Do you realize that a single 00 pellet has less energy and momentum than a .380? - Page 8

Do you realize that a single 00 pellet has less energy and momentum than a .380?

This is a discussion on Do you realize that a single 00 pellet has less energy and momentum than a .380? within the Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by OPFOR That would only serve to make the .380 less powerful. It would not impart any more mass, momentum, or energy to ...

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678
Results 106 to 113 of 113
Like Tree52Likes

Thread: Do you realize that a single 00 pellet has less energy and momentum than a .380?

  1. #106
    Senior Member Array stanislaskasava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    That would only serve to make the .380 less powerful. It would not impart any more mass, momentum, or energy to the shotgun pellet...
    Yes. That was the crux of my point. Several .380s do not a shotgun make. I believe the quoted numbers for .380 are likely from a universal reciever with a 5 inch barrel. I can't think of any .380 that actually has a 5 inch barrel (possibly a Nazi pistol?), which means the math is all moot. It's a theoretical .380 versus a real world shotgun. If we all carried .380s with 5 inch barrels, then maybe they would penetrate more than an individual piece of buckshot... But then we'd all rather carry a 9mm or better if a 5 inch barrel is part of the scenario.

    If I've missed something, it's probably because I'm here on my phone instead of a computer.


  2. #107
    Member Array CaptSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Washington /San Juan's
    Posts
    359
    Tangle...00 into door panel, center post..hot lead into the seats...starting fire

  3. #108
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,869
    Quote Originally Posted by stanislaskasava View Post
    Yes. That was the crux of my point. Several .380s do not a shotgun make. I believe the quoted numbers for .380 are likely from a universal reciever with a 5 inch barrel. I can't think of any .380 that actually has a 5 inch barrel (possibly a Nazi pistol?), which means the math is all moot. It's a theoretical .380 versus a real world shotgun. If we all carried .380s with 5 inch barrels, then maybe they would penetrate more than an individual piece of buckshot... But then we'd all rather carry a 9mm or better if a 5 inch barrel is part of the scenario.

    If I've missed something, it's probably because I'm here on my phone instead of a computer.
    Why do you think the .380 was shot from a 5" test barrel, but the shotgun was shot from a real world barrel? In order for what you are claiming to be true, you would have to prove that the .380 was indeed shot from a 5" barrel and that the shotgun load was shot from an 18" barrel.

    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.
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  4. #109
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,869
    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:

    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...
    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.

    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.
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  5. #110
    Senior Member Array stanislaskasava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by Tangle View Post
    Why do you think the .380 was shot from a 5" test barrel, but the shotgun was shot from a real world barrel? In order for what you are claiming to be true, you would have to prove that the .380 was indeed shot from a 5" barrel and that the shotgun load was shot from an 18" barrel.

    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.
    You're the one who is claiming that a .380 has more energy and momentum than a pellet. If you didn't chronograph anything then you might as well say that a curveball has more energy than a fastball. Real world numbers are the crux of the thread and you don't have any.

    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 ). 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.

  6. #111
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,869
    You might want to consider this -this was an actual test performed with real guns with real ammo.

    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.
    The rounds they refer to are the Buffalo Bore +P 90 and 95 gn bullets. They were fired from a 2" real gun.

    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.
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  7. #112
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,869
    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
    Velocity: 1050fps
    Energy: 220ftlbs
    test Barrel Length: 2.5 Inches

    And here's a real-world test with that Federal I referred to earlier:

    Source:
    http://mousegunaddict.blogspot.com/2...-9mm-test.html

    Diamondback DB380 380 ACP with 2.8" barrel

    Actual measured velocity: 890 fps
    Expansion: .515"
    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
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  8. #113
    Senior Member Array stanislaskasava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    1,121
    Voila!

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678

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

00 buck vs 9mm
,

00 buckshot energy

,
00 buckshot vs 9mm
,

12 gauge 00 buckshot muzzle energy

,
9mm vs 12 gauge
,

buckshot energy

,
buckshot muzzle energy
,

energy in 00 buckshot pellets

,
muzzle energy 12 gauge buckshot
,
muzzle velocity of 00 buckshot
,
shotgun pellet energy
,
shotgun pellet vs 9mm
Click on a term to search for related topics.