Gman is right on the money with the 165 gr .40SW. This is a brutal round to be on the receiving end.
It wasn't about how the bullet looked; the videos were examples of why the overpenetration generalization was wrong.Yes but look what it did to the bullet. That's not good performance.
It is really hard to find a bad HP in 40 S&W. At best they behave like a 357 magnum, at worst a 45 ACP.Back to 40 S&W ...
Glock 23 is my most carried pistol.
I also have a Glock 19, but prefer the idea of potentially making larger holes in whatever trying to kill me.
I was carrying 180 HST, but got some Winchester Ranger Bonded 165 contract overrun, its not labeled as "low recoil" but my chrono average velocity is indicative that it is and subjectively it is "low recoil", imperceptible difference in recoil from that 165 40 S&W and a 147 +P from a Glock 19.
Importantly, 180 gr. POI was (is) a bit high for my POA, the 165 Bonded hits where I aim. :biggrin2:
I tested the bullet through 4 layer denim into water filled gallon jugs, was very pleased with the result.
Whether the reduced recoil or not, either 165 Ranger bonded performs well in different test media:
9mm Ranger Bonded loads perform acceptably; 380 in those tests (or otherwise), its not what I'll bet my life on.
That depends on which bullet you use. The lighter faster 40"s mimic the 357 magnum for energy, which absolutely surpasses the 45 ACP. The 180 grain 40's act like a 185 grain 45 ACP in actual shootings.No, it’s just like you carrying your G26, no? But I guess I agree as my 45 Shield fits the bill too.
Did I mention that the 45 is better than all of them?
I was just being a wisenheimer with the 45 comment.That depends on which bullet you use. The lighter faster 40"s mimic the 357 magnum for energy, which absolutely surpasses the 45 ACP. The 180 grain 40's act like a 185 grain 45 ACP in actual shootings.
Makes sense to me. Comparing 9mm to .40 with proportional bullet weights (147gr 9mm vs 180gr .40, etc), basically you're getting the same velocity, with about 20% more momentum, energy, and cross-sectional area. It's obviously an improvement.One of the things all these Gel test never show is where that extra energy might help. If we look at the .357 Sig Gel test with 125 gr HST and compare it to 9mm 124 gr +P HST, the .357 Sig round is travelling around 200 fps. faster. But the penetration & expansion is about the same in Gel. Now add in bone, cartilage, any item being carried or worn by a person, or some other barrier that might get in the way. Does that extra velocity give you a benefit over the slower moving 9mm? Or a larger, heavier round that might hit something a smaller round didn't?
I would think so.
If you're feeling all that energy (blast & recoil) on your end, I would assume it would benefit you on the other end.
Try 147 grn 9mm vs 135 grn or 155grn 40 much closer comparison than a 180 grn 40.Makes sense to me. Comparing 9mm to .40 with proportional bullet weights (147gr 9mm vs 180gr .40, etc), basically you're getting the same velocity, with about 20% more momentum, energy, and cross-sectional area. It's obviously an improvement.
The downside is 20% more recoil, and whether it's worth it is an individual choice. Personally, I believe the most likely use of a defensive pistol for me is against a BG within a few yards of me, in which circumstance that difference in recoil seems completely irrelevant.
That was smoking performance. With the 10 mm you are picking up 300 fps velocity. That is significant.
Soon, reports were coming in attesting to it's effectiveness, criminals being put down at the first shot in each instance with severe bone and/or tissue damage.