User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/19/2006 11:59:19 AM EDT
[#1]
Right. This post is about ammo that passes FBI/IWBA testing protocols, and adequate penetration is the #1 most important criteria for those tests. We've discussed at length many times the reasons why this is so important.
Well, they (the V-Max bullets) were purposely designed to shoot varmints. Years later they were added to Hornady's police loads to satisfy the demands of departments whose leaders are more interested in peripheral legal issues than the safety of their officers or the public.
Your opinion, and one which I strongly disagree with, but you are of course entitled to disagree with me and most terminal ballistic experts (and I'm not trying to imply that I'm one of them). It is my view that such an opinion displays a vast lack of understanding of what happens in real-world shootings, as opposed to movies or what you practice at the range. In the real world, straight-on shots to an unobstructed chest is the exception, not the rule. Bad guys don't stand at attention and wait to be shot.
Yes, they are.
There's no "negative publicity", they simply don't meet the necessary requirements for the job at hand, which shouldn't be a surprise since they were designed for something else entirely (varmint shooting), and they excel at the purpose for which they were designed.
This justification is as irrelevant as it is commonly used. I'm guessing you wouldn't volunteer to be shot with a .22 Short either, but does that mean that .22 Short is enough bullet? The important question is not "would I want to be hit?" by a given round, but "can I count on this round to incapacitate a motivated attacker near-instantly?" If you don't understand THAT, then you're not ready for this discussion. -Troy |
||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2006 12:38:03 PM EDT
[#2]
Troy: I don't mind discussing things here. I don't take anything personally and I don't put others down for their opinions. Just a friendly discussion and I hope you don't take anything in a bad way. I know you have a lot more knowledge than I do, but I know enough to discuss things with people.
You arote: Well, they (the V-Max bullets) were purposely designed to shoot varmints. Years later they were added to Hornady's police loads to satisfy the demands of departments whose leaders are more interested in peripheral legal issues than the safety of their officers or the public. I totally agree. Matter of fact, I agree with pretty much everything you wrote. To me, it just isn't as bad of a round as made out to be. And I do understand how fragmenting type bullets work. I personally prefer the bullets that Mushroom out because I believe they are very reliable. I could be wrong, but it wouldn't be the first time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2006 3:08:49 PM EDT
[#3]
Just wondering why this thread got untacked?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 7:30:21 PM EDT
[#4]
Shouldn't this be a sticky?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 8:35:30 PM EDT
[#5]
Check this out
Here it shows the gelatin tests where some Ballistic Tip style bullets made the 12" penetration mark. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 10:13:50 PM EDT
[#6]
Yeah, as long as they are wearing heavy clothing or standing behind plywood it would seem like a decent load. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 10:23:32 PM EDT
[#7]
Good information - Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 11:08:02 PM EDT
[#8]
ETA, thanks for the info and the hard work Troy!! |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2006 9:35:18 AM EDT
[#9]
+1 |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2006 12:31:37 PM EDT
[#10]
It's like an underloaded M193. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2006 12:56:06 PM EDT
[#11]
I know what it is, it just seems counterintuitive that a FMJ can perform anything like a SP, HP, BT, what have you. I think it is part of the stigma that some folks have against the AR platform. I mean there is a HUGE difference between FMJ and HP in handgun ammo, and it is hard not to extrapolate that to Rifle ammo. Not to mention all the stories and gun store theoreticians telling me that 5.56 just poked little holes like an icepick etc. when i was first getting into guns. I have known the reality of it for a while, but it still amazes me. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2006 2:59:29 PM EDT
[#12]
To Troy or anyone that can answer this:
I have been checking out the Winchester 64 Gr Power Point and the Federal 64 Gr Soft Point. THe data is almost the same, except the Winchester has a slight edge in penetration in gelatin. I also checked out the prices on these and there is an amazing difference. I can get the Winchester for approximately $13 for 20 rounds and the Federal for about $7.50 for 20 rounds. I purchased a box of each and also a box of the Federal 60 Gr Nosler Partition to check out, but it will be a couple of weeks until I can check the accuracy, which is a major concern for me. I want to test them out against the Hornady 5.56 75 GR TAP. Do you have any opinions on the soft point ammo? I read the posted stiff here that indicated the Power Point is very good, but I was looking for information on accuracy and comparison with some of the other soft point ammo I indicated above. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2006 3:18:26 PM EDT
[#13]
Thanks and Tag.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2006 3:22:54 PM EDT
[#14]
Is there any avaiable data for the Cor Bon 53 gr DPX load?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2006 5:44:21 PM EDT
[#15]
The only reason to use SP is for penetration and it will smoke 75 grain ammo as barrier ammo. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2006 5:57:35 PM EDT
[#16]
The only reason to use SP is for penetration and it will smoke 75 grain ammo as barrier ammo.
