutal
>almost makes sense for gaymers with money and time
>gayme rules change on account of gaymers blowing their fricking guns up trying to make major with 9mm
>gaymers can now make major with 9mm without using exotic cartridges, albeit at the cost of single use cartridge casings
>juice no longer worth the squeeze
>gravel pits everywhere polluted with 9mm casings more blown out than OP's mom
It's a niche round that lost its niche. It was never a big seller, and once its reason for existance went away, so did most of its rather small market. I still frick around with it on occasion, but these days it's nothing more than a range toy for bored autists.
7.5FK might have been cool if it had been invented like 30 years earlier.
It was invented more than 100 years ago.
It's a hardly-modified version of 7.62x25mm Tok, and in fact it's possible to get very similar performance from wildcat Tok cartridges.
>larger body diameter
>longer case, with shoulder pushed forward correspondingly
>standard load is hotter than a Tok proof load
>hardly-modified
Slightly larger body/case and higher pressure.
That's it.
That's what makes it cost 100x more.
> standard load is hotter than a Tok proof load
The Tok is 120 years old, moron. At best, 7.5FK is a minor incremental improvement, at worst it's a pure cash grab that preys on ignorant boomers.
7.5fk is ded brah, not a cash grab or anything they tried to do a good modern round but like most snowflake rounds didn't work.
>costs 100x more
Please share with the class the web retailer where you purchase tokarev ammo online for less than 2 cpr.
You can get it for $0.20/round on Gunbroker right now. If you're very good at finding bulk surplus lots, it can be even cheaper than that -- significantly cheaper. Poland and every other Eastern Euro NATO country is looking to offload their 7.62x25mm stockpiles right now.
I know where to find ammo, I want to know where anon finds tokarev ammo for less than 2 cpr.
>7.5 FK costs 100x more than Tok
Current price of 7.5 FK = $1.64 per round
So clearly anon is buying Tok for >2 cpr.
Ackshually it's just 10x cheaper rather than 100x cheaper.
I don't own either one, but 8x vs 100x is a pretty big fricking difference anon. 164cpr just to train in a handgun is also crazy expensive and silly imo, but not impossible. And I assume people really into weird niche rounds are rich or handload themselves.
That's why it died but most of the current interest is from bottlenecked pistol cartridge trend of shit like .257 sig and 7.5. 10mm but with even more energy all pushing that 2000fps threshold just sounds like a stopping power dream.
>.257 sig
>10mm necked down to .25-caliber
>45ksi
>uses .25-20 soft-points
Yes, please.
Don't let your memes be dreams. Stack wildcats and lathe turn monstrosities that you load pissin hot what else is life even for.
Don't forget to live test on feral hog...
Damn, I love this post,10/10 anon and I wish 10mm Magnum , 460 Rowland and .45 wildey Magnum were more popular
Has anyone found a (cheap) threaded g20l/g40 barrel for dillon? Like 6.61 inches if you go by lone wolfs spec. I didn't get one years ago when they made them and all I can find is 6" (non-threaded) on ebay. I'd like to see what a comp does with it.
I know you can order one from possibly kkm and maybe efk, I just don't desire it for 300.
That's a lot of autistic screeching from one gay ITT.
Nobody read all that shit you posted m80
>9x25
>5.56x45
If I need more than 9mm I am just going to the AR pistol.
Dear ballisticsgays;
Could you give me a rundown/summary of 9x25 and it's (in?)effectiveness? My Millennial brain can't deal with the wordy posts right now.
Also, good 5.56 loads? I saw 77SMK mentioned, but what of others? TBBC is pretty legendary supposedly... Why is frag supposedly overrated compared to expansion? Why does M855A1 use frag rather than expansion? Is it due to the steel tip or something like that?
>Could you give me a rundown/summary of 9x25?
Sure.
There is little doubt in my mind that 9x25, with the right bullet design, can make holes bigger than the size of the expanded bullet. Can an optimized 100 gr bullet at 1900 FPS cause some temporary stretch cavity (think of it as the "splash" from a rock hitting water) damage, yeah, absolutely.
The crucial factor here is bullet design, in order for it to actually perform well in practice, it needs to expand and penetrate sufficiently. Even then, I don't know exactly how much damage it would do - though I'd think it'd be able to provide a step up from 9mm.
>Also, good 5.56 loads?
77 gr SMK is actually pretty middle of the road as 5.56 loads go IMO, you may be thinking of 77 gr TMK, which is a polymer tipped JHP design.
>TBBC is pretty legendary
TBBC is great for barrier blind performance (bullet still works okay after traveling through things like car bodies and glass) but not really *amazing* by 5.56 standards in most respects otherwise. Not extremely accurate, poor ballistic coefficient, little fragmentation so it doesn't get that enhancement to its wound cavity there.
>Why is frag supposedly overrated compared to expansion?
It isn't, not generally in rifles anyway.
What you might be thinking of is expansion-initiated upset vs yaw-initiated upset. Basically does the bullet mushroom from the nose down (it may or may not fragment depending on the bullet's design) upon entering the gel, or does it flip on its side and break apart? The former process tends to be more consistent and may occur at a lower velocity.
>Why does M855A1 use frag
The way that M855A1 works, when it hits a fluid medium, the steel tip seems to separate from the rest of the bullet. This leaves an open cavity where the tip used to be, and then this exposed jacket "expands" and strips off, turning into fragments. The copper core then keeps going.
So M855A1 probably does expand at some point, in a certain manner of speaking.
Thanks fren.
>9x25
So, all else being "equal", if a 9x19mm expands to .6" and penetrates 16", and the 9x25mm does the same, there's not really *THAT* much to be gained from the Dillon, but where the Dillon might have a niche is more in "exotic" bullet designs such as armor penetration or expansion threshold at distance? Do I have that more or less correct?
>77 TMK
That is probably what I was thinking, thanks. Is that a decent performer? I've been thinking of trying out some different high-BC 5.56 recently, such as the 80.5 Berger Fullbore because of it's weight, but my secondary curiosity is fragmentation... Anything fit the bill you can think of, or is it more of a (currently) "this-or-that" situation?
>TBBC
Is there any "one above the rest" you can think of? Good frag, good BC, etc.? I'm less concerned about barrier performance though, if that matters a lot. If I was that concerned I'd try and source M855A1, M995, or other exotic "AP-type" rounds, if not trying to roll my own in some way.
>expansion-initiated upset vs yaw-initiated upset
Ooohhh, I wouldn't have even thought to phrase it that way, very cool! Definitely the former does seem to be better overall. (One of the reasons I like high BC is retaining velocity better for terminal effects further out, which is especially poignant I feel out of shorter barrels.)
>M855A1
I just looked up a cross-section as a refresher and I realized I was thinking of something else actually. For some reason, I thought the penetrator was the full length of the projectile, but it's not actually. Maybe some sort of ADVAP or similar/experimental round was on my mind... I don't remember.
>So, all else being "equal", if a 9x19mm expands to .6" and penetrates 16", and the 9x25mm does the same, there's not really *THAT* much to be gained from the Dillon, but where the Dillon might have a niche is more in "exotic" bullet designs such as armor penetration or expansion threshold at distance? Do I have that more or less correct?
To get an equal result in both expansion and penetration you need to hinder the dillon in some way, a light powder load or a shorter barrel or a sub optimal projectile design.
It will either penetrate further, leave a bigger hole, or both.
>So, all else being "equal", if a 9x19mm expands to .6" and penetrates 16", and the 9x25mm does the same
If the 9x25mm achieves that level of penetration and expansion, and its velocity is also high enough, I think it could do noticeable "splash" (TSC) damage in addition to its direct crush contact damage, whereas the 9mm would also do direct crush damage. So I don't know that the improvement would be extreme, per se, but I could see it being significant by my standards. Getting a 9x25 bullet to expand to 0.6" and penetrate to 16" while also maintaining very high velocity is a likely to be a challenge of its own, though.
Ultimately, as mentioned, pretty much anything .380 and up will likely work very well for civilian DGU.
>Is that a decent performer?
Absolutely. Probably the most destructive 5.56 bullet that can be loaded to mag length in an autoloader. Great expansion, fragmentation, and very low expansion threshold at distance. I'd go for that if you're not too worried about barrier performance.
>if not trying to roll my own in some way.
Quick warning: For legal purposes, creating 5.56 AP rounds out of a long list of common suitable materials(including steel and tungsten carbide and alloy) is illegal. For legal purposes.
>I realized I was thinking of something else actually.
I know there was another EPRish design that was somewhat similar to the M855A1, I think the designer tried to sue the US government or something. The Bongs also use the L31A1 which is kind of like M855 with a full length, hardened steel core.
>Thanks fren.
Absolutely, glad to help.
>Quick warning: For legal purposes, creating 5.56 AP rounds out of a long list of common suitable materials(including steel and tungsten carbide and alloy) is illegal. For legal purposes.
Could you throw a link my way quickly please?
Also, very noob question if anyone has a moment:
I'm watching some videos of folk loading Xtreme Defenders in both 9x25 and .460 Rowland, yet consistently seeing lower velocity from the .460... Why? Isn't it a much more powerful round with higher swept volume and pressure, or whatever the factors are called? Is 30 grains really THAT much of a difference? One dude was at like, ~2300fps IIRC for the 90gr's, but someone else was only ~1900fps for the 120's... Why? Is it just differences in loads, or is it really some sort of "wall" separating the two in certain ways?
Sure thing.
You can find the definition of AP here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?def_id=18-USC-448581565-816587310&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:44:section:921
.223 has been classified as a "pistol" round because it can be used in AR 'pistols'.
See (7) here for laws regarding manufacture (as far as I know, this applies to even private production for personal use).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
>Why? Is it just differences in loads, or is it really some sort of "wall" separating the two in certain ways?
I'm not intimately familiar with the different rounds, but the 9x25 loading definitely seems distinctly hot. Now if you loaded a theoretical 90 gr projectile into the .460 Rowland (and some very lightweight .45 bullets do exist, albeit their terminal performance is generally questionable), I'd expect you could propel them faster than 90 gr bullets out of a 9x25 Dillon.
