generic bullets versus premium

B

Bezoar

Moderator
i really dont see the point of all the hype of the newer generation bullets. Sure the newer bullets promise perfect results but i dont see the worth of them.

Did some testing today. newspaper compressed in a box, backed by a 1/16 steel tray. that was backed by a 20 inch thick rotting stump. at a really close 15 yards i blasted away.

4 rounds 110 grain sjhp 38 +p
3 rounds 130 grain rem umc standard 38 special
7 rounds standard 38 special 158 grain lrn

they all did the same things to the test target. hit, entered, penetrated, shredded newspaper, and blew through the plate and dissapeared into the stump. the end. dug half way through the stump, found NONE.
 
I really could use better target, but when the "outdated" 110 grain +p sjhp expands and still penetrates like a 158 grain lrn, i somewhat doubt the need to pay 30 dollars for a box of 20 premium bonded 110 to 130 grain bonded jhp ammo.

if my 20 year old 35 dollar a box of 50 round generic hollow points are still labelled as self defense/target/think skin game animals(some brands do say that) then why pay more for something that i can rarely ever find in store or online?
 
I know what you're saying.

I got into shooting in 1983. At the time, most all defense rounds were JHP's with the top half of the bullet being exposed soft lead. I believe they most likely worked just fine. And I rather doubt that modern designs (where the copper jacket goes all the way to the tip of the bullet) are significantly better. Shot placement is everything.

Years ago, Federal made a 357 Mag 125g JHP where the hollow point was a cave; and it was a hot round to boot. I bet it was a highly effective defense round. Speaking of hot rounds, Remington's 125g JHP was a monster of a round back then.

And in terms of 38 Special, I still think a soft swaged 158g LSWC HP (think Speer) is as effective as anything being produced today. I can't imagine a Hornady 158 XTP being ballistically superior in 38 Special; in fact, I know it's not.
 
Ballistic gel would give you more accurate results but you're right.
Modern loads aren't significantly better than what people shot 20, 30 years ago.
 
I think it depends.

A 38 Special is one of those rounds that doesn't benefit nearly as much from improved bullet technology. Most of the premiums work better in rounds leaving the muzzle at 1000 fps or more. The problem in the past was getting fast bullets to perform well after contact. Either you used fmj that would stay together and get deep penetration with no expansion. Or take a chance on the cheaper, older HP designs would often expand violently and give poor penetration.

The premiums improve performance of rounds like 38 and 45 ACP, just not as dramatically as they do with faster rounds.
 
You do need better test medium and a whole lot more testing to draw any kind of conclusions.
Even gallon plastic water filled jugs ain't all that bad. In fact can come close to b-gel.
If you are serious about terminal ballistics I suggest b-gel & lots of measurments & notes, else nothing can be concluded with any hope of accurate data.
A chrono is a good idea to.:)
 
i really dont see the point of all the hype of the newer generation bullets. Sure the newer bullets promise perfect results but i dont see the worth of them.
Click to expand...

You're no fun. :)

(I shoot cast lead handloads, almost exclusively.)
 
The newest ammo is the most likely to properly expand in the most varying circumstances. All HP ammo is better than FMJ.

The reason to buy premium ammo is to give yourself the best possible chance of surviving when you might only get one decent hit.

I bought one box of premium JHP 15 years ago, and that's what I still have on hand, should I choose to carry. Unless you are re-chambering it multiple times, ammo doesn't go bad over time. One 20 round box of the good stuff is a reasonable investment.
 
I think 9mm rounds have seen real improvement in last few years. A few years ago it seemed that a lot of people were going to 40 S&W or 45. Now it seems that 15 + rounds of good 9mm hp rounds is a pretty good load out.

I reload for my range shooting, so I don't mind spending some extra for my SD rounds. Carrying critical defence right now seems to have good test results
 
I'd submit sophisticated, highly instrumented testing will show that at 15 yards and less that the differences in effects of $ vs. $$$$ bullets are minimal. At long ranges, YMWV.
 
what matter$ mo$t? the wor$t that can happen.....

If I shoot paper any accurate bullet works.
If I shoot animals to eat the bullet choice matters.

But if I shoot people all I got is that bullet; ay?
 
As far as using older ammo, you do need to be mindful that there is the very real possibility it can and does in fact "go bad". This isnt a failure of an older era bullet design, but an overall cartridge problem.

Ive encountered it with both rifle and pistol ammo over the years, and its been varied in how it did go bad. Some rounds simply misfired, some were hang fires, and some had cases that failed, both before being fired, and while being fired, caused by powder degradation.

How the ammo has been stored, also seems to have a direct bearing on how things progress too.

Personally, I keep fresh ammo in the guns I count on for anything serious. Its not so much about the design of the bullet, as it is about the round actually functioning properly when called on to do so.

While I do generally use whats deemed acceptable and issued by agencies that can afford to do the research, I would not be too upset if it were simply "ball". If the latest design should fail to work as it should, its going to be basically the same thing anyway, and regardless what you use, its still a pistol, and the drill remains, "shoot them to the ground". Thinking you got a magic bullet thats the Sword of Todd, is dangerous thinking.
 
I shoot whatever the local police department or state troopers use.

Why?

Because if (God forbid) I ever have to use one of those bullets, I don't want the prosecutor to be able to say that I was trying to kill someone due to "super killing shredding pulverizing extra lethal" ammunition. All it takes to discount such a theory is putting the police chief or a trooper captain on the stand and ask them what their department issues to their officers. Then ask if they're designed to be more lethal than any other bullet type out there. They say, 'no, they're designed to expand on impact and stop the threat'.... Then I would have a high-ranking law enforcement official defending my choice of defensive ammunition.

Call me crazy, call me paranoid. But I carry the same ammo type that the local PD does, right now, it's Federal Hydra-Shok.
 
Call me crazy, call me paranoid. But I carry the same ammo type that the local PD does, right now, it's Federal Hydra-Shok.
Click to expand...

I see the following to be just as likely:

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury....

I submit to you that this man intentionally carried the same dangerous and deadly ammunition as our brave men and women in blue...

This was not for defence of his life...

No, no, no...

This was sadly and tragically due to his deep seated want to kill someone...

And he did..."

6 of one, half dozen of the other?
 
I got into shooting in 1983. At the time, most all defense rounds were JHP's with the top half of the bullet being exposed soft lead. I believe they most likely worked just fine. And I rather doubt that modern designs (where the copper jacket goes all the way to the tip of the bullet) are significantly better.
Click to expand...

There's a reason why you don't see semi-jacketed hollowpoints (SJHP) anymore. When the exposed lead nose expands and peels back it's sheared off by the harder copper jacket. You end up with a ring of lead in the wound track and an unexpanded bullet.

With the older Remington SJHPs, the scalloped jacket would cut the lead nose into six small fragments.
 
What I have found is that in some calibers, there are now more choices in bullet construction and more bullets are purpose related and not just the basic "good for everything" bullet. Along with this has come the knowledge that bullets need to be purpose related in order to perform the best in different scenarios. IOWs, a bullet good for .357 SD/HD is not the best bullet for hunting deer with the same .357. With today's bullet constructions, folks have a choice......not so much years ago. With today's manufacturing processes there is little difference in a brand name HP or SP than a generic HP or SP other than hype or consistency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top