How will the Soft Points react in flesh? Will it also go straight through a human body? Which one will do more damage, a round that fragments or a soft point that mushrooms out? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2006 6:21:33 PM EDT
[#17]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2006 2:03:17 AM EDT
[#18]
Thank you, very informative.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2006 6:18:09 AM EDT
[#19]
Soft-point bullets will mushroom, increasing the frontal diameter of the bullet and thus increasing the amount of tissue they will crush, compared to a non-expanding bullet. The shifting of mass that occurs from the mushrooming also keeps the nose of the bullet forward, preventing bullet yaw. This makes for a very predictable wound profile, which is why these bullets are so popular in hunting. Generally, a fragmenting rifle bullet will cause much more tissue damage, though with a fragmenting bullet, you must also consider the depth of the large wound cavity. If the bullet fragments too quickly to cause wound damage to at least 12" (typical of varmint bullets), or if the bullet fails to start yawing until 6 or more inches, then the area of maximum tissue disruption is not going to be where you need it. This is what eliminates most bullets from consideration as suitable combat loads, though it should be understood that most of those bullets were designed for other purposes besides combat, and usually meet the requirements of their original design goals. It shouldn't be a surprise that bullets designed for varmint shooting have a wound profile that makes them best suitable for shooting varmints (and not for combat), or that bullets designed for shooting larger game are best suited for shooting larger game (and not for combat). It's all about matching the bullet to the application. -Troy |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2006 6:48:35 AM EDT
[#20]
Doctor Roberts: If you have no objections, I'll add your comments to my thread. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2006 9:03:24 AM EDT
[#21]
I thought I seen WINCHESTER P.P. in 5.56mm awhile back? Maybe Troy knows? I bet it would mush pretty good ? I would like to try the solid copper bullets that Barnes makes or even DPX |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2006 6:03:52 PM EDT
[#22]
Soft-point bullets will mushroom, increasing the frontal diameter of the bullet and thus increasing the amount of tissue they will crush, compared to a non-expanding bullet. The shifting of mass that occurs from the mushrooming also keeps the nose of the bullet forward, preventing bullet yaw. This makes for a very predictable wound profile, which is why these bullets are so popular in hunting.