>and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium
So... Is this just not enforced all that much or something? Just one of those things to add on to a criminal charge? Otherwise, how are things like Xtreme Defender, TSX, et al. sold? They're solid copper.
nta but you need to read the entire thing, there are specifics there about jacket and such too. Also, "beryllium copper" is a distinct thing vs regular pure copper.
This, all the non expanding coppers would at least be using brass or something but the law's pretty good at banning most practical ways to make a pistol AP. I haven't personally verified but apparently steel core tokarev ammo is out there but it's probably worse than ball against most stuff since it's mild steel like m855. Brass has something like a percent weight limit limiting its use outside of jackets. Honestly I still think just making a really fast ball round like .22 TCM but more powerful and even more bottlenecked would be interesting. Makes you think actually how come there isn't anyone trying to shrink down ar pistols since they're still probably going to be around for a while. Something like a modern automag or even a revolver.
>the law's pretty good at banning most practical ways to make a pistol AP.
9mm copper spire/spear/spitzer points will pen kevlar out of pistols, increase speed from there and you just get even better results.
where is my gyrojet/conventional hybrid round damn it
IIRC there is some loop hole where LEOs are allowed to sell to civilians or certain stuff can be imported, and once it's civilian transferred then like transferrable machine guns it can then be sold around. That's how some non-FFLs have been able get genuine military tungsten core 9mm rounds to test with.
But it's like, $100-150+ PER ROUND, seriously collectors-item tier stuff and not technically irreplaceable but utterly unpractical to carry. It has been showed to work at least.
>They're solid copper.
As
stated, it's not that copper solids are banned, it's anything where the bullets jacket is 25%+ the total projectile weight -OR- the copper is specifically Beryllium copper alloy. Adding beryllium to copper at just a few % concentration makes the alloy significantly harder, tougher and able to be heat-treated. BeCu alloys are used to make non-sparking tools, drill heads and other things for the oil and gas industry, and things like contact points in large circuit breakers, switches, welding nozzles, etc because the alloy can be heat treated and has similar mechanical properties to good tool steels, while still being highly electrically/thermally conductive. Beryllium is extremely toxic, and the dust from BeCu alloy can cause lung cancer (beryllicosis). I believe the fumes while heat treating are toxic as well. Metallurgy has improved since the 70's, when the AP pistol ammo ban was made. Now, you can get nearly identical heat treated properties from copper alloys that use manganese instead of beryllium. Manganese copper alloys are also just as toxic to work with. But they're a legal alloy. However, that just gets you to high speed steel properties, still not nearly as hard as tungsten/tungsten carbide.
i'd like to build some sort of .308 based 6mm just to be able to tungsten core ammo for my rifle setup tbh.
>picrel
I think the vbr paralight is a solid compromise design. This could also be legal with a grade 5 Ti core, copper jacket and use a low density metal or high density polymer as the filler material. In a 9mm, this would be 50-75gr, and be able to be pushed to velocities where soft armor, even the special threat rated uhmwpe backed stuff wouldn't stop it inside of 50yds.
Yeah that's an APCR design, it's what AP anon was doing albeit with tungsten.
Apanon(s) were simply loading chink source wc scribe tips in .308 projectiles. They were testing both front drilled/exposed tip loadings and simply heating an FMJ to melt the lead out, dropping in the core, and then melting some of the original lead back into it to fill the jacket back up. Exposed penetrators will perform better, but are harder on the weapons feed ramps, and the rear-loaded/closed FMJ tip are both easier to hide from normies and easier on your weapons mags and feed ramps. But unless you can hold the core perfectly centered while refilling the voids in the jacket with material (lead or otherwise) your accuuracy will likely be poor.
Ah, that sounds a bit disparaging. They were also testing different angles of the grind of the tip of the core. The pic I attached ^^^ shows they had their rear-filled rounds marked to designate 60* and 45(???)* grinds. Iirc they said 60* performed the best of what they could test. The pic I've attached to this ppst shows another method, center drilling out a monolithic hollowpoint with a factory ballistic tip, and recessing a smaller diameter core below the ballistic tip.
Does anyone have a source or size charts for using TIG welding tips in conventional copper hollow points?
Other than Tungsten and DU, does anyone have any info on promising alternate materials? I don't just mean DIY either, it could be stuff the military is looking into or so on. Also, is the EPR-esque exposed penetrator design about the "meta" you can get right now, or, are there other designs that might perform better?
Also, for any physics-inclined anons, a semi-related question:
Just how important is density over things like hardness and flexibility and such, etc.?
Like, if you made a penetrator out of carbon nanotubes or something, how much better/worse or whatever would it be compared to DU or something like that?
>it could be stuff the military is looking into or so on
Military can just use tungsten and DU. They are the best materials for a pure kinetic penetrator. There is no reason for them to look at alternative materials anon. To the extent they are research "more" it's either by increasing speed beyond what traditional guns can do (so rail/coil guns or rocket boost), stuff utilizing shaped explosives or the like, or just plain increasing the gun size. If you're allowed to work with all that stuff then there really isn't any need at this point to go elsewhere, just figure out better ways to do it.
The challenge for these threads generally tends to be that we're not allowed to work with that stuff. Thread has already covered most of the obvious things people look at. Tantalum is the closest pure metal alternative to tungsten, in terms of good density, hardness, and low toxicity. Titanium or certain ceramics also have promise, lower sectional density but hard and can go very, very fast. Some of this stuff might hybridize well too, like titanium core with ceramic tip.
