User Panel
Very nice!
I’m down with either Gold Dot 147 or HST 147. |
|
|
Where can I get some today? I love the 124 +p out of my current carry pistols, but want some 147 for the suppressed 9’s.
|
|
|
Nice review. 147g +p have always been my carry round.
|
|
|
Good stuff and review. Glad I laid it in when target sports was blowing it out cheap.
|
|
"The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him."
G. K. Chesterton |
Nice review. I bagged 500 pulled HST 147 grain bullets. (newer style with 2 cannelures?)
Now I know what OAL to load them . |
|
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
|
Nice review! off the loader, these generally shoot sub 2" at 50 yards out of our accuracy test barrels.
|
|
|
Originally Posted By GlockPride: Where can I get some today? I love the 124 +p out of my current carry pistols, but want some 147 for the suppressed 9’s. View Quote The cheapest I saw it by far was 1,000 rounds loose in an ammo can for $550, I believe. Most places are in the ~$750 range for a case. I think this is where I saw it last week, but it’s currently sold out: 9mm - Federal HST 147 Gr. JHP NEW Bulk Can Lots of places have it for around $38-$45 for 50 rounds of you search with Ammoseek. Originally Posted By DVCER: Good stuff and review. Glad I laid it in when target sports was blowing it out cheap. View Quote My last order from Bone Frog Gun Club three years ago was $17.75 per box of 50. These days, it’s hard to find brass FMJ for that price. Definitely wish I had ordered more. |
|
|
Make sure you tell guys that the 1911 is a pain in the ass - Larry Vickers
|
Great write-up, Molon.
|
|
Death smiles at us all; all a man can do is smile back.
|
Thank you Molon..!!
|
|
A socialist may indeed be academically superior.
And yet, they are most certainly emotionally retarded. Minion of Snow #006 Public education is the opiate of the masses. |
Nice write up. I may need a new carry round for my Glock 26. I’ve been carrying Winchester Ranger T 127gr +P+ but would like something new, something I can actually find extra boxes to practice with.
|
|
|
|
For some reason, the older I get the less important +P is to me. This round is a great example.
|
|
Death smiles at us all; all a man can do is smile back.
|
Yep!! That's what I have in my carry piece! Same exact round and it does shoot sweet... 10 yards is a nine and ten ring player on 10 rounds using in the G19 and 26. Purchased when things were far less crazy and have a half case left after practicing with and rotating for 3 years. Good stuff anyway!
|
|
|
All that is necessary for Trolls to flourish, is for good men to do nothing.
In God We Trust. Everyone else must post data. |
These are my primary duty loads. They also work well out of a shorter barrel. They aren't as loud as the faster bullets are, and when you are in an enclosed space, that matters. They penetrate fine, and due to the reduced recoil, follow up shots are quicker. Plus, as you can see from above, they expand and stay in the target. That matters when you are working in an area where you might have to take a shot and there's people around.
Fine duty load. I also have critical duty on hand, due to the ammo shortage. Have to keep enough for at least 6 mags reloads. |
|
|
Originally Posted By Molon: Are you able to make any comments about the change of the bullet design for the 147 grain HST? View Quote The added cannelure is to help retain the jacketing. The skiving was changed for better penetration. So, basically just improved weight retention and penetration through barriers. |
|
|
LIFE'S JOURNEY IS NOT TO ARRIVE AT THE GRAVE SAFELY IN A WELL PRESERVED BODY,
BUT RATHER TO SKID IN SIDEWAYS, TOTALLY WORN OUT SHOUTING "HOLY $H!T...WHAT A RIDE"!! |
IMO, best round for sub-compact pistols.
|
|
|
I've seen Paul Harrell test out the 150gr HSTs on the meat target. I'm not impressed by their failure to expand, and three grains won't make any difference. I don't trust the gel test here to be representative of their true expansion in a living medium. https://youtu.be/GQtmbW4uGMY?t=528
I'll stick with my 124gr HSTs out of my 4.5-inch barrel. I've seen Paul do the same test on them and they're so much better. |
|
|
Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: I've seen Paul Harrell test out the 150gr HSTs on the meat target. I'm not impressed by their failure to expand, and three grains won't make any difference. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: I've seen Paul Harrell test out the 150gr HSTs on the meat target. I'm not impressed by their failure to expand, and three grains won't make any difference. Just three grains, maybe not. Bullet design, construction and muzzle velocity/striking velocity: absolutely. Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: I don't trust the gel test here to be representative of their true expansion in a living medium. I'll be sure to mention to Dr. G.K. Roberts your dissatisfaction with his work in comparison to a guy on YouTube shooting watermelons. .... |
|
All that is necessary for Trolls to flourish, is for good men to do nothing.
