Lehigh Defense Xtreme Defense

The hype around these bullets seems to stem from this 'report': https://nebula.wsimg.com/d0ba783a795f1cef262aa1027d14a092?AccessKeyId=6BF38C5AD5E3222E4D9B&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

The source doesn't seem credible, therefore I have to call BS on the conclusions and data presented, specifically that the Xtreme Defense rounds delivered significantly larger permanent wound cavities than traditional hollow points. Please feel free to post a legitimate source (i.e., not youtuber videos or a blog/forum) to provide evidence to the contrary.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    every time i see these i think about that one pic of "i found these screwdriver tips and the internet said they were bulllets" pic

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Remember the asian owned pizzeria in nyc years back? Yea he shot a black dude twice in the face with hollowpoints. Hours later they found the dude in the subway with his face all mangled up with both hollowpoints unable to penetrate his skull/jaw lmao

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'd be curious what gun was used, what ammo was used, etc. I don't think the industry standard ammo (HSTs, Gold Dot, Critical Defense) would have an issue.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Well you'd be surprised. The human cranium is pretty damn hard and can cause a hollow point to mushroom upon impact.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          there's no earthly way that wouldn't knock you unconcious though

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The rounds expanded alright

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      with his luck, if the pizzeria owner had xtreme penetrators 9000, they'd find the dude alive and well with 2 clean holes going through his brain but missing all vital areas

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Ammo does its job (Stops the fight)
      >People still find a way to complain

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >ended the engagement successfully
      >no overpenetration
      >fricked up some guy for the rest of his life instead of just dropping him on the spot
      wtf I love hollow points now

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I wanna maximize my chance of return fire

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They work better the faster you oush them.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That might be true, but it doesn't matter as long as PWC isn't significantly different from what we already have.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's a pretty big difference out of a long barrel.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I guess I'm narrowing this discussion to handgun barrel lengths, since that what the document references and what the bullets are mainly made for.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They're more barrier blind and can't be plugged like a hollowpoint (preventing it from expanding and having the intended effect).

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, never heard of that and you're a moron. There isn't any "hype", they've been around a long while at this point, there is plenty of general gel testing. That they're ok stems purely from that and physics. They pen well, at or beyond FBI standards, they work fine in guns that don't like HPs, and since they're lighter and faster they have less recoil for decent effect. They're reliable since there is no way they can "fail" given they're just monolithic.

    All normal handguns are just hole drillers. And nobody has ever presented any statistically significant difference (taking into account error bars for lack of standardization) in calibers above 32 or so. But unless you're worried about overpen more and simpler is better. And frankly almost nobody should be worried about overpen, it's not actually the real world risk that fuddlore has made it unless you work at a chemical factory or airplane marshal or some shit like that.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >No, never heard of that and you're a moron. There isn't any "hype", they've been around a long while at this point
      The hype is relating to the fact that their own marketing and this report claim that they perform significantly different from regular hollow points.

      https://lehighdefense.com/reloading-bullets/xtreme-defense.html
      >the progressive nose geometry allows for deep, straight penetration while creating a permanent wound cavity diameter exceeding that of most expanding bullets

      https://underwoodammo.com/9mm-luger-p-90gr-xtreme-defender-solid-monolithic-self-defense-ammo-816-1/
      >The XD ammunition has an optimized nose flute, total weight, and velocity to achieve a penetration depth up to 18 inches* with a permanent wound cavity (PWC) that is just simply enormous; no other expanding hollowpoint comes close to achieving anywhere near this diameter and volume. Not only is the PWC over 100% larger than any other expanding bullet, expansion is achieved despite being shot through barriers.
      >A permanent wound cavity (PWC)that is 2 times greater than any expanding bullet

      I read this in multiple places including this board of forum users claiming that these bullets create PWC that are much greater. Literally go to /QTDDTOT/ right now and you'll find people saying this.
      Perhaps advance your reading comprehension and/or research knowledge before calling people morons.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Omg dude you mean marketing is TRYING TO MAKE A PRODUCT SOUND LIKE A BIG DEAL!?!?
        HOLY SHIT WHAT THE FRICK MAN!

