Flowers from FNP-9M

Forum for discussing factory & reloading non-5.7x28mm ammunition.
Valorius
Banned
Posts: 615
Joined: 02 Apr 2010, 17:32
custom title: 5.7 proponent

Re: Flowers from FNP-9M

Post by Valorius » 30 May 2010, 21:21

The head of the Pa State trooper ballistics testing dep't has told me personally (I met him at a local gunshop and chatted him up for quite a while. He's also friendly with my younger brother) that Gold Dots are the most consistent caliber to caliber and intermediate barrier performers he's ever tested in calibrated ballistics gelatin. He also likes Ranger SXT, HST, and especially Cor Bon DPX.

Of course ballistics gel does not take into account bone impacts.

The same bullet designer that designed gold dots also designed the REM golden saber and the PMC Starfire, if i am not mistaken.

User avatar
panzermk2
Forum Supporter
Posts: 11552
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 15:51
Location: Around here it's more like what can we shoot through next.
Contact:

Re: Flowers from FNP-9M

Post by panzermk2 » 30 May 2010, 21:34

Valorius wrote:The head of the Pa State trooper ballistics testing dep't has told me personally (I met him at a local gunshop and chatted him up for quite a while. He's also friendly with my younger brother) that Gold Dots are the most consistent caliber to caliber and intermediate barrier performers he's ever tested in calibrated ballistics gelatin. He also likes Ranger SXT, HST, and especially Cor Bon DPX.

Of course ballistics gel does not take into account bone impacts.

The same bullet designer that designed gold dots also designed the REM golden saber and the PMC Starfire, if i am not mistaken.

This why we do all of our testing on bone it pork shoulders now.
Jay Wolf
Pr. Elite Ammunition

"Engineers, the oompa-loompas of science!"

Be'ein Tachbulot Yipol Am Veteshua Berov Yoetz
Image

fd57
Senior Member
Posts: 772
Joined: 29 Jan 2010, 14:13

Re: Flowers from FNP-9M

Post by fd57 » 31 May 2010, 18:42

The 9mm rounds I fired that produced these flowers were through a slab of pork ribs in front of the newspaper water soaked jugs.

The Speer Gold Dots did not expand well in my test as evident in the photos. The Remington Golden Sabers were also particularly less than good. When I get some time I'll post the videos and full report. I will stick with Federal HST and Winchester Ranger. It's a personal choice based upon personal testing. I'm fully aware that any number of variables might have influenced the results I got.

Valorius
Banned
Posts: 615
Joined: 02 Apr 2010, 17:32
custom title: 5.7 proponent

Re: Flowers from FNP-9M

Post by Valorius » 01 Jun 2010, 11:34

While i'm sure your tests may reveal something about something (and were probably a lot of fun to conduct), they are not scientific so i don't think any ballistician would really agree with using any conclusions you drew from them to select ammunition.

Both HST and Ranger are very highly thought of rounds, i certainly would not call either bad choices.

I prefer Doubletap 124g+P Gold Dots at 1300+fps myself, as it's one of only 3 rounds in 9mm that hits 500fpe of energy, and because Gold Dots perform magnificently in controlled scientific gelatin testing. I also prefer the reliability and strength of the the nickel cases that Doubletap uses, as opposed to the brass cases of CorBon and Buffalo Bore.

It would be very interesting to see a codified "bone" test that incorporated ballistics gelatin. I do totally agree that not including bone in the testing is a serious flaw in the FBI protocols.

Personally i think "stopping power" is almost entirely in the head of the person that is shot.

fd57
Senior Member
Posts: 772
Joined: 29 Jan 2010, 14:13

Re: Flowers from FNP-9M

Post by fd57 » 01 Jun 2010, 16:00

While I don't know if you intended your reply to come across in the way it was received or not, I am uncertain where or how you defined my testing to be "not scientific"? I applied the scientific method (problem, hypothesis, materials, procedures, results, conclusion) and in as much as I could my tests were conducted with control. These, in and of themselves, are "scientific testing".