In God We Trust. Everyone else must post data. |
Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: I've seen Paul Harrell test out the 150gr HSTs on the meat target. I'm not impressed by their failure to expand, and three grains won't make any difference. I don't trust the gel test here to be representative of their true expansion in a living medium. https://youtu.be/GQtmbW4uGMY?t=528 I'll stick with my 124gr HSTs out of my 4.5-inch barrel. I've seen Paul do the same test on them and they're so much better. View Quote |
|
Make sure you tell guys that the 1911 is a pain in the ass - Larry Vickers
|
Originally Posted By Bradd_D: This is some scary logic right here. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Bradd_D: Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: I've seen Paul Harrell test out the 150gr HSTs on the meat target. I'm not impressed by their failure to expand, and three grains won't make any difference. I don't trust the gel test here to be representative of their true expansion in a living medium. https://youtu.be/GQtmbW4uGMY?t=528 I'll stick with my 124gr HSTs out of my 4.5-inch barrel. I've seen Paul do the same test on them and they're so much better. No, it's not. There's nothing scary about choosing your carry ammo based on diverse ballistics tests conducted on video by a person who has extensive experience in firearms instruction. |
|
|
Originally Posted By Molon: Just three grains, maybe not. Bullet design, construction and muzzle velocity/striking velocity: absolutely. .... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Molon: Just three grains, maybe not. Bullet design, construction and muzzle velocity/striking velocity: absolutely. .... That's usually not the case. The vast majority of lines of hollow-point ammo used scaled-up versions of lighter projectiles when making the heavier ones; you'll see powder count and type remain either minimally or totally unchanged. This is why you'll see terminal inconsistencies between certain ammo like 124gr and 147gr JHPs, like differences in expansion. Originally Posted By Molon: I'll be sure to mention to Dr. G.K. Roberts your dissatisfaction with his work in comparison to a guy on YouTube shooting watermelons. .... I never said I was dissatisfied with Dr. Roberts's work, I said I didn't trust the gel test to adequately represent the true expansion 147gr JHPs have in a living medium, one where bone, muscles and organs are a factor. Ballistics gel isn't useless, but if you rely upon it to be the deciding factor in what you choose as carry ammo or especially what you call "good," then that's a mighty rickety bridge you're trying to sell me. I'll take video proof from a guy with extensive firearms experience and more qualifications than you or I will ever have, over this doctor. I'm sure he knows a lot, but he's not infallible and he'd surely acknowledge the video proof if it was placed in front of him. |
|
|
I enjoy watching Paul's videos, but I'll take the real world experience of people that see the actual effects of gun shot wounds over the results of a meat test.
|
|
Make sure you tell guys that the 1911 is a pain in the ass - Larry Vickers
|
Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: No, it's not. There's nothing scary about choosing your carry ammo based on diverse ballistics tests conducted on video by a person who has extensive experience in firearms instruction. View Quote |
|
Make sure you tell guys that the 1911 is a pain in the ass - Larry Vickers
|
The 150 grain HSTs do perform significantly different than the 147s, even in gel. So I wouldn't take Paul's tests to be indicative of what the 147s would do in his meat target.
