Flowers from FNP-9M

fd57 · Post by **fd57** » 05 Apr 2010, 09:38

Some photos of bullets from a FNP-9M. All were "self-defense" rounds shot through a slab of pork ribs into gallon jugs filled with saturated newspaper backed by packed high-density sand from 20 feet.

murphies_finest · Post by **murphies_finest** » 05 Apr 2010, 09:47

Sweet!

fd57 · Post by **fd57** » 05 Apr 2010, 09:52

I was able to test 17 different lines and/or brands of 9mm ammunition. I was surprised by some results. Although this was my first test so before I would write off any particular brand/line of ammo I would repeat more testing.

I also tested SS197SR, SS192, SS198, and the S4 Special Run from Elite. I was really surprised by the 5.7 results, more so than with the 9mm.

murphies_finest · Post by **murphies_finest** » 05 Apr 2010, 09:55

I bet i have done my own ballistic tests on body armor with 197 and 195 and surprised with the results now im gonna start using car doors and other "hardened" object. such as cmu blocks shetts rock and what not with some innocent fruits as the victims.

fd57 · Post by **fd57** » 05 Apr 2010, 10:00

What surprised me with the SS192 and the Elite S4 special run was that in the jugs I found the brass tip with what appeared to be the bullet inside. For the SS197SR I found the gray bullet as expected.

Would this be normal - to find the triangle-like brass tip intact in the substrate? Pardon my gun-english as I'm new and may be mis-using a word. To give a better idea of what I found - imagine pulling the bullet from an unspent SS192 or S4 round - that is what I found in the jugs. I thought I would find that brass (is it brass?) "tip" and the bullet separate.

Post by **f3rr37** » 05 Apr 2010, 10:02

The SS192 round is comprised of a copper jacket with an aluminum core.

fd57 · Post by **fd57** » 05 Apr 2010, 10:11

So would you expect to find the copper jacket with the aluminum core intact? Or would you expect the jacket to separate/expand as shown in the 9mm photos?

Post by **f3rr37** » 05 Apr 2010, 10:16

The jacket won't expand like a normal hollow-point. The HP actually deforms to the side and causes the round to tumble. I think there are pictures on the forum where the jacket has separated from the aluminum core.

Mister Freeze · Post by **Mister Freeze** » 05 Apr 2010, 17:23

f3rr37 wrote:The SS192 round is comprised of a copper jacket with an aluminum core.

just checking, but aren't you describing ss190? Isn't ss192 a hollowpoint, superceded by ss195?

Mister Freeze · Post by **Mister Freeze** » 05 Apr 2010, 17:24

Fd57: Nice Bouquet!

Post by **f3rr37** » 05 Apr 2010, 18:07

Mister Freeze wrote:
f3rr37 wrote:The SS192 round is comprised of a copper jacket with an aluminum core.
just checking, but aren't you describing ss190? Isn't ss192 a hollowpoint, superceded by ss195?

Nope, SS190 is a copper jacket, aluminum core, with a steel penetrator.

T194, SS192, SS195, SS198 all use the same bullet, a 27/28 (depends on who you ask) grain projectile. I did forget to mention in my original post that it is a hollow-point.

fd57 · Post by **fd57** » 05 Apr 2010, 18:57

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

Valorius · Post by **Valorius** » 19 May 2010, 03:20

The CorBon DPX, Fed HST and Speer Gold Dots all seem to have expanded extremely well in your tests.

fd57 · Post by **fd57** » 19 May 2010, 09:59

Almost. CorBon DPX and Federal HST yes. Speer Gold Dots not so much.

Valorius · Post by **Valorius** » 19 May 2010, 11:21

2nd row, far right, those are not Gold Dots?

Post by **f3rr37** » 19 May 2010, 11:30

2nd row far right looks like HST to me.

ChuckD · Post by **ChuckD** » 19 May 2010, 12:12

satellitedr3ams wrote:
f3rr37 wrote:2nd row far right looks like HST to me.
+1

+2

ETA: From another thread.

Buffman wrote:I didn't have enough milk jugs to do an averaged test today, but this 147gr 9mm (non +P) HST round expanded to .712" from the wife's 3.93" Barrelled Semi Compact Baby Eagle.. Went through two milk jugs and piereced the third, and was found lying in front of it. Shot was from about 12 feet.

Valorius · Post by **Valorius** » 29 May 2010, 21:09

The HST looks almost identical to the Gold Dot. Fancy that.

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 30 May 2010, 08:35

Not at all in my opinion. Gold Dots have never expanded like that in my experience. I have only done this type of testing with 9mm, and I found that in a 10 round shoot, only 4 or 5 of my gold dots ever expanded well. Just my experience, but I would never carry gold dot ammo. I know the US Marshalls got rid of it too, though I don't know why exactly. On the other hand, I do know that several police forces and the French swear by Gold Dots though.

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 30 May 2010, 08:37

Very interesting to see that the Black Talons and the Ranger SXTs still expand very similarly. I hadn't done any testing with the Rangers, but I think I will pick some up now for sure.

Valorius · 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.

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.

fd57 · 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 · 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 · 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 · 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.

flyingirish04 · 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:

Valorius · 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.

Post by **panzermk2** » 03 Jun 2010, 11:26

That would by why we use fresh bone in pork shoulders.

fd57 · 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?

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:

Valorius · 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.

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?

Valorius · 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.

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.

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.)

Valorius · 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.

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.

AKStevoUSN · 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 · 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

Nice picture!

romer522 · Post by **romer522** » 11 Jan 2011, 15:07

HST is consistently the nastiest looking round, makes you wonder if there isn't a real reason they don't really release much.

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 11 Jan 2011, 17:02

You cannot beat HST.

iFire · Post by **iFire** » 11 Jan 2011, 18:06

Found a pic just to add to this thread for comparison purposes...

fd57 · Post by **fd57** » 11 Jan 2011, 18:13

From our testing the two rounds we've selected to carry in 9mm are the Winchester Ranger and the Federal Tactical HST.

The Cor Bon DPX with the Barnes copper bullet is the wild card (third choice).

Ranger and HST had deep penetration, flowered nicely, and were consistent in both penetration and flowering.

Who is online