.40 S&w

This is a discussion on .40 S&w within the Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; 155 grn Gold dots, 180 grn hydroshocks or golden sabers....

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 72

Thread: .40 S&w

  1. #16
    Lead Moderator
    Array rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    15,820
    155 grn Gold dots, 180 grn hydroshocks or golden sabers.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Member Array AZG23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Surprise, Az
    Posts
    340
    The 3 touted are Gold Dots, Ranger T and Golden Sabers....I happen to like the 165 gr loading in .40SW. You cant go wrong with these loads "if" you do your part...
    Brad B.

  4. #18
    Member Array triggertime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    66
    The .40S&W is a cartridge that I never warmed up to. The reason for the 165gr. preference, IMO, is because of the fact that the 180gr. bullets are longer and are more apt to cause catastrophic failures from bullet setback because of the limited space left in the cartridge case. If you like the .40S&W, stick with the 165gr. bullets.

  5. #19
    Member Array Monty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Charleston, WV
    Posts
    65
    The Win USA HP loads don't perform all that bad at all and you won't find anything any more affordable. Not my first choice but I would be lying if I said I didn't have several boxes of the 9mm version stacked in the gun closet. No that isn't what is in the carry gun but I wouldn't feel all that bad if I had to load up with it...beats FMJ.

  6. #20
    Member Array TwoRavens's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    115
    I don't know if this is the same with .40, but I tested +P GD against +P Sabers in 45 and found the GD had far less muzzle flash in low light.
    /***********
    Phill
    ************/

    "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate"
    William of Ockham (ca. 1285-1349)

  7. #21
    JT
    JT is offline
    Distinguished Member Array JT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,425
    Quote Originally Posted by triggertime
    The reason for the 165gr. preference, IMO, is because of the fact that the 180gr. bullets are longer and are more apt to cause catastrophic failures from bullet setback because of the limited space left in the cartridge case. If you like the .40S&W, stick with the 165gr. bullets.
    agreed
    Blessed be the Lord my rock who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle. Psalm 144:1

    Si vis pacem, para bellum

  8. #22
    Senior Member Array KC135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    742

    Angry Bullet setback?

    Quote Originally Posted by triggertime
    The .40S&W is a cartridge that I never warmed up to. The reason for the 165gr. preference, IMO, is because of the fact that the 180gr. bullets are longer and are more apt to cause catastrophic failures from bullet setback because of the limited space left in the cartridge case. If you like the .40S&W, stick with the 165gr. bullets.
    Don't know where this rumor came from but it is not correct.

    Just look at the ammo, if anything the 180 would be somewhat less prone to setback than the 165.

    Setback is a problem only if same round is repeatedly chambered, and ejected, or in poorly crimped handloads.

    The 180 will just by its length have better case grip. Because of its length, there will be less room for setback.
    Keep the shotgun handy!!

  9. #23
    FLM
    FLM is offline
    Member Array FLM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    91
    KC is correct. The 180 gr is used by numerous LE departments around the country including the CHP. I doubt it would be so widespread if it were a problem.

  10. #24
    JT
    JT is offline
    Distinguished Member Array JT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,425
    The problem is potentially higher pressures if the bucket is set back, because more space is taken up by the larger bullet.
    Blessed be the Lord my rock who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle. Psalm 144:1

    Si vis pacem, para bellum

  11. #25
    Senior Member Array KC135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    742
    JT, if it is really true....why do you not document the problem???

    Find some problems..with documentation; example, police warning teletypes between departments.

    I'll wait.
    Keep the shotgun handy!!

  12. #26
    JT
    JT is offline
    Distinguished Member Array JT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,425
    Quote Originally Posted by KC135
    JT, if it is really true....why do you not document the problem???

    Find some problems..with documentation; example, police warning teletypes between departments.

    I'll wait.
    What are you talking about? I did not say that more setbacks happen in 180 grain than 165 grain. I said it was potentially more dangerous with a 180 grain if setback occurs. Iím talking about simple physics. There is less room in the cartridge with a bigger bullet. So you have higher pressures. Hence, if setback occurs, you will have even higher pressure concerns. Look that up.

    Iíll wait.
    Last edited by JT; July 2nd, 2005 at 10:18 PM.
    Blessed be the Lord my rock who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle. Psalm 144:1

    Si vis pacem, para bellum

  13. #27
    Senior Member Array KC135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    742

    Question Up tight

    JT, The 'potential' for bullet setback is less with the 180 than the 165.

    Suggest you do a bit of study on the subject. Break down a few 180s and 165s. try to get set back with both rounds. Check the amount of free space in the cases. See what the BULLET PULL in pounds is for ammo from the same company.

    With all due respect, there are no bad 40 JHP loads, from any of the major manufacturers.

    Bullet setback does happen, usually to the people who unload and load their guns every day, CHAMBERING THE SAME ROUND. The 9, .357 SIG, and 40 are all high pressure cartridges, and users should be aware.
    Keep the shotgun handy!!

  14. #28
    JT
    JT is offline
    Distinguished Member Array JT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,425
    Quote Originally Posted by KC135
    JT, The 'potential' for bullet setback is less with the 180 than the 165.

    Suggest you do a bit of study on the subject. Break down a few 180s and 165s. try to get set back with both rounds. Check the amount of free space in the cases. See what the BULLET PULL in pounds is for ammo from the same company.

    With all due respect, there are no bad 40 JHP loads, from any of the major manufacturers.

    Bullet setback does happen, usually to the people who unload and load their guns every day, CHAMBERING THE SAME ROUND. The 9, .357 SIG, and 40 are all high pressure cartridges, and users should be aware.
    Youíre still not listening to what I saidÖ

    Quote Originally Posted by JT
    I did not say that more setbacks happen in 180 grain than 165 grain. I said it was potentially more dangerous with a 180 grain if setback occurs.
    Bullet setback can occur in any round. If it happens in a 180 grain, it is potentially more dangerous due to higher pressure. That is all I was saying.

    And I have done plenty of study on the subject.

    BTW Ė I prefer 155 to 165 grain over 180 grain, because of performance. Not because of any setback issues.
    Blessed be the Lord my rock who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle. Psalm 144:1

    Si vis pacem, para bellum

  15. #29
    Member Array triggertime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    66

  16. #30
    Senior Member Array KC135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    742

    Thumbs down So?

    Quote Originally Posted by triggertime
    Lots of facts and lots of plain old conclusions. The Glock problems have been known for years, so nothing new there.

    Lack of complete resizing has caused Glock problems for years with reman ammo. Glocks 40s have come apart with all sorts of factory ammo...nothing new. More with the 180?? Maybe because it was the weight of choice early in the program. Funny we do not see the problems in other brands of 40.

    SAAMI pressure max should not be excedded--agreed.

    As to the rest, anyone can write anything...

    Going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

    I still see a lack of documentation.
    Keep the shotgun handy!!

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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

.40 s&w ballistics 3 inch barrel
,

165 gr golden saber hollow

,

40 s&w ballistics

,

40 s&w ballistics 3 in barrel

,

ballistics for rem 165 gr golden sabre .40 s&w

,
golden sabre .40 165gr
,

golden sabre 165 gr

,
hydra shok gold dot golden saber
,

remington golden saber

,

speer gold dot 155gr for a 3 inch barrel

,

winchester ranger sxt .40 ballistics out of glock 22

,
winchester ranger sxt ballistics
Click on a term to search for related topics.