Fiocchi .380 ACP 90gr XTP in Clear Ballistics Gel.

Fiocchi .380 ACP 90gr XTP in Clear Ballistics Gel.

This is a discussion on Fiocchi .380 ACP 90gr XTP in Clear Ballistics Gel. within the Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Test Gun: Ruger LCP Barrel length: 2.75 inches. Ammunition: Fiocchi .380 ACP 90gr XTP Test media: 10% Clear Ballistics Gel. Distance: 10 feet. Chronograph: Caldwell ...

Results 1 to 8 of 8
Like Tree11Likes
  • 8 Post By 5pins
  • 1 Post By retired badge 1
  • 1 Post By jmf552
  • 1 Post By jmf552

Thread: Fiocchi .380 ACP 90gr XTP in Clear Ballistics Gel.

  1. #1
    Member Array 5pins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    140

    Fiocchi .380 ACP 90gr XTP in Clear Ballistics Gel.



    Test Gun: Ruger LCP
    Barrel length: 2.75 inches.
    Ammunition: Fiocchi .380 ACP 90gr XTP
    Test media: 10% Clear Ballistics Gel.
    Distance: 10 feet.
    Chronograph: Caldwell Ballistic Precision Chronograph G2.
    Five shot velocity average: 808fps
    Gel Temperature 70 degrees.

    Shooting the bull on YouTube did an in-depth test on .380 ammo and concluded that the XTP bullet performed the best. I have been meaning to do my testing with this bullet and finally got around to it. I picked up some Fiocchi .380 ammo featuring Hornaday’s XTP bullet.

    I got a five-shot average velocity of 808fps with a high of 828fps and a low of 790fps.


    Five rounds offhand at 5 yards.

    The first round shot in the clear gel had a velocity of 817fps and penetrated to 12.5 inches. The recovered diameter was .45 inches and weight was 89.9 grains. Round two’s velocity was 795fps and the bullet penetrated to 13 inches. The recovered diameter of the bullet was .44 inches and its weight was 90.5 grains.



    When shot through the heavy clothing gel neither round expanded. The first round had a velocity of 784fps and penetrated to 17.5 inches. The recovered weight was 89.9 grains. The second round’s velocity was 792fps and it penetrated to a depth of 16.5 inches. It’s recovered weight was 90.4 grains. The second round showed signs of beginning to open up.


  2. #2
    Senior Member Array retired badge 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Posts
    564
    More jello results. Interesting. Maybe next time we can try some pudding?
    sdprof likes this.

  3. #3
    Member Array gnius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    nc
    Posts
    420
    Based on Luckygunner's results the only round that meets my requirements for consistency while providing decent penetration is the Critical Defense. Even in the luckgunner testing the 380 XTP was fairly variable in its expansion. Honestly, the 380 Gold dot is not bad. Yes it has less penetration than I like but it has superb consistency.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,862
    Quote Originally Posted by retired badge 1 View Post
    More jello results. Interesting. Maybe next time we can try some pudding?
    If you ever get attacked by The Blob, you will wish you had paid attention!
    Fiocchi .380 ACP 90gr XTP in Clear Ballistics Gel.-blob.jpg
    retired badge 1 likes this.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  6. #5
    New Member Array rlggray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    827
    I like all the XTP loads, but prefer American Gunner. (probably mostly because it's the easiest to find locally)

    They (XTPs) seem to always get sufficient penetration whether they expand or not, while most loads that do expand nicely (ex. Gold Dot, PDX1) do not get sufficient penetration, imo.

  7. #6
    Senior Member Array entertainment72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by retired badge 1 View Post
    More jello results. Interesting. Maybe next time we can try some pudding?
    Not a fan of the scientific method?

  8. #7
    Senior Member Array retired badge 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Posts
    564
    Quote Originally Posted by entertainment72 View Post
    Not a fan of the scientific method?
    No problems with scientific methods. Unfortunately, too many folks just don't seem to understand that all results of gelatin testing are comparative, not definitive, and that every single gelatin test involves multiple variables (temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, gelatin composition among others) so even the comparative values are diminished significantly.

    Testing with pudding media would be no less fallible or unreliable.

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,862
    Quote Originally Posted by retired badge 1 View Post
    No problems with scientific methods. Unfortunately, too many folks just don't seem to understand that all results of gelatin testing are comparative, not definitive, and that every single gelatin test involves multiple variables (temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, gelatin composition among others) so even the comparative values are diminished significantly.

    Testing with pudding media would be no less fallible or unreliable.
    The FBI protocol has a caveat to that effect. They said they used a specific kind of gel, not what most testers use and they carefully controlled the temperature and other environmental factors. So they specifically said their tests should not be compared to other gel tests.

    I take that to mean various other gel test probably can't be compared to each other. As you say, at best, tests within one testing situation can be compared to each other, but not to any other testing situations. Also, I don't think "scientific method" would apply. The FBI report also said words to the effect that their tests were just to look at one aspect of ballistics that probably has a bearing on stopping power. The report said there is no reliable scientific test for stopping power.

    I think people have gone off the rails with gel testing. And pudding testing would be more tasty.
    retired badge 1 likes this.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

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
  •