Bullet seating depth
This is a discussion on Federal HST vs. Speer Gold Dot difference within the Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; as you can see in the picture the speer gold dot and in person is much taller the bullet itself. The speer gold dot also ...
as you can see in the picture the speer gold dot and in person is much taller the bullet itself. The speer gold dot also seems to be a bit thicker than the HST bullet. Just wondering if anyone has compared these two and why its like this. They are both 124+P why is there a difference. You can even see where the bullet ends in the casing on the gold dot unlike the hst
Gold dot on the right hst on the left
gold dot on the left hst on the right
Probably a round that has been racked and ejected too may times...one reason not to do such a thing...I usually shoot these rounds when I go to the range (switch back to my practice ammo) and start with a 'new' lead bullet in my SD magazines. OMO
Proverbs 27:12 says: “The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it.”
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
The hollow point cavity of the Gold Dot is deeper and wider than that of the HST, therefore the outside dimensions of the bullet can be slightly larger and still be the same bullet weight.
would the speer gold dot do better in testing since it seems to be a bigger bullet?? or no?
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”
― Thomas Paine
I saw the same differences with the Hornady XTPs and the Gold Dots. The XTPs appeared smaller but felt heavier because of the brass. It is just a slightly different design.
I just got 4 boxes of .45 caliber Federal Premium Hydrashock JHPs.
They were $30 for per box of 20s.
I will test them tomorrow at the range. I still haven't received my ammo order from Cor-bon *sigh* It has been over a month.
Aerospace Designer, Freemason, NRA member
From all the tests I've read the HST does perform the best. But with that said, I am very comfortable with either. I have the HST for my 9mm and .45. I can't find any for my .40 (my EDC) so I'm happy with the GDHP in it.
Remember... It's not the size of the pencil... It's how you sign your name.
Kimber Ultra Carry II, Glock G23 & G36, Kahr PM9, Winchester 1300 Defender 12gauge pump (my favorite but hard to hide)
What matters is how they perform once shot. Interested to see how they each look after being fired into water jugs along with some shot through some denim and plywood. I have not compared Speer Gold Dot to HST, so I would be interested to see the results. To date HST has provided the best (largest hole) and most consistent expansion no matter what I have shot it into or through.
Do the comparison tests when you are shooting the 250 rounds to assure they are reliable in your gun
Abort the Obamanation not the Constitution
Those who would, deny, require permit, license, certification, or authorization for me to bear arms are as vile, dangerous & evil as those who would molest, abuse, assault, rape or murder my family
How many water jugs do I need to fill up in order to make sure i catch the bullet in a jug and it doesnt get lost. Also how far away do I shoot the jugs from. I wish i could shoot the jugs more than once
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Yes, the loaded round is longer (taller?) than the bullet portion only. Yes, one loaded round is longer than the other.Originally Posted by dbraves9No, they are both .356 inches in diameter, nominally. There is some allowance for manufacturing tolerances. (Not that the difference means anything; they get resized to actual bore diameter when fired.) If you mean the walls surrounding the cavity of the hollow point are thicker, that is true. They were designed by different companies (probably different people) to achieve specific design goals.Originally Posted by dbraves9I hadn't compared them before, but now you ask, I've seen this sort of difference before, in other rounds manufactured by other companies. The two bullets - projectiles only - were designed in two difference places. From looking at the shapes, they were designed to achieve much the same results, but with different theories of how to attain those results.Originally Posted by dbraves9Let's start at the beginning:Originally Posted by dbraves9
Were they both simple cylinders of 100% pure lead, flat on both ends and .356 inches in diameter, they would have to be the same length. Lead cannot be compressed (under normal circumstances) and has a fixed and unchanging weight per volume.
However, when lead is made into bullets, the conditions change. First, are the two bullets made of the exact same alloy of lead? If one is pure and the other some percentage of tin, antimony or silver (to ward off vampires and werewolves), the volume will change. The same weight of material will take up more or less space, depending on if the alloy has a greater or lesser specific gravity than lead.
Second, the jacket takes up some volume. Depending on the thickness of the jacket and the alloy of the jacket, the total combined weight of lead (alloy) core and jacket will vary in volume, or space taken up. Since the bullet has to be the same diameter (.356 inches) no matter what, a heavier bullet will be longer, and a bullet of the same weight, but lower specific gravity (less dense) will be longer than another of higher specific gravity.
Third, depth and shape of cavity defined by the hollow point. The bigger, wider, deeper or more capacious the cavity displaces more material somewhere else.
Fourth, the shape of the bullet makes a difference. A long, tapering nose sticks out further than a short, wide, highly curved bullet nose. The difference in bullet shape is usually determined by what the designer feels will climb the feed ramp in an autopistol better. (Revolver bullets obviously have much more leeway in this regard.) One wants to design a hollow point so the edge of the hollow point does not catch on the edge of the feed ramp.
Fifth, seating depth rather clearly changes the overall length of the loaded round. Manufacturers have to choose between crowding the interior of the case and minimizing the powder space, or seating the bullet out where it might rub on the front of the magazine and cause a magazine malfunction. The smaller the space available in the case for powder limits the use of a slower burning powder, and also increases the chamber pressure of any load faster than desired. Depending on how the manufacturer prepares and sizes the cartridge case, the base of the bullet may or may not show on a loaded round. (Usually they do, in my experience.)
What does all this mean? Simply looking at a loaded round can give some indications of the concepts behind the manufacture, but cannot tell how a particular round will function in a particular pistol. Nor can it tell how a particular round will perform in use. Bullets fired into water perform differently than bullets fired into solid wood and differently than the same bullets fired into tissue.
Most all commercial loaded ammunition works in pretty much any pistol, gives more than adequate accuracy and suitable performance on target, either game or self-defense. It is not uncommon for a certain load of a certain manufacturer to really shine in a particular example of a certain firearm. That doesn't mean the same combination will perform perfectly in another gun of same make and model. This is an art form, not an exact science.
If any of this has sounded insulting or denigrating, I do apologize. However, I am of that old school that believes words have meanings. One cannot simply make up new meanings for words and expect others to understand what is meant. I also believe the more one knows about everything, the better one does anything.
I am also disgusted by the conduct of 'modern education'. But that's another rant for another day.
Anyone Worth Shooting Is Worth Shooting Well
Please take a look at my Blog: http://oldmanmontgomery.wordpress.com/