I'm a stickler for the small things in life. And someone who knows little about my testing stating it was unscientific receives this complimentary response. :)

BTW, I didn't include the scientific method in my post to this forum because it's quite lengthy and not the point of the photos. I only wanted to share the photos for those who've never seen expanded bullets.

fd57
Senior Member
Posts: 772
Joined: 29 Jan 2010, 14:13

Re: Flowers from FNP-9M

Post by fd57 » 01 Jun 2010, 16:03

I would like to add to my response above that my perspective of the World is very dynamic, not static. Gelatin testing has its place, but I don't think it is an accurate representation of the average human being one will encounter. Throw some clothes on that block o' gelatin, get it moving around, and add in some bones and then it's much more realistic. ;)

User avatar
flyingirish04
Gold Member
Posts: 4783
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 21:42
custom title: Mtn Man in Flatland
Location: Great Plains, USA

Re: Flowers from FNP-9M

Post by flyingirish04 » 01 Jun 2010, 21:05

fd57 wrote:I would like to add to my response above that my perspective of the World is very dynamic, not static. Gelatin testing has its place, but I don't think it is an accurate representation of the average human being one will encounter. Throw some clothes on that block o' gelatin, get it moving around, and add in some bones and then it's much more realistic. ;)
And the FBI would agree with you. :thumb:
Killed Two Stones with One Bird.

Valorius
Banned
Posts: 615
Joined: 02 Apr 2010, 17:32
custom title: 5.7 proponent

Re: Flowers from FNP-9M

Post by Valorius » 03 Jun 2010, 09:21

fd57 wrote:While I don't know if you intended your reply to come across in the way it was received or not, I am uncertain where or how you defined my testing to be "not scientific"? I applied the scientific method (problem, hypothesis, materials, procedures, results, conclusion) and in as much as I could my tests were conducted with control. These, in and of themselves, are "scientific testing".

I'm a stickler for the small things in life. And someone who knows little about my testing stating it was unscientific receives this complimentary response. :)

BTW, I didn't include the scientific method in my post to this forum because it's quite lengthy and not the point of the photos. I only wanted to share the photos for those who've never seen expanded bullets.
Well obviously neither gallon water jugs, newspapers, nor "pork bone" are considered to be legitimate testing media WRT handgun performance in human beings. Your tests reveal what bullets do when shot into water jugs/newspaper/pork-bone.

This is not intended as a criticism. It is what it is.

A test with calibrated ballistics gelatin and very fresh pork bones, as in removed from a just slaughtered animal, would be a heck of a lot more telling and useful information. I realize that would be hard for any of us to do, but it sure would not be hard for the manufacturers or FBI to do.

User avatar
panzermk2
Forum Supporter
Posts: 11552
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 15:51
Location: Around here it's more like what can we shoot through next.
Contact:

Re: Flowers from FNP-9M

Post by panzermk2 » 03 Jun 2010, 11:26

That would by why we use fresh bone in pork shoulders.
Jay Wolf
Pr. Elite Ammunition

"Engineers, the oompa-loompas of science!"

Be'ein Tachbulot Yipol Am Veteshua Berov Yoetz
Image

fd57
Senior Member
Posts: 772
Joined: 29 Jan 2010, 14:13

Re: Flowers from FNP-9M

Post by fd57 » 03 Jun 2010, 18:27

So you now concur that my testing was scientific in nature, whether not applicable to human tissue and bone? Or are you still going the road of not scientific because it wasn't ballistic gelatin?

SOUNDS like you're agreeing now it was scientific, just curious. :)

Because it would be foolish to say shooting into anything other than ballistic gelatin is not scientific, right?

User avatar
panzermk2
Forum Supporter
Posts: 11552
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 15:51
Location: Around here it's more like what can we shoot through next.
Contact:

Re: Flowers from FNP-9M

Post by panzermk2 » 03 Jun 2010, 23:49

Thought I was clear.

Until we get invaded by men made of Jello shooting gel block is a complete waste of time and endeavor. UNLESS you want pretty pictures for you add campaign toting how your new bullets are the best in the world.

Flesh and bone are real and more directly relate to what happens in real life. Is it purely scientific NOPE but nothing is funnier then lab rats out side of their cubical when there pet theories fall apart or as in my case years ago when a Honda engineer needed me a Honda technician's help change the plugs in an NSX.

Disection video:<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ONgYlKvgVHk&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ONgYlKvgVHk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]





Here is the video of the latest test of the S5 ammo. We've used a Honda hood to simulate a car door. The pork shoulder has being strategically placed behind the thickest part of the hood, so the bullet has had to pass through 2-3 layers of sheet metal. Also, notice that in test #2, the bullet has had to penetrate hood, than thick plastic stand, before entering the pork shoulder.
Here is the video:<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AoMMbEiC63o&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AoMMbEiC63o&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]
PS: sorry for the quality of sound, it was to windy.
Jay Wolf
Pr. Elite Ammunition

"Engineers, the oompa-loompas of science!"

Be'ein Tachbulot Yipol Am Veteshua Berov Yoetz
Image

Valorius
Banned
Posts: 615
Joined: 02 Apr 2010, 17:32
custom title: 5.7 proponent

Re: Flowers from FNP-9M

Post by Valorius » 04 Jun 2010, 13:02

fd57 wrote:So you now concur that my testing was scientific in nature, whether not applicable to human tissue and bone? Or are you still going the road of not scientific because it wasn't ballistic gelatin?

SOUNDS like you're agreeing now it was scientific, just curious. :)

Because it would be foolish to say shooting into anything other than ballistic gelatin is not scientific, right?
What i was saying is that your testing media is not scientifically accepted media for the simulation of human flesh. For better or worse, the accepted media is 10% calibrated ballistics gelatin.

IMO we should be using death row inmate executions for handgun ammunition testing.

Not that i knock you for doing the best you can with the materials you have, or for your procedures.

I do not always state things in the clearest way, my apologies. :)

User avatar
panzermk2
Forum Supporter
Posts: 11552
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 15:51
Location: Around here it's more like what can we shoot through next.
Contact:

Re: Flowers from FNP-9M

Post by panzermk2 » 04 Jun 2010, 13:29

One of the ways you confirm that the 100 dollars you just spent on ONE bag of Ordnance certified gel powder is to shoot the block with a BB rifle. 3 inches for 15% and 4 inches for 10%. Now I as a kid have been shot many times with a BB rifle and back then they were allot more powerful then now. Never at anytime did the BB go one inch into me let alone four inches.

So gel may be the accepted norm but it is not for me. For a large part of the world 5.7x28 SS195 is the accepted norm. Does that mean my S4 and S5 don't perform better? So would that not also hold true for my testing?
Jay Wolf
Pr. Elite Ammunition

"Engineers, the oompa-loompas of science!"

Be'ein Tachbulot Yipol Am Veteshua Berov Yoetz
Image

Valorius
Banned
Posts: 615
Joined: 02 Apr 2010, 17:32
custom title: 5.7 proponent

Re: Flowers from FNP-9M

Post by Valorius » 04 Jun 2010, 21:25

It's the best we've got right now.

Again, for better or worse, it is the scientifically accepted media that is used for bullet testing.

As i said earlier i think to a large extent we're jacking ourselves off anyway. I think "stopping power" is most often just a matter of the survival or fighting drive or adrenaline level of your opponent.

A .32 against a big sissy is going to take him down every time. Meanwhile, even a small but drugged up felon is probably going to soak up multiple hits from any caliber of weapon.

My plan is to aim well and hit early and often, and keep hitting until my slide is locked back. If he's still coming then, i'll beat him to death with the damn thing if i have to.

User avatar
panzermk2
Forum Supporter
Posts: 11552
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 15:51
Location: Around here it's more like what can we shoot through next.
Contact:

Re: Flowers from FNP-9M

Post by panzermk2 » 04 Jun 2010, 22:46

Valorius wrote:It's the best we've got right now.

Again, for better or worse, it is the scientifically accepted media that is used for bullet testing.
No it's not. If it was over 20 years ago Massad A. would not have spent a few days in a slaughter house shooting cows in the head to get a better handle on real world performance.

Since I AM WRITING my book on testing I say bone in shoulder is better then gel and I do not accept gel.

From water jugs, wet phone books, modelers clay, test tubes and cars more testers have turned their backs on gel then use it.
Jay Wolf
Pr. Elite Ammunition

"Engineers, the oompa-loompas of science!"

Be'ein Tachbulot Yipol Am Veteshua Berov Yoetz
Image

User avatar
blueorison
Competition/Training Mod
Posts: 10628
Joined: 11 Apr 2009, 14:28
custom title: UT/EA Pistol Captain
Contact:

Re: Flowers from FNP-9M

Post by blueorison » 04 Jun 2010, 23:05

panzermk2 wrote:
Valorius wrote:It's the best we've got right now.

Again, for better or worse, it is the scientifically accepted media that is used for bullet testing.
No it's not. If it was over 20 years ago Massad A. would not have spent a few days in a slaughter house shooting cows in the head to get a better handle on real world performance.

Since I AM WRITING my book on testing I say bone in shoulder is better then gel and I do not accept gel.

From water jugs, wet phone books, modelers clay, test tubes and cars more testers have turned their backs on gel then use it.
I have to disagree, Jay.

Have you seen some of the baddies walking around these days? They are full of gelatinous material.
:lmao:

Jay's point is undeniable; our body isn't just a homogeneous body of gel. < short answer.

Massive respect for Ayoob. He isn't just a realist, he's also an incredible action pistoleer. If anyone thinks they're a good shot I challenge them to use a snub nose revolver for action pistol while their finger is recovering from being broken.

I have to agree with Jay on this one; I've tested the 5.7 through barriers and different materials. 3 inch wood, a working door, office swivel chair, and haha

I've also tested it on an A2 buttstock on both the polymer part and through the buffer tube. Which I later found out cost alot more than I thought it would. Wtf. Mmm also tested it on a drop-forged monkey wrench. THAT was fun. Also tested it on plates rated only for .22 LR. Man I guess I tested it on alot of stuff. Forgot the others. Wanted to see what would happen if those materials were used as barriers and hard cover. Also recovered my rounds to see how different ones fared in different materials.

(didn't bother testing it on meat, I already know what it would do. Even the ss197 and ss195will cause alot of damage, much less EA. I've also asked Jay for info and he's generously provided it via their tests with the U4. I could never afford to do those tests. I do have U4.)
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
The shooter will always matter more than the gear ever will.
Stop relying on others to do the work for you.
Shoot more, worry less.

Valorius
Banned
Posts: 615
Joined: 02 Apr 2010, 17:32
custom title: 5.7 proponent

Re: Flowers from FNP-9M

Post by Valorius » 05 Jun 2010, 06:02

The day a police department picks it's ammo by shooting cows in the head, an ammo company designs it's new bullets by blasting bovine brains out, or you see the FBI come up with a standardized moo goo quotient...do let me know. ;)

Ballistics gelatin is without question the only "accepted" test medium out there today.

That doesn't mean i think it's acceptable or good enough, it just is what it is.

Honestly Mas Ayoob's cow blasting would have been a lot more useful and telling if he was shooting them in the chest. Even .22LR will stop very quickly and efficiently with head shots.

But again, to me, the bullet used is probably not all that important if placement is correct, and the caliber is probably almost irrelevant.

Look forward to reading your book when it's published.

User avatar
blueorison
Competition/Training Mod
Posts: 10628
Joined: 11 Apr 2009, 14:28
custom title: UT/EA Pistol Captain
Contact:

Re: Flowers from FNP-9M

Post by blueorison » 05 Jun 2010, 13:40

Valorius wrote:The day a police department picks it's ammo by shooting cows in the head, an ammo company designs it's new bullets by blasting bovine brains out, or you see the FBI come up with a standardized moo goo quotient...do let me know. ;)

Ballistics gelatin is without question the only "accepted" test medium out there today.

That doesn't mean i think it's acceptable or good enough, it just is what it is.

Honestly Mas Ayoob's cow blasting would have been a lot more useful and telling if he was shooting them in the chest. Even .22LR will stop very quickly and efficiently with head shots.

But again, to me, the bullet used is probably not all that important if placement is correct, and the caliber is probably almost irrelevant.

Look forward to reading your book when it's published.
Hey Valorius, the bullet company shooting the animal thing?

Yeah. It's been done.

LE won't do it publicly and most other companies won't, because alike the bullet company that did, they would catch a SH*T tonne of flak. That company did it on pigs. Live ones. Was a bit cruel in my eyes as they weren't shootin for the head and some pigs did suffer.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
The shooter will always matter more than the gear ever will.
Stop relying on others to do the work for you.
Shoot more, worry less.

AKStevoUSN
Junior Member
Posts: 205
Joined: 26 Jan 2009, 22:27
Location: Anchorage, AK (expatriated to SC)

Re: Flowers from FNP-9M

Post by AKStevoUSN » 05 Jun 2010, 15:13

I am no industry pro, but I don't think a whole lot of changes are made b/c of ballistics gel tests. Maybe some small ones where the gel indicates some obvious problem, but I don't think anyone is out there fighting to get that extra 1/4 inch of penetration or wound channel. Not to mention that the tests still are not exactly infallible with tons of variables, a 1/4 in difference from 2 rounds is well within acceptable deviation.
When it comes down to it, anything that allows some penetration and expansion can be used as a benchmark for testing as long as it is consistent. A bullet that penetrates 14in of gel probably wont pass through two humans 7in thick, but it probably will go through more human than a bullet that penetrates 12in of gel.

IKIDDP9
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: 23 Aug 2009, 12:44

Re: Flowers from FNP-9M

Post by IKIDDP9 » 11 Jan 2011, 14:11

fd57 wrote:Here is all minus the 5.7 rounds I noted in this thread. I didn't get photos of those but will when I return.

Bet ya can pick out the one 5.7 bullet :)


Image
Nice picture!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests