Opinions, PLEASE: Remington HTP (High Terminal Performance)

This is a discussion on Opinions, PLEASE: Remington HTP (High Terminal Performance) within the Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Did quite a bit of SEARCH and research on the Forum but not much here about Remingtion HTP (High Terminal Performance), but quite a bit ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17
Like Tree5Likes

Thread: Opinions, PLEASE: Remington HTP (High Terminal Performance)

  1. #1
    New Member Array STORMINORMAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pac NW
    Posts
    8

    Question Opinions, PLEASE: Remington HTP (High Terminal Performance)

    Did quite a bit of SEARCH and research on the Forum but not much here about Remingtion HTP (High Terminal Performance), but quite a bit about Golden Sabres & UMC...

    Opinions, please. All relevant weights & calibers appreciated (.380, 9mm, 38 Spl., 40SW, 45ACP, .357), & +P, where applicable.

    Cheers!

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    14,576
    I believe it's relatively new on the market (?) but until they start pulling them from corpses, its performance, as well as any other bullet's, is pure speculation. I believe it's far more important where I hit them than with what. The history of firearms ballistics will bear that out.
    gasmitty likes this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Avatar is OldVet from days long gone. Oh, to be young again.
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  4. #3
    Member Array 303british's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    344
    I have tested the 380 version in a 3 barrel pistol and had one of the rounds fail to expand. Penetration is less than the Federal Hyda- Shoks I just tested. It did functioned fine and was accurate.

  5. #4
    Member Array agalindo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Alpine Tx
    Posts
    192
    Water is the gives you the "at best" results when testing for expansion. Nothing causes a bullet to expand better than water so if it failed to expand then I would seriously think about finding something else. Might try a different lot number of the same ammo and test again. Maybe you got a lot where the die that cuts the jacket to aid expansion was dull or misaligned.

  6. #5
    Distinguished Member Array BlackStallion29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    1,258
    I don't think I've ever heard of them. I did carry Golden Sabers for awhile, but then found I was more accurate with Winchester Ranger. I carry those now.
    tdave likes this.
    "Everybody gets knocked down in life. How you choose to get back up is up to you!"
    *NRA* *BFA*
    *GOA* *SAF*
    *NAGR* *USCCA*

  7. #6
    481
    481 is offline
    Member Array 481's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    491
    Quite frankly, they look like repackaged Remington Express pistol and revolver ammunition -I suspect that this is simply a new marketing scheme. I have seen nothing that suggests that Remington has actually redesigned their ammo for this product line and given their Express ammunition line's bargain-basement performance, I'd stay clear of it. There are much better choices.
    Eric357 likes this.
    My favorite "gun" book-

    QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION

  8. #7
    Senior Member Array CDW4ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,115
    I bought some of the 9mm 115 gr. +P
    To me, it looks like the same old Remington 115 gr. +P as available for over 20 years.
    This load may not be the latest & greatest, but that doesn't make it useless either.
    I fired the bullet into water filled jugs and it made it to the back of the 3rd jug at about .62 - .64 diameter; for comparison the Federal HST 124 +P penetrated about the same but expanded a little more at about .68 (Newer may be (is) better but not shockingly so).
    I expected that this was the same old thing when I ordered it; my wife's Kahr P9 has fired more of that than anything, already proven reliable.
    The Remington 9mm 115 gr. HP bullet always had a reputation for reliable feeding.
    Eric357 likes this.
    No internal lock or magazine disconnect on my pistols!

  9. #8
    Member Array agalindo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Alpine Tx
    Posts
    192
    115gr fast expanding HP tend to under penetrate. I would stick to 124gr or 147gr.

  10. #9
    Moderator
    Array gasmitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    9,514
    OldVet said it best.

    Just about any commercially-available JHP produced in the last 10 years from the major manufacturers will be an acceptable load for self defense. Don't fall prey to the latest marketing campaigns - the "new, improved" features are typically second-decimal place improvements and not sea-changes in stopping performance. Until a new round has established a track record in actual service (which takes a couple of years at least), I'd hold off.
    OldVet likes this.
    Smitty
    NRA Endowment Member

  11. #10
    New Member Array STORMINORMAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pac NW
    Posts
    8
    According to what I could find on the Remington website HTP is not "repackaged" Remington Express: for a 155g .40S&W in a 4" barrel the Velocity (1095) for the HTP @ 100 was the same as the Express @ 50, the Energy (413) for the HTP @100 was the same as the Express load @ 50.

    I'm supposing the listing for Velocity was in ft./sec. and Energy in ft./lbs., but the inference is clear (at least to me) that they are claiming equal performance at twice the stated distance.

    The reason I started this thread was that I saw the HTP at $38.99 for 50 vs. a similar Golden Sabre load @ $22.99 for 25. Interesting that the 165g. (albeit, a 10g. heavier bullet) .40S&W Golden Sabre load listed less velocity & energy than the other two.

    I appreciate all replies and look forward to additional discussion, if interest warrants.