All the promising materials though are pricier and harder to work with (=even pricier, need higher end tooling). Another avenue would be to use regular allowed materials (like pure copper) and radically experiment with the shape, try to do apds and a smooth bore gun. That in turn changes the difficulty to maintaining extremely high precision in manufacturing, but may be more feasible now with CNC for the dart and quality 3d printing for the sabot. And again, could tip the dart with ceramic.
>Military can just use tungsten and DU. They are the best materials for a pure kinetic penetrator.
I thought the .mil is trying to get away from tungsten due to the majority being supplied by China, and similarly with DU, I've heard they're trying to really reign in it's use and consolidate where it's stored as well.
Outside of that, I feel it'd be useful to have materials that have higher rigidity, density, and so on, considering the mechanism which ceramic armor tries to defeat penetrators. If you're throwing tungsten and Boron Carbide or whatever, it's likely to shatter most current (to my admittedly limited knowledge) small arms penetrators unless you're going incredibly heavy and/or incredibly long, so something that resists shattering better, while not hampering other ballistic considerations too much (velocity, BC, SD, etc.) seems like it'd be of great interest to even the military, by my read at least.
With hybrid cased, high-pressure rounds nowadays, I feel an enhanced alloy/other material in a souped-up 5.56, maybe with a form factor similar to 77TMK or such, would really give even some of the more "advanced" armors a hard time.
>I feel it'd be useful to have materials that have higher rigidity
I don't think rigidity generally helps with shattering in this case. Tungsten heavy alloy is less rigid and far softer than tungsten carbide to the best of my knowledge, but it performs better in conditions where you want to preserve structural integrity. (It's also significantly denser, which helps, but the effect of the increased toughness can be observed in simulations of projectile impact.)
It might also be worth pointing out that boron carbide is actually noticeably more vulnerable to high density penetrators than other ceramics like alumina or silicon carbide due to its tendency to amorphize when encountering extreme pressures. Most plates rated for tungsten core bullets appear to utilize some significant percentage of silicon carbide in their strike face construction.
Maybe rigidity is the wrong word... Flexural strength? Something like that? I dunno.
>simulations of projectile impact.
If I could figure out/afford/run whatever program those YouTubers use to do tank ammo "simulations", I'd be glued to my screen for weeks. I wonder how well they can model small arms penetrators and body armor?
>It might also be worth pointing out that boron carbide is actually noticeably more vulnerable to high density penetrators than other ceramics like alumina or silicon carbide due to its tendency to amorphize when encountering extreme pressures. Most plates rated for tungsten core bullets appear to utilize some significant percentage of silicon carbide in their strike face construction.
I didn't know that! Interesting! I'm in love with this thread so far, leaning lots of stuff. Any resources you could point out that I could read up on to learn more about armor penetration and such? Mainly I'm a stubborn SCHV shill/holdout and don't necessarily think we should wholesale abandon (maybe too strong a word, but you get the idea) 5.56 for .277 Fury without exploring advanced munitions designs to try and address the armor concerns, let alone the range and velocity topics, among other things.
If anything, bumping up to something like 6ARC isn't THAT terrible, but I really don't feel as if 5.56 has really been given as much depth as some others say it has.
That, or a turbocharged 6.8 SPC for a sort of "Mini-NGSW" or something?
Adept armor's webpage has a lot of info on that kind of thing.
https://www.ade.pt/adept-armor-blog/
Presumably companies in the armor business have some basic computerized models that they can use to help simplify the design process, but I don't know that they've quite yet figured out how to simulate any given hypothetical impact on any given design of ceramic plate.
Honestly I think 6.8x51 adoption is a losing sum game, it seems to be pretty easy to design a Level IV plate of reasonable weight that will stop M2AP rounds at .300 Win Mag velocities so I seriously doubt 6.8 steel core EPR will be generally effective. Tungsten has the issues of supply and even when available I doubt it quite provides enough penetration in 6.8 to really be reliable under combat conditions, and there are some particularly tough plates that may be able to stop even the tungsten core rounds under perfect penetration testing conditions.
Man, I could write whole threads trying to explain my thoughts on the whole NGSW fiasco, but for here, simply; Yeah, I'm not sold on the cartridge at all.
Even if I take it's supposed performance at face-value, the weight really kills it for me, but I can at least accept a different caliber, whereas the XM7/XM5 itself is an absolutely uninnovative pig of a gun that shouldn't be adopted, full stop.
I'm indifferent to the XM250 I guess, but really, as gauche/cliche as it is to say, we really oughtta just be juicing up the M4's in service instead. Turbocharge the .308's perhaps too, but that's really it IMO. M118LR has similar BC to the Fury round already, bump up it's velocity and what are you really "losing" for example or whatnot, for example?
LWMMG's are a neat idea, but I don't know enough/thought about it enough/etc. really to have too much to semi-affirmatively say one way or another.
I guess I wrote a bunch anyways. Oh well.
FRICK SIG!
