Last weekend, I finally got the time (and had saved up enough old milk jugs) to go out to my family’s land near Hutto and try some amateur ammo testing. These kinds of tests and their results are available all over the internet, but are usually conducted using standard length barrels from full-size guns. One aspect I have not seen explored often is testing specific factory loads in short-barrel handguns often used as backup guns and for civilian concealed carry. So I took my Glock 27 (.40), Walther PPS (9mm), S&W J-frame (.38 special), and Ruger LCP (.380) and a bunch of various defense ammo I’ve acquired over the past few months and decided to try it for myself.
I’m posting this “report” so that others may benefit from whatever actual value is to be gleaned from the results of such testing. I’m smart enough to know these tests are no substitute for FBI-style ballistic gelatin tests, which themselves are no substitute for actual real life evidence of actual shootings, and none of it will ever give a definitive answer to the old question of “stopping power”. But this is fun to do, the results are interesting to study, and the fact that all the guns used were short-barrel versions gives some limited value, IMHO.
This required a lot of prep work from saving the milk jugs (and filling them each with water), to constructing a wooden box to hold 4 jugs securely in-line, and trucking all this stuff out to the test site. See photo of all the milk jugs nearly filling the bed of my pickup
http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab70 ... 681727.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It was a nice day, 55 degrees with only a 5mph wind blowing west/southwest (55% humidity and 36F dewpoint, according to my iPhone, for those uber-scientists among us). I’d also built a little sawhorse/table to hold the box at just the right height compared to my usual shooting table so everything would be relatively in line and level.
I positioned this table and box in front of a large (7 feet tall) pile of brush and aimed everything so even in the off chance that a bullet made it through or around the jugs, the 6 phonebooks behind the jugs, and the giant brush pile, it would end up stopping on the gentle sloping land about 75 yards past the brush pile. I shoot here often, and have checked topographical maps and walked the area myself and from my shooting point the land slopes upward downrange a full 20 feet higher before peaking – and all of this is on our property, so no danger of crossing property lines etc.
In front of the first jug, I hung some cloth to simulate clothing (clamped in place onto the front of the wooden box). My setup can be seen here in this photo:
http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab70 ... 6ca635.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So now we’re ready to shoot the first test round, a basic Winchester white box .40-cal JHP from the G27. And here is what happened:
http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab70 ... be77ad.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab70 ... 96fc7e.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The force of the water exploding out of the first jug upon bullet impact ripped my little wooden box apart! Granted, I had only used some basic brad nails out of a small nail gun I keep around the garage to construct the box, so it wasn’t the strongest box in the world. But this was still an impressive display of the power and force of water moving quickly.
After that initial mishap, I just stacked up the water jugs on the sawhorse/table and duct-taped the cloth to the front of the first bottle each time.
By the way, for those keeping score, the cloth I used was some dense fabric I’d purchased at Hobby Lobby to re-upholster a stool I use in my garage. Had a lot left over and it’s about the thickness and texture of quality work pants like Dickies. I only used a single layer for the tests because, after all, this is Texas and at least 9 months out of the year folks are more likely to be wearing one layer or no layers. Some day if I repeat these tests, might try with more clothing layers to see which bullets will plug.
One other tip for anyone else who might want to try this: BRING PLENTY OF JUGS, more than you can possibly imagine needing. I was planning to test a total of 18 different bullets from four different guns. Figuring 3 jugs per bullet and being able to temporarily patch with duct tape any fourth jugs that were penetrated, I brought along 65 milk jugs full of water. It wasn’t enough. I ended up patching jugs halfway through the .380 testing just to have enough to complete tests in that caliber. Never got around to the .38 special at all (though hope to try them soon). Three different times bullets could not be found and that model had to be re-fired. Best I could tell, this happened when a bullet would penetrate 3 jugs then hit the fourth jug with very little momentum left and bounce off. Live and learn.
Anyway, here are the test results (all bullets fired from a distance of 15 feet):
- The muzzle velocity and energy numbers are taken directly from the manufacturers (I don’t own a chronograph), and often are recorded using standard length barrels.
- The measurements I did make are approximate as close as I could get without calipers (don’t own those either). Instead I used an adjustable wrench to gauge the diameter of each expanded bullet, then measured the opening of the wrench with a ruler (used millimeters because this gave me a more precise measurement than fractions of an inch).
- Penetration is measured both in the number of jugs penetrated (plus other observed factors) and an approximate distance penetrated (based on the 6-inch thickness of each jug, and where the bullet was found). Various “experts” on the internet claim that these penetration results in water jugs can be extrapolated to ballistic gelatin by a ratio of 1.5 to 1, meaning the bullets will penetrate 1.5 times more in the water jugs than in ballistic gelatin. So take these penetration depth approximations and divide by 1.5 and you’ll get an approximate guess how much each round would penetrate in ballistic gelatin. Consensus opinion seems to be 10-12 inches of penetration in ballistic gelatin is desired for an effective bullet, so this would extrapolate to 15-18 inches in water jugs. Bear in mind also that one layer of dense fabric was used in front of first jug to simulate clothing.
Notes and links to photos for each round fired ...
.40-caliber S&W (all rounds fired from a Glock 27, 3.5-inch barrel):
Generally speaking, all seven of these rounds are likely plenty capable of causing severe damage and stopping an attacker. But results must be analyzed, comparisons made, and rankings determined …
http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab70 ... /40cal.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
1. Winchester Bonded PDX1 180 grain
This was the most impressive result of the day. This round expanded to 90% greater than its original size (best in class) and folded almost back onto itself, the nose flattening out like an ashtray, and the “arms” “petals” or “talons” (whichever term you prefer) extending down to the base of the bullet. Because of its bonded design, this violent expansion did not result in jacket separation but instead the bullet appeared to retain all of its mass (no actual weight measurements were taken of any bullets). Portions of the lead core are still attached to the “talons”. And all this expansion did not come at the cost of penetration, as it penetrated three full jugs of water and was found resting on the table next to the fourth jug. This bullet is obviously a descendant of the Ranger SXT and “Black Talon” from its design and results.
http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab70 ... SWPDB1.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
2t. Cor Bon High Velocity JHP 165 grain
This Cor Bon round tied for second-best overall performance (from my subjective viewpoint) with two Speer Gold Dots. The lead core of this bullet expanded dramatically in a thick mushroom-like pattern, 70% wider than original size. Penetration was also good, stopping inside the third jug but hitting the back wall of that jug with enough force to split the plastic.
http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab70 ... 165-20.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
2t. Speer Gold Dot “Short Barrel” 180 grain
This round, specifically designed for shorter barrels found in sub-compact .40s like the Glock 27, proves itself with uniform expansion 75% greater than original size (second best in class). Penetration is equal to the Cor Bon, cracking the back side of the third jug. The core is well bonded to the jacket as well, with each petal retaining significant lead core. While the bullet appeared to fully expand, it didn’t exhibit quite the “smush factor” of the Winchester or Cor Bon, which look like they hit a wall. But this may be due to the Gold Dot’s inherent design, because all other Gold Dot's tested performed similarly. Interestingly, this round’s numbers don’t rank too high amongst the seven .40s tested, but it performs near the top. A closer examination reveals the stated velocity and energy are from a 3.5-inch test barrel, whereas others are from a 4-inch barrel. My guess is if this round is fired from a 4- or 4.5-inch barrel it will perform close to same as the original Gold Dot, the Cor Bon, and the Winchester, but even more expansion and possibly separation. Read somewhere that the design changes that make this the “short barrel” version are in the material used in the bullet itself, which will expand easier at lower velocities from shorter barrels.
http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab70 ... l23974.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
2t. Speer Gold Dot 165 grain
This “standard” Gold Dot expanded nearly as well as its “short barrel” cousin (65% expansion) and penetrated better (through the third jug, found resting on the table). Good bonding left lead core connected to jacket petals. Another solid Gold Dot performance for Speer. Which of these two should you carry in your short-barrel .40-cal firearm? Probably doesn’t really matter – this one penetrates a bit more, the other expands a bit more. Either will do the job most likely. Buy whichever one is available and least expensive.
