Subject: The question on 9mm, is it enough for CCW? Thu Feb 18, 2010 5:45 pm
From GlockWorld.com [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
9mm Ammo History and Popularity Charles E. Petty for GlockWorld.com
Since the United States adopted the 9mm Luger (M882) cartridge and M9 Beretta pistol for service use, interest in the cartridge has greatly increased. Law enforcement agencies are changing from the old standby .38 Spl., and ammunition manufacturers are developing new loads and bullets for a cartridge actually older than the .45 ACP it replaced in service use.
The popularity of the 9mm Luger/Parabellum (9x19mm) has been constant in Europe since World War I. Logistically, it is desirable for its size and versatility that allows its use in both pistols and submachine guns. It provides better ballistics than its contemporaries such as the 7.63mm (.30) Mauser, 7.65mm (.30) Luger/Parabellum and is comparable to other 9mm's such as the Bergman-Bayard, Browning Long or Steyr.
Although the cartridge has been continuously available in this country, the relatively recent popularity of high magazine capacity double-action pistols, (known colloquially as "wondernines") is largely responsible for the renewed interest.
If those pistols had been chambered for some other cartridge, I would be writing a different story, for the affection seems not for the cartridge but for the pistols. The interest is almost exclusively in the area of defense, for although the 9mm can be used in some competitive events, the military, law enforcement and civilians are concerned about defensive handguns.
Ammunition for the 9mm is loaded by virtually every manufacturer in the world, and within the U.S. there are at least 25 different loads produced by the five major companies that market factory ammunition. Bullet weights available range from 88 to 147 grains, with ball or full metal jacket (FMJ), soft point and hollow point types routinely loaded. There is even a lead hollow point (Federal Nyclad), although all the others are metal jacketed types.
Table 1 (at the end of this document) lists most of the currently available loads from American makers. Looking at this list, is it any wonder the 9mm users could be bewildered? Most authorities would probably agree that the 124 grain FMJ and 115 grain JHP (Jacketed Hollow Point) are the "standard" bullets and would also classify the 115 grain JHP as the "Standard" defensive load, but this is far from settled. There has been an extensive debate on the subject of 9mm bullets, and it seems to me to have done little more than further muddy already murky waters.
The unfortunate FBI shootout in Miami (April 11, 1986) has provoked controversy and widespread discussion over the effectiveness of the 115 grain hollow-point (HP) ammunition used by the agents armed with 9mm pistols. Equally learned authorities cannot agree. One camp says the round was inadequate, while the other thinks the ammunition performed as it was intended. If a consensus has emerged, it is that we should rethink what constitutes adequate penetration for a handgun bullet.
The argument of 9mm vs. .45 has also been resumed but not settled. The debate of revolver vs. automatic has not been settled either, although law enforcement agencies across the country are switching to the high-capacity 9mm pistol. The thinking behind this is that the magazine capacity, "firepower," is an asset.
Even though the average number of rounds fired in a gunfight has remained relatively constant at approximately three, it would seem that civilians and law enforcement have adopted some of the same thinking that caused the Armed Forces to switch to automatic weapons.
Extensive research has been done on ammunition and bullet design for the 9mm, and it has probably received more attention than any other handgun cartridge in history. This has led to the great variety of ammunition available and the obvious question of which one is best. If we were to ask each manufacturer, it would surely pick one of its own loads, but would probably be hard pressed to defend, on an objective basis, it's choice. In fact, the whole topic of ammunition and bullet performance is short on objective information. There simply is no clearly best gun or load. Much of the information circulated, even in informed circles, is simply based upon subjective observation or opinion.
But at least one much-reported myth seems to have been debunked. Much credence was attached to the discussion by high velocity bullets, and it was widely reported that this was necessary and desirable. Research reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) suggests that the truth is something else. Col. Martin L. Fackler, M.D. of the Letterman Army Institute of Research, an acknowledged and outspoken authority on wound ballistics, writing in the May 13, 1988 JAMA, reported that the elastic nature of most tissue tends to prevent serious trauma caused by hydrostatic pressure.
Another claim is that the sonic pressure wave created by a bullet entering tissue is responsible for trauma. Dr. Fackler draws an interesting parallel between a relatively new medical treatment, the lithotryptor, for the age-old problem of kidney stones and bullet impact. He writes, "A lithotryptor generates a sonic pressure wave three times the amplitude of the one from a penetrating small arms projectile and up to 2,000 of these waves are used in a single treatment session, with no damage to soft tissue surrounding the kidney stone."
The widely accepted belief that increased velocity improves performance has led to the development of high velocity and +P+ loads for the 9mm that are similar to those developed for the .38
Special. Remington, Winchester and Federal all market controlled-distribution loadings that are sold only to law enforcement agencies or the U.S. government. These are loaded to pressure levels that are above those accepted as standard by the industry.
The current SAAMI (Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturing Institute) standard for 9mm Luger ammunition specifies a maximum product average chamber pressure of 37,400 p.s.i., but, the +P+ loads exceed this by a substantial margin. A limit of 42,000 p.s.i. has been proposed for this ammunition. For comparison, proof load pressure (nominal average) is set at 49,800 p.s.i. Now the situation is even further confused, for Remington has begun to market +P 9mm Luger ammunition with a proposed pressure limit of 38,500 p.s.i. To clarify, +P ammunition is available for commercial sale while +P+ loads are not.