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Do you understand the difference between 'sound like a big deal' and blatant misinformation? One is based on subjective measures and the other is based on objective measures. For instance, if I say that a bullet's PWC is 2 times larger than any existing hollow point in the same cartridge, that isn't merely 'trying to sound like a big deal', it's misinformation. Your assumption that this type of misinformation hasn't spread is based on your own anecdotal experience since you referenced yourself as evidence of whether hype was generated. 'Hype' isn't an individual phenomena so your disbelief of this marketing isn't evidence of anything.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ZOMG ADS WILL LIE TO YOU!?!?!
            I CAN'T BELIEVE MARKETING WOULD DO THAT!!!!!!

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I didn't say ads won't lie or that it was impossible. I disagreed with your phrasing of 'sound like a big deal' and what evidence you presented to dispute my claim that hype has been generated.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >be moronic
                >want to sound smart
                >whine about marketing
                >get mocked
                >try to think of a witty comeback
                >"what evidence you presented to dispute my claim?"
                >be pic related

                here you go, dumbfrick:
                https://www.dummies.com/article/business-careers-money/business/marketing/marketing-for-dummies-cheat-sheet-207714/
                https://medium.com/@subes01/the-idiots-guide-to-marketing-503a1484ed0
                https://www.joinsky.co/blog/marketing-for-dummies-the-ultimate-guide-for-a-great-marketer-in-2023
                https://www.amazon.com/Marketing-Dummies-Gregory-Brooks/dp/0470741791

                and then, for when you are ready for the BIG leagues:

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I said the hype is generated from the marketing/report because it causes viewers to believe said marketing/report. The viewers who believe the marketing/report is the hype, not the marketing/report itself hence why I said 'stem from' and not 'is'. My 'whining about marketing' was about your phrasing of the marketing since the correlation between the marketing/report is one of misinformation imo, not a subjective exaggeration. I'm the dumbfrick...

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                *correlation of the marketing/report with the hype from forum users

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >anon discovers basic b***h marketing schemes
                >refuses to believe they are basic

                [...]
                [...]
                You're a cancer

                cry harder and maybe someone will care

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                ZOMG ADS WILL LIE TO YOU!?!?!
                I CAN'T BELIEVE MARKETING WOULD DO THAT!!!!!!

                Omg dude you mean marketing is TRYING TO MAKE A PRODUCT SOUND LIKE A BIG DEAL!?!?
                HOLY SHIT WHAT THE FRICK MAN!

                You're a cancer

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's a thinly veiled infomercial put out by a training company with a gmail address. It's cute how they put UNCLASSIFIED all over it to imply it's some kind of report compiled by a government agency.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      lol if you do a little digging you'll find they did some videos alongside this. The DOD emblem on the intro slides is a nice little fraudulent touch.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If these are velocity based, and most shootings are at less than 10yds, would making these made out of alumin, where the 65grain version would be about 25grains in aluminum, see enough velocity increase be enough to be worth the loss in mass, assuming they cycled just as reliably?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >3kfps out of a long barreled pistol
      Society isn't based enough to accept aluminum bullets yet.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >sad CETME Model A noises

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          that round is brilliant
          it stabilizes with a normal twist rate because the jacket is heavier than the core, creating a gyroscopic effect. 8.6 creedmoor could learn a thing
          it penetrates incredibly well because of the sectional density and aluminum forming a carbide layer when in contact with the air. they found it would penetrate a steel GI helmet at 1000m

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The strange thing is old timey big game hunters going nuts over Brass solids, and modern gun bros going nuts over *copper* solids, and yet everyone thinks Aluminum is going to somehow penetrate a hard surface less than lead when it's harder and moving faster.

