10mm for self defense
- Thread starter Doc Holliday45
- Start date
- Status
Regardless of which yardstick you prefer to measure terminal ballistics with, 10mm is always going to be superior to 9mm. You want premium bullets? 10mm comes in Speer Gold Dot, Federal HST, Hornady CriticalDuty, and Winchester Defender. Even with older bullets like Hornady XTP's or Winchester Silvertips, the extra horsepower available can compensate for what may be lacking in bullet design.
The fact of the matter is that 10mm has the capability to drive a larger-diameter, much heavier bullet at equal or higher velocity than 9mm. Given the ballistics you have to work with, it's not hard to make a bullet that will expand larger, penetrate deeper, or both.
One of the advantages of powerful cartridges like .357 Magnum and 10mm is that they don't need premium bullets to perform well. Generally speaking, if you can drive a heavy enough bullet fast enough, you can make it do what you want it to do. If something like, oh I don't know, a sudden panic buy of guns and ammo we're to happen and I had to use whatever JHP ammo happened to be available, I'd feel better with something like 10mm that will still perform well even if loaded with dated, less-than-premium bullets. At the end of the day you can safely and easily download 10mm (ammo companies have done it for years) but you can only hotrod 9mm so far.
The fact of the matter is that 10mm has the capability to drive a larger-diameter, much heavier bullet at equal or higher velocity than 9mm. Given the ballistics you have to work with, it's not hard to make a bullet that will expand larger, penetrate deeper, or both.
One of the advantages of powerful cartridges like .357 Magnum and 10mm is that they don't need premium bullets to perform well. Generally speaking, if you can drive a heavy enough bullet fast enough, you can make it do what you want it to do. If something like, oh I don't know, a sudden panic buy of guns and ammo we're to happen and I had to use whatever JHP ammo happened to be available, I'd feel better with something like 10mm that will still perform well even if loaded with dated, less-than-premium bullets. At the end of the day you can safely and easily download 10mm (ammo companies have done it for years) but you can only hotrod 9mm so far.
A good & better choice, IMHO, Doc.
Good SD loads available over the counter that'll do the job without paying boutique bullet prices, with good practice ammo available generally. The .45 has been panned by many that know, with about all the recoil the average handgunner can handle and still get good 2nd shot placement.
All that, and an absolute menagerie of quality guns available to choose from: DA/SA, SAO, DAO...plastic, steel or alloy frames...you pic, then train with your choice. It's been a reliable choice for 109 years and counting. Rod
Last edited:
wild cat mccane
New member
Oh. Absolutely. I will also throw 357 under the bus. 9mm HST performs better than most 357 commercial loads without the horrible recoil. Even Luckygunner straight up says 357 is probably never worth the cost of recoil given performance differences of 357. As someone else brought up, there are 38 special loads doing better penetration and expansion than 357. For defense. As the topic states defense. But I also mentioned hunting too.
Recall, I mentioned a commercial Federal 9mm load is faster than almost all commercial 357. Federal 115gr +P+ is not really even an okay round by the standards of today.
In boutique loads from BB, UW, and DT, they are using inferior bullets but plunking faster fps behind them. Big deal. What you tend to see in tests of BB, UW, and DT is ACTUALLY less depth because of the increased FPS. When it isn't less depth, the expansion isn't as impressive as HST 9mm. Recall, I am saying and tests are showing HST is going slower with huge depth AND expansion. Old tech requires high FPS to get big expansion. High FPS in this old technology blooms the hollowpoint too large too fast. Less expansion.
Even XTP I mentioned as a hunting round? When you look at the results, the pedals are almost completely flat against the round when it goes TOO fast/deep. Why? It's because BB, UW, and DT are sending the bullet so fast the expansion hits past what is desired and it keeps going. So okay for hunting, bad for self defense. On Gold Dot? Jury is out if those bullets aren't also breaking up, but for sure they are flattening too fast.
Are there any 357 loads opening .7" and going 18" on average? nope.
HST 9mm does BETTER without high FPS.
That said, I love 357 in a revolver at the range.
But this is about 10mm. You are seeing people staying on topic of 10mm and pointing out 10mm isn't up to the internet hype for self defense.