All of this raises the question of what the civilian shooter can use in his gun. Even though the ammunition manufacturers take pains to insure that special law enforcement loads do not circulate in civilian channels, it is unrealistic to expect that some will not "leak" out. The same is certainly true for M882 service ammunition, and it is important that the civilian shooter who encounters any of these loads be able to recognize them and understand that this ammunition is different. M882 NATO ammunition as loaded by Olin Corp. (Winchester) and formerly loaded by Federal is currently specified to drive a 124 grain FMJ bullet at 375 meters per second (1230 f.p.s.), which puts it in nearly the same league as the various +P+ loads.
U.S.-manufactured M882 NATO 9mm ammunition can be identified by the headstamp which, in the typical military fashion, identifies the maker and year of production--example WCC 88 or FC 86 (signifying Western Cartridge Company, Olin Corporation's Winchester-Western ammunition division, manufactured in 1988 or Federal Cartridge Company, manufactured in 1986). In addition, the current production also carries the NATO stamp of a circle with a + sign inside of the circle. Law enforcement loads will usually have the +P+ designation as part of the headstamp and may have "L" or "LE" as well. We should quickly point out that civilian use of this ammunition is discouraged by all concerned and carries many of the same cautionary statements that were issued for +P and +P+ .38 Spl. loads.
Winchester requires purchasers of +P+ ammunition to sign a release which states in part: "The 9mm 115 grain +P+ cartridges covered in this purchase order are specially loaded to achieve higher velocity. Therefore, the pressure level is higher than standard 9mm Luger cartridges. Individual cartridges may achieve pressure which may approach or exceed the proof load pressure a particular pistol may have been subjected to in factory proofing.
This cartridge is not recommended for use in any aluminum frame and/or cylinder pistols and may cause damage to modern steel pistols because of the higher pressures.
"THESE CARTRIDGES SHOULD BE USED IN MODERN PISTOLS ONLY. CHECK THE CONDITION OF THE PISTOL OFTEN. IF DOUBT EXISTS AS TO THE USE OF THESE CARTRIDGES IN YOUR PISTOL, CONSULT THE PISTOL MANUFACTURER."
The demand for +P+ loadings has caused some consternation among firearm and ammunition manufacturers and there has been some finger pointing both ways. So, in an effort to clarify the situation, all of the major manufacturers and importers of the popular "wondernines" were queried about their position on the use of NATO and +P+ ammunition in their products. This is something of a hot potato as far as the firearms manufacturers are concerned, and most were understandably cautious or did not reply at all.
A Smith & Wesson spokesman indicated that S&W was not in favor of using +P+ ammunition, although it was studying the subject. This presents an interesting paradox, for the Illinois State Police, one of the first agencies to ask for +P+ loadings, is a major user of S&W pistols.
Perhaps the most telling response came from Firearms Import & Export Corp. (F.I.E. Corp. is the importer of the TZ-75 and TZ-75 M88 pistols). Corporate counsel Patrick M. Squire responded:
"Although these pistols are tested with proof loads in the Italian Proof Bank at Gardone, we do not recommend a steady diet of high pressure ammunition for any firearms. We are strongly against trying to get .45 performance out of the 9mm Luger cartridge, or trying to "magnumize" any of the non-magnum calibers, as this can push the limits of predictable pressures too close to the boundaries of safety."
Beretta replied: "Beretta is still in the process of evaluating many of the new +P+ loads and cannot advise on their use at this time."
Browning, on the other hand, forwarded a copy of an internal test report in which it fired 5000 rounds of Remington +P+ 9mm ammunition in a Browning Hi Power pistol. "Inspection of the Hi Power system reveled no unnatural wear to the locking surfaces or any other area. Headspace was checked and found to be acceptable." The conclusion: "...the 9mm Hi Power system appears to be durable enough to withstand long-range [term] shooting of the new ammunition from Remington."
Glock is even more positive and states that its guns are designed for continuous use with NATO ammunition and, therefore, may be used with +P+ because, "This type of ammunition does not exceed maximum NATO specification pressure levels and is totally compatible to be used in Glock pistols."
In an effort to evaluate the differences between standard and +P+ loads, samples of each were fired in Glock 17 and 19 pistols. As expected the slightly shorter barrel of the Glock 19 produced somewhat lower velocities, but the gun, which had previously been 100% reliable with a wide variety of ammunition, began to experience some malfunctions when shooting any of the +P+ loads. Sometimes the slide failed to go completely into battery, and it was felt that the slide rebounded out of battery in a whiplash response to the higher recoil. Thorough cleaning and lubrication did not relieve the problem. But when shooting standard ammunition, the pistol resumed its previous faultless level of reliability. No malfunctions occurred with the Glock 17, regardless of ammunition. M882 ball ammunition was fired in both guns without malfunctions. The results of the shooting tests are shown in Table 2 {at the end of this document).
If all of this sounds like a Catch-22 situation, it is.
