.380 Winchester 95 grain FMJ- FP for Defensive Carry ? - Page 3

.380 Winchester 95 grain FMJ- FP for Defensive Carry ?

This is a discussion on .380 Winchester 95 grain FMJ- FP for Defensive Carry ? within the Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Ljutic Not sure why my velocity data image isn't working so I'll bring that back into the tread. 481 Said: For a ...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 31 of 31
Like Tree4Likes

Thread: .380 Winchester 95 grain FMJ- FP for Defensive Carry ?

  1. #31
    481 is offline
    Senior Member Array 481's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Quote Originally Posted by Ljutic View Post
    Not sure why my velocity data image isn't working so I'll bring that back into the tread.

    481 Said:
    For a 0.354" diameter 100 gr FMJRN @ 849 fps-

    -the Schwartz model says it'll go 18.92 inches

    -the MacPherson model says it'll go 20.11 inches

    The 380 didn't tumble at all so I captured 18.5" total penetration. Much closer to your model predictions. I think the gel is a valid Ordnance Gel substitute as long as bullets "behave" as they go through the gel. I believe the difference with the 32 test was due to tumbling.
    Yes, I agree with you. The tumbling of the bullet made the difference.

    Based on this limited experience, I am also of the general opinion that the clear gel you are using seems to support a better match for the Schwartz bullet penetration model than the MacPherson model. I also really like that clear gel 'cause it lets you see everything. Very cool!

    I don't know if you've read either book (Quantitative Ammunition Selection & Bullet Penetration), but I have found that the more complicated model found in Bullet Penetration consistently (IME) produces predictions that are less "in-line" with reality than what the Schwartz model does after evaluating them both over the last several months.

    Even though the Schwartz model is derived of a much simpler equation of motion (that is, F=ma), it also has within its construction, the ability to consider differing material strengths in terms of an ultimate tensile strength (expressed in N/cm2) -found in Chapter 3 of Quantitative Ammunition Selection

    (check out the second question on the FAQ page linked below)- Quantitative Ammunition Selection

    The difference between the Schwartz model prediction of 18.92" and your test result of 18.5" is 0.42" (or 1.067cm) -just a smidge over the Schwartz model's 95% MOE of +/- 1.00 centimeter in matching your test results with a "stable" (non-tumbling) test bullet. Not bad...

    The MacPherson bullet penetration model performed as it always seems to (at least for me) -by grossly over-estimating the penetration of the "stable" round by 1.61" (or 4.09cm). I suspect that this might have something to do with the Schwartz model's statistical population which is stated to be in excess of 700+ data whereas the MacPherson model relies on just 400+ data.

    The more I compare these two models, the more I have found myself relying upon the Schwartz bullet penetration model for the most reliable answer.

    The "icing on the cake", at least for me, is that it very easy to use. Yeah...I am lazy.
    Last edited by 481; November 9th, 2012 at 10:14 PM.
    My favorite "gun" book-


Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Search tags for this page

380 winchester ammo
380 winchester white box
fmj fp
winchester 380

winchester 380 ammo


winchester 380 auto 95 grain

winchester 95 grain fmj .380

winchester 95 grain fmj 380

winchester white box .380

winchester white box 380

wwb .380
Click on a term to search for related topics.