http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab70 ... t53970.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
5 Winchester USA “white box” JHP 180 grain
Surprise, surprise, surprise. Plain ol’ Winchester white box hollow points did surprisingly well in this test. Expanding well and forming a large mushroom of lead core. The jacket peeled back unevenly in places, and the bullet certainly isn’t bonded. But penetration was great – stopped in the fourth jug – and the bullet expanded by 70% more than it’s original size. Only reason it doesn’t rank higher is lack of bonding. But for the money, this is a very impressive bullet.
http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab70 ... A40JHP.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
6 Hornady TAP 180 grain
This bullet’s performance was disappointingly mediocre for all its hype. The jacket separately completely from the petals, but did stay anchored solidly to the base. The lead core did not appear to expand completely, though it did expand about 55%. Penetration, on the other hand, was excellent, ending its trip inside the fourth jug. Still, even a mediocre performance is likely still plenty lethal. I wouldn’t be ashamed to carry this round in my self-defense pistol. And I do. From experience I also know it is a very accurate bullet out of my Glocks.
http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab70 ... P91368.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
7 Federal Hydra-Shok 165 grain
I carried this round in my Glock 23 for years. It is very accurate and easy to shoot. However, I keep hearing how it is an aging, out-of-date bullet design and there are better rounds available in .40-cal. Well, this result would seem to concur with that logic. This was the worst expansion of any .40 tested, expanding only 50%. Small pieces of the cover fabric and the plastic from one of the jugs was firmly plugged inside the hollow point cavity and pierced by the Hydra-Shok’s unusual “prong”. Penetration was good, into the fourth jug. But with that little relative expansion, it should penetrate a lot. Again, it’s an accurate and easy-to-shoot round and probably plenty effective. But, there are better designs and even some of the better 9mm rounds performed as well or slightly better than this round in these tests.
http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab70 ... 40HS3G.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
9mm (all rounds fired from a Walther PPS 9mm, 3.2-inch barrel):
All of these rounds had their pluses and minuses, with no clear winner.
http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab70 ... 9mm380.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Speer Gold Dot 124 grain
Best penetration of any 9mm round tested, stopping in fourth jug for approximately 20-24 inches of penetration. Expansion was consistent, but not total, and on the low end of the 9mm test bullets at 55% larger than original size. Good bonding kept the core and jacket firmly fused. In other testing this round has proved very accurate from the PPS barrel.
http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab70 ... 6199mm.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Hornady Critical Defense 115 grain
Probably the least impressive results of the bunch. Penetration was relatively weak, stopping in the third jug with no visible damage to back wall of the jug. Expansion appears complete, though not the full “mushroom effect” of hotter loads. But tied with the Gold Dot as the least measured amount of expansion at 55%. Jacket petals separated from core as with the Hornady TAP .40-cal. In both cases, it appears expansion would’ve been more dramatic if jacket was bonded to core, as the “naked” jacket simply bent back until it hit the base of the bullet (like a banana peel) and added little apparent effectiveness. In comparison to bonded bullets, the jacket on these bullets appears to simply open up and get out of the way. Did not find the little red rubber “eraser” piece that is embedded into the hollow point and is supposed to help with expansion.
http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab70 ... D90250.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Winchester Bonded PDX1 +P 124 grain
Another impressive performance from this newer bullet design. Good penetration into third jug and striking the back wall with enough force to actually crack the side of the fourth jug – or perhaps the fourth jug was actually cut as with a knife. The expansion of this bullet was catastrophic, with the jacket ripping the lead core apart, leaving some lead core bonded to very sharp jacket “talons” which may have actually punctured through two layers of milk jug plastic at the end of the “ride”. This also presented the only problem as this separation left a relatively un-expanded central core (only 22% larger than original) compared to the horrific-looking “talons” with bits of lead core attached that are a full 111% larger than the original diameter of the bullet. This bullet was on the verge of shredding. Have not yet tested this round for accuracy out of the PPS barrel.