People with whom I have spoken at all of the companies currently loading +P+ ammunition have remarkably similar sentiments. All have said that they provide what their customers ask for. At first this may sound like a cop-out, but it is undeniably true, for the ammunition industry is driven by consumer demand. Whether consumers are the general public or law enforcement agencies does not matter. Competition is so fierce in the ammunition business that all of the makers feel they must provide products that are asked for as long as the requests are reasonable. This situation goes back many years to the original .38 Spl. +P+ loadings developed for federal law enforcement agencies and, as the 9mm has been popularized, has spread into that cartridge. Nor is it without precedent in civilian circles. Handloader have long sought to "improve" performance, primarily by increasing velocity, which customarily results in higher pressures.
Law enforcement leaders are concerned, legitimately, with two factors which are more than a little contradictory. They wish to provide their officers with ammunition which will incapacitate a determined assailant effectively, but not endanger bystanders.
They want a bullet that will adequately penetrate to reach vital organs, but not exit and create a hazard.
Products such as the Glaser Safety Slug or other pre-fragmented projectiles have been offered as a solution, but no consensus exists on their effectiveness.
One relatively new development attracting much interest is the use of heavier bullets, specifically 147 grain JHP designs, in the 9mm. Testing has shown that this particular weight seems to provide the best compromise of expansion and penetration. The ammunition is loaded to subsonic velocities of between 950 and 1000 f.p.s. Both Winchester and Federal load 147 grain ammunition, but only Federal's is available to the general public.
When Federal introduced its new Hydra-Shok line of premium handgun ammunition, it originally offered the 147 grain bullet to law enforcement in a +P+ load, but pressures were only slightly above Federal's limits for standard loads. Testing found a combination of components that reduced pressure to acceptable levels and the ammunition is marketed for general sale. There is, however, no conclusive evidence that the 147 grain loads perform better than more conventional ammunition in actual shooting situations.
Obviously all of this effort is directed at shooting human targets, and this is where the research problems arise. While it is possible to make a bullet perform practically any way you want it to in a test medium such as ballistic gelatin, no two human shootings are exactly alike and the intangibles often outweigh the simple factors of penetration or expansion. In September, 1987, the FBI conducted a workshop on wound ballistics that reached the following conclusion: "Except for hits to the central nervous system, reliable and reproducible instant incapacitation is not possible with any handgun bullet."
One of the participants, Sgt. Evan Marshall of the Detroit Police Dept., commented, "It is often very difficult to successfully produce incapacitation without producing death."
Over the many years that I have been shooting, I have observed a lot of changes in both guns and ammunition and view the modern expanding handgun bullet as a major advance. But they are not the complete solution, for it is impossible to predict how much, or even if, a bullet will reliably expand. In order for a handgun to be a totally effective defensive weapon, vital organs must be hit. It is desirable for the ammunition to expend most or all of its energy in the target, but again this is not entirely predictable.
While increasing bullet velocity increases energy, it is questionable whether this is really meaningful in practical terms. A 200 f.p.s. increase in velocity (about what you get going from standard to +P+ 9mm ammunition) does not guarantee significantly better results in actual shooting situations. When you consider that this gain, roughly 15%, is accomplished at an increase in pressure that could be as much as 33%, it makes me wonder if it is all worthwhile.
A source familiar with the ammunition purchases of law enforcement agencies agrees and reports that interest in the +P+ loads is limited. Some agencies are firmly committed to it, but far more are looking at the improved standard velocity loads from all the major makers as well as the 147 grain loads available from Federal and Winchester. Very limited testing of the new Remington +P 9mm load indicates that we may see a similar situation to +P .38 Spl. ammunition. It produces a meaningful energy increase at the expense of a relatively small rise in pressure.
It would appear that the solution to the problem of ammunition lies not with the ammunition at all, but with the marksmanship of those using it. Evan Marshall began his discussion of ammunition with a simple statement: "There are no super bullets." A handgun is a compromise necessitated by circumstances, but shooters subject themselves to more recoil and noise, and their guns to exaggerated stress, in the mistaken belief that velocity alone will magically "improve" handgun performance. So, instead of searching for super bullets or higher velocity, why not accept the limitations of handguns and concentrate on marksmanship?
Freedom. Admin
Posts : 2002 Join date : 2010-02-08
Subject: I like that idea. I'm going to make it a sticky for you. Thu Feb 18, 2010 5:48 pm
In Defense of the 9 The world's most popular handgun round has its detractors. Here's why they're wrong and everyone else is right. By Paul Scarlata
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] While the 9mm Parabellum--a.k.a. 9mm Luger, 9x19, 9mm NATO--is used by more armies, police forces and civilian shooters around the world than any handgun cartridge in history, it generates strong opinions among shooters. Some go so far as to claim its present popularity (it has, by the way, lasted 104 years) is but a passing fancy and shooters will come to their senses any day now and embrace larger caliber pistol cartridges.
