I have some Double Tap 200 gr hardcast 10mm loads that are advertised at 1300 fps from a G20. I got 1315 fps in mine. If my 9mm won't do the job I'll go straight to 10mm and not waste time with a 45.
The 45 is never a “waste of time”
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
I have some Double Tap 200 gr hardcast 10mm loads that are advertised at 1300 fps from a G20. I got 1315 fps in mine. If my 9mm won't do the job I'll go straight to 10mm and not waste time with a 45.
IMO a 45 Super kit on your 45 makes it a dead heat . A Rowland conversion give you anything the 10 can do and more.
Actually the 10mm is lower on the food chain when compared to the 45 Super in my experience. The 180 grain XTP in my 10mm penetrated @ 1300 plus FPS as di the 230 grain 45 Super at 1100 FPS plus the difference was the 45 Super had a much larger expanded bullet with a much larger wound channel.
For most shooting situations this is true with Jacketed Hollow points.
For the Rowland, I have had a hard time finding JHP's that hold up in tissue. Hogs mainly. They deliver the energy for sure, but they turn into pie plates pretty quick. .40 caliber jacked bullets tend to be constructed heavier than .45 JHPs (for auto's). I use both 10mm and .45 Rowland on hogs. Both do well.
When you switch to hardcast, you find out how .451" vs .400" makes a difference. Bang-Flop in most cases.
The 10mm, 45 Super and the Rowland are all formidable rounds.
.....the standard .45 ACP is no slouch either.
One dramatic shot I had. .460 Rowland with .230gr. XTP. Shot the hog in the head. About 30 yards away. It blew almost half the top of the head away. Skull and all. Not bad for a 40oz. auto.
Gun Shows are almost as comical as boat ramps in the Spring.
bullet weight is more important than sd when it comes to determining how far a projectile penetrates.
It only requires a mental experiment to debunk that concept. Consider a pie plate traveling 100 MPH, bottom-first, vs an arrow of the same weight traveling at the same speed. Which do you imagine will penetrate further into your flesh? Naturally, this is provable with real experiments, too.
The discussion is bullets, not arrows, not pie tins. Go shoot some bullets of various weights and calibers into a medium of your choice, you might learn something.
How about this mental excercise, take a radical hollowpoint, full wadcutter, WFN, LFN, SWC, round nose, pointed nose make some of pure lead and others of hardened lead in .45 caliber 230 gr and launch them all at 850 fps. All these bullets are the exact same sd, same energy, same momentum. You will find a dramatic difference in how the various bullets perform.
Why is that? Because sectional density is a meaningless number that has zero correlation to terminal performance.
Only someone that shoots a lot and a good observer picks up on this fact. SD had been by gun writers for too long and people think it is fact, but nothing more than inaccurate BS in my experience and opinion.
You post a lot of good factual info that people should take notice of.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
It doesn't take a tremendous amount of shooting to see the differences, not that I haven't tried many calibers and shot 1000's or rounds, but one does have to go out and shoot vs. theorizing behind a keyboard.
At the beginning of the summer my son and I took a 9mm, 38 sp and 45 acp to a spot on the coast where we were shooting with wet glacial silt as a back stop. It has a clay like consistency. I had 120 gr tc's in the 9, 130 gr hp's and full wadcutters in the 38, and 200 gr swc in the 45.
One would have to be blind to miss the fact that bullet diameter, shape and weight are the primary factors in terminal performance. Honestly I was quite surprised at what the 200 gr 45 plinker loads were capable of. On the flip side the 9mm does not impress.
One of these days I want to do a comprehensive test of various bullet shapes, weights and velocities in the 38, 9mm and 357 which I have the greatest selection of bullet molds in 95, 105, 120, 130, 160 and 200 in swc, fn, hp, wadcutter and tc. Would also like to compare to swc, fn and hp in the 45 and lfn in the 480. I could get all the shooting and photos done in a day, but getting all the ammo loaded and compiling the results is where the work is at.
Anybody that shoots the .45ACP with a lot of experimentation knows that the .230gr FMJ FP style are very accurate. From all the Manufactures. To include the HAP and Nosler variations. Most of them are target bullets. At the higher velocities of the Super and the Rowland, they exhibit some good killing properties. Surprisingly. As in penetration. The FN does shock a bit on smaller animals up to and including deer and hogs. In the Rowland they hold together better. Not a substitute for cast, but some may prefer them.