Recall, no one is saying 10mm or 357 doesn't work. What I'm saying is the 9mm in the same shot will have the same results and have done a better job doing it. Data shows that is true. AND it is a smaller gun. AND it is less FPS. AND it is less recoil. AND it has more rounds. AND it is usually 25 bucks for 50 rounds.
The only thing it has going for it is higher FPS and weight. Those aren't showing up as advantages not matched in 9mm for self defense or hunting using modern hollow points.
Recall, I mentioned a commercial Federal 9mm load is faster than almost all commercial 357. Federal 115gr +P+ is not really even an okay round by the standards of today.
In boutique loads from BB, UW, and DT, they are using inferior bullets but plunking faster fps behind them. Big deal. What you tend to see in tests of BB, UW, and DT is ACTUALLY less depth because of the increased FPS. When it isn't less depth, the expansion isn't as impressive as HST 9mm. Recall, I am saying and tests are showing HST is going slower with huge depth AND expansion. Old tech requires high FPS to get big expansion. High FPS in this old technology blooms the hollowpoint too large too fast. Less expansion.
Even XTP I mentioned as a hunting round? When you look at the results, the pedals are almost completely flat against the round when it goes TOO fast/deep. Why? It's because BB, UW, and DT are sending the bullet so fast the expansion hits past what is desired and it keeps going. So okay for hunting, bad for self defense. On Gold Dot? Jury is out if those bullets aren't also breaking up, but for sure they are flattening too fast.
Are there any 357 loads opening .7" and going 18" on average? nope.
HST 9mm does BETTER without high FPS.
That said, I love 357 in a revolver at the range.
But this is about 10mm. You are seeing people staying on topic of 10mm and pointing out 10mm isn't up to the internet hype for self defense.
Recall, no one is saying 10mm or 357 doesn't work. What I'm saying is the 9mm in the same shot will have the same results and have done a better job doing it. Data shows that is true. AND it is a smaller gun. AND it is less FPS. AND it is less recoil. AND it has more rounds. AND it is usually 25 bucks for 50 rounds.
The only thing it has going for it is higher FPS and weight. Those aren't showing up as advantages not matched in 9mm for self defense or hunting using modern hollow points.
Last edited:
It seems to me that a lot of seemingly miraculous performance is being touted about certain bullets and that such performance may be exaggerated. Because Federal HST's keep being mentioned, let's look at what Federal says they'll do (if anyone had reason to exaggerate, it would be the manufacturer).
Bare Gel
P9HST1 (9mm 124 gr standard pressure)
Velocity 1158 fps
Penetration 11.00 in
Expansion .880 in
Retained weight 124.0 gr
P9HST2 (9mm 147 gr standard pressure)
Velocity 1004 fps
Penetration 12.0 in
Expansion .850 in
Retained weight 147.0 gr
P9HST3 (9mm 124 gr +P)
Velocity 1260
Penetration 10.0 in
Expansion .870 in
Retained weight 124.0 gr
Wow, even with a "state of the art" bullet like HST we're getting what the FBI would deem inadequate or barely adequate penetration. Let's look at heavy clothing
Heavy Clothing
P9HST1
Velocity 1192 fps
Penetration 12.0 in
Expansion .590 in
Retained weight 124.0 gr
P9HST2
Velocity 1023 fps
Penetration 12.50 in
Expansion .690 in
Retained weight 147.0 gr
P9HST3
Velocity 1265 fps
Penetration 13.0 in
Expansion .610 in
Retained weight 114.0 gr
So in heavy clothing penetration was better, but still on the shallow side of adequate and short of the 14-16" the FBI says is optimal. Also, the improved penetration came at the expense of significantly reduced expansion as compared to bare gel.
So, from what I can see while 9mm HST's certainly aren't bad bullets, they're not magic. No amount of bullet design can escape physics. All else held equal you can make a bigger, heavier, faster bullet expand more, penetrate deeper, or both easier that you can a smaller, lighter, slower one.
