If I've missed something, it's probably because I'm here on my phone instead of a computer.
If I've missed something, it's probably because I'm here on my phone instead of a computer.
Tangle...00 into door panel, center post..hot lead into the seats...starting fire
For example, straight from the Hornady website, consider:
"Hornady TAP® Reduced Recoil™ (blue hull) is a lower-velocity load designed primarily for pump action shotguns. It comes loaded in a blue hull with a load delivering a velocity of 1,100 fps out of a 30" test barrel."
30" test barrel. That really inflates the numbers as compared to firing it from a real-world 18" SD shotgun. That 30" is 67% longer than an 18" SD barrel most would shoot it from. IF the .380 were shot from a 5" test barrel, but from a handgun with a 3" barrel that too is a 67% difference.
I didn't say a shotgun was equivalent to several .380s, I said seven .380s had the same energy of 9 00 low recoil pellets.
So the math isn't moot. What's in question is the length of barrel used to obtain the shotgun data. You claim it is real-world, but 18", 21", 24", etc. are all real-world. Which one was it? Hornady uses a 30" barrel; how could other manufacturers use anything less? It would make their loads look weak in comparison.
For those of you that think it isn't important to consider the ballistics of individual 00 pellets, because there are always more than one, I have this to say:
First, ALL the pellets behave the same as one as far as penetration goes. The problem is each pellet is a low mass, relatively slow moving, low energy bullet. I know, you still think that doesn't matter, but it is critical to understanding what you can expect from buckshot. Here's a real-world incident. I found this on another board that has some pretty serious members:
Granted, that's pushing the range for 00 buckshot, but why is it? LE 132 00 patterns very tightly and a number of the pellets actually hit the threat. So, it wasn't because of spread or pattern. And it's not because there weren't enough pellets hitting the threat - it's because the pellets that did hit, wouldn't penetrate the threat's leather jacket! And here we are, right back to my point - when pellets act alone, they aren't very impressive.Quote:
I'm not sure that the reduced recoil Flite Control buck loads have the retained energy at 40+ yards to do more than just poke nicely grouped holes in target cardboard. About a month ago, a local police agency here got into a gunfight with a murder suspect. Two of the officers involved had 870 shotguns loaded with issued Federal LE-132 9-pellet low-recoil 00-buck. A third officer had a 20-inch barreled AR-15 loaded with some kind of 55-grain ammo. The fight occured at about 35 to 40 yards distance.
The armed murder suspect was shot into submission in just seconds. At the ER, the bad guy had a shattered hand, and one of his femur bones was so completely pulverized that the doctors reportedly amputated his leg. As you would expect, that was a result of .223 rifle impacts.
However, when the paramedics peeled the suspect's cheap leather coat off of him, numerous 00-buck pellets fell out of the leather material onto the floor of the ambulance. Let that sink in a couple seconds. The low-recoil buckshot had failed to fully penetrate the suspect's outer garment, a leather coat, and the pellets were embedded and stuck in the material...
So with all that muzzle energy why won't the pellets penetrate? Because once the pellets spread, again, they become individual pellets against wind resistance. This is yet another reason to understand why the ballistics of one pellet apply to all pellets. Low mass, spherical projectiles, are pretty quickly slowed by wind resistance. 'Slowed' means rapid energy loss. How many think a .380 would not penetrate a leather jacket at 40 yards?
Also, before I leave this, let's compare the effectiveness of the .223 to the 00 buck at the same distance. This is quite interesting, because the weight of the .223, 55 gns, is almost identical to a 00 pellet, 54 gns. Yet the small caliber .223 devastated the threat. Why? Because, although it was acting alone, all the muzzle energy was applied to a single round, not divided up over 8 or 9 rounds. Also, the .223 is aerodynamic and is not effected nearly as much by wind resistance as a sphere.
So now we can see more clearly than ever why it is important, if not critical, to understand the ballistics of 00 loads at the pellet level.
FWIW, barrel length versus energy is not linear. I'll try to illustrate for people who didn't know that: Imagine a barrel that has infinite length. If energy comes at a 1:1 relationship to barrel length, somewhere along the way, the bullet would surpass the speed of light (and then we would tear a hole in the space-time continuum :rofl:). After a certain length, barrels are essentially the same length, as far as energy is concerned. If you trace back to a 0 inch barrel, you'll see that the difference between a 5 inch barrel and a 2 or 3 inch barrel is far greater than you seem to have accounted for.
