Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Lehigh extreme penetrators

Seems like high speed photography shows a stretch channel forming at well under 2000 fps impact velocity.

There is 2 versions of the Lehigh bullet the Extreme Defender has deeper flutes and impacts a wound channel in ballistic gelatin simlar to a jhp and penetrates a bit more. The ED penetrates hard barriers better than jhp.

The Extreme Penetrator would be used against larger predators because of the increased penetration. The EP does not produce as large of a wound channel as does the ED but penetrates much deeper.

Therein lies my reasoning for my choice to use 9mm and .45 ACP Penetrators as truck backup and possibly 3rd mag backup for barrier penetration (car doors, fenders, sheet metal, etc) and defense against large predators... The 2-legged kind, that is.

difference with barnes is the tsx and ttsx are hollow points...monolithic hollow point
Hollow point is a proven design

Lehigh is Phillips head point

Thanks for the response! I agree with what you said and think I'd like to see/hear some stories/pictures of what kind of terminal ballistics ED bullets have on goats, pigs, yotes, deer, etc...love to see what a double lunged wouND channel looks like from one of these.... that could give some perspective

Just a thought - for barrier penetration like car doors, etc, the lighter/faster ED bullet is what you want. Velocity is king for penetrating steel, not bullet weight.

A couple things:

First, look at the Defense bullet, not the Penetrator. The ED is the one that performs like a hollow point.

Second, it sounds like you're assuming that permanent wound cavity is only as large as the expanded diameter of the bullet; that is not necessarily correct. In low velocity solid lead bullets, maybe, but definitely not with modern hollow points or designs like this ED bullet. Tissue ejected laterally away from the nose of the bullet is responsible for a lot of the permanent wound channel, and that is highly dependent on design/shape of the front of the bullet. Gelatin does not simulate this very well, so don't rely on gel testing for that information.

Your 2,000 fps number is not accurate; I believe that could be true for non-expanding spitzer rifle bullets, but not for everything across the board. Velocity of the tissue ejected away from the nose is what matters, and that is a function of a lot more than just bullet velocity.

I think you're making some assumptions based on very old testing, and not realizing that a design like this Lehigh stuff does not work the same way. You have more questions than I can answer; all I can suggest is to go do some testing for yourself.

Yondering - Thanks for the reply, and I'm very interested in your thoughts on this new round, as well as thoughts from JWP475.

The problem I'm having is I can't find anything quantifiable on the wound cavity, just anecdotal; and I don't accept anecdotal as scientific; especially when the anecdotal comes from the people trying to sell a product. Let's be real here, bullet salesmen have a history of being very much like snake oil salesmen.

I do understand how permanent cavities are made and how it's not all frontal diameter or expanded diameter; I get that, and totally understand how, depending on bullet shape and construction you can get larger than caliber wound cavities from a non-expanding solid...I'm no stranger to that concept. Heck I've seen it first hand in the field on several occasions. And I agree there's a good deal more at play...so I think I'm on the same page as you there; but I still appreciate you bringing the subject up...never assume

My issue is I can't find anything objectively MEASURABLE beyond bullet weight, velocity, and penetration...and I'm a big believer in the old axiom of "you cannot improve what you cannot measure". I'm also a believer in President Reagan's "Trust, but verify".

I also understand that ballistic gelatin is limited, but I have yet to find a better testing medium; so good has to do when perfect just isn't available. And honestly, Lehigh is using ballistic gelatin, so they seem to believe it has value, and their use of, and claims made, while using ballistic gelatin makes it reasonable to ask for objective measurement in ballistic gelatin, wouldn't you agree?

Historically speaking whenever a new bullet comes out that's significantly different from conventional design, there are always a lot of anecdotal claims made, and simulations setup to support these claims. Only to find out later that in the real world, they just don't hold up. And I'll also admit, in my youth I was taken in by a couple. I remember when myself and many others thought the Glaser Safety Slug was the end all, only to later find out, not only was it not the end all, but it was a very marginal defense load altogether.

What's more, this isn't a completely new bullet design. This approach has been tried at least twice. But I'm not so closed minded that I can't consider that someone finally got it right. But neither am I gullible.

Regarding the 2k velocity thing, I don't understand your statement (below) in the context of my comments about stretch cavity.

I think that was supposed to be a statement to refute the 2k velocity thing...Like, the velocity of the projectile isn't as important as the velocity of the tissue ejected away from the nose...is that what you're getting at?

