Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Handguns > Semi-Auto Handguns > best 9mm ammo for SD

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-28-2013, 07:27 PM   #51
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 793
Liked 468 Times on 249 Posts
Likes Given: 102

Default

Just reporting what they are capable of. By comparison the HK MP5, which was largely what the FN P90 was targetted to replace, has an effective range of 200 meters. That's closer to the P90 than any rifle.

Not to bag on the 5.7mm, it's just not a rifle round by definition and was never intended to be one.

Though I'm sure a PS90 is nothing to sneeze at. I'm a big fan of carbines shooting pistol rounds. Not that I own any such thing...yet.

__________________

"For every problem there is always a solution that is simple, obvious, and wrong." - Mark Twain

My Firearm Reviews -
Beretta U22 Neos
Magnum Research Baby Eagle II .45 ACP

CrazedJava is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2013, 07:51 PM   #52
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DeltaF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Deep South USA
Posts: 2,944
Liked 2195 Times on 1215 Posts
Likes Given: 280

Default

This is getting waaay off topic. But that round can't touch .556 in range or velocity. Found a few ballistics tests on brassfetcher.com, it doesn't appear that the ammo available for that caliber would even pass the FBI penetration standard, it seemed to average around 10 inches in bare gelatin. But it did go through the vests they used. The military must have some really high tech rounds for them to be receiving good results with it. Or maybe it's the rounds fired per second and easier to control recoil that's doing the trick for them.

image-165803854.jpg

image-2415884699.jpg


See? Not even close to the range or velocity of .556, even out of a 16 inch barrel.

image-101255432.jpg  
__________________
Quote:
Nobody on this thread licked anybody's bodypart.

Nobody said anything.....about Glocks until you posted about your bacon dog who needs dentures.

What did somebody forget to engage their safety and shoot the dogs front teeth out? Or are we blaming that on the Glock shooters?

"Gaston, the Doggy dentist's best friend."

Last edited by DeltaF; 08-28-2013 at 09:08 PM.
DeltaF is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2013, 02:05 AM   #53
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 742
Liked 48 Times on 38 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaF View Post
This is getting waaay off topic. But that round can't touch .556 in range or velocity. Found a few ballistics tests on brassfetcher.com, it doesn't appear that the ammo available for that caliber would even pass the FBI penetration standard, it seemed to average around 10 inches in bare gelatin. But it did go through the vests they used. The military must have some really high tech rounds for them to be receiving good results with it. Or maybe it's the rounds fired per second and easier to control recoil that's doing the trick for them.

See? Not even close to the range or velocity of .556, even out of a 16 inch barrel.
Im sure the United States military could give a rats A $$ about the FBI standards seeing they were around first. The 556 has been putting bodies in the dirt since Vietnam it has a long proven history.
__________________
GunRunner is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2013, 02:43 AM   #54
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
John_Deer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,803
Liked 1473 Times on 1000 Posts
Likes Given: 511

Default

How many semi auto handguns that you can conceal without a duster are chambered in 5.56 x 45? The 5.56 x 45 in terms of rifles is a glorified 22 wmr. Compare the 5.56 x 45 to a 243. The 243 kicks the snot out of the 5.56 x 45 in any way you look at it. There is a more useful selection of bullets for the 243. Comparing apples to apples one can shoot the 243 for the same price, especially if you reload.

If I really wanted to kick the snot out of the 5.56 I would have compared it to a 30/06. You can get surplus ammo dirt cheap. A 1000 yard shot is a reality, not a pipe dream. You can load 220 gr bullets to high velocity that will ventilate a moose or a brown bear.

Lets try to stay on topic. We can always come up with a bigger and better cartridge.

__________________

Nothing in the affairs of men is worthy of great anxiety - Plato

John_Deer is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2013, 03:21 AM   #55
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
USVI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 13
Liked 6 Times on 5 Posts

Default

No doubt about it...

__________________

"I am easily satisfied with the very best."
-Winston Churchill

USVI is offline  
John_Deer Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2013, 07:03 AM   #56
Devil's Advocate and Provocateur
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
TekGreg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cincinnati,OH
Posts: 1,856
Liked 1306 Times on 684 Posts
Likes Given: 603

Default

USVI, we might not have gone completely off of the beam yet! While the original question was for the best self-defense 9mm ammunition, it requires a general understanding of ballistics.

And before we can discuss ballistics, we must first discussed generally acceptable testing methods. Ballistic gelatin was developed in the 1980s to most closely resemble pig muscle density, and therefore human muscle density. NATO had a different testing standard of 20% gelatin to the creators original 10% gelatin, making it twice as thick. Also, regardless of the acceptable thickness, gelatin had to be mixed at a certain temperature, and also calibrated before being used to test. In many tests this calibration was not done, or was not done correctly, therefore the tests were inadmissible.

So the first question becomes what is an acceptable test medium? For the truly picky, the only acceptable test medium would be the human body. This can most accurately be portrayed in actual shooting incidents. Wet phonebooks, water jugs or animal hunting only gives an approximation of what would happen in the human body if it were to receive the same shot.

A further problem exists in that some shooters believe different things are more important to achieving an effective defense round than others. Penetration, kinetic energy, hypovolemic shock, temporary stretch cavities and permanent crush cavities all have their place in the effectiveness of a self-defense round. The true problem comes in the realization that none of these are the all-deciding factor. The human factor also complicates this, because the human body is a collection of systems that respond differently in different people to the intrusion of a foreign object. The human mind is also a factor in determining an "effective" self-defense round, as different humans will have a different reaction to the sensation of being shot.

This post could go on for days, however, I think that accepting any one characteristic or any one testing method would be a bit naïve. Just because the FBI uses ballistic gelatin, or the U.S. Army uses pigs, or the latest magazine expert uses water jugs is not any indication that that method is the one any of us should be accepting as the most accurate or even as representative of the human body and how it will behave in such a high stress situation.

__________________

.
.
“Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." (I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.). Thomas Jefferson

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

-Edmund Burke, Loosely translated from Thoughts on the Cause of Present Discontents. (1770)

TekGreg is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2013, 08:49 AM   #57
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DeltaF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Deep South USA
Posts: 2,944
Liked 2195 Times on 1215 Posts
Likes Given: 280

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunRunner

Im sure the United States military could give a rats A $$ about the FBI standards seeing they were around first. The 556 has been putting bodies in the dirt since Vietnam it has a long proven history.
....I was using the .556 as the standard because for exactly the reason you listed, and comparing it to the 5.7x28. I was doing this because someone said the 5.7x28 was a "jr rifle round that was like the .556" or something similar.

Read the thread before you post. LOL

Though if you want to debate ballistics on .556 and how reliable it is and how much the military loves it, you might want to talk to some of the guys fresh back from the dirt pit first. There are some problems they are having with certain 556 platforms both at fairly short and fairly long ranges that most of them seem to think is a pretty big deal. Probably not something to address in THIS thread though.
__________________
Quote:
Nobody on this thread licked anybody's bodypart.

Nobody said anything.....about Glocks until you posted about your bacon dog who needs dentures.

What did somebody forget to engage their safety and shoot the dogs front teeth out? Or are we blaming that on the Glock shooters?

"Gaston, the Doggy dentist's best friend."

Last edited by DeltaF; 08-29-2013 at 09:01 AM.
DeltaF is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2013, 09:34 AM   #58
Podcast Host/ American Patriot/DAV!
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DrFootball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Northern Arizona(Fmr. NYC & L.I.)
Posts: 7,350
Liked 2984 Times on 2032 Posts
Likes Given: 632

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TekGreg
USVI, we might not have gone completely off of the beam yet! While the original question was for the best self-defense 9mm ammunition, it requires a general understanding of ballistics.

And before we can discuss ballistics, we must first discussed generally acceptable testing methods. Ballistic gelatin was developed in the 1980s to most closely resemble pig muscle density, and therefore human muscle density. NATO had a different testing standard of 20% gelatin to the creators original 10% gelatin, making it twice as thick. Also, regardless of the acceptable thickness, gelatin had to be mixed at a certain temperature, and also calibrated before being used to test. In many tests this calibration was not done, or was not done correctly, therefore the tests were inadmissible.

So the first question becomes what is an acceptable test medium? For the truly picky, the only acceptable test medium would be the human body. This can most accurately be portrayed in actual shooting incidents. Wet phonebooks, water jugs or animal hunting only gives an approximation of what would happen in the human body if it were to receive the same shot.

A further problem exists in that some shooters believe different things are more important to achieving an effective defense round than others. Penetration, kinetic energy, hypovolemic shock, temporary stretch cavities and permanent crush cavities all have their place in the effectiveness of a self-defense round. The true problem comes in the realization that none of these are the all-deciding factor. The human factor also complicates this, because the human body is a collection of systems that respond differently in different people to the intrusion of a foreign object. The human mind is also a factor in determining an "effective" self-defense round, as different humans will have a different reaction to the sensation of being shot.

This post could go on for days, however, I think that accepting any one characteristic or any one testing method would be a bit naïve. Just because the FBI uses ballistic gelatin, or the U.S. Army uses pigs, or the latest magazine expert uses water jugs is not any indication that that method is the one any of us should be accepting as the most accurate or even as representative of the human body and how it will behave in such a high stress situation.
What Greg didn't mention unless I missed it is that we are doing tests on SD ammo incl. 9mm for a future review here.
__________________

Dr. Bill(Dr.Football)
CWO-4 US ARMY Ret./Med.
Proud to be a Soldier, Proud to be a Night Stalker!
The 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment(S.O.A.R.) The Army's Taxi for Special Operators *NSDQ*

DrFootball is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2013, 09:44 AM   #59
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DeltaF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Deep South USA
Posts: 2,944
Liked 2195 Times on 1215 Posts
Likes Given: 280

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TekGreg
USVI, we might not have gone completely off of the beam yet! While the original question was for the best self-defense 9mm ammunition, it requires a general understanding of ballistics.

And before we can discuss ballistics, we must first discussed generally acceptable testing methods. Ballistic gelatin was developed in the 1980s to most closely resemble pig muscle density, and therefore human muscle density. NATO had a different testing standard of 20% gelatin to the creators original 10% gelatin, making it twice as thick. Also, regardless of the acceptable thickness, gelatin had to be mixed at a certain temperature, and also calibrated before being used to test. In many tests this calibration was not done, or was not done correctly, therefore the tests were inadmissible.

So the first question becomes what is an acceptable test medium? For the truly picky, the only acceptable test medium would be the human body. This can most accurately be portrayed in actual shooting incidents. Wet phonebooks, water jugs or animal hunting only gives an approximation of what would happen in the human body if it were to receive the same shot.

A further problem exists in that some shooters believe different things are more important to achieving an effective defense round than others. Penetration, kinetic energy, hypovolemic shock, temporary stretch cavities and permanent crush cavities all have their place in the effectiveness of a self-defense round. The true problem comes in the realization that none of these are the all-deciding factor. The human factor also complicates this, because the human body is a collection of systems that respond differently in different people to the intrusion of a foreign object. The human mind is also a factor in determining an "effective" self-defense round, as different humans will have a different reaction to the sensation of being shot.

This post could go on for days, however, I think that accepting any one characteristic or any one testing method would be a bit naïve. Just because the FBI uses ballistic gelatin, or the U.S. Army uses pigs, or the latest magazine expert uses water jugs is not any indication that that method is the one any of us should be accepting as the most accurate or even as representative of the human body and how it will behave in such a high stress situation.
The US military uses calibrated ballistics gelatin as their test medium. The FBI uses it as well. All ammunition manufacturers now use it also. It is across the board the standard measurement to judge how well a bullet moves through muscle tissue. The FBI penetration standard is extremely rigorous and puts rounds to the test through winter clothing, walls, metal and windshield glass and a into calibrated ballistics gelatin. In each phase of the test rounds must penetrate 12"-18" in order to pass. It does a pretty good job of demonstrating what a round will do against most threats in normal CQB scenarios.

If someone could come up with a more reliable way to test ammo and could prove it to be more reliable, they would make millions possibly billions of dollars. And maybe one day someone will. But until then, the standard is the standard because some very smart people spent their careers digging bullets out of human bodies and recording the results, and comparing those results to calibrated ballistics gelatin.
__________________
Quote:
Nobody on this thread licked anybody's bodypart.

Nobody said anything.....about Glocks until you posted about your bacon dog who needs dentures.

What did somebody forget to engage their safety and shoot the dogs front teeth out? Or are we blaming that on the Glock shooters?

"Gaston, the Doggy dentist's best friend."

Last edited by DeltaF; 08-29-2013 at 12:27 PM.
DeltaF is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2013, 03:37 PM   #60
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
John_Deer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,803
Liked 1473 Times on 1000 Posts
Likes Given: 511

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaF View Post
The US military uses calibrated ballistics gelatin as their test medium. The FBI uses it as well. All ammunition manufacturers now use it also. It is across the board the standard measurement to judge how well a bullet moves through muscle tissue. The FBI penetration standard is extremely rigorous and puts rounds to the test through winter clothing, walls, metal and windshield glass and a into calibrated ballistics gelatin. In each phase of the test rounds must penetrate 12"-18" in order to pass. It does a pretty good job of demonstrating what a round will do against most threats in normal CQB scenarios.

If someone could come up with a more reliable way to test ammo and could prove it to be more reliable, they would make millions possibly billions of dollars. And maybe one day someone will. But until then, the standard is the standard because some very smart people spent their careers digging bullets out of human bodies and recording the results, and comparing those results to calibrated ballistics gelatin.
The best self defense rounds pass through the body and would need to be dug out of something behind the attacker.

Police switched to the 357 mag during prohibition because it would penetrate car doors and still take out the bad guy. No 9mm HP round in production is going to penetrate a thin skinned car of today unless you make a miraculous shot and miss all the internal components of the door.

Berry's hollow points are known for not expanding. They are target ammo and not meant to expand. I have seen a man empty a pistol on the windshield of a Honda Accord loaded with berry's HP. The windshield was still intact. I demolished the windshield and the headrest I was aiming at with a single winchester ranger 124 gr FMJ. Imagine how anemic an expanding HP would be VS the car windshield.

I take all this into consideration because I live in a rural area. Most people around here are ex military and are going to shoot from behind cover. I don't expect to have a shoot out with my neighbors but I give any bad guy enough respect to be as well trained as we have been.
__________________

Nothing in the affairs of men is worthy of great anxiety - Plato

John_Deer is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
1000 Rds Sellier & Bellot 9mm Brass Ammo w/ Two .50 Cal Ammo Cans - $213 shipped Slickguns Sponsor Display 0 10-16-2012 07:28 PM
Ammo question about Aguila .22 LR Sniper Subsonic 60-gr ammo somawas .22 Rifle/Rimfire Discussion 23 06-27-2012 11:21 PM
gunpowder - civilian ammo vs military ammo erandyc AR-15 Discussion 10 03-02-2012 06:32 PM
45 cal. Ammo - Sources of Bulk Ammo for Practice? bf109 Semi-Auto Handguns 15 09-04-2011 07:44 PM
Revolver and rifle ammo - save of ammo??? jbscuba Revolver Handguns 20 11-21-2010 09:52 PM