You might want to consider this -this was an actual test performed with real guns with real ammo.
The rounds they refer to are the Buffalo Bore +P 90 and 95 gn bullets. They were fired from a 2" real gun.Quote:
With the real world guns, we’d just shoot the three rounds of a given brand of ammunition, swipe the barrel with a Bore Snake, then move on to the next brand. We actually did all the tests on the real world guns first, since we didn’t have all the ammunition we wanted, and figured that this data would be more important than the drop off in performance between 18-inch and 17-inch barrel lengths (for example). Altogether we tested about 1,000 rounds of ammo over the course of three days
The data doesn’t lie. We were seeing 90 and 95 grain bullets moving at 900+ feet per second(fps) out of even the shortest barrels, beating everything else by at least 100 fps.
I think our results will surprise a lot of people who were skeptical about the effectiveness of this caliber in these very small guns, as they surprised me.
Just so you won't again accuse me of making up outrageous numbers, here's where the data comes from:
Hornadyle.com - 12 GA TAP® Reduced Recoil™
and "Ballistics By the Inch",
BBTI - Ballistics by the Inch :: .380 Auto Results (2010)
Let's compare a much more docile .380 load, more of a standard load fired from a 2" barrel. We'll compare it to the Hornady TAP low recoil. I use Hornady because we know the barrel length they fire it from is 18.5". So we're taking a real world shotgun barrel and comparing it to the shortest real-world barrel in a real world gun firing a .380.
The representative .380 is the 90 gn Speer Gold Dot FMJ with a muzzle velocity of 852 fps from a real gun with a real barrel only 2" long.
Hornady lists the ballistics as 991 fps, 8 pellet 00. That yields an energy of 118 ft-lbs per pellet.
Now the .380. The .380 has an energy of 145 ft-lbs - that's a huge difference. Well the Hornady is a pretty light low recoil so let's use a more powerful low recoil load - the Remington LE 132 00.
The LE 132 00 manufacture lists this round as 9 pellet 00 at 1145 fps, and we don't know if that comes from an 18.5" barrel or not. The energy per pellet is 157 ft lbs which is only 8% more than the .380. IF those ballistics are from an 18" barrel. If it's not then the energy will go down.
BTW, Hornady lists the velocity from a 30" barrel at 1100 fps and out of an 18.5" barrel at 991, so length does make a difference in a shotgun. In fact the energy of a 00 pellet at 1100 fps is 145 ft-lbs (same as a .380 fired from a 2" barrel). The energy of a pellet at 991 fps out of the 18.5" barrel is 118 ft-lbs. Going from an 18.5" barrel to a 30" barrel increases the pellet energy by 23%.
And from the 30" barrel at 1100 fps it still only has the same energy as a .380 fired from a 2" barrel.
But again, when the 00 and .380 have exactly the same energy, the 90 gn .380 at 852 fps vs a 00 at 1100 fps, the .380 still has 25% more momentum than a 00.
The point of the thread is not to prove that every .380 load has more energy than every low recoil 00, but to establish the shocking truth about the energy in 00 low recoil pellets. The energy in each pellet of some 00 low recoil is in fact less than some .380s. At best, a 00 low recoil pellet energy is about 8% more than a .380 fired from a 2" barrel and still would not have as much momentum as the .380. However as you can see from the chart, there are some .380s even more powerful than the one I used. I just used this one because it didn't seem all that special.
FWIW, here's Corbon's .380 spec's - Notice the barrel length and this stuff beats full power 00, i.e. 00 traveling at 1325 fps (energy per pellet, 210 ft-lbs):
Caliber: 380 Auto
Bullet Wt.: 90gr CORBON Self-Defense JHP
test Barrel Length: 2.5 Inches
And here's a real-world test with that Federal I referred to earlier:
Diamondback DB380 380 ACP with 2.8" barrel
Actual measured velocity: 890 fps
Penetration: 11.25" - - (that's through two layers of denim and SIM-test material)
Calculated energy: 158 ft-lbs (at 890 fps)
That's more than the Federal LE 132 00 load produces per pellet- 157 ft lbs. And we don't even know what barrel they attained that with.
I calculated the energy of this .380 round based on the chrono'd velocity from a 2.8" real gun to be