I don't buy the "Ammo Failure" excuse people like to throw around.
Originally Posted by smolck
Pistol ammo sucks. All of it. It's underpowered, impotent crap used only because carrying a submachinegun, shotgun or rifle is not acceptable in most situations, so it's all people - cops and the rest of us - have most times.
Pistol ammo needs to be applied to the brain, spine or heart to be effective.
To do this, you need 4 things:
A failure to use these things means you will not hit what you need to hit.
Not hitting what you need to hit means your ammo, even expensive corbon DPX, will fail.
That means YOU will fail.
And when you fail, you will die. :danceban:
The use of a firearm in personal defense is not an endeavor in which you have much slack. Performance is demanded on pain of death - yours.
If you are not happy with your ammo's performance, look to your own first. If you have delivered accurate hits on target, then talk to me about ammo failure.
Till then...then only ammo you need is practice ammo.
Thread Hijack ON:
Actually Physics says nothing of the kind. Despite the debate you reference, with bows the variables are fewer and readily accounted for. There is an energy transfer distribution curve that tails off in both directions of the weight distribution. In short, what this means is that there is a "sweet spot" unique to each bow that provides maximum energy transfer to the arrow. Deviating in either direction of heavier or lighter arrows from this spot will lose arrow energy.
Originally Posted by smolck
Thread Hijack OFF:
The problem with the 180gr load in .40s&w is that you've got less room in the cartridge for powder. If you look at the velocity/energy numbers, the 165gr has a lot more energy than the 180, even though the 180 is heavier.
Originally Posted by glockman10mm
Now, if you could get the velocity the same, then yes. In the 10mm you can, but the .40 is just too short.
Only in elections.
Originally Posted by retsupt99
Gee maybe we sould forward this to the anti's that want to ban 10 round magazines!
Originally Posted by oneshot
i have Hornady Critical Defense .40 S&W 165gr FTX in my H&K P-2000
^^^ THIS ^^^
Originally Posted by MitchellCT
Having the latest, greatest +P+ Uranium tipped nuke-a-puke round is not what determines whether or not you go home after the fight.
Training, mindset lead to the ability to get good hits under stress - and that is what determines if you live or die.
Buy a reputable brand of ammo (i.e. forget all the super-prefragmented-hyper-velocity gimmick stuff out there and buy a top-shelf branded JHP). Then stop the endless measurebation over ammo performance and instead concentrate on shooter performance.
Just my opinion, for what it's worth.
To use a phrase from another industry:
How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, practice, practice.....
It is only through continued practice that proper shot placement becomes second nature. AFter proper shot placement, then we can have the myriad of mental maneuvering about vagaries of the best PD round....lol
People are gear-centric because it is easier to acquire gear than it is to acquire skill.
And who really wants to do dryfire every day or BS Stuff like that.
It's easier to google search the differences between HST and Ranger Talon than it is to put either in the right place.
It's easier to buy and research gear, than to buy training
I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter what you carry, as long as you are trained how to use it.
Sent from my phone
Just wanted to throw this out there... Ammunition To Go currently has 180gr Federal HST in stock.
Also, I've seen some testing of the Winchester PDX1, and it looks to be a pretty mean round. [Note: It's only worthwhile in .40, and then only in 180gr. The round was developed around the 180gr for the FBI, and the other calibers and weights are afterthoughts].
Ugh. . . I'm getting tired of seeing this parroted everywhere. If that's how reality worked, we'd all be carrying .38spl lead round nose in our revolvers, semi-autos wouldn't exist or would all be Lugers, and we'd get to the fight in our Model T Ford.
Originally Posted by AZ Hawk
Besides, the first .40S&W loading was designed to duplicate a 10mm load that was intentionally downloaded because some agents couldn't handle the recoil. While I agree that the 180gr loading is a GREAT round, and I wouldn't feel undergunned carrying it, I carry 165gr because it has slightly better numbers. You can get loads as light as 135 gr (I might have even seen a 125 gr, but can't remember where) or as heavy as 200gr for the .40. All have advantages and disadvantages, but the 180 gr FBI load is the FIRST, not necessarily the BEST, especially for all scenarios.
If you read the rest of my post you'd know I was referring to the PDX1 load made by Winchester, and I was specifically referring to the ballistics testing which shows the 180gr load as far superior to the 165gr....
Originally Posted by livewire9880
I wasn't ranting at you, but at your source :-D I do hear it a lot in forums though, even here.
Originally Posted by AZ Hawk
[QUOTE=LanceORYGUN;1915296]Well, maybe I do need to eat my earlier words about this. Here is an interesting comparative test done shooting different .45 ACP loads into jugs of water. Both the 165 gr and 185 gr traditional hollowpoint loads disintegrated and fragmented. All of the heavier bullets, though, held together.
This chart is most interesting to look at. The Federal HST LE ammo's performance does look most impressive.
Here is the video to check out:
No, I think you were pretty well on the mark. You have to remember, bullets shot into water expand violently. And gelatin, well gelatin ain't people. These mediums only give you a way to compare performance in that medium. They are several experts and agencies that follow how these rounds actually perform when shot into people. I value that data more than lab tests. The history of how well a round has done over the years carries weight with me.
(and I'm not talking about Marshall and Sanow. But they did take a lot of flack from the long defunct International Wound Ballistics Association with many false accusations. I give them more credit than some. They had the temerity to track how people reacted when shot with the various rounds out at that time. Some complained about how they put the data together. I call it tracking history.)
Originally Posted by mrwonderful
Ultimately this bullet weight, and even caliber, debates are about the same as comparing the size of one's manhood. Skill is the ultimate judge of usefulness. Given equal skill, size might make a small difference, but it's mostly academic. You'll never have size make up for lack of skill, but if your . . . caliber is too small you've gotta have a LOT of practice and skill.
Really, as long as you get past the minimum (.380 or 9mm, depending on what debate is going), it comes down to how well you can put two or more rounds into a critical area under extreme stress. I carry a .40 because I like the numbers better, and 165 because it performs best in the data I've seen in that caliber. Do I feel better because what I have is a little bigger and better than the other options I evaluated? Yes. Would I feel unarmed carrying a 115gr 9mm? No. Do I want to get shot by a .22LR? Nope.