Its rich history begins with Georg Luger, an Austrian engineer employed by Ludwig Loewe & Co. of Berlin--later known as Deutsche Waffen und Munitionfabriken or DWM--who was responsible for radically redesigning Hugo Borchardt's cumbersome semiauto pistol into what became the Pistole Parabellum. A new cartridge was also developed for it, the 7.65mm Parabellum, a rimless, bottlenecked case 23mm long that was topped with a 93-grain full-metal-jacketed bullet that was propelled to 1,220 fps.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Since the days of the first Browning Hi Powers, part of the 9mm’s allure for armies around the world--including ours--has been the ability of pistols so chambered to hold lots of rounds.
The pistol was adopted by Switzerland in 1900, and while the German army expressed interest, officials were concerned about the possible poor stopping power of the 7.65mm round. In 1902, DWM's engineers blew out neck of the cartridge case, shortened the length to 19mm, loaded it with a 9mm 124-grain FMJ, truncated-cone bullet traveling at approximately 1,150 fps and named it the 9mm Parabellum. Shortly after that, 9mm versions of the Pistole Parabellum were adopted by the German army and navy.
After the Great War, several new 9mm Parabellum pistols were developed, the most prominent being the FN Mle. 1935 (Belgium), Lathi L-35 (Finland), Radom VIS vz. 35 (Poland) and the Walther P38 (Germany). Of these and others, it was the FN Mle. 1935--better known as the Browning Hi Power--that probably had the biggest influence on the popularity of the 9mm cartridge. The Hi Power introduced the high-capacity magazine, and the gun eventually became the most widely used military/police pistol outside of the Soviet bloc.
1955 saw the introduction of the first U.S.-made 9mm Parabellum pistol, the S&W Model 39, and beginning in the 1970s a plethora of new 9mm pistols were introduced that combined the DA/SA trigger mechanism of the Smith & Wesson with the Hi Power's high-capacity magazine to produce a genre of handguns that became known as the "Wondernines."
While many traditionalists scoffed at the very concept of the Wondernine, the breed was immediately popular and soon became the choice of police agencies and armies around the world. NATO settled on the 9mm Parabellum as its issue pistol cartridge, and even the U.S. Army finally replaced .45 ACP 1911A1 pistol with the 9mm M9 Beretta. Then, in the late 1980s, Glock brought out the Glock 17, a high-capacity 9mm pistol with a polymer frame, and today nearly every major handgun maker has something similar in its stable.
But yet, despite this widespread popularity, the 9mm cartridge has its fair share of detractors. Critics generally call out the round for two things: lack of stopping power and lack of accuracy.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] The author’s ballistic gelatin tests with 9mm bullets such as Remington’s Golden Sabre demonstrate the round’s excellent mushrooming and weight retention.
Perhaps at one time the "bigger bullets are better bullets" advocates had a point, but only to a degree. Ever since the less-than-positive interaction with the Moros of the Philippine islands, an influential clique in the U.S. Army has insisted that it was folly to go in harm's way armed with any handgun whose caliber did not start with a "4," and it is generally held that, when restricted to FMJ bullets, larger pistol cartridges are more effective than smaller ones.
Similar Performance While partisans of the .45 ACP claim it has a proven track record as a close-range fight stopper, the 7.62mm and 9mm cartridges used by other armies have their advantages, namely better penetration and superior long-range performance. While we have all heard it claimed that the .45 will knock 'em flat even it hits 'em in their little finger, a number of studies have shown that, when using full-metal-jacket bullets, the performance of the .45 ACP and 9mm Parabellum are quite similar.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Early knocks against the cartridge’s capabilities stemmed from lackluster ammo, which is no longer a problem with today’s excellent and varied jacketed hollowpoint loads.
According to the now-famous Strasbourg Tests, the Average Incapacitation Time of animals shot with .45 ACP hardball was 13.84 seconds while that of 9mm FMJ was 14.40 seconds. Further, Marshall and Sanow's study of one-shot stops in actual police shootings gives 9mm FMJ a higher rating (70 percent) than .45 ACP hardball (62 percent).
For all practical purposes, the accusation that the 9mm Parabellum lacks stopping power has been rendered largely moot by the development of high-performance ammunition. Beginning in the early 1970s, American ammunition makers developed jacketed hollowpoint bullets for the 9mm Parabellum, many of which are now offered in +P and +P+ loadings. These have been constantly improved to the point where they now provide both reliable penetration and expansion.
According to the aforementioned tests, results from 9mm JHP and .45 JHP are surprisingly similar. The Strasbourg tests of the best 9mm load (Federal 115-grain +P+) gave an Average Incapacitation Time of 8.9 seconds while the highest rated .45 ACP (Remington 185-grain +P) came in at 7.98. Marshall and Sanow rate the best 9mm load, also the Federal, with 91 percent of one-shot stops; the highest-scoring .45 ACP (Federal 230-grain HydraShok) had 96 percent.
There can be no denying that the .45 ACP is an excellent combat cartridge. But I think the results of these tests show that the 9mm Parabellum is not the ineffective pipsqueak many of its detractors claim it to be.
The 9mm also gets knocked for a lack of accuracy. Until the 1960s, most American shooters' only exposure to the 9mm Parabellum usually consisted of shooting beat-up European military pistols with horrible sights and bad triggers. At the time, the only 9mm ammunition readily available in this country was the standard commercial FMJ load or surplus ammunition. But with the rise of the Wondernines came an increased use of 9mm pistols in bullseye, PPC, USPSA, IDPA and steel matches, which resulted in the development of high-performance match ammunition.