Bare Gel
P9HST1 (9mm 124 gr standard pressure)
Velocity 1158 fps
Penetration 11.00 in
Expansion .880 in
Retained weight 124.0 gr
P9HST2 (9mm 147 gr standard pressure)
Velocity 1004 fps
Penetration 12.0 in
Expansion .850 in
Retained weight 147.0 gr
P9HST3 (9mm 124 gr +P)
Velocity 1260
Penetration 10.0 in
Expansion .870 in
Retained weight 124.0 gr
Wow, even with a "state of the art" bullet like HST we're getting what the FBI would deem inadequate or barely adequate penetration. Let's look at heavy clothing
Heavy Clothing
P9HST1
Velocity 1192 fps
Penetration 12.0 in
Expansion .590 in
Retained weight 124.0 gr
P9HST2
Velocity 1023 fps
Penetration 12.50 in
Expansion .690 in
Retained weight 147.0 gr
P9HST3
Velocity 1265 fps
Penetration 13.0 in
Expansion .610 in
Retained weight 114.0 gr
So in heavy clothing penetration was better, but still on the shallow side of adequate and short of the 14-16" the FBI says is optimal. Also, the improved penetration came at the expense of significantly reduced expansion as compared to bare gel.
So, from what I can see while 9mm HST's certainly aren't bad bullets, they're not magic. No amount of bullet design can escape physics. All else held equal you can make a bigger, heavier, faster bullet expand more, penetrate deeper, or both easier that you can a smaller, lighter, slower one.
Last edited:
So then, where are all these grandiose ideas about magician 9mm HST's coming from? I think the answer is the widespread use of Clear Ballistics gelatin in tests like Lucky Gunner's. Simply put, Clear Ballistics gel isn't the same as real 10% ordinance gelatin and cannot be counted on to give the same results.
The reason this is a problem is because 10% ordinance gel, while generally accepted as the best approximator to living tissue available, is still an imperfect medium for predicting bullet performance. Living organisms are not uniform in side shape and composition like ballistics gel nor are they homgenous. When the best you have is already imperfect (some might even argue fundamentally flawed), deviating even further from it can't be expected to give particularly useful data.
Now some will argue that Clear Ballistics gel is still useful because, even though it doesn't behave like real ordinance gel, it's still a consistent and repeatable means of testing bullets against each other. While it may be consistent and repeatable, the results and comparisons can't be extrapolated to other materials. Water jugs, wetpack, and pine boards are consistent and repeatable too, but unless I'm planning on shooting watercoolers, damp bookcases, or Pinocchio the data they provide is of little usefulness.
The reason this is a problem is because 10% ordinance gel, while generally accepted as the best approximator to living tissue available, is still an imperfect medium for predicting bullet performance. Living organisms are not uniform in side shape and composition like ballistics gel nor are they homgenous. When the best you have is already imperfect (some might even argue fundamentally flawed), deviating even further from it can't be expected to give particularly useful data.
Now some will argue that Clear Ballistics gel is still useful because, even though it doesn't behave like real ordinance gel, it's still a consistent and repeatable means of testing bullets against each other. While it may be consistent and repeatable, the results and comparisons can't be extrapolated to other materials. Water jugs, wetpack, and pine boards are consistent and repeatable too, but unless I'm planning on shooting watercoolers, damp bookcases, or Pinocchio the data they provide is of little usefulness.
Last edited:
wild cat mccane
New member
When exactly did Lucky Gunner and Vista Outdoors become definitive authorities on ballistics performance?
Regardless, if I've learned one thing of value from this thread, it's just how unreliable Ballistics Gel really is as a commercial testing medium. Honestly, I used to put down Paul Harrel for his "meat targets" which he uses over Ballistics Gel because it isn't as scientific, but at least the results are easier for the lay person to understand, as opposed to Ballistics Gel which despite being a more consistent testing medium for attaining repeatable results, is taken far too seriously by the lay person who apparently doesn't understand that it is by no means a 1:1 representation of the sort of performance one can expect within a living vertebrate organism, and thus draw all sorts of wild conclusions about how little of a difference more powerful ammo makes.
Also, maybe the problem with Ballistics Gel is that the results of it are too consistent, too repeatable, and therefore completely unrealistic when it comes to the sort of results which often occur as a result of shooting actual organisms with bones inside of them.