E.g. from lucky gunner, the 147s are almost 100 fps faster than the 150s: https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/#9mm Or from ShootingTheBull (which I prefer because he uses calibrated 10% ballistic gel, instead of clear gel which can be misleading), where he finds a similar difference in velocity, and has one 150 that doesn't expand properly in the denim test, while the 147s are perfect: 150s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LFFqHR62TE 147s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3VfWkWMzOI The difference is more than just 3 grains because the 150s are loaded differently. I'm not sure about the details, but the 150s are marketed as lower recoil. |
|
|
Originally Posted By SullanMarch: The 150 grain HSTs do perform significantly different than the 147s, even in gel. So I wouldn't take Paul's tests to be indicative of what the 147s would do in his meat target. E.g. from lucky gunner, the 147s are almost 100 fps faster than the 150s: https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/#9mm Or from ShootingTheBull (which I prefer because he uses calibrated 10% ballistic gel, instead of clear gel which can be misleading), where he finds a similar difference in velocity, and has one 150 that doesn't expand properly in the denim test, while the 147s are perfect: 150s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LFFqHR62TE 147s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3VfWkWMzOI The difference is more than just 3 grains because the 150s are loaded differently. I'm not sure about the details, but the 150s are marketed as lower recoil. View Quote Welcome, fellow firearms enthusiast. 1. The 147s still only put out an average of 977 FPS in the test. While you're right that it's significantly more than what the 150s put out, you're forgetting two things: one, 977 FPS still isn't enough to achieve optimal expansion, and two, the 150s are Micro HSTs, so that might not be the most compatible comparison. 2. Gel tests incorporating denim still aren't sufficient to represent the composite nature of a human torso. I still don't see anything that represents bone or muscle to a sufficient degree. Again, while ballistics gel isn't useless, it's just meant to constitute a homogenous medium for repeatable, measurable testing. That's it. It's not an "end all, be all" test. I don't think the meat target test is, either, but when a man with considerable experience in shooting and in dealing with wound patterns tells me that he's not impressed with the performance, I have to recognize my lack of experience there and simultaneously recognize that he's got way more experience in that field. I appreciate the sources and civil discourse, though. |
|
|
Originally Posted By Bradd_D: How does extensive experience in firearms instruction correlate to real world bullet performance? What is Paul's instruction background? View Quote I left the comment on his background half-written. Let me fix that. Paul Harrell has served in both the United States Marine Corps and in the Oregon National Guard. He has served as a firearms instructor in both the military as well as in the private sector. He has extensive experience in shooting and hunting. He's been in a DGU (more than one, it was two if I remember correctly) and he's shot a variety of animals while hunting with different types of firearms and bullets. He's also got some experience/knowledge about how wound channels and bullet performance apply to humans, as he's at least seen the coroner's report from his DGU at the campground in Washington. That's a basic rundown. While I recognize that he's not infallible and can be wrong too, if I see him demonstrate something and explain his conclusion on it, I'm gonna take his word for it until definitively proven otherwise. I don't need a doctor to tell me that the sky is blue, or that I could trip if my shoes are untied. |
|
|
I just find it odd that you'd put more stock in Paul's test than you would in data provided by IWBA medical professionals and actual street performance. I would say that the FBI's research trumps Paul's.
|
|
Make sure you tell guys that the 1911 is a pain in the ass - Larry Vickers
|
Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Welcome, fellow firearms enthusiast. 1. The 147s still only put out an average of 977 FPS in the test. While you're right that it's significantly more than what the 150s put out, you're forgetting two things: one, 977 FPS still isn't enough to achieve optimal expansion, and two, the 150s are Micro HSTs, so that might not be the most compatible comparison. 2. Gel tests incorporating denim still aren't sufficient to represent the composite nature of a human torso. I still don't see anything that represents bone or muscle to a sufficient degree. Again, while ballistics gel isn't useless, it's just meant to constitute a homogenous medium for repeatable, measurable testing. That's it. It's not an "end all, be all" test. I don't think the meat target test is, either, but when a man with considerable experience in shooting and in dealing with wound patterns tells me that he's not impressed with the performance, I have to recognize my lack of experience there and simultaneously recognize that he's got way more experience in that field. I appreciate the sources and civil discourse, though. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Originally Posted By SullanMarch: The 150 grain HSTs do perform significantly different than the 147s, even in gel. So I wouldn't take Paul's tests to be indicative of what the 147s would do in his meat target. E.g. from lucky gunner, the 147s are almost 100 fps faster than the 150s: https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/#9mm Or from ShootingTheBull (which I prefer because he uses calibrated 10% ballistic gel, instead of clear gel which can be misleading), where he finds a similar difference in velocity, and has one 150 that doesn't expand properly in the denim test, while the 147s are perfect: 150s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LFFqHR62TE 147s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3VfWkWMzOI The difference is more than just 3 grains because the 150s are loaded differently. I'm not sure about the details, but the 150s are marketed as lower recoil. Welcome, fellow firearms enthusiast. 1. The 147s still only put out an average of 977 FPS in the test. While you're right that it's significantly more than what the 150s put out, you're forgetting two things: one, 977 FPS still isn't enough to achieve optimal expansion, and two, the 150s are Micro HSTs, so that might not be the most compatible comparison. 2. Gel tests incorporating denim still aren't sufficient to represent the composite nature of a human torso. I still don't see anything that represents bone or muscle to a sufficient degree. Again, while ballistics gel isn't useless, it's just meant to constitute a homogenous medium for repeatable, measurable testing. That's it. It's not an "end all, be all" test. I don't think the meat target test is, either, but when a man with considerable experience in shooting and in dealing with wound patterns tells me that he's not impressed with the performance, I have to recognize my lack of experience there and simultaneously recognize that he's got way more experience in that field. I appreciate the sources and civil discourse, though. Organic gel may not have bones or replicate the human body exactly but for the most part studies have shown that performance in organic gel equals performance in human bodies. |
|
"If you cant do something smart, do something right"
|
Yeah, I don't know about that 147 gr HST.