Generally, a fragmenting rifle bullet will cause much more tissue damage, though with a fragmenting bullet, you must also consider the depth of the large wound cavity. If the bullet fragments too quickly to cause wound damage to at least 12" (typical of varmint bullets), or if the bullet fails to start yawing until 6 or more inches, then the area of maximum tissue disruption is not going to be where you need it. This is what eliminates most bullets from consideration as suitable combat loads, though it should be understood that most of those bullets were designed for other purposes besides combat, and usually meet the requirements of their original design goals. It shouldn't be a surprise that bullets designed for varmint shooting have a wound profile that makes them best suitable for shooting varmints (and not for combat), or that bullets designed for shooting larger game are best suited for shooting larger game (and not for combat). It's all about matching the bullet to the application. -Troy I like the idea of a round that mushrooms out because it is usually more predictable, but at the same time, I don't want to give up too much accuracy. I'm going to test out the Winchester Power Point, Federal 64 Grain Soft Point, and the Federal 60 Gerain Nosler Partition against the Hornady 75 Grain TAP and if the accuracy is comparable, I'll see if I want to switch. I can get the Federal ammunition dirt cheap from a guy here in NJ, but I just want to make sure it is worth it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2006 8:32:41 PM EDT
[#23]
Even the bare gelatin penetration was 11.5"...whoopydy doo. Heavily clothed?....Are you expecting to shoot only naked intruders? Look at the "neck" of these wounds? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/25/2006 8:16:18 PM EDT
[#24]
Troy,
Is there any load data for those heavy rounds? I thought I read them here, the Oracle or the FAQ but I can't find them now. Interested in the 68gr OTM. Sorry if it's right in front of me, I'm temporarily down to one eye. Thanks much! Matthew |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2006 4:09:49 PM EDT
[#25]
Reloading discussion is off-topic in this forum, and FAR off-topic in this thread. Reloading Forum -Troy |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2006 11:04:49 PM EDT
[#26]
Troy mentioned in the original post that .223 Hornady TAP 75 gr may work in some 1:9 twist barrels. I have a Rock River with a chrome lined 16-inch barrel and 1:9 twist. I was wondering if anyone has tried this ammo with the same barrel length and twist and what kind of results you got. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2006 1:47:44 AM EDT
[#27]
Troy,
Any recommendations for ammo (aside from M193) for rifles with 1/12 twist barrels? Im from the Philippines and most of our rifles are M16A1's with 10, 14.5, and 20 inch barrels. What would be the heaviest bullet we can accurately use with this rate of twist? Any suggestions for OTM or soft point bullets for our rifles? Great contribution and great work as always! Thanks. Frontsight |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2006 7:08:09 AM EDT
[#28]
tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2006 2:30:30 PM EDT
[#29]
Each batch of barrels is different, so it doesn't matter what works in someone else's barrel; you have to try it in yours to know for sure. -Troy |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2006 2:32:47 PM EDT
[#30]
Not a heck of a lot of options, but I would be concentrating on soft-point bullets. The 60gr Nosler Partition, 55gr Federal Tactical (TBBC bullet), and the 55gr Winchester PSP are among the best, especially from the 10" guns where M193 has zero fragmentation range. -Troy |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2006 10:30:08 PM EDT
[#31]
I have a 16 inch chrome lined bushmaster barrel with a 1-9 twist. I load 75 bthp and 75 amax using VV powder. I do very well with these loads and shoot about .5 moa at 100 yds. Best advice would be to try different loads and see which one performs the best.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2006 4:48:27 AM EDT
[#32]
Troy,
Thank you for the info. So a 1/12 twist barrel can stabilize up to a 60 grain bullet? I will try the ammo you suggested. How about the 52 grain OTM bullets? Are these any good? Thanks Frontsight |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2006 5:32:47 AM EDT
[#33]
Are you sure about that? 1 in 12" sure doesn't stabilize a 62 grain bullet. The problem with lighter weight stuff is that it doesn't want to penetrate well, and 52 grain OTM, 53 grain match HP, all of those bullets share the same problem. 193 ball is probably about as as good as it could get. Other good loads, but pricey, would be Corbon 53 grain DPX and Federal 55 TBBC. These have an adavantage over OTMs anyway when barriers are in play. OTMs really don't do very well against auto glass or sheetmetal, not sure if that's a consideration for you. About all you can say in those scenarios is that heavy OTM sucks less than other loads, but none of them do well. Those are tough scenarios though, that's not a knock on 5.56, that's just the way it is. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2006 11:27:48 AM EDT