            We live in a world where Copper solids are lauded for their extreme speed and relative hardness compared to lead letting them punch straight through whatever they hit but bring up aluminum and they go WHAUUUUUHHH??? LIKE DA FOIL????

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It will penetrate less simply because it's so much lighter.
              Hardcast still reigns supreme when comparing feet of penetration. Density is a big plus, copper and brass doesn'r quite reach the same depths.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                that's penetration in tissue with roundnose bullets
                penetrating steel is completely different
                rifle length spitzer bullets entirely change the equation

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You were talking about big game hunters so that's the medium I assumed.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It will penetrate less simply because it's so much lighter.
                Let me clear up a few different points
                I made several *separate* points.
                1. Brass was popular, copper is popular
                2. Brass and Copper monoliths have massive penetration of soft media despite being much less dense than lead, thanks to their hardness, and thus their ability to be pushed faster with no deformation, even with a "pointed" or "semi pointed" nose design that maximizes Sectional Density.
                3. Copper and brass have absurdly superior penetration of Hard materials than lead.

                Let me make what I'm saying about an an AL round clear: Aluminum rounds would penetrate better against hard materials (steel, ceramic) and against soft armor than Lead, or even copper or brass, because of their relative hardness and the higher speed at which they'd be moving. Their sectional density would be lower than Copper rounds, however they would be moving much faster, and be as hard, or harder, and I see no indication their performance against humans would be inferior.
                As for this in particular
                >Density is a big plus, copper and brass doesn't quite reach the same depths.
                I have always heard the exact opposite. To reach the absolute absurd penetration depths of the most powerful big game cartridges you need to minimize deformation as much as possible, and there is no form of lead that does not deform at over 2000 feet per second. Brass monoliths with fancy noses are known for punching skull to butthole on game such as water buffalo, there really isn't any debate in the Big Game crowd, Brass solids have been the undisputed King for 100 years.

                Also, whoever responded to you wasn't me.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              some people want bullets that just explode as soon as they hit something because it stops people faster than a hole straight through them and they don't anticipate needing to hit through cover, or would prefer not having a miss go through many walls.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >yet everyone thinks Aluminum is going to somehow penetrate a hard surface less
              For the same volume aluminum will weigh less and thus carry less inertia.
              If you have the OAL to play with it's fine, but for a given case volume and OAL you can't seat a longer bullet deeper without losing powder capacity.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You're right about the density being an issue. However, swaging a partial jacket (from the rear of the projectile upward, would allow you to make the forward facing portion of the projectile with the grooves, with a hollow base. Allowing you to install a lead alug to increase the mass without dramatically increasing the oal.

                Alternatively, you could make a monolithic aolid like these VBR projectiles, with an extended, smaller diameter core, to increase the oal and mass without as significant a reduction in case capacity. Or like the more traditional VBR multi-piece projectile, make the core aluminum and the slug out of copper. Gives you that gryoscopic effect for stability as well. Assuming they're held to s tight enough tolerance.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The other example.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/87cDAAU.jpeg

                The other example.

                A drastic change in cross section almost always ruins aerodynamics.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                True, but we're talking out handgun cartridge projectiles. Not exactly concerned with things beyong 100yds. Maximal effectiveness inside of 25 is reasonable. The goal of the vbr design was improved performance with a smaller upfront cost (barrel and recoil spring or related changes to existing 9x19 weapons) and no need for fancy materials like tunsgten. Not really a concern for civilian sales. That being said, a projectile could be made like the first on here

                https://i.imgur.com/gpofv06.jpeg

                You're right about the density being an issue. However, swaging a partial jacket (from the rear of the projectile upward, would allow you to make the forward facing portion of the projectile with the grooves, with a hollow base. Allowing you to install a lead alug to increase the mass without dramatically increasing the oal.