9mm, 147gr Federal HST (P9HST2), VS Pork Shoulder |
|
Make sure you tell guys that the 1911 is a pain in the ass - Larry Vickers
|
Originally Posted By Bradd_D: I just find it odd that you'd put more stock in Paul's test than you would in data provided by IWBA medical professionals and actual street performance. I would say that the FBI's research trumps Paul's. View Quote Even qualified professionals can get it wrong. Ever wondered what event it was that made them come up with ballistics gel in the first place? Hint: Paul has done a video on it. |
|
|
Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Even qualified professionals can get it wrong. Ever wondered what event it was that made them come up with ballistics gel in the first place? Hint: Paul has done a video on it. View Quote |
|
Make sure you tell guys that the 1911 is a pain in the ass - Larry Vickers
|
Originally Posted By 03RN: Organic gel may not have bones or replicate the human body exactly but for the most part studies have shown that performance in organic gel equals performance in human bodies. View Quote The key phrase is underlined. Yes, for most rounds and loads, ballistics gel is representative of how they'll perform. However, there are some rounds and loads that just won't work so well in actual use as compared to ballistics gel tests. A good example would be 230gr .45 ACP JHPs. Blocks of ballistics gel don't accurately demonstrate how expanding bullets perform against composite targets, such as human torsos. This is why I really like the composite torso targets that Garand Thumb has been using lately. If you want a testing medium that accurately represents the human torso, then something similar will need to be created. Blocks of ballistics gel just don't realistically represent a human torso. They're great for repeatedly measuring penetration and expansion in a translucent medium, but they're homogenous. Humans aren't made out of gelatin. Until a better medium comes out, I'll stick with the meat target. That's not an entirely accurate medium either, but it's more realistic than gelatin. Perhaps ballistics gel may be of more scientific validity if meat targets were used to validate the results of gel tests. |
|
|
Originally Posted By Bradd_D: Wow. Just incredible. Why isn't the "meat target" an industry standard? View Quote Because the margin of error for gel testing isn't as high to justify non-standard testing protocol. You can put all this stock into what the IWBA professionals are saying, but when I see video proof that their testing doesn't work for some types of ammunition, I'm going to believe what I see with my own eyes. I can tell that the sky is blue with my own eyes, I don't need a Yale graduate to tell me that. |
|
|
Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Because the margin of error for gel testing isn't as high to justify non-standard testing protocol. You can put all this stock into what the IWBA professionals are saying, but when I see video proof that their testing doesn't work for some types of ammunition, I'm going to believe what I see with my own eyes. I can tell that the sky is blue with my own eyes, I don't need a Yale graduate to tell me that. View Quote |
|
Make sure you tell guys that the 1911 is a pain in the ass - Larry Vickers
|
Originally Posted By Bradd_D: So, one video lead you to this epiphany? I bet you tithe 10% to Paul's Patreon account don't you? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Bradd_D: Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Because the margin of error for gel testing isn't as high to justify non-standard testing protocol. You can put all this stock into what the IWBA professionals are saying, but when I see video proof that their testing doesn't work for some types of ammunition, I'm going to believe what I see with my own eyes. I can tell that the sky is blue with my own eyes, I don't need a Yale graduate to tell me that. I see you want to resort to ad hominem. Have a good one. |
|
|
Make sure you tell guys that the 1911 is a pain in the ass - Larry Vickers
|
Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Because the margin of error for gel testing isn't as high to justify non-standard testing protocol. You can put all this stock into what the IWBA professionals are saying, but when I see video proof that their testing doesn't work for some types of ammunition, I'm going to believe what I see with my own eyes. I can tell that the sky is blue with my own eyes, I don't need a Yale graduate to tell me that. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Originally Posted By Bradd_D: Wow. Just incredible. Why isn't the "meat target" an industry standard? Because the margin of error for gel testing isn't as high to justify non-standard testing protocol. You can put all this stock into what the IWBA professionals are saying, but when I see video proof that their testing doesn't work for some types of ammunition, I'm going to believe what I see with my own eyes. I can tell that the sky is blue with my own eyes, I don't need a Yale graduate to tell me that. What video proof? |
