Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Lucky Gunner's extensive test results...

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/#40SW

LOTS of interesting test results.

2 things jumped out at me.

1. The expansion and penetration of the 9mm loads/bullets
2. The number of bullets that failed to open, esp in the 45 ACP

Thanks for posting.

the 22 magnum speer gold dot surprises me.

That's a great link. I appreciate you sharing it. In my first pass I simply looked to see which loads of my various chamberings performed well. Then I went back to see if any particular brand or bullet performed well across my various chamberings. I am going to scan it again, but it looks like I could buy Hornady FTX in my 4 different chamberings and be well served.

I have Federal HST for 9MM .40 and .45 ACP. I always "knew" they were a good choice but this data is a confidence builder. The Sig Sauer 165 gr V-Crown looks to be a real performer too. I'll load some of those in .40 and maybe 10 MM.

- Federal 230 gr. HST .45 ACP
- Federal 180 gr. HST .40
- Winchester 180 gr. Ranger Bonded (PDX1) .40

To make the bad man stop.




GR

Thanks for posting this... It's got to be the best comparison that I have ever seen.

Pictures of the bullets is really helpful, average expansion might be listed as 0.67" (for example), but the picture might show a couple of the bullets did not expand.

This charts going to be a factor in what bullets I buy.

I can not imagine the amount of work it took to do this.

Though I don't own one, I was quite surprised how some loads in the .380 acp did.


Jerry

The 95 Grain Winchester PDX1 in .380 ACP is a performer, especially from a 3.5" barrel.




GR

Agreed, great test.

I'd like to publicly thank them for their efforts.

Not normally a buyer factory loads, but felt I needed some modern high performance factory ammo for carry,,,, expensive & so many choices. L G's test furnished more than enough info to help me decide & feel confident of my choice.

I disregard the results of any ammo testing that does not include hard barrier testing. This is especially true in .380. A poor round in a duty caliber can still defeat common barriers, but the .380 generally won't until you start using specialty rounds.

As far as duty rounds of the type commonly carried by police are concerned, there is plenty of reliable data around directly from the manufacturers.

1991 I was told to pickup a sleeve of Hydrashoks for my .45 by a man who knew and Pete's advice still applies today.

That has a lot of interesting data. Some of it is pretty dated though. And they didn't test, for example, Underwood ammo, including those with Xtreme Defender and Penetrator Lehigh bullets, which are my favorites for most of my pistols. And, to give helpful info on those, and, I suppose any bullet, they would need to measure the wound cavity that those create due to their shape, because they do that without expanding. Most bullets will destroy tissue outside of (lateral to) the bullet path. I would be more interested in the width of the maximum permanent channel than the diameter of the bullet when coming to rest.

I read that article several years ago and it's what prompted me to lay in a good stock of Speer 124 gr. Gold Dot hollow points.

Looks like several different brands and types of bullets will get the job done, it's still up to the operator to put them in the right place.

Who is Pete?

Bullets have to have high enough velocity to expand. IMHO, if you cannot push a pistol bullet at LEAST 1000 FPS actual, expansion is questionable at best. I don't mean the FPS that is on the box as most of this is BS hype. Many "reputable" manufacturers use 10" or so solid test barrels to get these figures. Reality is a far different proposition when shooting the same load through your 3 or 4" barreled revolver with a cylinder gap in the mix. At 1000 FPS or less, I want a wide meplat as a JHP is a wasted effort. Again, JMHO, YMMV.

That's right Henry, sue happy lawyers are the problem, another reason i handload pistol and rifle ammunition save 22 LR and most 12 gauge.

It takes 7 or 8 samples to realize statistical significance, therefore, five shots per load are not enough. I certainly hate to see good effort go to waste.

Apparently, you missed that these tests were done with typical carry pistols and shot over a chronograph....and that some loads did indeed expand at less than 1000 fps. It's a dated article, especially regarding 10mm. But your assumptions are even more dated.

Include Civil Defense ammo also, especially the 10 mm at 2000 fps.

That’s just not correct. If these data represented a normal distribution then there would be something to what you’re saying, but if you look at the photos you’ll see that’s not the case here. And even if it were there’s nothing magic about 7 or 8 data points.

By my count there were 127 bullets tested. For only 16 of those were there significant differences in the visual results of one bullet to the next. And for those 16 the photos showed inconsistent expansion. Testing 2 or 3 more bullets wouldn’t have resolved that.

It was good to see how well .40 S&W Ranger and Ranger T Series did in both 165 grain and 180 grain. 71 caliber expansion, and right in middle of the FBI depth penetration range.

No, I did not miss reading that. If you will read carefully what I wrote about concerning some manufacturers statements often found printed on their cartridge boxes, they will claim the cartridges contained within will produce muzzle velocities of "x". They usually fail to mention that this was accomplished by firing the load in a maybe 10 or 12 inch test barrel. Not to say that no such pistol barrels have never been made in that length, but obviously such is uncommon at best. To compound the probable inaccuracy of any such claim is if the cartridge in question should be commonly used in a revolver which would have a cylinder gap to factor into the equation. Some manufacturers will state realistic figures, such as derived from testing with common 4 or 5 inch barrels, etc. What I actually said was if it is not specifically stated how the velocity was determined by the manufacturer, what is printed on the box may not be accurate in the real world. I did not say anything about the test velocities stated in the Lucky Gunner report, which I respect very much. I also did not say that no JHP bullet would expand if velocity was under 1000 FPS. Of course some will. For instance the huge hollow point loads I usually carry in my 2 inch barrel J frame .38s that run about 775 FPS (over a chronograph) will reliably expand, I assure you. However, these are not common JHPs. I thought I made it clear that that this 1000 FPS (actual) figure was a good rule of thumb for JHP bullets. Of course there are several potential factors in play here. If the bullet is fired into a hard surface, such as an iron plate, concrete, tempered glass, etc., it will most likely expand. If it strikes ballistic gel or flesh is a much different matter. Maybe, maybe not. As I noted originally, this is my opinion, based on my experience. Someone else's experience may vary.

Very interesting information, especially if one anticipates being attacked by a block of gel.

I hear ya. I remember this velocity claim issue being very common, but I haven't noticed it for quite some time. Maybe that's more of an indication of what brands I'm not even looking at, but what I see now is either realistic claims or no velocity claim at all. I mean, the claims I see are close to what I'm measuring from my own 4-5" guns. But I never assume it will measure the same with a shorter barrel, although I'm sometimes pleasantly surprised.

I suspect manufacturers are aware that a lot of us own chronographs these days, and we're quick to report BS claims in the Internet. But yeah... there's always going to be those guys, I guess.

I don't expect any bargain ammo to expand from a handgun, until I've tested it myself on live game - and that includes my own cheapo handloads.