Gun Shows are almost as comical as boat ramps in the Spring.
I carry that ammo in my .38 Super, 10mm G40 and Kahr P380...
I bought several boxes of the 9mm Xtreme Penetrators a year ago and loaded them in backup mags for my G19. Plan on buying several boxes of the .45 acp for same, since I've often been carrying my new G41 lately.
Slaves get what they need. Free men get what they want.
i messed with the 10 mm when it first came out--even running it through several scored courses to see how manageable the recoil was whilst trying to keep scores respectable. wasn't too bad, but at the time i really didn't have faith in the rig housing those high pressures--a pistol originally intended to house about 21,000 psi suddenly jumping up to 37,000 psi. what was the average in those rigs back then--about 2000 rounds before issues surfaced?
i much prefer the .45 acp. i also use a .45 super, and 260 gr pills at 1050 fps isn't bad--especially when you consider the pressures in the super--about 28,000 psi vs. the 37,000 in the 10mm. the super is a hammer...
Youtube is packed with multiple tinhorns crying--screaming--for just a little attention. they often have a recipe--standard issue goatee, shaved head, tattoo slathered arms, maybe on occasion a busty gal as an "assistant", and the signature valhalla approach...
paul harrell is a welcome addition to youtube. his videos are very well thought out--they are presented in an orderly fashion, have a potential premise, testings, and a conclusion--all very well presented with poise, and a normal tone of voice. capping that off are his skillsets, which are quite impressive. i like his work. i note that two conclusions that he arrived at in two of his videos were contrary to my own findings, but the rest seems very sound--he is a true anomaly on youtube....
all learning is like a funnel: however, contrary to popular thought, one begins with the the narrow end. the more you progress, the more it expands into greater discovery--and the less of an audience you will have...
bullet weight is more important than sd when it comes to determining how far a projectile penetrates.
It only requires a mental experiment to debunk that concept. Consider a pie plate traveling 100 MPH, bottom-first, vs an arrow of the same weight traveling at the same speed. Which do you imagine will penetrate further into your flesh? Naturally, this is provable with real experiments, too.
The discussion is bullets, not arrows, not pie tins. Go shoot some bullets of various weights and calibers into a medium of your choice, you might learn something.
How about this mental excercise, take a radical hollowpoint, full wadcutter, WFN, LFN, SWC, round nose, pointed nose make some of pure lead and others of hardened lead in .45 caliber 230 gr and launch them all at 850 fps. All these bullets are the exact same sd, same energy, same momentum. You will find a dramatic difference in how the various bullets perform.
Why is that? Because sectional density is a meaningless number that has zero correlation to terminal performance.
Only someone that shoots a lot and a good observer picks up on this fact. SD had been by gun writers for too long and people think it is fact, but nothing more than inaccurate BS in my experience and opinion.
You post a lot of good factual info that people should take notice of.
I wouldn't go so far as to say SD is meaningless, but in and off itself it doesn't tell anything. It's like such things as standard deviation and ballistic coefficient.....yeah, we know what those things mean, but they are only relevant as minor and individual components of a much bigger picture. In isolation they are useless to the boots on the ground guy (most of us here) in determining what works best for us. (But they do sound profound tossed into the gacklian discussions.) For our purposes the only thing that works is experience. You identify a range of calibers/bullets/loads that work and within that range bullet placement is the final trump card.
I wouldn't go so far as to say SD is meaningless, but in and off itself it doesn't tell anything.
You say sd is not meaningless, but then go on to say it doesn't tell us anything? That is the dictionary definition of meaningless.
Originally Posted by cra1948
It's like such things as standard deviation and ballistic coefficient.....yeah, we know what those things mean, but they are only relevant as minor and individual components of a much bigger picture. In isolation they are useless to the boots on the ground guy (most of us here) in determining what works best for us. (But they do sound profound tossed into the gacklian discussions.) For our purposes the only thing that works is experience. You identify a range of calibers/bullets/loads that work and within that range bullet placement is the final trump card.
Balistic coefficient most definitely is a meaningful number. Bullets of different bc will drop at different rates, and arrive at different velocities. Hence it is a meaningful number that correlates to the performance of a bullet.