    Cheers!

  12. #11
    Member Array agalindo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Alpine Tx
    Posts
    192
    Just an FYI in .40 the 155gr is too light and will under penetrate stick to a 165gr or even better a 180gr.

  13. #12
    481
    481 is offline
    Member Array 481's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    491
    Quote Originally Posted by STORMINORMAN View Post
    According to what I could find on the Remington website HTP is not "repackaged" Remington Express: for a 155g .40S&W in a 4" barrel the Velocity (1095) for the HTP @ 100 was the same as the Express @ 50, the Energy (413) for the HTP @100 was the same as the Express load @ 50.

    I'm supposing the listing for Velocity was in ft./sec. and Energy in ft./lbs., but the inference is clear (at least to me) that they are claiming equal performance at twice the stated distance.
    All this suggests is that Remington -possibly through the use of better ballistics software- may have simply updated the trajectory data (down-range velocity and energy figures) for their products.

    As noted in another thread, KE does not correlate well against tissue damage or incapacitation -and unless Remington can show us how this line of ammunition has been re-engineered to produce their claim of "equal performance at twice the stated distance", I'd say that it is simply nothing more than the usual 'hype' that accompanies a typical ammunition marketing campaign.

    Inferences are nice, but demonstrable fact is better.
    My favorite "gun" book-

    QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION

  14. #13
    New Member Array STORMINORMAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pac NW
    Posts
    8
    Please, 481, I didn't state this was in any way "...their (Remington's) claim of 'equal performance at twice the stated distance'...". Only that their site showed HTP velocity & energy @ 100 the same as Express (they call it P&R) @ 50 for .40S&W 155g. out of a 4" barrel.

    agalindo: FYI, I also found the .40S&W 180g. figures for the same comparison (HTP vs. Express, or "P&R") to be the same difference: HTP Energy & Velocity @ 100 = Express @ 50.

    The remington site allows you to compare up to 6 different products side-by-side. I found it very interesting. No claims made by me as to the absolute accuracy of the data presented.

    Cheers!

    p.s. The real eye-opener for me was the HTP .357mag 180g. load with Velocity @ 100 listed as 1052 & Energy @ 100 as 443 when compared to various Express & the sole Golden Sabre load listed, 125g. with Energy @ 100 listed as 283. Might be an inexpensive hunting load alternative, as compared to Hornady's .357 140g. FTX LEVERevolution which shows (out of an 8' test barrel) of Velocity as 1146 & Energy as 406 @ 100. The HTP probably doesn't carry as sophisticated a bullet design but... It would be interesting to see what the actual ballistics are for it out of an 18" rifle barrel?

  15. #14
    481
    481 is offline
    Member Array 481's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    491
    Quote Originally Posted by STORMINORMAN View Post
    Please, 481, I didn't state this was in any way "...their (Remington's) claim of 'equal performance at twice the stated distance'...". Only that their site showed HTP velocity & energy @ 100 the same as Express (they call it P&R) @ 50 for .40S&W 155g. out of a 4" barrel.
    You did here (red, underlined):

    Quote Originally Posted by STORMINORMAN View Post
    According to what I could find on the Remington website HTP is not "repackaged" Remington Express: for a 155g .40S&W in a 4" barrel the Velocity (1095) for the HTP @ 100 was the same as the Express @ 50, the Energy (413) for the HTP @100 was the same as the Express load @ 50.

    I'm supposing the listing for Velocity was in ft./sec. and Energy in ft./lbs., but the inference is clear (at least to me) that they are claiming equal performance at twice the stated distance.
    Please, STORMINORMAN, if you wish to buy into Remington's unsubstantiated marketing 'hype' and claims that is your business, but let's stop with trying to portray me as being unreasonable when I am not -it's very impolite behavior. Your post shows very clearly what you said.
    My favorite "gun" book-

    QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION

  16. #15
    New Member Array STORMINORMAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pac NW
    Posts
    8
    Sorry if I (somehow impolitely?) "portrayed (you) as unreasonable", 481. I never stated Remington data was absolutely accurate, although I personally feel "unsubstantiated marketing 'hype'" might be a little harsh in just describing their published balistic figures for various loads they manufacture. I certainly have seen no Remington marketing claims or ad's of any type that state this unequivocally. It is just a clear "inference" for me, and I have neither the inclination nor the equipment needed to accurately verify any and all balistic data. Nor do I believe or "buy into" everything I read on the internet. Nor do I automatically doubt everything, either... I thought it was something interesting and possibly worth discussing.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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

ballistics on remington htp 9mm 115 gr. p
,
htp vs golden sabers
,
is htp p 9mm same as express?
,

remington 115 p htp for self defense

,
remington 115gr p htp reviews
,
remington high terminal performance 9mm reviews
,

remington high terminal performance review

,

remington high terminal performance reviews

,
remington htp 115 gr plus p reviews
,

remington htp review

,

remington htp reviews

,
remington htp vs remington express - the same?
Click on a term to search for related topics.