I bet the whole idea was some weird bastardization between looking to the future at shattering chinese ballistic plates and the past plinking at someone a few afghani villages away. A longer range rifle sounds neat but it seems they buggered up the design a little to early. No polymer cases, unnecessarily heavy, and barrel wear are probably enough to stack it against 5.56 and I'd have loved to see that money spent on better specialized equipment instead. At least for me having a good lightweight marksman rifle and a longer range grenade launcher would have been more effective since no matter what this next generation brings it will always need more specialization anyways.
In their defense, I've *heard* the barrel material is more resistant to wear and can equal/exceed current standards whilst still using the new ammunition.
I've also heard that there were some issues with the polymer cases yet to be fully resolved, so the bimetal cases are more of a "safe" option that can theoretically be "upgraded" later if need be/able, which of course sounds typical of the past two centuries of military procurement I guess maybe, but hey, as I said, playing Devil's Advocate here, and I'm an unabashed SIG hater.
Tungsten and DU are really only theoretically optimal when you get into LD ratios much higher than any conventional bullet, or start to run into the absolute limits of your propellants for speed. A mach 4 Titanium bullet will penetrate better than a mach 2 tungsten one.
Sure but as a practical matter anon lots of guns in use can't reach 4500fps no matter how light you make the ammo, and at any rate such low mass would drop speed too fast to be useful. For handguns sure, but the military cares about longer ranges, and the general trends with smart scopes and the like incentivizes going further not closer. So you can't depend purely on super light going super fast at the muzzle. What does it look like at 50yd? 100yd? How about 400yd?
>Sure but as a practical matter anon lots of guns in use can't reach 4500fps no matter how light you make the ammo
It's really not that hard anon. Like yes it "isn't done" but it could be done easily. Basic b***h 22-250 can reach 4kfps easy and that's with lead. Hell, the really light 5.56 rounds can hit 4k out of a long long barrel
>Like yes it "isn't done" but it could be done easily. Basic b***h 22-250
But 22-250 isn't a common round, that's what I meant. Switching guns/platforms isn't "easily done" for most people or even organizations. There is enormous existing investment in existing calibers. SO a lot of AP ammo efforts are about AP ammo in existing guns, not in developing/buying a new cartridge or new gun. That means having to work within the limits (including pressure) of those platforms. Yes, if you design from scratch, well, that's what the military did to come up with 6.8. More options open up then.
>Hell, the really light 5.56 rounds can hit 4k out of a long long barrel
Mach 4 is 4500fps, not 4k. I don't mean that to be pedantic, but when you're totally dependent on velocity 500fps isn't nothing to ignore. And again, for how far? If you're dependent purely on velocity then BC and drop over distance is a big deal.
4500 fps is no big deal for .22-250. Regular factory-loaded lead-core ammo hits 4300 fps easy.
> polymer cases
> unnecessarily heavy
> barrel wear
And let's not forget that they went with a 13" barrel!
>4500 fps is no big deal for .22-250. Regular factory-loaded lead-core ammo hits 4300 fps easy.
...and? Which service rifle is .22-250 anon? Again, how far? What's the barrel life like? How much maintenance does it need and how does it do when brutally abused by the average ground pounders?
Cool writeup on the coppers. I still don't see the interest in tungsten and alternatives though. This thread is real fun but in terms of actual concrete goals the only two practical ones worth all this effort are IIIa from a pistol and IV from a rifle and I think those getting mixed around is why brass and copper are being suggested alongside tantalum. Years ago this was a handgun cartridge thread and IIIa ap handgun ammunition is not hard to make it's just the laws around it and III out of a handgun is too far a horizon, so for that use at least tungsten is just overkill. I'd love to see people's ideas on replicating m993 though, especially out of 5.56.
Design wise penetration is more about good materials and good bullet design along good principles than any sorta secret sauce which is why kinetic armor piercing was pretty much solved 70 years ago. Compatibility with other ammo for non-ap purpose and accuracy are usually bigger problems though that undersells how hard they are to get right. Small arms has a significant constraint with the small size, limited need, high use rate and low expected cost of ammunition but if you look at tank guns you'll see the sort of crazy principles they used. Stuff like ballistic caps have carried on to small arms but capped ammunition, sabots, and max sectional density all pretty much haven't because of those aforementioned reasons.
If you look at optimized exclusively anti-armor guns like the 60/75mm hypervelocity tank guns from the cold war or squeeze bore guns from even earlier they did what you'd expect: just neck your cartridge down as much as possible. The Italian 60mm hypervelocity spat rounds well past mach 4 and could beat a 105mm L7 in armor penetration all on a gun that could be mounted on a jeep but there's obvious compromises on barrel wear and specialization. A hypervelocity cartridge would be optimal but not good enough for anything else you'd use it for, like killing or actually affording it.
I guess I sorta resign myself to assuming short-term "future" warfare (not exoskeletons or whatever, for example) is going to be mostly volume of fire from small caliber rounds hoping to strike unprotected/unarmored areas (other than closer quarters which certain AP rounds might still have utility maybe? I dunno for certain atm really), with the majority of casualties, especially at further ranges, being caused by heavier weapons such as grenade launchers, recoilless rifles, autocannons, artillery, air support, Suicide drones, and so on.