I don't think we'd see this level of absurdity if we were comparing the results of a testing medium with bones in it. Obviously shattered bones tend to be a bit more debilitating than bones with neat little holes punched in them, and bullets which are actually capable of consistently smashing straight through bone tend to stay on target and penetrate better than those which may glance off of bone or otherwise veer off course afterwards.
Regardless, if I've learned one thing of value from this thread, it's just how unreliable Ballistics Gel really is as a commercial testing medium. Honestly, I used to put down Paul Harrel for his "meat targets" which he uses over Ballistics Gel because it isn't as scientific, but at least the results are easier for the lay person to understand, as opposed to Ballistics Gel which despite being a more consistent testing medium for attaining repeatable results, is taken far too seriously by the lay person who apparently doesn't understand that it is by no means a 1:1 representation of the sort of performance one can expect within a living vertebrate organism, and thus draw all sorts of wild conclusions about how little of a difference more powerful ammo makes.
Also, maybe the problem with Ballistics Gel is that the results of it are too consistent, too repeatable, and therefore completely unrealistic when it comes to the sort of results which often occur as a result of shooting actual organisms with bones inside of them.
I don't think we'd see this level of absurdity if we were comparing the results of a testing medium with bones in it. Obviously shattered bones tend to be a bit more debilitating than bones with neat little holes punched in them, and bullets which are actually capable of consistently smashing straight through bone tend to stay on target and penetrate better than those which may glance off of bone or otherwise veer off course afterwards.
I’ll go out on a limb and trust the makers of the ammunition (Vista Outdoors) more than Paul Harrel and his meat targets. YMMV.
I don’t know if anyone here really thinks ballistics gel is 1:1 with a real person. I haven’t seen anyone make that claim. To me the question is if there is some advantage of one cartridge over another I would expect that difference to show in the results in the ballistics gel.
Yes ballistics gel isn’t the same as bone. But the entire human body isn’t as resistant as ballistics gel either. There are plenty of softer tissues and essentially cavities. Yes the human body involves much more randomness. The point of this kind of testing is one variable at a time, in this case the cartridge. If you have an idea for a test on the impact of bullets and bone specifically that would be interesting to pursue. I’ve watched some of Harrell’s testing. That channel has felt a lot like confirmation bias in action to me. But then again maybe I’m the same and just have a different bias.
As for some bullets shattering bones versus making holes in them, there are loads of variables then including density of the bone at the point of impact, angle of incidence, etc. I would be leery of going down this track or we’ll go back to the days of aiming for the pelvic girdle and going for disabling shots rather than the upper thoracic cavity and the cranial ocular cavity. Certainly people have been disabled by shots, but if the goal is stopping a threat quickly before the threat has time to hurt us or someone else I’m not sure just shattering bones is the goal, unless that’s while the bullet is on the path to a vital organ.
I don’t disagree that some cartridges are more powerful than others. I would state, as I did earlier, that we’re talking handguns. While that is the sub forum in question and what most carry on their person, there are reasons law enforcement carry shotguns and carbines. I’m not convinced that one handgun cartridge is dramatically more powerful than another, in terms of the typical center fire options. Now is there a significant difference that may be meaningful to someone or multiple someones? That I can see.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
wild cat mccane
New member
haha...
Vista Outdoors owns Federal and CCI/Speer. Vista is owned by northrop grumman. ATK is owned by Northrop so these two companies have been owned corporately as sister companies for a very long time. ATK dropped ammunition and Vista Outdoors brought Speer/Federal into one corporate house.
(Fusion, CCI, Speer, Federal Premium, Estate, Blazer, American Eagle, Independence, etc). Winchester (Freedom Group (Barnes)) and Hornady are pretty much the only others as a percent of US ammunition.
They are the largest ammunition manufacture in the world. Federal operates the US govt's Lake City plant for all DOD ammunition. Federal currently manufactures Winchester's ammunition that is market as anything from Lake City. Winchester lost Lake City comanagement to Northrop.
That makes them the leading expert.
Vista Outdoors owns Federal and CCI/Speer. Vista is owned by northrop grumman. ATK is owned by Northrop so these two companies have been owned corporately as sister companies for a very long time. ATK dropped ammunition and Vista Outdoors brought Speer/Federal into one corporate house.