The problem is, the velocity of the tissue being ejected away from the nose can't be any higher than the velocity of the projectile; so I'm not getting your statement. Maybe you can clarify...because I think you may be understanding something I'm not and I'm hoping you can educate me. I also know myself, and I know that while I have a decent grasp on terminal ballistics, I'm far from an expert, and there are those on these forums that understand it much better than I do (such as yourself and JWP475, as well as a few others). So I'm hoping for a learning opportunity here.

What I keep coming back to is, how can one take their claims as gospel when the only objectively measurable pieces of data they have are: bullet weight, velocity, and penetration? Unless I have missed it, no other element of this bullet's performance has been accounted for in any objectively measurable way. And if I did miss that, please show me where the data is; I'm very interested.

I'm interested because if this bullet REALLY WORKS as they say it does, it could be a real game changer for the military.

And like JWP475, I think there's always room for specialty rounds in one's arsenal. It's just foolish to think one round does it all. Actually it was JWP who got me to re-consider what I carry in my spare magazines, and now they will sometimes carry specialty rounds like a hard cast flat point.

Again, thanks for yours and JWP's responses.

On the lehigh video, they do shoot watermelons with a penetrator and defender....the penetrator zips through with little damage, the defender blows the melon up pretty good while zipping through

http://www.lehighdefense.com/pages/resouces#video

penetrator vs defender video

Splitting the quote for clarity



Fair enough, and that's why I say don't believe Lehigh or anyone else (including me), try it for yourself. That's the only way to get real quantifiable data that you can really trust, IMO. I was very skeptical of Lehigh's claims (partly because of the "Extreme" naming), and did not believe it until I tried them myself. I have seen impressive permanent wound cavities from these in wet paper, melons/pumpkins/etc, and small game, but did not record the measurements you're asking for, or take pictures.

For example, the boys wanted to shoot a pumpkin last night, so we tried one of the 90gr ED bullets to compare to a good expanding cast hollow point. The hollow point left an entry hole about the diameter of my pinky and an exit like a silver dollar, but I could wiggle my thumb around in the entry and exit holes of the ED bullet (exit hole was the same size, one of the interesting features of this design). I didn't measure them, and it doesn't necessarily correlate to meat; I just point it out as an example.

Maybe, but it can be a whole lot lower, depending on the bullet shape. Don't assume it is always equal to bullet velocity.



Velocity of tissue ejected to the side is dependent on shape of the bullet and bullet velocity (among other things); trying to put a bullet velocity number like your 2000 fps on this across the board assumes that shape of the bullet doesn't matter, which is not correct. That 2000 fps number may be correct for round nose or spitzer designs that don't push material away to the side as fast.

Think about a round nose or FMJ pistol bullet (non-tumbling for sake of argument), where material pretty much flows around the nose with relatively little lateral force. Now compare that to an expanded hollow point, with essentially a very large flat in the front, that pushes material to the side much faster even if the bullets are going the same speed. The ED design acts more like the hollow point, but it's the flutes in the sides, rather than the nose, that scoop material out to the side at high velocity.

Or, think about what happens when you pee on a flat rock. That splash effect is what I'm referring to.

Ahaaa…There’s the disconnect. You’re talking about permanent/crush cavity and I’m talking about temporary/stretch cavity.

The 2,000fps number was in relation to wounds secondary to stretch cavity. Under 2,000fps (as a general rule) the stretch cavity produced by most bullets is insufficient to overcome the elasticity of most soft tissues. Now that’s a big generalization but it’s pretty accurate. Obviously some variables such as bullet construction and shape, as well as all the variables of what constitutes “soft tissue” in a human can have an effect on that rule, so it’s not a hard and fast rule; just a generalization. But in my observation it’s pretty accurate and relevant generalization.

Even very high velocity handgun bullets like 110-125 grain .357’s typically don’t create stretch cavity wounds (where tissue is stretched beyond its elastic limits, usually looks like tearing), or wounds to non or less elastic tissue that’s disconnected from the permanent/crush cavity. But beyond 2000fps impact velocity, that’s when you see such wounds. Stretch cavity wounds can play a significant role in wounds inflicted by a rifle, but generally they don't play much of a role in handgun wounds unless the wound comes at or VERY close to a very inelastic organ or tissue. Examples would be the liver or vascular areas where vessels branch off...there with a close hit even a handgun can cause the vessels to rupture even though there was no direct contact by the bullets.