Otherwise, I'm still really hoping for some sort of "breakthrough" or other technique/principle/etc. that retains the "aim center mass" meta we've had for the past few decades.
Be it in a peer conflict or more insurgency-type conflict with IED's/Drones/etc., I feel there's still a place for the rifleman, not just hosing down a target with as much weight of fire as you can muster, but, alas, I might just be an out-of-body boomer or something, who knows.
You guys are fricking caliber autists
>being charged by an irate native
>he's off his gourd on whatever mushroom stew the shaman gave him
>no time to get the Martini
>reach for my sidearm, fingers wrap firmly around the hard chequered pistol grip
>unsheathe the Webley
>its weight is reassuring, even as the rabid tribal raises his spear
>fire just once, and he crumples like a wet paper bag
Why would anyone need more? God bless the queen, and God bless the Mark III slug!
Is there a pareto frontier of bullet mass vs joules for ideal hollow point expansion? Like given a bullet mass of Xg, it should have Y joules of energy to get the most efficient hollow point expansion in muscle tissue.
What do you mean by efficiency? Like minimum velocity for expansion like some pocket pistol cartridges/.40/.45acp? It's a relatively binary thing it either fully expands or doesn't because it's plugged or moving too slow.
It all varies but expansion is more bullet design v. velocity you can have a pointy soft point that needs twice the velocity of a lightweight hollow with little material to expand with. Since the actual bullet construction determines to much you can only really test shoot and see how fast it has to go.
I wonder how much of that quote is them making it in a nonstandard size.
.223 being a pistol cartridge and thus illegal is some obama-era nonsense to ban m855 that didn't even fly back then.
The best solution is to just buy some m855a1 at the market up "collector" prices if you're serious about it because making anything but simple cast bullets at a small scale is hard and nobody is brave enough to buy wholesale then sell chinese ceramic or tool steel or whatever cores for people to press into a hollow point.
>I wonder how much of that quote is them making it in a nonstandard size.
Probably quite a bit, honestly. But you have to balance a cheaper stock size material with the machining time/expense to turn/grind the diameter yourself/whoever you farm it out to, and the amount of wasted material there. Plus, then finding a shop that can heat treat/anneal to whatever spec for whatever specialty material you're working with. And if they feel skittish about the application, you might get a knock on the door, or just word passed around and then no one local will work with you.
>.223 being a pistol cartridge and thus illegal is some obama-era nonsense to ban m855 that didn't even fly back then.
They also put the kibosh on anyone making brass monolithic projectiles by raiding elite ammo and seizing his stock of turn barnes .224 brass projectiles. Their claim was EA was going to load them in 5.7 cases, marketed as pistol rounds, but they never brought charges. I think EA flipped, and agreed to not experiment with 5.7 loadings as much. And stick to copper. Remember, at the same time he was designing a titanium cored SS198-esque projectile.
>just go to the chinese
Whats the recourse if they take the wire transfer and ship me the wrong material? Or nothing at all? At least in the states I would have more legal recourse. You are correct about the sourcing and up-marking of price though. I think your math is off on your price/part though. Your waste estimate is low, unless you farm out to a shop to do wire edm to cut your rod to length with minimal waste. But there's an expense there that needs accounted for.
>sintered ram
Was more i terested in the sintering process for ceramics. Interesting research articles on it, but theyre all pay-walled. That HELOSR stuff is just a tungsten ballistic tip in a copper hollowpoint to improve intermediate barrier blindness. Not saying it doesn't work, but that's really not the point here.
Continuing
Ceramic cored projectiles could work against soft armor, perhaps even uhmwpe backed stuff at short to intermediate ranges if their lighter mass is used to push to much higher velocities, but they will bleed energy quickly. They just won't deform like a monolith copper/brass would, but even denser ceramics like zr02 are lighter than copper. Jacketing a sub-cal core in a soft metal, like lead, then a traditional copper jacket might work. Perhaps less work to 3d print suitably sized delrin cups, then make a metal mould that allows you to place the plastic sabots in the bottom plates, the cores, point up, in the top plate, heat the bottom plate until the plastic softens, then press the ceramic cores into the plastic sbaot cups, and allow them to cool, effectively over-molding the in place without having to rely on adhesives.
>Whats the recourse if they take the wire transfer and ship me the wrong material?
lrn2alibaba anon. Actually just reading that it sounds kind of jerky, but seriously it's actually plenty reliable for some stuff, you can learn seller rep, and you save so much fricking money that the occasional problems are just a cost. It's not some scary black site. 99% of the random white label shit on Amazon is someone going to alibaba, ordering it and then slapping their own sticker on it. Yes, for electronics and so on you will see some percentage of duds and need to be checking things. There may be variance in the spec specifics.
But for something like this that's fine. Rather then trying to figure out your preferred core diameter and source that, just go with something close enough which is premade and standard, work backwards from there. That's the real trick to saving huge money.
>unless you farm out to a shop to do wire edm to cut your rod to length with minimal waste
lol what? Cutting a rod that small then sharpening it is quite doable yourself with minimal waste. IIRC APanon last year was doing that except with tungsten for his AP ammo efforts (he had a type10 ffl, and was using tungsten "rods for pen tips"). Then he melted the lead out of FMJ, put the cut/sharpened rod in the shell as the core, put back in filler, polished the result. His output was getting very impressive when last he showed results.
