Yeah that’s a tuff one for you living in a state where you are expected to leave your home rather than defend it.
Yup. MA sucks. I talk to the wife about moving all the time. I could see every NE state being blue before long. Enjoy the red (or really purple) while it lasts.
Run 300 rounds through it. If it runs trouble free, then you should be able to rely on it. Use the 300 rounds as a training aid for her. If it won't make it through 300 rounds trouble free, then I would question reliability when it comes to self defense. Added: Buy a DayGlo paint pen in Orange or Yellow and number the magazines. This allows you to keep track of any mags that are problematic instead of guessing.
We both cary Glock 42s in 380 with Underwood extreme defender rounds. +P All the gel tests Ive watched, through clothing, pork ribs ect is why we use them.
That is good ammo! Here's some info for ya. Ballistic gel is not much more than a consistent medium that can be mixed anywhere at anytime and achieve consistency. It is also fairly cheap to purchase. However, it does not represent actual terminal performance in aqueous tissue. Mammals are made up of aqueous tissue. Field results in aqueous tissue can be replicated in the ballistic lab with the proper setup. These results are the EXACT same every time. Penetration and hydraulic shockwave can be acturately measured and projectiles can be tailored to have fantastic terminal results. Increases performance comes from properly designed projectiles. These Lehigh projectiles are what I run in my Sig P365. 9mm at 1300fps in a P365 is very spicy. The terminal performance is devestating to say the least.
I'm familiar with gel testing and it's shortcomings. Its more to compare one ammo to another, rather than a direct example of human flesh, that anyone can do. I bet the ballistics lab testing is very interesting to be involved in. Id probably nerd out in that place. Lol Those Lehigh projectiles seem to really stand out. I started using the Underwood loadings after watching a few military arms channel test using the FBI gel.
"Its more to compare one ammo to another." It doesn't really do a good jod at that. If you are ever in SC. Look me up and we will hit the lab and put some bullets into the traps.
That would definitely be a fun day. Thank you for the offer. We might make a trip there to see the Snoozy Camper facility and view the trailers in person.
So now I have to ask... I assume you in some way do this as a job/for a living? I have always been a fan of Gold Dots and HSTs. Curious if you've tested them. Even if you have, you obviously have chosen the Lehighs for a reason.... Do you roll your own or purchase loaded ammo?
Yes, I am involved in ballistics/firearms for my work. Both civillian and military small arms development and testing. I work with two ballistic labs. One lab is a lab dedicated to development/testing of terminal performance of projectiles. The second ballistic lab is a rail gun lab dedicated to testing materials that inhibit projectile penetration. The Gold Dots & HST projectiles do perform as advertised. They are very good. New technology and high-end machining capabilities allow the design of very advanced projectiles that offer best in class terminal performance. Those projectiles are made by Lehigh and Cutting Edge Bullets. Both of these are Swiss CNC machined from solid copper or brass. They are more expensive but they offer unparalleled terminal performance for hunting or self defense. I "roll my own" 9mm Self Defense rounds as shown in the picture I posted a few posts earlier. The picture below shows the massive trauma and destruction from (2) side by side shots of my 9mm Lehighs at 3" of penetration. The trauma continues to 9+ inches. The shots were from 12 yards with my Sig P365. The hydraulic shockwave created by these projectiles would cause an organ cavity to liquify instantly and stop an imminent threat immediately. Ballistic gel does not show this kind of detail. Especially in layers. Hopefully this answered your question(s) and gave you some useful information!
If you are able to aquire some of the Federal Punch ammo. Do your own penetration testing. • Shoot a 2x4 from 5 yards and check penetration. • Shoot a small piece of 1/2", 5/8", or 3/4" plywood from 5 or 7 yards and check penetration. • Shoot a piece of sheetrock from 5 and 7 yards and check penetration. • Shoot an old jacket or coat draped over a piece of sheetrock from 3, 5, and 7 yards and check penetration Do your own research with the gun yall will be using. Take the opportunity to combine testing with training. You will find out more by "doing" and gain some valuable insights.
Excellent advice! My dad bought some of the DRT ammo, for 9mm and 380 ACP. Have you tested either in your lab? If so, what did you think? I'm not even certain if that stuff is available anymore.
I do not have any personal experience with that specific ammo. I am not a fan of any "hollow point" projectiles. I also do not like .380 at all. There are better options for terminal performance. I have personally witnessed .380 hollow points fail when shot into an Eddie Bauer down jacket. The underpowered .380 combined with a hollow point was almost stopped completely before entering the layer under the jacket. The hollow point cavity filled up with jacket material and did not expand. By the time the projectile tried to enter the second layer, it had ran out of energy. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to get shot by one, and if its all ya got then that is better than nothing. There are better choices for terminal performance. Self defense is not about scaring or wounding a threat. It is about eliminating a threat. Permanently.... There is so much marketing hype and nonsense these days. Its all about $$. One would serve themselves well to do their own personal R&D and educate themselves by "doing" instead of following the herd. I have recently tested an off the shelf ammo that actually does what it advertises it can do. It chronos at advertised rates and in all of my testing, it retained 100% of its weight after impact and penetration.. Norma MHP 9mm - Sig P365 at 10 yards 6.5" of penetration, 100% weight retention
Lil’ mama has options! I’m excited to try out the flat nosed solid bullet design of the Punch. Paul Harrell did a great video on it a couple years ago
Very nice! Get out and do some testing and documentation. Post up your testing and results here for all of us to see and learn about those rounds you have aquired! It will be interesting to see the terminal performance difference between the Punch 29grain @ 1080 fps -vs. the CCI 32grain @ 1640fps.
If you want to really test the performance of those rounds, you can make up a great ballistics test that wont break the bank, AND you will get far more realistic results than the gel test(s). Purchase a case of printer paper. They run $25-$30 bucks or so. • Build a 2 x 4 framed box that you can set a full, unopened ream of paper in. You can use plywood, sheetrock or more 2 x 4's to build the back of the box. Build some sort of stand to hold the box about 5 ft off the ground. • Place a unopened ream of paper in the box. Draw a 1" circle with a Sharpie marker. One in the middle of the upper half, one in the lower half. Soak it with water. Soak it well. Soak it thoroughly through. • Shoot (2) shots into your target. One shot in the upper half, the second shot in the lower half. Do this with each type of ammo you have. I would shoot at a distance of 10-12 yards. (Use a fresh ream for each type of ammo.) • Pull the ream of paper out and see if you have any penetration through the full ream. Start peeling layers apart about 1/4" at at time. Notice any "trauma" damage patterns. Keep peeling the layers untill you recover the 2 projectiles. Record the depth of penetration/recovery. • Examine the recovered projectiles. Weigh them if you have the means to weigh in grains. Notice any increase in diameter change. You will learn one hell of a lot more useful info by doing this than any "information" gained from that first video posted. The time spent doing this is worth it. Remember to keep some notes and take pictures of each test.