I had a patient who was shot mid-abdomen about 3" to the right of his belly button. He was shot from about 10 yards away with a .30-30 soft point and the stretch cavity tore his liver almost in half; he died pretty quick. That's an example of a shot well away from the liver where the stretch cavity was the make or break element. As a general rule, you don't typically get that from a handgun.

Anyhow, you are speaking of the role of velocity in the contribution/enhancement of the permanent/crush cavity, and yeah, that can and does happen at much lower velocities; and bullet construction/design can play a meaningful role.

I kinda suspected we were talking about two different things. Thanks for clarifying.

Gotta throw something in here... much of the permanent wound cavity of 2000+ fps rifle rounds comes from fragments rotating into the wound/lacerating it as the stretch occurs. The same effect can be seen from yawing rifle bullets and particularly those which eject fragments from an open base or break apart at the cannelure. I discussed this with Fackler at some length years ago when we used him as an expert witness on multiple shooting/homicide involving a rifle. It is also evident in radiology of those wound types as well as Fackler's own diagrams of rifle wounds.



Like many tissues in in living organisms, it is is the nature of gelatin to stretch significantly and close up behind the wounds. The stretch you're observing from these Phillips bullets and the permanent cavity left in its wake, bears no resemblance to those caused by rifle service rounds, much less expanding rifle rounds.

Nobody said it does. Why would you think anyone here thinks that?

The mention of Lehigh's sub 2000 fps stretch cavity was raised...



This is not to imply Lott doesn't know the difference. But people do google their way into these discussions and l felt compelled to underscore the distinction.

They do cause a stretch cavity to some degree; so does any other bullet, of any design. That doesn't mean anyone thinks handgun bullets perform like rifle bullets, or that the stretch cavity is severe enough to cause permanent damage. I think you may be seeing what you want to see in this conversation, not what is actually being said, because you've already made up your mind on the topic.



GunGeek, I thought you were talking about permanent crush cavity, since you said you wanted an expanded bullet for a larger wound channel; that is what I was addressing. If you were talking about stretch cavity - water jugs and gelatin do a great job of simulating that IMO. My testing has been in water jugs and wet paper, not gelatin, but there's plenty of gelatin testing videos online. I'm also testing these at high velocity, not watered down 1100-1200 fps loads.

Testing the ED bullet in either one shows performance comparable to good hollow points, but different shaped cavities (both stretch and permanent).

Expanding hollow points, as you know, tend to have a small entry, then a large ballooned area with lots of damage, then a relatively small wound channel after that, like the picture above. The Lehigh ED in comparison tends to create a more linear cavity, that tapers off gradually as bullet velocity drops. The maximum cavity diameter is not quite as big as that caused by a Gold Dot or HST in my experience, but runs a lot deeper/farther into the target. Does that make sense? Maybe the best comparison is to say it's like a fast WFN bullet that trades off some penetration for a larger wound channel. (a significantly larger wound channel, in my experience).

I quoted what was 'actually being said' and explained my reason for posting. I have no problem with anyone else's opinion of Lehigh's ammunition or bullets. And no, I haven't decided quite what to think of them yet. Like some others here I'd like to shoot some critters, or see some shot with them, before I decide. I'll close my commentary on this topic with the following video link. Haven't quite figured out how to imbed these here yet.

https://youtu.be/betFqFCwcYo

i will be probably be buying the 65 grain extreme defender +P to run in my glock 42....

https://youtu.be/6F5rPTHcrmg got 12" in this test wit ha shorter barrel 380

Now I see why Bob runs those in his .380.

I think the Lehigh ammo makes the .380 a worthy carry weapon. If I had a choice of not carrying a firearm or carry a .380 I would, of course, choose the .380. That turd only sees "GUN" when you present your .380 and point it at his forehead. He's not thinking, "well, that's only a .380, I should be able to rush him and soak up a couple of rounds and shove that pea shooter up his azz before I kill him". No, I'm certain they see a firearm and immediately do whatever they can to avoid being shot. But, with the Lehigh ammo if you have to shoot a bad guy it's got a much better chance of incapacitating him than the traditional .380 ammo would.

10mm 140gr penetrator fired through two approximately 3/16" steel plates at 10 yds.