(Fusion, CCI, Speer, Federal Premium, Estate, Blazer, American Eagle, Independence, etc). Winchester (Freedom Group (Barnes)) and Hornady are pretty much the only others as a percent of US ammunition.
They are the largest ammunition manufacture in the world. Federal operates the US govt's Lake City plant for all DOD ammunition. Federal currently manufactures Winchester's ammunition that is market as anything from Lake City. Winchester lost Lake City comanagement to Northrop.
That makes them the leading expert.
Last edited:
Fortunately salesmen are always 100% accurate about their products, never skew their statistics, and obviously wouldn't benefit at all by marketing all of their products as being equally effective.
Off-Topic: Has anyone here tried the Impossible Whopper at Burger King? They say that the taste is completely indistinguishable from an ordinary all-beef Whopper.
Off-Topic: Has anyone here tried the Impossible Whopper at Burger King? They say that the taste is completely indistinguishable from an ordinary all-beef Whopper.
Actually that doesn’t make sense to me for a few reasons. Even within calibers the different bullets are shown to perform differently (like I said I think the Gold Dot actually performs better for say 124 gr). Additionally, 10mm is more expensive than say 9mm. If the goal was pure profit it would make more sense to make the larger calibers look better and sell more of those. Lastly, while I don’t disagree that an independent third party is best for examination, does anyone on YouTube fit that mold? Controversy garners more views than the status quo. I’d hazard a guess that’s at least partly responsible for Harrell’s view count on a number of videos. YouTubers are salesmen in their own right.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Companies don't typically care what makes money so long as it is profitable, and any good businessman will tell you that it isn't as profitable to specialize as it is to diversify in order to appeal to the widest demographic possible. 10mm Auto may be more expensive and therefore theoretically more profitable than 9mm Luger, but 9mm Luger is far and away the most popular pistol cartridge on the planet, so they actually stand to profit more by pushing the 9mm Luger as being all that anybody needs for Self-Defense than it is for them to push an otherwise niche cartridge like the 10mm Auto, so rather than picking a favorite they'll push all of their ammo as good in its own right, (which is at least true in the greater scheme of things) than risk potentially losing sales on 9mm Luger by focusing on how great their 10mm ammo is in particular, or showing off side-by-side statistics which are obviously misleading to the lay person which would suggest that 10mm Auto is the absolute best thing they offer for all purposes.
As for Paul Harrell, don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that he is a 100% impartial observer who ought to be treated as an authority on anything firearms related. In fact, I myself have strongly disagreed with a number of his methods, opinions, and presentations on a variety of subjects. I'm merely saying that in hindsight I like his attempted approach in regards to alternative ammo testing because I believe that his so-called "meat targets" are more easy for the lay person to understand than Ballistics Gel tests, hence why you get absurdly over-the-top assertions that Ballistics Gel tests prove beyond a shadow of doubt that 9mm HST is equally (if not more) effective when compared to 10mm Auto.
Trusting any single source of information is foolish, hence why I called into question placing faith in a unilateral testing protocol such as Ballistics Gel Testing, or the results of said testing offered up by a website which specializes in selling ammunition and a conglomerate who owns a number of subsidiary ammo manufacturers.
As for Paul Harrell, don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that he is a 100% impartial observer who ought to be treated as an authority on anything firearms related. In fact, I myself have strongly disagreed with a number of his methods, opinions, and presentations on a variety of subjects. I'm merely saying that in hindsight I like his attempted approach in regards to alternative ammo testing because I believe that his so-called "meat targets" are more easy for the lay person to understand than Ballistics Gel tests, hence why you get absurdly over-the-top assertions that Ballistics Gel tests prove beyond a shadow of doubt that 9mm HST is equally (if not more) effective when compared to 10mm Auto.
Trusting any single source of information is foolish, hence why I called into question placing faith in a unilateral testing protocol such as Ballistics Gel Testing, or the results of said testing offered up by a website which specializes in selling ammunition and a conglomerate who owns a number of subsidiary ammo manufacturers.