                Alternatively, you could make a monolithic aolid like these VBR projectiles, with an extended, smaller diameter core, to increase the oal and mass without as significant a reduction in case capacity. Or like the more traditional VBR multi-piece projectile, make the core aluminum and the slug out of copper. Gives you that gryoscopic effect for stability as well. Assuming they're held to s tight enough tolerance.

                with the central column hollowed out and filled with lead to increase the mass, and a minute through-hole cpuld be drilled down to the lead cavity, to make it not fully jacketed, circumventing the ap pistol restrictions, unless the lead slug would weigh more than 75% of the total projectile weight. Or, more practically, as I said, make the two piece design with a copper sabot and lengthened aluminum core.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >handgun bullet
                >aerodynamics
                don't matter as long as it's stable.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Here's what I typically look to when I want something to give some quick comparisons in terms of bullet weight/initial velocity and velocity drop off at various distances to see how light for caliber rounds, like the +P offering of the 68gr xtreme defender compare to more traditional offerings. You have to extrapolate on other outliers like the 50grn lib cd (which has a higher velocity, but it gives some idea of performance at different distances at least in the broad strokes.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >For the same volume aluminum will weigh less and thus carry less inertia.
                But for the same pressure it will move excessively faster. Also, copper solids with the proper nose design already dramatically over penetrate, the penetration of +p non deforming high speed bullets in a human target is not a limitation we've run into yet experimenting with lighter and lighter bullets.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    These are good because they cause more damage than FMJ and can pen some level IIIA soft armor. You give up damage to a JHP but I’ll take that.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If this ammo is so great and all these police agencies tested it and confirmed it's the best shit ever made, then why doesn't a single one issue it?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Too spendy

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Typical inertia.
      >The new technologee is actually bretty damn gud.
      >But we have x MILLION rounds of this old stuff, and it's more or less "gud nuff"
      >We'll keep the old shit until we burn through it
      >[keeps producing/procuring old shit because of usage/overhead]
      >Damn, there's an even NEWER technologee
      >Repeat ad nauseum until the old tech is long, long, long past overdue for replacement.
      Boomer-Fudds and their "gud nuff" Luddite mentality is the enemy of new tech, most especially in the firearms community/industry.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you can just divide the fpe by the penetration depth to see how much damage it's doing
    these get ~450fpe with +p loads and penetrate ~18 inches, so they're definitely doing some damage

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Where these shine are in small cartridges where hollowpoints have trouble expanding.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Agree, I'd use the xtreme penetrator version when I get a Ruger LCP Max.

      I don't care if they don't make big wound channels like a hollowpoint (Goodluck getting them to expand reliably, or penetrate deep enough if they do expand), or if their wound channels are actually better than with FMJs. Penetration is king, and these reliably do 20" in gel, just 2 inches more than the max FBI requirement. If by any chance they are more destructive than both HPs and FMJs in real flesh and bone, it'll just be a bonus

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They do really make carrying shit like .32 and .25 pretty viable.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    is there even a singel documented case of these being used on people?

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    they don't live to tell the tale that's for sure

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Mark 23. best handgun in the world, if you ever have to use a handgun for any reason there's no other handgun you'd ever want to have. it's not gigantic, it's just full size, no compromises whatsoever, certified for 30,000 round servical intervals and 6000 round average mean rounds between stoppages. match grade accuracy, shoots easy and straight because it's so long, heavy, and the engineering is immaculate. they pulled out all the stops for this one. the controls are configured so that the only way to carry it is hammer wienered, round loaded, safety on. can't be dewienered with safety on. can't put safety on with hammer dewienered. one of the most telling indicators of a handguns quality is the feeding mechanism. most handguns you can make them jam if you work the slide in a way they don't like. not the mark 23. you can do anything you want and it feeds perfectly each time, with a certain magical regularity, like you're watching a solidworks animation. it's just the best handgun, the only reason to have another is if you can't feasibly carry something full-size with you.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      FK BRNO is better

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's marketing bullshit, I remember everyone was buying all those Civil Defense rounds believing they penetrated armor. They did but what ends up getting through is like the mass of a bb. Same with those fricking RIP rounds that penetrate like 1". Stick to tried and true methods. These are not better than HP nor even FMJ ammo, as even FMJ warps a bit and becomes larger. These do not shoot jets of air through the body, lmao.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >They did but what ends up getting through is like the mass of a bb.
      Useless Hyperbole makes you sound moronic.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >These do not shoot jets of air through the body
      >Civil Defense rounds
      >Compared copper solid projectile to a meme hollow-point
      >They did but what ends up getting through is like the mass of a bb
      What the actual frick are you talking about? Do you even know?