|
"If you cant do something smart, do something right"
|
Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: The key phrase is underlined. Yes, for most rounds and loads, ballistics gel is representative of how they'll perform. However, there are some rounds and loads that just won't work so well in actual use as compared to ballistics gel tests. A good example would be 230gr .45 ACP JHPs. Blocks of ballistics gel don't accurately demonstrate how expanding bullets perform against composite targets, such as human torsos. This is why I really like the composite torso targets that Garand Thumb has been using lately. If you want a testing medium that accurately represents the human torso, then something similar will need to be created. Blocks of ballistics gel just don't realistically represent a human torso. They're great for repeatedly measuring penetration and expansion in a translucent medium, but they're homogenous. Humans aren't made out of gelatin. Until a better medium comes out, I'll stick with the meat target. That's not an entirely accurate medium either, but it's more realistic than gelatin. Perhaps ballistics gel may be of more scientific validity if meat targets were used to validate the results of gel tests. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Originally Posted By 03RN: Organic gel may not have bones or replicate the human body exactly but for the most part studies have shown that performance in organic gel equals performance in human bodies. The key phrase is underlined. Yes, for most rounds and loads, ballistics gel is representative of how they'll perform. However, there are some rounds and loads that just won't work so well in actual use as compared to ballistics gel tests. A good example would be 230gr .45 ACP JHPs. Blocks of ballistics gel don't accurately demonstrate how expanding bullets perform against composite targets, such as human torsos. This is why I really like the composite torso targets that Garand Thumb has been using lately. If you want a testing medium that accurately represents the human torso, then something similar will need to be created. Blocks of ballistics gel just don't realistically represent a human torso. They're great for repeatedly measuring penetration and expansion in a translucent medium, but they're homogenous. Humans aren't made out of gelatin. Until a better medium comes out, I'll stick with the meat target. That's not an entirely accurate medium either, but it's more realistic than gelatin. Perhaps ballistics gel may be of more scientific validity if meat targets were used to validate the results of gel tests. A block of organic gel may not look like a human torso but the results are in line with what bullets do in a body. Factor in that bullets perform very similar after hitting bone as the laminated glass used in the FBI protocol tests and you can gleam what happens in the body after hitting bone. Gimmick are just that. A gimmick. Sold to the uninformed because they look cool. |
|
"If you cant do something smart, do something right"
|
Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: The key phrase is underlined. Yes, for most rounds and loads, ballistics gel is representative of how they'll perform. However, there are some rounds and loads that just won't work so well in actual use as compared to ballistics gel tests. A good example would be 230gr .45 ACP JHPs. Blocks of ballistics gel don't accurately demonstrate how expanding bullets perform against composite targets, such as human torsos. This is why I really like the composite torso targets that Garand Thumb has been using lately. If you want a testing medium that accurately represents the human torso, then something similar will need to be created. Blocks of ballistics gel just don't realistically represent a human torso. They're great for repeatedly measuring penetration and expansion in a translucent medium, but they're homogenous. Humans aren't made out of gelatin. Until a better medium comes out, I'll stick with the meat target. That's not an entirely accurate medium either, but it's more realistic than gelatin. Perhaps ballistics gel may be of more scientific validity if meat targets were used to validate the results of gel tests. View Quote |
|
|
