9mm gel test: Federal 9BPLE

A

Andrew Wiggin

New member
2mzcxok.jpg






Link to video of test

Federal 9BPLE 115 gr JHP fired from S&W 6906 through four layers of denim into calibrated 10% gelatin.

BB: 590.8 fps, 3.0"

Impact velocity: 1,352 fps
Penetration: 11.0"
Retained weight: 114.8 gr
Max expansion: 0.711"
Min expansion: 0.544"
 
Yes, and bear in mind that it would probably penetrate less in bare gel. That said, it is not a statistically relevant sample size.
 
Performance doesn't seem too bad for an "old school" bullet.
Regardless of gel it reportedly did pretty good in the "real world".
 
I'll go with the results seen in actual shootings over gel every time. The 9BPLE was one of, if not the most effective 9mm rounds used by law enforcement has a well deserved reputation. Regardless of what the gel says, people haven't changed any and results don't lie. I carried 9BPLE on duty and still use it in my 9mm carry guns and I'm confident it will be just as effective today as it was 15 years ago.
 
Nonsense. I've fired +P+ Winchester Ranger 127gn for many years in several different 9mm's. I've never noticed one iota of wear, excessive or otherwise.
 
I hear a lot of folks say that 9BPLE is "street proven" or similar and I can't help but wonder where this reputation is coming from.
 
Google is your friend, do some research, there is tons of info out there on actual shootings from ISP, Border Patrol, DeKalb County S.O., and many other major depts that used 9BPLE as duty ammo. It was one of the most popular LE rounds for over two decades, DCSO only just gave it up a few years ago, IIRC. In addition to it's reputation for lethality it is well known to be consistently accurate and to function well in a wide variety of weapons.
 
9BPLE has one of the stronger positive reputations out there among older ammo. I carry Gold Dot or HST, but if all that was on the shelf was 9BPLE and I needed ammo right then, I would not feel poorly armed.

As a long-term choice, I'm not a fan because +p+ accelerates wear, which isn't necessary when even standard pressure Gold Dots or HSTs are excellent performers.
 
Okay, that's fine, but I think most of that reputation has come from the oft discredited Marshall and Sannow paper. If there is some evidence that hasn't been repeatedly refuted, I'd like to hear it.
 
I can't help but wonder where this reputation is coming from.
Click to expand...
From those who have used it successfully for the many decades it's been around

It's long been one of the most popular LEO loads
 
it is not a statistically relevant sample size.
Click to expand...

Information theory -- specifically maximum entropy inference [see Shannon, C.E. (1948), "A Mathematical Theory of Communication", Bell System Technical Journal, 27, pp. 379–423 & 623–656] -- tells us if all we have is an estimate of the average (in this case 11.0 inches), the we can expect 95% of the results to be between 0.3 and 40 inches ... which essentially confirms your statement and demonstrates why the IWBA recommends a minimum sample size of 10 shots.
 
I've fired +P+ Winchester Ranger 127gn for many years in several different 9mm's.
Click to expand...

Which manufacturers certify their firearms for +P+ ammo?

I've never noticed one iota of wear, excessive or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Probably because the pistols you used were designed with a generous margin of safety, or because the +P+ you used really wasn't > +P. Some +P+ loads -- for which there is no formal definition -- are a marketing gimmick to snag shooters.
 
Last edited:
I hear a lot of folks say that 9BPLE is "street proven" or similar and I can't help but wonder where this reputation is coming from.
Click to expand...

"Street proven" = "anecdotal." It may be true, but it hasn't been scientifically demonstrated, as the anecdotal responses you are getting seem to confirm.

The IWBA Ammunition Specification shows that the organization of expert scientists was not interested in ensuring a minimum average penetration (eg, at least 12.5 inches in bare gel), but rather that the overwhelming majority of rounds penetrate to a distance somewhat less. In the late 1980s, the organization was not populated with sophisticated statisticians, but as best I can tell they were interested in at least 90% of rounds penetrating at least 11.0 inches or thereabouts. The appropriate metric is a lower tolerance bound.
 
Regardless of what the gel says, people haven't changed any and results don't lie.
Click to expand...

Since the USDA declared a war on fat in foods and began pushing empty carbohydrates on us with their disasterous Food Pyramid, the resulting obesity epidemic has changed people -- today's bad guys tend to be bigger.
 
today's bad guys tend to be bigger.
Click to expand...
Very few are so big that 11" of penetration won't get you to the vital organs.

"Street proven" = "anecdotal." It may be true, but it hasn't been scientifically demonstrated, as the anecdotal responses you are getting seem to confirm.
Click to expand...
The data gathered from actual shooting results over several decades is "scientific demonstration" that the round performs quite well

No one needs another gel test when there are so many real world examples
 
Very few [of today's bad guys] are so big that 11" of penetration won't get you to the vital organs.
Click to expand...

X inches of penetration in calibrated ballistic gel, a soft tissue simulant, does not equate to X inches of penetration in a human body, which has bones and a tough exterior tissue known as skin.

For example, ballistic gel is calibrated by depth of penetration of a BB fired from a BB gun. Find a volunteer to let you fire that BB gun at him and let us know how much penetration you observe.

The data gathered from actual shooting results over several decades is "scientific demonstration" that the round performs quite well
Click to expand...

Will you please provide a link to just one scientific study on this load? Hint: anecdotes aren't science.

I've read of two gel tests -- Mr. Wiggins's 11.0-in and another at 11.7-in. That gives, with a sample size of 2, a sample mean of 11.35-in and a sample standard deviation of 0.495-in. Said mean is far short of the IWBA's recommendation of 12.5-in, but the standard deviation (the most reliable metric of expansion reliability -- the smaller the better) is within their recommendation of, as I recall, 1.0 (I believe they say that 0.6-in is reasonably attainable with high quality JHPs).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top