It’s been a while since I took microeconomics, but I’m not sure it’s true that any good business person favors diversification over specialization (at least not in all cases). That said, showing all calibers as equal doesn’t lead to diversification. If anything it would make 9mm seem like the easy choice because if each bullet performs the same then 9mm gives you more of them with less recoil. The focus then becomes 9mm above all else, which isn’t diversification.
To be honest I think the meat targets are just as easy to misinterpret as gel tests. A lay person is just that, someone with limited understanding. The issue is more to do with the person than the type of information that person is digesting. Certainly some presentations are better than others, but if the audience doesn’t have a clue then it’s sort of a moot point.
I would agree that multiple sources of information are better. That said, I don’t think you can toss out either the Lucky Gunner tests or the Vista Outdoors tests out of hand (and if you think that’s an unfair characterization, fair enough, I struggled with how to phrase that). To a point, it could be argued as bias in action in that you don’t agree with the conclusion so you take the easier route which is to discredit the source. I don’t know if that applies to you or not (and I actually do think you have a point about a company evaluating its own products), but it is a behavior I see a lot of online. My point about Harrell was that I am not sure he is either an authority or unbiased himself. At the end of the day each person has to examine the different forms of evidence and decides for themselves.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OK, so it seems Speer Gold Dots are the new magic bullet so let's see what Vista says they do in ballistic gel (for the sake of brevity we'll just look at penetration and expansion).
Bare Gel
9mm 115 gr GDHP
Penetration 11.75 in
Expansion .690 in
9mm +P+ 115 gr GDHP
Penetration 10.5 in
Expansion .830 in
9mm 124 gr GDHP
Penetration 11.35 in
Expansion .682 in
9mm +P 124 gr GDHP
Penetration 11.78 in
Expansion .720 in
9mm 147 gr GDHP
Penetration 12.58 in
Expansion .660 in
So, out of five different Gold Dot 9mm loadings only the 147 gr can make it past the FBI's 12" minimum and even then not by much. Let's look at the heavy clothing test
Heavy Clothing
9mm 115 gr GDHP
Penetration 13.75
Expansion .590
9mm +P+ 115 gr GDHP
Penetration 12.75 in
Expansion .600 in
9mm 124 gr GDHP
Penetration 14.61 in
Expansion .562 in
9mm +P 124 gr GDHP
Penetration 14.13 in
Expansion .600 in
9mm 147 gr GDHP
Penetration 14.93 in
Expansion .570 in
OK, so penetration was better, but none could expand larger than .600 in which is good, but not spectacular. Just for the sake of comparison, Let's look at .40 S&W Gold Dots
Bare Gel
.40 S&W 165 gr GDHP
Penetration 13.32 in
Expansion .672 in
.40 S&W 180 gr GDHP
Penetration 12.19 in
Expansion .640 in
So both of the .40's made it past 12 inches and both expanded larger than the 147 gr 9mm (remember the only 9mm to make it past 12 inches in bare gel). Let's see the heavy clothing:
.40 S&W 165 gr GDHP
Penetration 18.00 in
Expansion .618 in
.40 S&W 180 gr GDHP
Penetration 13.25 in
Expansion .709 in
So the 165 gr penetrated 18 inches (deeper than any of the 9mm's) and still expanded larger. The 180 gr .40 was able to expand significantly larger still and still managed to penetrate adequately. Bear in mind too, this is the .40 which is equal or slightly less powerful than the most pedestrian 10mm loadings.
The fact of the matter is, no matter which "magic bullet" you want to use, 9mm is still at the bottom-end of the common service calibers as far as wound ballistics goes (.38 Special is right there at the bottom too). Now, that's not to say that 9mm doesn't have advantages like lighter recoil, cheaper ammo, or higher magazine capacity for a given size gun, but those advantages come at the price of terminal performance.
9mm isn't a bad cartridge, but to say it's every bit the equal of more powerful cartridges is simply incorrect. The advantage of ballistic gel is that it's quantifiable and repeatable, but by every quantifiable measure that it gives us we see that more powerful cartridges are superior. Sure, modern bullets might make the 9mm better than it was before (though the bare gel tests of HST's and Gold Dots still leave a lot to be desired in the penetration department) but that same technology isn't the sole bailiwick of the 9mm. Apply the same bullet design to a more powerful cartridge (10mm comes in both HST and Gold Dot) and you can bet better performance still because you have bigger, heavier bullets and more velocity to work with.