Several years ago I tested an S&W 952 target pistol which, when fired from a rest at 25 yards with Cor-Bon 147-grain Performance Match ammunition, routinely produced one-inch groups. I currently use a Para-Ordnance 18.9 High Capacity Single Action pistol for steel plate matches which, with my 9mm handloads, has shown itself capable of shooting sub-two-inch groups at 25 yards all day long.
The 9mm Parabellum is simply not the inaccurate wimp of a cartridge its detractors make it out to be, and I think there's another case to be made: that the 9mm is actually a more practical choice than its bigger-bore brethren.
For starters, the 9mm is lighter. I don't know about you, but as I have matured I have developed an aversion to carrying heavy objects for extended periods of time and, accordingly, the two pistols I use for everyday carry are polymer-frame guns whose lightweight bona fides are accentuated by being chambered for the 9mm.
As an example, my 9mm Glock 17 loaded with 17 rounds of 115-grain JHP weighs approximately 31.5 ounces, which is less than an empty .45 caliber 1911 pistol.
Not only can 9mm pistols be made smaller and lighter than larger caliber ones, but the ammunition weighs less, which allows the shooters, soldiers and police officers to carry more rounds for the same weight. For instance, 100 rounds of 115-grain 9mm ammo weighs approximately 42 ounces, whereas an equal number of 180-grain .40 S&W and 230-grain .45 ACP weigh 59 and 74 ounces respectively.
Now, while there are a number of excellent compact and subcompact .40 and .45 pistols, some of which are nearly as light as their 9mm brethren, the laws of physics dictate that no matter what you do about it, they are going to produce heavier levels of recoil.
Recoil is one of the primary limitations to fast, accurate shooting. While some people are willing to exchange bullet diameter for speed and accuracy, I am not. I would much rather hit the target accurately and quickly with multiple 9mm projectiles than perhaps miss with one .40 or .45.
Speaking of multiple projectiles, magazine capacity was, and is, one of the major selling points of 9mm pistols. While some say that high capacity leads to a dependence on "spray and pray" instead of firing well-aimed shots, I believe you can never have too much ammunition in a defensive firearm. And when I carry a pistol for personal protection, I think it's convenient having 12 to 17 rounds available without having to pack spare magazines.
Many critics of the 9mm say the round must expand to .45 caliber to be effective while the .45 ACP, of course, starts out at that caliber. Assuming for a moment that .45 inch is the standard for effectiveness, my testing of three different brands of 9mm JHP ammunition shows that the cartridge passes this test with flying colors.
I fired the rounds into ballistic gelatin blocks and then measured the size of the expanded projectiles and noted their retained weight. The Remington and Federal cartridges were fired into bare gelatin; Winchester rounds were fired into gelatin blocks that were covered with a layer of cloth to simulate a shirt.
While this is only a modest sampling, it does show that different brands of 9mm JHP bullets, selected at random (only one of which was a +P loading), all provided more than adequate expansion and weight retention.
My intent here is not to belittle the .40 S&W and .45 ACP cartridges nor to dissuade anyone from using pistols so chambered. My goal is simply to tell you this: With today's high-performance 9mm JHP ammo you get an accurate and sufficiently powerful defensive round--one fired from a handgun that is smaller, lighter, produces less recoil, has a higher magazine capacity and is easier to carry than its larger-caliber brethren. To my way of thinking, this is a win-win situation if there ever was one.
Last edited by Freedom on Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:10 am; edited 3 times in total
Freedom Admin
Posts : 406 Join date : 2010-02-05
Subject: Re: The question on 9mm, is it enough for CCW? Thu Feb 25, 2010 7:51 pm
Here is another good article on ammo. Courtesy HipowersAndHandguns.Com / Corbon 9mm [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Corbon 9mm 115-gr. DPX +P
(Fired from Browning Hi Power w/factory barrel, w/Barsto barrel, and from Glock 26)
Today's defensive shooters expect quite a bit from expanding ammunition. In the past, expansion was a "sometimes" thing. While that is still true today, it's my observation that bullets intended to expand actually do…most of the time. No longer is expansion itself enough. Now, we want at least 12" of penetration in calibrated 10% ballistic gelatin, which is considered the "gold standard" in ballistics tests intended to simulate what might be expected in tissue. It is not perfect, but it is the standard and it does pretty well replicate what is seen when expanding bullets are pulled out of flesh and blood. (My primary "test media" used to be living critters called javelina, but I no longer have access to those hunting grounds! It takes me longer to test ammunition on something tough enough to be interesting and perhaps meaningful to defense against human adversaries.)
Corbon advises that the 9mm 115-gr. DPX +P both expands reliably in either bare or denim-covered (4 layers) gelatin and penetrates at least 12". People testing in ballistic gelatin have pretty well confirmed that it meets these expectations and frequently exceeds the now-standard 12" minimum.
I do not have the funds to purchase ballistic gelatin or a means by which to keep it at a constant temperature for repeatable tests. My informal expansion tests use either water or "wet pack." (Super-saturated newsprint that has soaked 24 hours and drained for 30 minutes before shooting. Results are similar to those from gelatin although the wet pack limits penetration more.)
Nevertheless, I do some expansion checking on my own and for this test, I used water.
I thought it might be interesting to do the things often passed over. I don't know if the thought is that such matters are irrelevant, but I tried to provide some information not so frequently reported. I'm speaking of such things as accuracy, felt recoil, reliability, and consistency from shot to shot. In any event, these are things I can do and pass on.
"DPX" is Corbon's acronym for "Deep Penetrating X". The "X" refers back to the Barnes copper alloy X-bullet used in rifle ammunition for several years. In rifle ammo, the bullet expanded in an X shape, hence the name. In a given rifle caliber, the X-bullet would almost always penetrate deeper than an expanding rifle bullet of the same caliber and weight. The pistol ammunition has six "petals." This homogeneous bullet cannot suffer bullet-jacket separation. There is a gap between the petals. It seems reasonable that while this creates a larger wound channel, it also allows for a bit deeper penetration as the bullet is not exhibiting quite the same "parachute effect" as more conventional JHP's. Those petals are tough and not easily bent by hand, either. Edges are somewhat sharp.
Corbon 115-gr. +P DPX uses cases marked with the company name and indicate +P pressure levels. The h ollow point measures 0.175" wide and 0.40" deep. The primer does not appear to be sealed.
The 9mm DPX measures 1.12" LOA and the bullet is seated snugly in the case. Cycling the same loaded round 3 times through a Browning Mk III from a full magazine did not cause set back. The same test was applied using a Glock 26…with the same results.
The 115-gr. DPX was fired into water from a Browning Hi Power from the very slightly slower Barsto match barrel. It's expanded dimensions: 0.61 x 0.59 x 0.50" tall. It lost no weight. As the petals bent outward before folding rearward, the expanded bullet would have measured at least 0.755" across at least for some of its penetration depth. Notice that the bullet still has some "length" to it; this aids penetration. The expanded bullets from the Glock 26 were virtually identical. The average velocities attained by both guns seem with within the DPX bullet's operating velocity envelope.
Though more than a few use service size handguns chambered for 9mm, many use compacts. I chronographed this ammunition from both a Browning Mk III with its 4 21/32" barrel and a Glock 26. The latter has a 3.46" barrel that has polygonal rifling as opposed to the Hi Power's conventional lands and grooves. Both pistols have a twist of 1:10. I also installed a Barsto match barrel in the Mk III. It has bore measuring 0.3565" and a 1:16 twist.
hese two pistols were used to evaluate the DPX ammunition. Both have been altered slightly. The Glock uses the two-piece steel Wolff guide rod and standard power springs. The Hi Power was shot using a Wolff conventional 18.5-lb. recoil spring and a Buffer Technology shock buff. (I also fired a few rounds without the buffer to see if function would be affected. It was not.)
Average velocities, standard deviations, etc, are based on ten shots fired approximately 10' from the chronograph screens.
Corbon 9mm 115-gr. DPX +P Chronograph Results:
Firearm Low Velocity (ft/sec) High Velocity (ft/sec) Average Velocity (ft/sec) Extreme Spread (ft/sec) Std. Deviation (ft/sec)
Mk III(factory bbl) 1225 1275 1244 50 20
MkIII (Barsto bbl) 1216 1257 1233 41 15
Glock 26 1161 1210 1181 50 17
In defense situations it is generally acknowledged that slow and precise shots will be the exception rather than the rule. This is probably true in the vast majority of deadly force scenarios, but I personally still place value in a round that is at least capable of being shot accurately should the opportunity present itself. For this reason, I shot the 9mm DPX slow-fire from a rest at 15 yards from the Hi Power with both barrels as well as the Glock 26. I also fired it in more "practical" type shooting drills at 7 yards.
This group would be smaller if the human error was removed. It is obvious that this load has more than enough accuracy at this distance for self-protection and that misses will not be the fault of the ammunition or pistol.
Here's a group fired with the same gun using the factory barrel. The POI is slightly lower and closer to the POA. Accuracy is for all purposes equivalent to that with the Barsto…with this ammunition. I have seen some jacketed rounds that grouped quite a bit better through the Barsto, but the greatest improvements I've seen have been when using cast bullets.
My Glock 26 is fitted with Aro-Tek fixed sights and the 115-gr. DPX is dead bang "on" at 15 yards. The all copper bullet appears to work well from either polygonal or conventional rifling.
Moving up to 10 yards and using a Weaver stance from a low-ready position, I fired 4 sets (8-shots) of controlled pairs on humanoid type target with a dotted circle in the chest as the target. This was not timed, as I didn't have access to a timer today. (When I do, I usually have hell getting the thing to work right!) I would estimate each controlled pair to have taken about a second from start to finish.
This ammunition does not have the felt recoil of the Corbon 115-gr. JHP +P. It is distinctly easy to shoot and control from the Hi Power. This one's wearing Craig Spegel checkered, black delrin grips and uses the factory fixed sights.