Just because someone can calculate a number doesn't mean that number is valid to the what we want to know or communicate. Why sd is meaningless is that the shape of the bullet, the construction of the bullet and the impact velocity of the bullet all strongly affect how a bullet performs, and none of those factors are used to calculate sd.
On the surface sd seems like it should be a meaningful number, and people that have lots of hunting experience have touted using it as a meter to predict terminal performance. On the surface it sounds great and has been promoted by people that have lots of experience. The trouble is applying a more thorough analysis shows that the number falls far short of providing a useful means of predicting bullet performance.
Yeah, that Harrell fellow makes some useful videos.
He seems to think the .40 S&W is significantly better for defense than the 9mm, though, all factors considered.
PS When my nephew started as a police officer, he was issued the .40 S&W chambered Glock, but has recently been told that his department is switching to the Model 17.
A number of us killed stuff with handguns for several decades prior to the indjitnenet and so long as we used a large caliber, blunt and heavy-for-caliber bullet and shot it well it killed cleanly, regardless if the shot was crossways, longways or oblique angles.
When you can shoot through 3-4 feet of vitals regardless of angle, you're likely to wreck major skeletal/CNS components resulting in an animal on the ground instantly, that don't get up..See those kind of results a few times and everything else becomes arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Direct Impingement is the Fart Joke of military rifle operating systems. ⓒ
I wouldn't go so far as to say SD is meaningless, but in and off itself it doesn't tell anything.
You say sd is not meaningless, but then go on to say it doesn't tell us anything? That is the dictionary definition of meaningless.
Originally Posted by cra1948
It's like such things as standard deviation and ballistic coefficient.....yeah, we know what those things mean, but they are only relevant as minor and individual components of a much bigger picture. In isolation they are useless to the boots on the ground guy (most of us here) in determining what works best for us. (But they do sound profound tossed into the gacklian discussions.) For our purposes the only thing that works is experience. You identify a range of calibers/bullets/loads that work and within that range bullet placement is the final trump card.
Balistic coefficient most definitely is a meaningful number. Bullets of different bc will drop at different rates, and arrive at different velocities. Hence it is a meaningful number that correlates to the performance of a bullet.
Just because someone can calculate a number doesn't mean that number is valid to the what we want to know or communicate. Why sd is meaningless is that the shape of the bullet, the construction of the bullet and the impact velocity of the bullet all strongly affect how a bullet performs, and none of those factors are used to calculate sd.
On the surface sd seems like it should be a meaningful number, and people that have lots of hunting experience have touted using it as a meter to predict terminal performance. On the surface it sounds great and has been promoted by people that have lots of experience. The trouble is applying a more thorough analysis shows that the number falls far short of providing a useful means of predicting bullet performance.
I qualified my statement by saying "in and of itself" it doesn't tell us anything. Examining bullet performance from a strictly academic perspective, sectional density probably provides a useful coefficient for use in some calculations. For our purposes, not so much. In the case of ballistic coefficient it's the same deal. In and of itself, in the absence of other data, it's useless. We couldn't very well say, "This bullet is better than that one because it has a hight BC." There's a whole lot of other factors involved in making that decision: what caliber, what velocity, how does the BC hold up when velocity drops off, what's the bullet construction like? My point was, none of these factors, in isolation of other factors, is worth much to us. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
Harrel's other video comparing the .357 Sig to the .40 S&W is also an eye opener. I don't need another handgun, but I am going to look for a .357 Sig to round out my carry choices.
"All that the South has ever desired was that the Union, as established by our forefathers, should be preserved, and that the government, as originally organized, should be administered in purity and truth." – Robert E. Lee
Watched an interesting video by a guy named Paul Harrel (sp?) where he chronographed 10mm 180 grain jacketed hollow points and 185 grain .45acp jacketed hollow points head to head with same barrel lengths. With three different ammo choices, the average difference in velocity was between 100 and 200 fps with the edge going to the 10mm. But, keep in mind the .45acp was 5 grains heavier - with translates to a fraction more mass delivered on target.
His methodology wasn't that scientific, but it led me to consider the 185 grain jacketed hollow point in .45acp is no slouch as a defensive round
"All that the South has ever desired was that the Union, as established by our forefathers, should be preserved, and that the government, as originally organized, should be administered in purity and truth." – Robert E. Lee
