New info on Norma ammo is amazing!

L

L. Boscoe

New member
Just got a copy of Guns and Ammo which has an article on Norma
ammo, long a favorite of mine. They make the best brass so I am
told, and some really unique ammo.
I am a big long time fan of 45acp for a variety of reasons, most of which center around re loading and the ease of handling the larger rounds.
That said-Norma has a 9mm round, the NXD, 65gr that is fluted so
it causes extreme vortex wounds, detailed in grisly commentary in the article. It has a velocity of 1730 fps, making it have more energy than a 45acp by about 50%.
Norma also has a HP designed to do a lot of damage as well, but I was really amazed by the energy data coming from a 9mm.
Norma makes a 'hexagon' target 45 round which I am always on the lookout for, really good range round, but the 9mm data above
makes me think a 9mm SD is a better choice over 45.:cool:
 
Energy is impressive, but energy alone does not do all the work.

Due to the way we calculate energy, the math is heavily weighted to the velocity (squared) in the formula, so increases in velocity have a greater effect on the energy number than anything else.

But, energy alone is not the entire story.

Consider this (while admittedly an extreme example for illustrative purposes, but the same principle is at work here)

A .22-250 and a .45-70 can both be loaded to the same energy. An identical number of ft/lbs can be calculated, one a very light bullet moving very fast and the other a massive slug moving slowly, yet both yielding exactly the same ft/lbs on paper.

Identical energy, but NOT identical results on targets, particularly live ones.

If I had the choice of which one to use to stop an angry beast of several hundred pounds weight, right now, at close range, I wouldn't choose the .22 caliber one.

A very light for bore size 9mm bullet at blazing speed creates a large amount of energy on paper.

But the proof will be in what it actually does, and doesn't do when you are "in gravest extreme".

Maybe, its the greatest thing to come along, but until it has a track record beyond advertising hype, paper formulas and a magazine article or two, I'll reserve judgement and continue to put my faith in what has worked in the real world for well over a century.
 
Energy is impressive, but energy alone does not do all the work.
Click to expand...
That's a very unfortunate comment since the physical quantities of kinetic energy and work are actually equivalent.

https://www.kentshillphysics.net/me...r/kinetic-energy-and-the-work-energy-theorem/
Due to the way we calculate energy, the math is heavily weighted to the velocity (squared) in the formula, so increases in velocity have a greater effect on the energy number than anything else.
Click to expand...
This is sort of an odd way of thinking about the situation.

It's like implying that because distance is squared in the formula for calculating the force of gravity that somehow the formula, or gravity is somehow skewed. The reason that distance is squared in the formula for gravity is because that's how gravity actually works.

Kinetic energy was found to be a quantity that is useful in the scientific analysis of moving objects. It was measured and its effects were characterized and quantified. Using analysis and measurements, a formula for kinetic energy was determined.

The reason velocity has the effect on energy that it does is because that's the way it actually works in the real world. That is, if you calculate kinetic energy some other way, you won't get a value that actually represents kinetic energy and its effects.
Identical energy, but NOT identical results on targets, particularly live ones.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is correct. Kinetic energy is certainly not capable of quantifying the terminal effect of a bullet on a target all by itself. In fact, there is no single number that will do that. The problem is far too complicated to boil down to a single number.

Kinetic energy is only one of many factors that relate to terminal effect.

I guess one could safely say, that if all else was truly equal in a comparison of terminal effect between two bullets, the one with more energy could be expected to be more effective. Of course, it's almost never true that all else is truly equal and that's where it gets complicated.
 
The trick is how does the bullet transfer that energy to what it's hitting.

I take gun mag reviews (and a good number of online reviews) with a grain of salt. I like to see what happens in ballistic gel: bare gel and with several layers of denim which is a standardized method of evaluating bullet performance. I'll also accept whatever Paul Harrell does with his meat targets, because he's consistent in how he evaluates bullet performance.

I read a similar online review of the new Norma 9mm vortex round but it was a little light on gel testing. I'm intrigued and the 1st thought I had was "what's their .45ACP round going to do?". The price is reasonable for their 9mm round and inline with other premium well regarded SD ammo. I'm still good with my Gold Dots (.45) and HST (9mm) rounds. There's abundant online videos of their performance and years of real life results to consider for them.
 
I'm seeing comments on other boards but don't know enough about physics to make sense of it but the theory seems to be that these type of bullets are designed to show really impressive results in gel but tend to not perform as well as traditional hollow points in meat. Something to do with the non-elasticity of gel.
 
the thing that was impressive in the article was the design of the bullet, more so than the energy which I was really surprised by. I still shoot 45 95% of the time, just surprised by the review.
 
I dont trust gun magazines anymore. Even the articles are paid advertisements.

Laupa or peterson would be what i would consider top shelf brass. Norma is good, not premium imho, but good.
Personally i like starline.

Energy is important. But so is bullet design. Under expand and damage is minimized and energy is wasted on a pass through.

Over expand, like the newer norma MHP for example and you will dump energy but may not reach vitals to stop the threat.

I dont buy brands. I buy speccific products that are tested and proven based on my needs.

Also, if the NDX sticks around I will be shocked. Reminds me of the ARX but copying the lehigh extreme defender. Bullets are too light and too soft. watched the video from norma, they only showed the temporary would cavity in slow motion. they did not show the permanent wound cavity.
 
Last edited:
This website has long agreed before my time that 2,600fps is the minimum for rifle level damage from energy. Anything below this is simply not causing that secondary damage.

A 900fps 150gr 9mm HST opens up and dives as deep as almost all 357mag rounds in the Lucky Gunner test. The +P 147gr HST at not that much faster is also a monster.

As velocity increases, drag increases.

Velocity is not the answer anymore. It's bullet design. I'm not sure everyone has bought onto the Lehigh solid nose fluted bullet.
 
“I dont trust gun magazines anymore. Even the articles are paid advertisements.”
Fully agree.
Especially Guns and Ammo and Shooting Times. They just publish what the manufacturers tell them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top