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't remember them being that impressive on the meat target (the meat target is leather jacket skin followed by pork steak pectorals, pork ribs, a bag of oranges to simulate lung tissue, more pork ribs on the back, four layers of t-shirt on the front, four layers of t-shirt on the back and the whole thing followed by the new and improved high-tech fleece bullet stop). If I remember right they mostly just performed on that like glorified FMJs.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm one of the anons that's been hyping it up after reading that report from Viper.
    Looking at basic b***h loads like 9mm, they're pretty comparable to most JHPs, I'd rank HSTs and Ranger Ts a bit better, but the XDs have the benefit of reliability.
    It's when you start slinging them fast that you really notice the difference.

    One of many, many videos testing the XDs. Like Paul says, do your own research and you be the judge. What I'd really like to find is a test on the lightweight projectiles in 9x25.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I'm one of the anons that's been hyping it up after reading that report from Viper.
      It's not a credible source, so please stop.
      >don't post YouTube's videos as evidence
      >posts ytber video as evidence
      >"you be the judge", translation: eyeball it
      *sigh* Please get back to me when you have something from a credible source with data and numbers like expansion in tissue, penetration, and PWC.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Nooo, testing doesn't count
        >It'll only count if it's done by a source I like
        I really don't understand this mentality. I don't think you'd accept any evidence that doesn't conform to your predetermined expectations. Uploading to youtube doesn't magically remove the value of results, and Viper's testing is only questioned because nobody's heard of them, rather than questioning the data, which is corroborated with video evidence.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Paul correctly points out that his videos aren't scientific. I'm looking for scientific sources. It's fine if you don't need that for proof, but I do. Even if you were to take conclusions from this video, they don't support or collaborate the report, they don't even collaborate your earlier opinion based on the video since the XDs apparently (according to the report) significantly outperform HSTs.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >ITT a bunch of Luddites larping as data-driven expert statisticians.
    Understand that most of you would've been pissing and shitting yourselves over
    >the advent of automatics over revolvers
    >the rise of 9mm over .45
    >the advent of double-stack 9mm's
    >the advent of polymer-framed semi-autos
    >the advent of hollow-points
    >the advent of Small Caliber/High-Velocity intermediate rifle ammunition
    >the advent of a black, polymer, aluminum and steel, SCHV fighting rifle chambered in 5.56
    >the advent of carbine length fighting rifles
    >the advent of reflex optics
    >the use of magnified optics on fighting rifles
    The list goes on and on. Accept new technology happens and people will adopt it. If it's good, it'll stick, and (You) will most likely be swearing by it when the next doohickey comes along to challenge the one you're shitting on now.
    No one is ask (You) to be an early adopter. Leave that to people who aren't Luddite Boomer Fudds afwaid of new technology.
    >inb4 "enjoy dying being a beta tester"
    Same shit you'd have said to the first dude deciding to duty-carry/defensive-carry hollow-points lmao

    • 3 weeks ago
      OP

      I'm not saying it's not better, I'm saying I don't think there's sufficient evidence to claim it has significantly different PWC compared to hollow points. Please actually read, just read at a 5th grade level.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I'm saying I don't think there's sufficient evidence to claim it has significantly different PWC
        There probably isn't. And now I understand why that other anon was sperging out about "babby's first experience with scummy adverstising campaigns."
        They are, however, at barest minimum comparable when pushed at reasonable velocities - say from a 3.5 inch pistol barrel. The benefits that a lighter pill with high rigidity in a pistol-sized weapon are real, and are useful to people who might need to shoot another person. Execute a cost/benefit as to whether that's right for (You).
        From a PCC, it's not even a competition.
        This is what the data has borne out. This is why here on /k/, we tend to argue about what the data has borne out rather than whining about "why come da advertisement is exaggerating?"