http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab70 ... 9MMPDB.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Federal Tactical Bonded +P 135 grain
Heaviest bullet tested (by a relatively small amount), but despite the +P designation also the slowest delivering nearly the least amount of energy (according to published manufacturer’s data). Best expansion of the bunch, with the lead core mushrooming perfectly while remaining bonded to the jacket petals growing 83% larger than original size. Penetration was on the weak side though, stopping in the third jug with no apparent damage to the rear jug wall. Also this bullet is not as accurate as the Speer or Hornady offerings from my PPS.
http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab70 ... PLE9T5.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Federal Tactical HST 124 grain
On paper, this bullet should be the clear winner. It had nearly the widest expansion at 77%, and penetrated through the third jug before lodging deeply into the outer wall of the fourth jug. But it is not as accurate in my PPS as the Gold Dot, and while its expansion looks good in numeric form, it does not appear “complete” or “total” and measures wider only because the unbonded jacket petals and slightly larger petals of the lead core spread a bit further. The majority of the mass of the bullet didn’t expand any more than the Gold Dot. My non-scientific conclusion is that this bullet could be a stellar performer from a slightly longer barrel, with increase in stability leading to better accuracy and increase in velocity leading to fuller bullet expansion. By no means is this bullet a slouch, it just didn’t grow the extra millimeter or group that extra inch closer from the short barrel to put itself clearly above the pack.
http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab70 ... P9HST1.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
.380 auto (all rounds fired from a Ruger LCP 2.8-inch barrel):
There is a clear loser in this threesome, and a clear winner too. Though with only three competitors this is an admittedly statistically inferior sample (but hey, if y’all want me to test more .380 rounds then YOU find them and supply them
… this is the most/best I could get my hands on). http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab70 ... 9mm380.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Hornady Critical Defense 90 grain
Finally, Hornady makes a better showing than its rivals. This round out of this gun is supposedly exactly why the Critical Defense line and FTX bullet were designed. Comparatively weaker than the larger and more powerfully 9mm and .40, this round still performed adequately. It penetrated into the third jug and expanded 38% larger than original size. Certainly this performance would be considered weak by 9mm/.40 standards above, but it’s the best of the bunch here and right on the borderline of acceptability in my book (precisely where this caliber and this gun fall for most of us). Expansion was uniform, but not complete. The little red rubber insert was found and appeared to stay along for the ride before detaching inside the third jug. It appears to have performed its intended function, preventing the bullet from plugging and controlling the expansion enough to allow sufficient penetration. This seems to be a good compromise for this caliber and gun size. But if I could ever get my hands on the Winchester or Speer bonded rounds in .380, I’d love to try those as my guess is they would perform as well or better.
http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab70 ... D90080.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
All .380 rounds were also tested by firing into damp, but not soaked, phone books (which had been used as a backstop for any bullets that penetrated all four jugs). The FTX bullet ripped apart when firing into the much denser paper material and did not penetrate much. So this is definitely not a bullet you want to fire through a barrier hoping to hit a target on the other side.
Remington Golden Saber 102 grain
This bullet proved the old conundrum of smaller, weaker rounds and unbonded bullets. It expanded well (55%), but the jacket completely separated from the lead core and all this expansion and shedding of weight was like slamming on the brakes. The bullet stopped cold in the second jug causing no damage to the back wall of the jug. That’s not enough penetration for me. With a longer barrel like a those of a Walther PPK or variants like the Bersa Thunder .380, the added velocity could be enough to give proper penetration.
http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab70 ... GS380B.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Interestingly, in the phone book test, this bullet performed best, expanding awkwardly, but not tearing apart and seeming to penetrate better (though this is just a guess as there is no basis to calibrate penetration in this medium).
Remington Express 88 grain
This round was a abject failure, performing substantially the same as (I’m guessing) an FMJ round would perform. No expansion whatsoever in either the milk jug or phone book testing medium. This bullet shot straight through all four milk jugs. I guess in theory you could carry this round instead of FMJ because you get the same penetration with at least the theoretical possibility of expansion. But I’d rather not base my self-defense ammo on theoretical possibility. My guess is the perforations at the nose of the bullet jacket are not deep enough to cause separation/expansion at lower velocities.
http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab70 ... R380A1.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Any ideas there?