Bare Gel
9mm 115 gr GDHP
Penetration 11.75 in
Expansion .690 in
9mm +P+ 115 gr GDHP
Penetration 10.5 in
Expansion .830 in
9mm 124 gr GDHP
Penetration 11.35 in
Expansion .682 in
9mm +P 124 gr GDHP
Penetration 11.78 in
Expansion .720 in
9mm 147 gr GDHP
Penetration 12.58 in
Expansion .660 in
So, out of five different Gold Dot 9mm loadings only the 147 gr can make it past the FBI's 12" minimum and even then not by much. Let's look at the heavy clothing test
Heavy Clothing
9mm 115 gr GDHP
Penetration 13.75
Expansion .590
9mm +P+ 115 gr GDHP
Penetration 12.75 in
Expansion .600 in
9mm 124 gr GDHP
Penetration 14.61 in
Expansion .562 in
9mm +P 124 gr GDHP
Penetration 14.13 in
Expansion .600 in
9mm 147 gr GDHP
Penetration 14.93 in
Expansion .570 in
OK, so penetration was better, but none could expand larger than .600 in which is good, but not spectacular. Just for the sake of comparison, Let's look at .40 S&W Gold Dots
Bare Gel
.40 S&W 165 gr GDHP
Penetration 13.32 in
Expansion .672 in
.40 S&W 180 gr GDHP
Penetration 12.19 in
Expansion .640 in
So both of the .40's made it past 12 inches and both expanded larger than the 147 gr 9mm (remember the only 9mm to make it past 12 inches in bare gel). Let's see the heavy clothing:
.40 S&W 165 gr GDHP
Penetration 18.00 in
Expansion .618 in
.40 S&W 180 gr GDHP
Penetration 13.25 in
Expansion .709 in
So the 165 gr penetrated 18 inches (deeper than any of the 9mm's) and still expanded larger. The 180 gr .40 was able to expand significantly larger still and still managed to penetrate adequately. Bear in mind too, this is the .40 which is equal or slightly less powerful than the most pedestrian 10mm loadings.
The fact of the matter is, no matter which "magic bullet" you want to use, 9mm is still at the bottom-end of the common service calibers as far as wound ballistics goes (.38 Special is right there at the bottom too). Now, that's not to say that 9mm doesn't have advantages like lighter recoil, cheaper ammo, or higher magazine capacity for a given size gun, but those advantages come at the price of terminal performance.
9mm isn't a bad cartridge, but to say it's every bit the equal of more powerful cartridges is simply incorrect. The advantage of ballistic gel is that it's quantifiable and repeatable, but by every quantifiable measure that it gives us we see that more powerful cartridges are superior. Sure, modern bullets might make the 9mm better than it was before (though the bare gel tests of HST's and Gold Dots still leave a lot to be desired in the penetration department) but that same technology isn't the sole bailiwick of the 9mm. Apply the same bullet design to a more powerful cartridge (10mm comes in both HST and Gold Dot) and you can bet better performance still because you have bigger, heavier bullets and more velocity to work with.
I never said Gold Dots were a magic bullet. At all. If you want to chase strawman arguments go for it. My comment was directed with the notion that HST doesn't seem to universally be the best, depending on your criteria.
This is where I think your example does a bit of overselling. Let's take one of your own examples:
Bare Gel
9mm 115 gr GDHP
Penetration 11.75 in
Expansion .690 in
9mm +P+ 115 gr GDHP
Penetration 10.5 in
Expansion .830 in
9mm 124 gr GDHP
Penetration 11.35 in
Expansion .682 in
9mm +P 124 gr GDHP
Penetration 11.78 in
Expansion .720 in
9mm 147 gr GDHP
Penetration 12.58 in
Expansion .660 in
Bare Gel
.40 S&W 165 gr GDHP
Penetration 13.32 in
Expansion .672 in
.40 S&W 180 gr GDHP
Penetration 12.19 in
Expansion .640 in
Depending on the bullet weights I choose for each caliber, 9mm can both penetrate further and expand larger, for instance the 147 gr 9mm vs. 180 gr 40SW. In other cases the 40SW penetrates almost 3" more. In other cases the difference is less than 0.5". What's the standard deviation on these tests? 0.5" might even be in the realm of margin of error. While I do get the point of the 12" standard, I'm not sure it's so rigid that a bullet that gets to 11.78" is a definite fail while one that goes 12.19" is a definite pass.