If you wanted to make a mass manufacturing business out of this yes there'd be new considerations. But for experimenting with your own manufacture it's not this impossible ask you just need to be willing to get serious about getting cheap. Results don't have to be perfect to be better.
Doing really good bullets in terms of the outer ballistics was something I remember him saying was quite challenging at home, hence the effort to just take factory ammo and convert it even if less optimal. He was also talking about trying to get some of those liberty rounds which are basically pure copper shells alone and using those, but I haven't seen an AP ammo thread in a very long time now and don't know what came of that. I got some liberty and am trying experimenting with different cores but I haven't gotten very far yet, I need to practice and get much more skilled to get anything repeatable.
I suppose one practical issue you sort of touch on too is that if you did a big public effort or tried to do it commercially (with a regular ammo FFL, no SOT) ATF would probably come down on you even if you were completely within the law, then offer to "settle" if you agreed to give it up. You could win a lawsuit eventually, but you'd need to have a few million in the bank and be prepared to spend a few years fighting it out before getting anything done. I certainly couldn't manage that.
Ballistics is partly why I always figured just buying "bits" of tool steel in some bulk custom order off alibaba would be the best way to make a bunch of them. Take factory hollow points and just press the cores into the tip evenly so there's less error to introduce. Honestly I don't see the point in not using steel unless you're trying to make handgun ammo since any actual ap handgun will penetrate iiia by its nature and even an ar pistol can pen iiia and with a 20", iii.
m855 exists, is steel core, widespread, and legal. m855a1 is also legal enough you can openly buy it for 10x the cost. Steel core is only illegal if it's classified as pistol ammo but even then there's stuff like steel core tokarev floating around that the feds probably just don't care about. The III+ which fits your bill is a fairly common threat but probably doesn't justify all this effort.
Penetrating IIIa consistently and legally from a handgun is probably the only actual use case for homemade ap ammo since a .223 out of a 20 inch is probably good as it's gonna get anyways. Honestly makes you think why there isn't more drilling around just mozambique drilling to the groin if you suspect a shooter will have armor. That's the most reasonable thing I heard after the buffalo shooting happened.
I think a lot of it is folk really trying to push to pen L4. While not discounting anything else or whatever, it's sort of the "dream" right now I feel.
>They also put the kibosh on anyone making brass monolithic projectiles
That's so fricking gay dude. Like, there's states pushing for lead bans, but then what do they expect? You to use copper/brass then get raided? Frick this gay Earth and all that, as it were.
Some projectiles have received exemptions for "sporting purposes" or whatever, I believe this has been the case for M855 and also .30-06 M2 AP as, likely, some other significant number of commercial brass solids. However those exceptions only apply to the specific bullet in question and they have to be approved individually. It also doesn't apply to mere purchase and possession of AP rounds which isn't federally barred as long as you're not breaking any other ordnance laws to the best of my knowledge. Some states (including Texas of all places) may have additional regulations on that kind of thing though.
It's not just that tantalum is extremely expensive compared to other materials, it's also not as good of an AP material as tungsten heavy alloy IIRC. For handguns that may not be of great relevance but if you're trying to punch through plates that already defeat 5.56 Wc-Co (which granted is probably also inferior to tungsten heavy alloy for that kind of thing) rounds then tantalum isn't likely to be a gamechanger.
>Can someone please condense all this stuff into about a paragraph?
Putting everything into a single paragraph would be difficult due to the large amount of nuance, fine details, caveats etc. required. If you want to know about something more specific I can try to provide a basic summary.
In respect to handguns vs armor, I've seen a video where 10mm Xtreme Penetrator at just over 1300 FPS penetrated a IIIA hardplate and a separate video where 9mm Xtreme Defender at slightly over 1450 FPS failed to penetrate a groin protector that was probably around IIIA level. Mass does help defeat armor all else equal, however exactly how much each individual factor matters is something I'm not knowledgeable enough to quantify. (I'd guess it's probably of more value against ceramics where you don't want your penetrator to immediately shatter into bits upon impact with something that's hard as literal gemstone.)
>it's also not as good of an AP material as tungsten heavy alloy IIRC
Duh? DU and then after that Tungsten are of course the best anon, that's not the point, the point is that the best/easiest to work with are all letter of law restricted materials. The challenge is thinking around that. Tantalum is the closest in terms of a good combo of density, hardness potential (it has alloys too), being reasonably safe vs horrendously toxic, and not being truly ludicrous price such that it's $20+/rnd just in material or something.
Can someone please condense all this stuff into about a paragraph? I am really interested in terminal ballistics and how differing calibers perform against each other but I don’t want to be here all day combatting terminal zoomer syndrome reading autism-babble. On a related note, does anyone have any resources on common handgun calibers and armor penetration? I know even certain 9mm loads can pen certain IIIA armor but I’m curious wether certain calibers have better pen capabilities (ie can penetrate a wider array of IIIA rated armor types), all other things being equal. (Example, are there any plates a .40 s&w Fort Scott TUI can penetrate a 9mm Fort Scott TUI can’t? How do Fort Scott TUIs fare against Liberty CDs?)