Originally Posted By Molon: You post some really stupid shit. The 147 grain HST is charged with flake powder. The 124 grain HST is charged with flattened ball powder. 147 grain HST https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/147_hst_powder_04-2199214.jpg 124 grain HST https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/federal_124_grain_hst_powder_001-2324747.jpg …. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Molon: Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: The vast majority of lines of hollow-point ammo used scaled-up versions of lighter projectiles when making the heavier ones; you'll see powder count and type remain either minimally or totally unchanged. This is why you'll see terminal inconsistencies between certain ammo like 124gr and 147gr JHPs, You post some really stupid shit. The 147 grain HST is charged with flake powder. The 124 grain HST is charged with flattened ball powder. 147 grain HST https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/147_hst_powder_04-2199214.jpg 124 grain HST https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/federal_124_grain_hst_powder_001-2324747.jpg …. If you want to post dickish things because I was wrong about one specific line of ammo, I don't know what to tell you. |
|
|
Originally Posted By 03RN: A block of organic gel may not look like a human torso but the results are in line with what bullets do in a body. Factor in that bullets perform very similar after hitting bone as the laminated glass used in the FBI protocol tests and you can gleam what happens in the body after hitting bone. Gimmick are just that. A gimmick. Sold to the uninformed because they look cool. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Originally Posted By 03RN: Organic gel may not have bones or replicate the human body exactly but for the most part studies have shown that performance in organic gel equals performance in human bodies. The key phrase is underlined. Yes, for most rounds and loads, ballistics gel is representative of how they'll perform. However, there are some rounds and loads that just won't work so well in actual use as compared to ballistics gel tests. A good example would be 230gr .45 ACP JHPs. Blocks of ballistics gel don't accurately demonstrate how expanding bullets perform against composite targets, such as human torsos. This is why I really like the composite torso targets that Garand Thumb has been using lately. If you want a testing medium that accurately represents the human torso, then something similar will need to be created. Blocks of ballistics gel just don't realistically represent a human torso. They're great for repeatedly measuring penetration and expansion in a translucent medium, but they're homogenous. Humans aren't made out of gelatin. Until a better medium comes out, I'll stick with the meat target. That's not an entirely accurate medium either, but it's more realistic than gelatin. Perhaps ballistics gel may be of more scientific validity if meat targets were used to validate the results of gel tests. A block of organic gel may not look like a human torso but the results are in line with what bullets do in a body. Factor in that bullets perform very similar after hitting bone as the laminated glass used in the FBI protocol tests and you can gleam what happens in the body after hitting bone. Gimmick are just that. A gimmick. Sold to the uninformed because they look cool. I'm familiar with laminated automotive glass, so that sounds about right for a comparison to human bone. Tell you what: find me video of testing done under these protocols with 124gr and 147gr HST 9mm loads, and if they both do good, I swear to God, my mind will be changed. |
|
|
Originally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Originally Posted By Bradd_D: Wow. Just incredible. Why isn't the "meat target" an industry standard? Because the margin of error for gel testing isn't as high to justify non-standard testing protocol. You can put all this stock into what the IWBA professionals are saying, but when I see video proof that their testing doesn't work for some types of ammunition, I'm going to believe what I see with my own eyes. I can tell that the sky is blue with my own eyes, I don't need a Yale graduate to tell me that. What video proof? As mentioned before, Paul Harrell did some videos where he tested HST 124gr and HST 150gr rounds on the meat target. The 124gr did pretty well, the 150gr did poorly. The 150gr is pretty close to the 147gr, so I'd say it's gonna have similar performance. Anyway, he also illustrated expansion issues with certain .45 ACP JHP ammunition, ammunition which did well in gel tests but failed to expand in the meat target. I'll see if I can find that video, because it drives the point home that certain rounds which perform well in gel tests, don't perform well in other types of testing. |
|
|
A quick search revealed this.