        Imagine asking where Energizer comes off saying they have the best batteries when everyone who's ever used batteries knows Duracell objectively lasts longer. That's you right now. That's this whole fricking thread, anon.

        • 3 weeks ago
          OP

          I'm not omnipotent, so I don't have access to all information which is why I'm asking for it, I genuinly don't know if theres evidence I haven't seen yet. I'm not complaining about the marketing, I'm saying the hype generated seems incompatible with what I already know is there, which is why I made the thread, to see of there was something I was missing. The mere fact that you said 'probably isn't' what I'm getting at because people on this board might know more than I do in terms of sources, interpretation of data, etc.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            *hype generated from marketing and the 'report'

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I also say there probably isn't because I can't think of anything that would be super conclusive to you, based on the thread. Which is why I'm telling you to just divorce yourself from "reports" done for modern scummy marketing purposes and focus on the raw physics and physiology at work. When you do that, and then take in what *is* available on the rounds, then you'll more or less come to the conclusions I wrote in my previous reply to you.
            You're not missing anything, you're just seemingly more credulous of shitty marketing gimmicks. Which probably isn't awful, it just might mean you're not as jaded as everyone else.

            Ignore marketing claims - or internet hype, broadly - and use your head. Doing that will tell you all you need to know cost/benefit wise for these rounds and other funz-related things, in general.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >you're just seemingly more credulous of shitty marketing gimmicks
              I think I've said this like three times already, so this will be the last but I'm not saying the marketing is what's the 'hype', I'm saying that there seems to be a correlation between the marketing, the report, and what people are claiming online (the type). The people online who are making claims are the hype. I give no credence to marketing at all. I don't think it's evidence of anything which is specifically why I asked for papers/reports from credible authorities and not what Underwood or Viper thinks. The point of bringing up marketing is to point to how misinformed these users are so it's exactly the opposite of what you think I think of the marketing.
              >Which is why I'm telling you to just divorce yourself from "reports" done for modern scummy marketing purposes
              There are reports/papers on terminal ballistics, that's what I'm focused on and asking for.
              >When you do that, and then take in what *is* available on the rounds, then you'll more or less come to the conclusions I wrote in my previous reply to you.
              I'm asking for what *is* available. I'm asking for available sources since I'm not omnipotent. I know you might not know is there's something, but the rest of internet might, which is why I made a thread. I'm not speaking directly to you.
              >Ignore marketing claims - or internet hype, broadly - and use your head. Doing that will tell you all you need to know cost/benefit wise for these rounds and other funz-related things, in general.
              You can't assume you have all the knowledge and that every claim to the contrary of conclusions you have are false. If there's a bunch of people making a claim, and I don't have access to all the information in the entire world, there's a chance that they might know something I don't or have explored a document/information I haven't come across.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I looked into these a while back for .458. Teppo Jutsu recommended, but Marty is friends with the guy. Every other report seemingly reports mid results. Maybe a smidge more penetration but piss-poor expansion. There's better loadings for the money imho

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It makes .380's over penetrate the FBI test.

    Find it yourself instead of baiting /k/.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      FMJs already over penetrate in 380. I'm not baiting, I'm genuinely asking for contrary evidence.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the ironic part of this meme is that the majority of gunshot wound victims from handguns survive

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not even mad at these companies anymore. They've been selling dumb meme bullets for over a century now and morons take the bait every single time. If they're that desperate to get scammed someone might as well take their money. Not like it matters anyway. 99% of this shit will never be used in an actual life or death situation.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *