Posted: 4/28/2006 3:34:18 AM EDT
|
Yeah, did a search, nothing in the last 3 months. Coulda done an archive search, but that wouldn't help anyone else out there that doesn't have access to archive. Sooooooo....... What's everyone's favorite .40 self defense round, and why? |
|
Read my post on this page I carry either 165gr or 155gr gold dots, and I honestly think that to be the best round you can carry in .40 |
Cool, thanks. Don't know how I missed that on the search. With such an obvious thread title.  
|
We're talking acceptable penetration. I have yet to see Corbon do well in any test. Shooting a hunk of meat isn't the most wonderful test.  165 grain Gold Dots here. |
|
The best round will also be dependent upon what barrel length you are going to be using. I typically drop down in bullet weight when shooting a shorter barrel to avoid losing too much in the velocity department. It is also nice to have a load that shoots well in your pistol and I usually find that if I want to pick the ammo, I need adjustable sights to ensure that a specific load will shoot to my point of aim. Nothing pisses me off more than a pistol load that shoots "a little low and to the left". Ranger T series, or the Partition Gold would be my first choice, not the SXT series. www.winchester.com/lawenforcement/catalog/handgundetail.aspx?symbol=RA40TA&cart=NDAgU21pdGggK0FDWS0gV2Vzc29u Speer Gold Dot Remington Golden Saber Barnes XPB - but I haven't seen any test results, but all Barnes bullets I have shot have been impressive to say the least. Any of the newer bonded bullets would also be fine. |
back in 97 I used my Blue press and sierra 135jhp loaded to close to 1300fps or more makes a mess almost like a 125jhp 357mag? Everyone cares more about PENETRATION rather than a HUGE HOLE I did swallow my pride and now carry 180 ranger! aint it odd that a 135 9mm can make the cut but a 135 40sw wont? it has to do with the width of the bullet I was told |
Thats good. Based on some other things that our firearms guy has decided, I was wondering about that. Backup guns being too much of a liability, threw the M16's in the safe and bought Hi Points for patrol, etc
|
That's known as sectional density. . . You dudes are joking about shooting water jugs and meat, right?? My Glock 22 is presently loaded with 180gr. Winchester Ranger T . When cold weather factors in i switch to 165gr. Ranger T. And in deep Chicago winters i swap barrels to .357Sig and use Ranger-T. .357Sig because of its higher velocity is more likely to expand in heavy clothing. I have yet to find anybody wearing 5 layers of denim  |
sorry guys - those are the 'medium' velocity .40's and suck quite badly. If my a** was on the line for duty i would have something else in my pistol even if it meant disciplinary action |
Velocity doesn't stop a threat. The 165 gr hydrashock expands and penetrates fairly well. Read this. It shows the 165 gr hydrashock performing as well or better than the 165gr gold dot -- expands better but doesn't penetrate quite as well, but it does penetrate plenty good enough to get the job done. ETA: it's worth noting that the gold dots were shot out of a SIG, and the hydrashocks were shot out of a USP (polygonal rifling), so it's not a 100% valid 1:1 comparison, but it's useful data nonetheless. |
Bottom line is I should wouldn't stand in front of either of them. And, the Glock 22 I got is similar with the polygonal rifling and similar length barrel. I wonder how much less the G27 would be? |
Welcome to the site. Consider supporting it if you find it useful; this is the best place to go for most gun related stuff online. Knock down power is a myth. |
There was a time I believed that too. But, going on the deer I've shot, there has to be something with momentum. I've shot a deer with a 30-378 Whby mag at 180 yards that kept going for a hundred yards or so, as well as a couple of others that kept going for a while. This was using a 180 grain x-bullet at 3400 fps at the muzzle. I've also shot several deer with my .50 cal muzzleloader using Barnes 250 grain x-bullets. While the ranges were not as far (70 to 140 yards) the results were much more impressive. Very few of these traveled more than 30 yards, and most dropped on the spot. I know shot placement is the key, but most of these deer were shot in the heart/lung region. I've taken enough physics to know that KE should be the deciding factor, but for killing effect, there has to be some other formula that has yet to be discovered that takes into account bullet diameter and weight in a more dramatic role than taking half the mass, like the KE formula. |
|
I harvested a 6 point over 50 yards from a Glock 23 with these 135's . I shot drop. THis is the only round for me. P.S. The only problem I encountered with the 135 CorBon is that they do not penetrate a vehicle wind shield well. |
Ahh, apples and oranges fellas. I believe it's true that knockdown power is a myth...with handgun rounds. When you get into the rifle rounds all bets are off. .45 ACP is the same caliber as .45-70 but they are not even in the same ball park as far as "kockdown power." Meaning one has it, the other, not so much. 
|
| I've been using Corbon 135grn for well over 6yrs and never doubted it's abiltiy to do what it has to do as long as I do my job and place it where it needs to go! Ammo for some people are like shoes for women! They need to have the latest in fashion and style, doesn't matter if it costs alot & is uncomfrotable as long as they have it! |
i can speak with authority on this subject because i've personally conducted tests with these very same 165gr. medium velocity Hydra-Shoks and they simply do not work well.. the link you provided from the Firearms Tactical Institute proves this out as well:
the 165gr. Hydra-Shok bullet performance just plain sucks -thats like saying just because a bullet penetrates deeply it's a good 'stopper'. Handgun bullets are velocity dependant and energy is the ability to perform work ie; car doors windshields. . .etc. if you don't believe me, go and conduct your own research to prove me wrong. I have numerous photos of unexpanded Hydra-Shoks that are clogged with clothing debris turing them into FMJ projectiles with poor wounding properties. Any old FMJ is deep penetrating but are always at the bottom of the list as far as 'stopping power' is concerned. When i get my chronograph, i'm going to demonstrate how much regular clothing slows the velocity of a projectile down. Cotton t-shirt, flannel shirt and denim jacket materiel contribute greatly to the rapid deceleration and not to mention the elasticity of human skin and how much THAT slows the bullet down even more. . .That's a whole other topic. When you have a low velocity medium to lightweight bullet without much momentum, velocity or energy you dont have much left after all the clothing and skin factors in. . Go see my .45ACP ammunition testing post here and you'll see how badly the .45 Hydra-Shok performs - and that's at an even lower velocity than the .40S&W load in question here. *sorry for the long-winded rant* |
No problem, I'm always happy to learn from those who know more than I do. I may have misread those results the first time around. In any event, I think they show the gold dot performing fairly well, and that's my round of choice -- what is your opinion on it? |
these are both excellent rounds! when you look at the aperature(or hollowpoint) on the 155gr. loading there's really nowhere clothing can get clogged in there. According to the 'Ammo-Oracle' the 180gr. loading is supposed to penetrate and expand as well without the recoil and bite of the 155-165gr. loadings.. i personally prefer the 155 or 165gr. versions because of their higher velocity and energy. It's my guess that clothing and human skin slows a bullet down as much as 100-150fps - that's a rough guestimate. Your choice is a good one |