Federal 9mm 147 HST vs. Car Windshield |
|
Make sure you tell guys that the 1911 is a pain in the ass - Larry Vickers
|
Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: As mentioned before, Paul Harrell did some videos where he tested HST 124gr and HST 150gr rounds on the meat target. The 124gr did pretty well, the 150gr did poorly. The 150gr is pretty close to the 147gr, so I'd say it's gonna have similar performance. Anyway, he also illustrated expansion issues with certain .45 ACP JHP ammunition, ammunition which did well in gel tests but failed to expand in the meat target. I'll see if I can find that video, because it drives the point home that certain rounds which perform well in gel tests, don't perform well in other types of testing. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Originally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Originally Posted By Bradd_D: Wow. Just incredible. Why isn't the "meat target" an industry standard? Because the margin of error for gel testing isn't as high to justify non-standard testing protocol. You can put all this stock into what the IWBA professionals are saying, but when I see video proof that their testing doesn't work for some types of ammunition, I'm going to believe what I see with my own eyes. I can tell that the sky is blue with my own eyes, I don't need a Yale graduate to tell me that. What video proof? As mentioned before, Paul Harrell did some videos where he tested HST 124gr and HST 150gr rounds on the meat target. The 124gr did pretty well, the 150gr did poorly. The 150gr is pretty close to the 147gr, so I'd say it's gonna have similar performance. Anyway, he also illustrated expansion issues with certain .45 ACP JHP ammunition, ammunition which did well in gel tests but failed to expand in the meat target. I'll see if I can find that video, because it drives the point home that certain rounds which perform well in gel tests, don't perform well in other types of testing. The 147 and 150gr bullets are different so do infer results are the same. Using unrepeatable media you can always gets failures due to inconsistencies. I've had gold dots fail to penetrate deer shoulders and fail to expand in fisher cats but still think they are one of the best bullets out there. |
|
"If you cant do something smart, do something right"
|
Originally Posted By 03RN: Using unrepeatable media you can always gets failures due to inconsistencies. View Quote This. And while the conversations on terminal effectiveness are Germain to the thread - Molon's test design-of-experiment philosophy is obviously focused on defined, controlled, and repeatable conditions. Which is what makes his posts so fantastic. Tests on gel or gel+denim is consistent with that. Shooting a ham with a bone, is not. And on that - thanks Molon - yet another fantastic post! |
|
|
Originally Posted By 03RN: The 147 and 150gr bullets are different so do infer results are the same. Using unrepeatable media you can always gets failures due to inconsistencies. I've had gold dots fail to penetrate deer shoulders and fail to expand in fisher cats but still think they are one of the best bullets out there. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Originally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: Originally Posted By Bradd_D: Wow. Just incredible. Why isn't the "meat target" an industry standard? Because the margin of error for gel testing isn't as high to justify non-standard testing protocol. You can put all this stock into what the IWBA professionals are saying, but when I see video proof that their testing doesn't work for some types of ammunition, I'm going to believe what I see with my own eyes. I can tell that the sky is blue with my own eyes, I don't need a Yale graduate to tell me that. What video proof? As mentioned before, Paul Harrell did some videos where he tested HST 124gr and HST 150gr rounds on the meat target. The 124gr did pretty well, the 150gr did poorly. The 150gr is pretty close to the 147gr, so I'd say it's gonna have similar performance. Anyway, he also illustrated expansion issues with certain .45 ACP JHP ammunition, ammunition which did well in gel tests but failed to expand in the meat target. I'll see if I can find that video, because it drives the point home that certain rounds which perform well in gel tests, don't perform well in other types of testing. The 147 and 150gr bullets are different so do infer results are the same. Using unrepeatable media you can always gets failures due to inconsistencies. I've had gold dots fail to penetrate deer shoulders and fail to expand in fisher cats but still think they are one of the best bullets out there. 3 grains of difference isn't enough difference to make a difference. As for the whole "unrepeatable media" part, it's true that the meat target is very unconventional and measuring the results to the same metric as ballistics gel isn't possible. You probably won't be able to match up two meat targets exactly enough to have a complete, perfect repeat of testing conditions, but then again, are any two uses of JHPs to incapacitate an attacker the exact same? What's the dilemma, that ballistics gel is a homogeneous testing media and the meat target isn't? Oh, I'll agree with you 100% on that. But, notwithstanding the laminate glass and ballistics gel testing mentioned earlier (which I asked for, and I'm still waiting on that, as it would be enough to change my mind), the meat target represents a composite medium that gets pretty close to a human torso. As I mentioned before, I like the composite torso targets that Garand Thumb has been using for testing, but our dear friends at the IWBA and FBI can't seem to realize how much better a composite torso target would be for testing. I wouldn't say that the composite, non-uniform nature of the meat target disputes its validity: in fact, quite the opposite. The fact that such failures of JHP rounds can occur would likely be parallel to failures in human/animal targets, and I've seen Paul test plenty of different JHP rounds that didn't have those failures you've described. Most ballistics gel tests on Youtube and elsewhere aren't done to the same standards as what professionals do, so maybe I'm missing something. |
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.