Corbon DPX Vs. Car Doors

[KinnyLee]

This is just info I've received from one of Farnam's trainers.

Kinny.

5 July 06

Cor-Bon DPX and car doors:

At a pistol course last weekend, I had the opportunity to shoot up several expendable vehicles we had on the range, expressly for that purpose. We used the vehicles (a late-model Jeep and a late-model Honda) as props during several tactical exercises, and then we shot them with various rounds in order to give students first-hand knowledge and experience with the issue of vehicle penetration.

As a general statement, high-performance pistol bullets, at typical pistol velocities, are disappointing on car doors, failing to penetrate most of the time. In fact, even most 223 rifle bullets don't do much better in this regard than do pistol bullets. Car glass, particularly when struck at shallow angles, is also rarely penetrated, and, when it is, the path of the bullet is radically altered, sometimes by almost ninety degrees!

That foregoing generalization was largely confirmed by our experience last weekend. Car doors are, or course, not homogeneous, and bullets do occasionally sail through, but, while most penetrate the outer skin, the vast majority fail to punch through the inner layer and carry on into the car itself.

It was my intention to compare 45ACP DPX (160gr), which I carry in my Detonics 9-11-01 (1911) with other, quality, high-performance pistol ammunition. We shot car doors from all sides, but the most relevant test, in my opinion, was when we shot into the door at a thirty-degree angle, as would be the case when I would shoot at someone who is using the partially-open door for cover.

Results were dramatic! With this angled-impact test, most high-performance hollowpoint pistol bullets penetrated through-and-through less than ten-percent of the time. Even when they did, upon exiting they were badly mangled and had lost much of their weight. What exited was actually just the biggest piece!

DPX, on the other hand, penetrated over eighty percent of the time, and the bullet stayed in one piece in nearly every case.

This experience confirmed my decision to carry DPX in all pistol calibers I normally carry, including 380Auto, 9mm, 40S&W, 357SIG, 45GAP, and 45ACP. (1) It expands reliably in soft tissue, even after penetrating heavy clothing. (2) It is not deflected by car glass, even during angular penetration. (3) And, it punches through car doors vastly more reliably than does nearly any other pistol bullet. Highly recommended!

/John Farnam

[Cosmo 9]

Execellent info. Thanks Kinny, I just switched to gold sabre but I think it may be time to switch again.

[justsome45guy]

Tons more great info from Farnam at http://www.defense-training.com/quips/quips.html . Certainly worth the typos and wear on your mouse (you'll see what I mean.) I've read through it twice the past couple years. I've cut and pasted the whole mess into a word processor document so I can clean it up and search it more easily when I'm done.

[jbenat]

Being somewhat (OK, a lot) of a novice when it comes to ammo, I wonder if it's a good idea for a non LEO, CHL holder to want to load with a type of ammo designed to shoot through car doors or people. I can see that a LEO might need that type of ammo but it could get a little messy at Wal Mart. Not trying to be a smart foot. I would really like to know.

[KinnyLee]

Being somewhat (OK, a lot) of a novice when it comes to ammo, I wonder if it's a good idea for a non LEO, CHL holder to want to load with a type of ammo designed to shoot through car doors or people. I can see that a LEO might need that type of ammo but it could get a little messy at Wal Mart. Not trying to be a smart foot. I would really like to know.

This ammo is to penetrate hard surfaces such as doors, walls, etc, then expand and dump whatever energy it has when it hits soft tissue. If you are hitting wherever you're intended to hit, then I don't see what the big deal is.

[Syntax360]

Odd - The Buick 'O Truth over at AR-15.com generally showed that pretty much any bullet of any caliber has no trouble melting through cars. Perhaps the results varied due to their use of FMJ?

Still, I believe someone replicated that test over at SigForum with hollowpoints and reported no trouble penetrating any part of the car (including windshields) except the engine bay. I will try to find the thread...

Could the difference lie in the model car? I would assume models vary greatly insofar as what they cram into the doors (motors, sound deading materieal, speaker equipment, etc.)

[G.C.Montgomery]

We've done similar, informal and non-scientific testing with similar results. But I think it's worth saying the DPX is no wonder bullet. There are times that it fails just as badly as any other handgun bullet does.

As mentioned in that quip, car doors aren't homogenous and many the same typical automotive structures that I've seen stop a Gold Dot or Bonded Golden Saber in a car door, also stopped the Barnes X-Bullet. Things like the crank assembly to raise and lower the glass, steel cross bracing, electric motors/gear-box assemblies, magnets on speakers all tend to stop pistol velocity rounds pretty reliably. But there's good news. there are PLENTY of open areas in a typical car door through which just about any old bullet will pass with more than enough energy to kill someone on the otherside.

This is demonstated every day in shootings where drivers are shot through car doors in incidents ranging from robbery or roadrage to police intervention. Knowing that, I've often wondered what the practical impact of the shooting at a car door really is. I say that because in most situations where I can see myself justifiably shooting into a car door, I could just as easily shoot through the glass and then continue firing as the glass breaks and falls away. The exception to this is obviously the laminated glass normally found in the front windshield. But I've not come across anything other than armored vehicles with laminated glass in the doors. And though it's possible a threat might hide behind a car door, my answer is shoot what you can see.