The same drill was performed using the Glock 26. The holes with the marks were from the Browning Hi Power. As with the Hi Power, the Glock was extremely easy to handle with this load. At this point, I moved up to 7 yards with the Mk III. From a low-ready, I raised the gun and fired one shot as quickly as I accurately could as in the "rescue shot" scenario. This was repeated 8 times.
There is no question that Corbon 9mm DPX could be used in situations requiring "finesse" in insuring the elusive "one-shot stop."
So far I am quite favorably impressed with this ammunition. It works fine in two distinctly different pistols. Groups leave nothing to be desired for the ammunition's intended purposes. Expansion seems uniform and penetration should be satisfactory to most. Felt recoil is noticeably less than with the Corbon 115-gr. +P and POI was very close to POA.
Let's compare some similar 115-gr 9mm loads to the 115-gr. DPX +P from the Hi Power and the Glock 26.
From the Browning Mk III w/factory barrel:
Corbon 115-gr. DPX +P: Average Velocity: 1244 ft/sec
Corbon 115-gr. JHP +P: Average Velocity: 1411 ft/sec
Remington 115-gr. JHP +P: Average Velocity: 1264 ft/sec
Federal 115-gr. JHP: Average Velocity: 1177 ft/sec
The Corbon 115-gr. JHP +P generates about 12% more felt recoil while the Remington is near equivalent at but 2% greater. The standard pressure/velocity Federal has about 5% less "kick" when fired from the same gun as the others.
From the Glock 26:
Corbon 115-gr. DPX +P: Average Velocity: 1181 ft/sec
Corbon 115-gr. JHP +P: Average Velocity: 1305 ft/sec
Remington 115-gr. JHP +P: Average Velocity: 1239 ft/sec
Federal 115-gr. JHP: Average Velocity: 1111 ft/sec
From the little gun, the 115-gr. Corbon JHP +P has about 10% greater felt recoil than the DPX. Remington 115-gr. JHP +P, + 5% and Federal 115-gr. JHP offers 6% less.
These two Corbon DPX rounds show the primers after firing from the Hi Power (left) and the Glock. In neither case are the primers flattened. Though rated +P and clearly marked as such, these do not appear to be loaded to as high in the +P range as the company's 115-gr. JHP.
With Corbon's history of loading pretty energetic, fast +P rounds, I began wondering why this one's not, too! I pulled a DPX bullet and compared it to a bullet pulled from the JHP load. The DPX is approximately 0.685" long and is seated approximately 3/10" deep. The JHP is measures 0.51" in length and is seated about 1/10th inch less. 9x19mm has a relatively small case capacity and the reduced volume limits the amount of powder that can be used.
I also think there may be another reason: Pushing the DPX faster probably only increases penetration. It expands only to the depth of the hollow point and it obviously has the velocity needed to do this. Corbon is seeking an effective defense load that would provide the penetration levels so many find essential, but not excessive penetration. This is admittedly just a guess, but it seems reasonable.
Only 60 rounds total were fired through the two test pistols. That is not enough to prove reliability in one's personal firearm, but it appears that there will be few problems in guns designed to feed other than FMJ ammunition. Magazines could be fully loaded without binding and feeding was "slick" in both guns; there was zero hesitation in chambering. There was no "bump" and then feed. In short, DPX feed as slick as glass in these guns.
The 9mm DPX load fed without hesitation in both the Glock and Hi Power pistols.
For some that have used X-bullets in rifles, fouling could be extreme. I am happy to report that such is not the case at these more sedate handgun velocities. Cleaning the barrels was no more difficult than with standard bullets using standard gilding metal.
I am extremely pleased with my initial experiences using this ammunition in these two pistols. I think this is going to prove both popular and effective. I seldom say this without considerably more shooting/testing, but assuming reliability, I would not be afraid to use this ammunition for serious purposes. In 9mm, this is impressive stuff.
Best.
Freedom Admin
Posts : 406 Join date : 2010-02-05
Subject: Re: The question on 9mm, is it enough for CCW? Thu Feb 25, 2010 8:18 pm
Or this. To much to copy, so here is the link. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
VietVet68 Honored Armed Service Member
Posts : 1694 Join date : 2010-02-24 Age : 75 Location : Michigan
Subject: Too much for my brain to deal with. Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:34 pm
Please allow me to day "thanks" for posting the "facts" but I think your question should read, " What caliber do you carry for self defense & why? Otherwise you allow so many other circumstances come into play thay will influence the answers. MY answer to MY question is 9mm for two reasons: 1. The gun is concealable 2. The magazine carries 15 rounds.
Please believe me I'm not trying to stir the pot but I found that when I tried to answer your question I had a difficult time due to the wording,"....is it enough for CCW."
Jack
Freedom Admin
Posts : 406 Join date : 2010-02-05
Subject: Re: The question on 9mm, is it enough for CCW? Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:22 pm
Hi VietVet, I was wondering what question you were referring to. These have been informational posts. No questions in this thread.
And believe me, so long as you are politically incorrect while you are stirring the pot you will have no problems. PI will be the death of this country so please be PI as often as possible.
Ok derrrrr. I have brain fart. I see the question you are referring to. And I think I know why PB titled it that way. But PB will have to answer why it was titled the way it was
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: The question on 9mm, is it enough for CCW? Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:33 am
Wow. I thought this thread was dead.