>Can someone please condense all this stuff into about a paragraph? I am really interested in terminal ballistics and how differing calibers perform against each other but I don’t want to be here all day combatting terminal zoomer syndrome reading autism-babble.
You want someone to compress pages of technical information into a soundbite without giving you a wrong impression? How about you learn to not have ADHD or accept you'll be ignorant forever.
>On a related note, does anyone have any resources on common handgun calibers and armor penetration?
This is the closest you're going to get to a fast answer.
https://www.youtube.com/@BuffRANGE
>I know even certain 9mm loads can pen certain IIIA armor but I’m curious wether certain calibers have better pen capabilities (ie can penetrate a wider array of IIIA rated armor types), all other things being equal. (Example, are there any plates a .40 s&w Fort Scott TUI can penetrate a 9mm Fort Scott TUI can’t? How do Fort Scott TUIs fare against Liberty CDs?)
It's common sense chief. Just check how fast they're going. Unless the size difference is *extreme*, the same design of bullet (lets say TUIs) at the same speed is going to penetrate the same amount of material. If the .40 can push them significantly faster, it might punch through a larger range of panels, if it cant, it wont.
Fort Scott TUIs are the best commonly available pistol projectile design for penetrating armor because they come to a point. Everything less than a sharp point is an incremental improvement towards having a point. XPs have more of a point than Ball, XDs have more of a point than XPs. TUIs have the best point.
Kevlar, or any piece of armor, has a given velocity it will fail at for any type of projectile. You can either use a sub-optimal projectile at a higher speed, or a more optimal projectile at a lower speed, and get the same penetration.
TUIs will penetrate a IIIA kevlar vest laid over a IIA kevlar vest.
How's the recoil?
Less than or equal to 10mm, less than any of your famous internet meme hand cannon rounds.
are 450 bushmaster, 458 socom, 50 Beowulf rounds a meme
No, they're three memes. Can't you count?
What do they do better than other rounds?
larger bullet in ar 15
What do you think having a fatter bullet does better than other rounds besides "be fatter"?
this was my question
You asked if they were memes, I asked what they did better than other rounds, your answer was "be larger" now I want to know why you think that's better.
they are better at holding larger bullets. i dont know if that is something that boosts performance enough to invest in. if not then they are a meme.
NTA, larger rounds often have better barrier blindness (though not always barrier penetration, obstacle depending) and for large game hunting they can achieve very deep penetration while still maintaining reasonable wounding diameter with flat nose or controlled expanding rounds.
But yes, these calibers are pretty niche, for general purpose combat use and medium game hunting (and maybe even sheer damage in some cases) I'd probably rather just take something like 77 gr TMK in 5.56.
While true in theory, the very low velocity and generally bad length to diameter ratio of them hinders this somewhat as compared to many rifle rounds. A heavy, long round can have phenomenal penetration in soft media that's true, but from my understanding the design necessities of these rounds neuters that idea somewhat.
From what I've seen, the "Special forces fat rounds" just don't do anything that other rounds don't do and more. A shotgun slug is fatter, if sheer mass is what you want, all the classic big game cartridges (even the smaller and cheaper ones) are as good or better at penetrating meat, and needless to say against armor they compare extremely poorly to standard rifle rounds.
.458/.450 is "gimped 45-70" and 50 beo is gimped 500sw, and it should be noted that 500SW is not seen as a great round by big game hunters from my understanding.
I just can't think of a scenario where I'd want any of those three cartridges instead of either a .30 caliber rifle round on one end, or a shotgun slug on the other. It certainly doesn't split the difference appropriately.
Could cut down .308 brass be used to load to higher pressures than "safe" 9x25 loadings?
No, .308 brass is for .45-derived cartridges.
9x25 is 10mm-derived, so 6.8 SPC, maybe?
Because HK makes a 10mm, Glock makes a 10mm, S&W makes a 10mm, even FN makes a 10mm. I'll stick with what's more common that I can actually find ammo for at a decent price. It's nice to only stock like 2-3 handgun calibers.
Would anyone here know the best flintlock rifle caliber?
.45 with a gun that can handle a massive powder load.
Dunno why I never heard of it before but a Swede company called CBJ has some interesting stuff on what they say is a greatly improved version of the SLAP concept, tungsten in full sabot that will still cycle. 300bo/6.5/7.62x51 versions.
>https://www.cbjtech.com/ammunition/7-62x51-cbj/
Some further inspiring ideas. Having the metal ring to transfer rotation as well as velocity is honestly really cool, resulting in reasonable accuracy despite being spin stabilized sabot.
Not the only ones machining the rear of the core for engagemenr with the rest of the projectile. I imagine it's necessary for any chance at intermediate and beyond minute-of-man accuracy. If you began to impart spin to the core, but it was not rotating at the same speed as the jacket, it would eventually oscillate and throw itself off course randomly. Some of the european m995 equivalents have the same thing. Some m995 appear to just have some sort of intermediate crush ring to center the core in a heavy copper jacket, judging by pics on the web.
There's tungsten .300WM? Has Buffman tested that? Sounds scary, though I still imagine some of the higher-performing plates still don't mind it that much out past ~150y or so, though I could be mistaken.
Test