Now if the argument is that the above shows 9mm isn't magic and that bullet weight and velocity matter, I agree. But with the differences mattering so much on bullet weight and velocity even within a given cartridge, how anyone can make a definitive statement from the above and state that "9mm is still at the bottom-end of the common service calibers as far as wound ballistics goes" is beyond me. I'd really like to see the same for 10mm. That might be something that illustrates the point you want to make.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Webleymkv said:
This is where I think your example does a bit of overselling. Let's take one of your own examples:
Bare Gel
9mm 115 gr GDHP
Penetration 11.75 in
Expansion .690 in
9mm +P+ 115 gr GDHP
Penetration 10.5 in
Expansion .830 in
9mm 124 gr GDHP
Penetration 11.35 in
Expansion .682 in
9mm +P 124 gr GDHP
Penetration 11.78 in
Expansion .720 in
9mm 147 gr GDHP
Penetration 12.58 in
Expansion .660 in
Bare Gel
.40 S&W 165 gr GDHP
Penetration 13.32 in
Expansion .672 in
.40 S&W 180 gr GDHP
Penetration 12.19 in
Expansion .640 in
Depending on the bullet weights I choose for each caliber, 9mm can both penetrate further and expand larger, for instance the 147 gr 9mm vs. 180 gr 40SW. In other cases the 40SW penetrates almost 3" more. In other cases the difference is less than 0.5". What's the standard deviation on these tests? 0.5" might even be in the realm of margin of error. While I do get the point of the 12" standard, I'm not sure it's so rigid that a bullet that gets to 11.78" is a definite fail while one that goes 12.19" is a definite pass.
Now if the argument is that the above shows 9mm isn't magic and that bullet weight and velocity matter, I agree. But with the differences mattering so much on bullet weight and velocity even within a given cartridge, how anyone can make a definitive statement from the above and state that "9mm is still at the bottom-end of the common service calibers as far as wound ballistics goes" is beyond me. I'd really like to see the same for 10mm. That might be something that illustrates the point you want to make.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
TunnelRat, I admit that perhaps "magic bullet" wasn't the best term to use. Honestly, I wasn't even really intending to reply to you but was more attempting to head off those who seem to worship at the altar of Vista Outdoors from pivoting from HST to Gold Dot as the be-all end-all. You merely happened to be the one to mention Gold Dots first and I failed to distinguish your post from those of some others here.
As to my comparison of 9mm and .40 Gold Dots, you have to pick the one very best 9mm load (the only one that can make the 12" minimum in bare gel) to outperform one of the .40's by a very small amount in one test (the 180 gr .40 expanded to a much larger diameter through heavy clothing).
When I say 9mm (and .38 special) are at the bottom end of the service calibers, what I mean is it gives you the least to work with. You have the smallest bullet diameter, the lightest bullets, and depending on the bullet weight low-to-medium velocities. .40 and .45 offer bigger, heavier bullets and .357 Sig offers higher velocity. The point is that velocity and bullet weight matter and most of the other service calibers have more of one of those, if not both, to offer than 9mm does.
As to my comparison of 9mm and .40 Gold Dots, you have to pick the one very best 9mm load (the only one that can make the 12" minimum in bare gel) to outperform one of the .40's by a very small amount in one test (the 180 gr .40 expanded to a much larger diameter through heavy clothing).
When I say 9mm (and .38 special) are at the bottom end of the service calibers, what I mean is it gives you the least to work with. You have the smallest bullet diameter, the lightest bullets, and depending on the bullet weight low-to-medium velocities. .40 and .45 offer bigger, heavier bullets and .357 Sig offers higher velocity. The point is that velocity and bullet weight matter and most of the other service calibers have more of one of those, if not both, to offer than 9mm does.
- Status