If he's squatting behind a car door with his feet on the ground, shoot his feet out from under him and then cut him to shreads once he stands up in pain or falls to the ground. And if that noggin keeps bobbin' back up in the same place, wait for him a drill him in the forehead the next time he comes up. Of course, that's only necessary IF the car door really is stopping your bullets which I can't say is always the case. None of these things are dependent on "wonder bullets" and it doesn't sell any particular product other than skill. But it's easier to sell someone on the idea they need to buy some cool new thing to solve a problem they may or may not really need to resolve.

I'm not saying DPX isn't a good product or that it doesn't offer any advantages. It is a good product with many advantages and I've recommended to customers without reservation. I'm just saying don't assume the Golden Saber, Gold Dot, Ranger T or even HydraShok you have in your gun is now obsolete and in need of replacement.

[The Marshal]

Well, if you saw MythBusters on Discovery Channel the other night, then you caught the episode where they tested the myth that "You can escape gunfire underwater"

The results of shooting these weapons, 3' from the pool, at a 25* angle:

M1 Garand, AR15, Barrett .50: MAXIMUM travel thru water: 3 FEET.

I was floored. I at least expected the .50 to travel 10' or so, but every time they shot, the bullet fragmented to chips before it traveled 3' underwater.
Only the BlackPowder rifle penetrated the Ballistic Gel at 4' underwater, and at a depth of 3" into gel.

After seeing that, I have little expectations in *any* ammo to penetrate objects that are not soft and fleshy.

~Bill

[jbenat]

Did anyone see the tv show about "Future Weapons" I think it was on the History Channel, about the Barrett (sp.?) 107- 50 cal. sniper rifle. Talk about penetration!

[G.C.Montgomery]

Well, if you saw MythBusters on Discovery Channel the other night, then you caught the episode where they tested the myth that "You can escape gunfire underwater"

The results of shooting these weapons, 3' from the pool, at a 25* angle:

M1 Garand, AR15, Barrett .50: MAXIMUM travel thru water: 3 FEET.

I was floored. I at least expected the .50 to travel 10' or so, but every time they shot, the bullet fragmented to chips before it traveled 3' underwater.
Only the BlackPowder rifle penetrated the Ballistic Gel at 4' underwater, and at a depth of 3" into gel.

After seeing that, I have little expectations in *any* ammo to penetrate objects that are not soft and fleshy.

~Bill

Typically, rifle bullets have a center of gravity toward the rear of the bullet. Driven at high velocities, these types of bullets tend to tumble or yaw off axis when they hit things like flesh or water. As the bullet tries to turn around it begins taking force broadside and the force is sufficient to break the bullet up. So you get what they had on Mythbusters the bullets break after only traveling a few feet in water. It's not an issue with shorter bullets driven a slower velocities as we have with pistols and even some shotgun slugs and so these projectiles tend to penetrate deeper through water or gelatin.

[txinvestigator]

The initial report in this thread reads like an ad for Corbon. My observations and testing that I have observed is that car bodies and windshields do not provide good cover. Period.

I concur that average citizen does not need to worry about shooting thru cars and windshields.

[orc4hire]

[sparx]

I was watching CourtTV the other night with an episode about a guy that 50+ years ago robbed two couples (4 people) at a "lovers lane" area, forcing them to strip, raped one of the girls and then stole their car. As he was driving away from the scene he ran a stop sign and two hiway patrolmen pulled him over (not knowing what else he had done). He shot and killed both officers with his .22 revolver (one through the windshield on the officer's passenger side), but the driving officer, before he died, shot several rounds at the fleeing car with his .38 Special revolver.

They found the car abandoned with a few bullet holes in the back windshield and trunk, with one of the officer's rounds penetrating through the trunk, then through both the back and front seats. They checked at the hospitals for any gunshot wound submissions, but came up empty handed. They were also able to only get two partial thumb prints off the steering wheel, but weren't able to peg the print to any suspects.

It wasn't until almost 5 decades later when the niece of the guy reported to the police that she had heard her uncle mention the incident while drinking one night. Using new technology to "meld" the partial prints together and enhance them, they were able to verify that the print indeed matched her uncle and brought him in. Even though he had become a respected businessman in the community he settled in, and was 70+ years old, they found him guilty and sentenced him to life for the crimes. As well, he still harbored the scar on his back from that one officer's bullet that made it through the trunk and two car seats.

50 years ago cars were built of MUCH more solid and durable material than today for the most part, and suspect that the .38 Special rounds were probably just lead round-nose (though they didn't give details on that if I'm not mistaken). Therefore, aside from the skills of the shooter, I think many more factors than just bullet type, caliber and grains, or even what material it passes through, play a role in the path a bullet does or doesn't take. Personally, I believe that some are even guided, or mis-guided, by the help of guardian angles (but that's my own personal speculation and won't change, so please no debates or flames).

It may have taken over 50 years to bring him to justice, but at least in the end the officer got his BG!

[orc4hire]

[sparx]

I just KNEW there would be SOMETHING someone would find to counter my belief!

(Though it did bring quite a big grin to my face, so I guess I don't mind)