[#34]
1:12 won't stabilize an SS-109 projectile because it is too long. Even though it is only 62gr in weight, the lighter mass of the steel penetrator results in the overall length of the bullet being about the same as a 75gr leadcore bullet. A leadcore 60gr projectile is considerably shorter than an SS-109 bullet. Still, slight variations in rifling rate may mean that some 1:12 rifles shoot 60gr bullets fine, and others don't. -Troy |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2006 12:17:15 PM EDT
[#35]
Troy,
Thanks for the good work. I'll hang onto my varmit ballistic tip bullets just in case the Somalians or similar zombies want to come to my house for payback. Six inches of Somali-type targets = pass through! John |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2006 6:07:33 AM EDT
[#36]
.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2006 7:59:42 AM EDT
[#37]
Troy's thread is in the AMMO FAQ tacked to the top of the page in case you thought it's not radily available. No need to "tag" this thread...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2006 2:06:14 PM EDT
[#38]
This is just what i was looking for. Thanks for all the info.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2006 2:50:53 PM EDT
[#39]
Troy. Quick question. Is the Federal T223E (55 Grain BTHP), a good duty round? My department was thinking about going to it since they could get them for $350 per 1000k. It seems that some departments here in the East use it because they fragment at a low velocity. I tried to convince them to use the Hornady 75 grain 5.56 TAP, but they didn't want to pay that kind of money.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2006 4:06:18 PM EDT
[#40]
Not particularly. If it fragments, it underpenetrates. And it actually doesn't fragment at especially low velocities. Assuming you aren't stuck with 1:12-twist rifles (many departments use surplus M16/M16A1s), you would be better off with one of the other loads in this thread. -Troy |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2006 4:45:48 PM EDT
[#41]
I thought that the T223E penetrated 11.25 inches. That is according to the Federal Site. Federal Rifle Data. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2006 5:02:22 PM EDT
[#42]
Troy,
What do you think would be the best bet for a 9.2 inch 1-in-9 twist barrel (Kel-Tec PLR-16)? Does it have any potential at all to be anything other than a range toy? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2006 6:38:44 PM EDT
[#43]
Not really. I mean, don't get me wrong; it could easily kill someone, but no load is going to pass FBI testing specs from that short of a barrel with a 1:9 twist. The only bullets that stand a chance need a faster twist rate, and even then, they'd be quite limited in fragmentation range. Besides, weren't most folks finding that velocity was a little low in those guns compared to an AR, barrel inch per barrel inch? -Troy |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2006 6:43:07 PM EDT
[#44]
11.25" < 12-18" 12-18" is the requirement. Also, look at how it performs across all the various tests. 12" is the minimum penetration requirement; ideally you want around 14" or so. Remember, we're trying to find the BEST loads that are MOST likely to give you a quick stop of the badguy, so that he is unable to continue his attack. A not-so-great load will still do that job sometimes, and other times, you'll have to wait longer for anything to happen. The problem is: bad things can happen during that wait time, such as the bad guy shooting you, your fellow officers, or some random civilian. That's why we look for the BEST loads instead of the "merely okay" loads. -Troy |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2006 7:37:32 PM EDT
[#45]
Troy,
Do you know what the diffferances are, if any, between the Federal Tactical 55gr TBBC (.223) & Federal Premium 55gr TBBC (.223) other than availability? Thanks for all the great info!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2006 8:43:54 PM EDT
[#46]
I don't know what people are getting in the real world, but Kel-Tec says 2600fps with M193. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2006 10:09:12 PM EDT
[#47]
Where did you get those figures? All I found were their figures with M855: Kel Tec says 2650fps with thier 12" barrel, their 9" only gets 2500fps with M855 (http://www.kel-tec.com/su16d.html) Edited to add Nevermind I found it in their pistol section! |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2006 5:05:15 AM EDT
[#48]
Might be off subject?
Federal TBBC 55gr VS Federal Nosler Partion 60gr. In the catalog I have it says the Nosler is like 60FPS faster? I want a Bullet that just mushrooms and dont loose its weight. I need a little stock of SP on hand since I have none period |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
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.