Well......... the reason I titled the post "The Question on 9mm. is it enough for CCW" Is because I see people ask. "Is 9mm enough for CCW" in other forums a lot. I found that article about 9mm and how good it actually is and thought I would post it as a reference for people.
Quote :
VietVet68
Please allow me to day "thanks" for posting the "facts" but I think your question should read, " What caliber do you carry for self defense & why? Otherwise you allow so many other circumstances come into play that will influence the answers. MY answer to MY question is 9mm for two reasons: 1. The gun is concealable 2. The magazine carries 15 rounds.
Please believe me I'm not trying to stir the pot but I found that when I tried to answer your question I had a difficult time due to the wording,"....is it enough for CCW."
No I understand but like I said. I have seen so many people ask. "Is 9mm enough for CCW" so thats where the title came from. I just wanted to give the article as a good argument as to why 9mm is a good round for CCW and SD/HD
VietVet68 Honored Armed Service Member
Posts : 1694 Join date : 2010-02-24 Age : 75 Location : Michigan
Subject: Re: The question on 9mm, is it enough for CCW? Thu Mar 25, 2010 2:18 pm
PureBlood wrote:
Wow. I thought this thread was dead.
Well......... the reason I titled the post "The Question on 9mm. is it enough for CCW" Is because I see people ask. "Is 9mm enough for CCW" in other forums a lot. I found that article about 9mm and how good it actually is and thought I would post it as a reference for people.
No I understand but like I said. I have seen so many people ask. "Is 9mm enough for CCW" so thats where the title came from. I just wanted to give the article as a good argument as to why 9mm is a good round for CCW and SD/HD
PB, OK, I'm with you but as I said before the word "ENOUGH" is as clear as mud, ya' know? Enough what? Jack
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: The question on 9mm, is it enough for CCW? Sun Mar 28, 2010 12:15 pm
I think with modern defensive ammo the 9mm and proper shot placement the 9mm is a fine defensive round. I produces great energy..I think with standard Millitary ball ammo it does not stop as well and that is where the NINE got its bad rep for stopping power. A lot of the old timers in the Army liked the 45 fireing the 230gr Ball and when they got issued a NINE it fire a 115gr Ball round.
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: The question on 9mm, is it enough for CCW? Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:29 pm
VietVet68 wrote:
PureBlood wrote:
Wow. I thought this thread was dead.
Well......... the reason I titled the post "The Question on 9mm. is it enough for CCW" Is because I see people ask. "Is 9mm enough for CCW" in other forums a lot. I found that article about 9mm and how good it actually is and thought I would post it as a reference for people.
No I understand but like I said. I have seen so many people ask. "Is 9mm enough for CCW" so thats where the title came from. I just wanted to give the article as a good argument as to why 9mm is a good round for CCW and SD/HD
PB, OK, I'm with you but as I said before the word "ENOUGH" is as clear as mud, ya' know? Enough what? Jack
Well. I guess enough stopping power. I know some people say there is no such thing as stopping power, and that it is just the size of the wound channel and how fast the perp bleeds out. But I guess it all boils down, with what ever caliber we may be talking about, to how rapidly a round can incapacitate the bad guy. I think I see now what you are asking. The title of the thread is not specific about what the 9mm is enough for. I would say enough stop-ability to effectively and rapidly take town an attacker, enough penetration and sizable enough would channel to get to vital organs and tear a big enough hole to cause rapid/profuse bleeding.
After reading the article I posted, I believe this to be true about 9mm ammo today. It is not as big a round as the 40SW or 45acp. But you can get defensive rounds that are quite potent and open to 50 caliber diameters to create a very large would channel. After reading the other articles posted I am even more convinced. Not to mention that even with the rapid increase of ammo prices 9mm is still one of the lowest priced rounds you can get when buying range ammo.
We know what we are asking when we write it, but sometimes aren't clear, and forget that people don't read minds. Although women sometimes would like us to, or want us to think they can.
VietVet68 Honored Armed Service Member
Posts : 1694 Join date : 2010-02-24 Age : 75 Location : Michigan
Subject: Re: The question on 9mm, is it enough for CCW? Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:52 pm
PureBlood wrote:
VietVet68 wrote:
PureBlood wrote:
Wow. I thought this thread was dead.
Well......... the reason I titled the post "The Question on 9mm. is it enough for CCW" Is because I see people ask. "Is 9mm enough for CCW" in other forums a lot. I found that article about 9mm and how good it actually is and thought I would post it as a reference for people.
No I understand but like I said. I have seen so many people ask. "Is 9mm enough for CCW" so thats where the title came from. I just wanted to give the article as a good argument as to why 9mm is a good round for CCW and SD/HD
PB, OK, I'm with you but as I said before the word "ENOUGH" is as clear as mud, ya' know? Enough what? Jack
Well. I guess enough stopping power. I know some people say there is no such thing as stopping power, and that it is just the size of the wound channel and how fast the perp bleeds out. But I guess it all boils down, with what ever caliber we may be talking about, to how rapidly a round can incapacitate the bad guy. I think I see now what you are asking. The title of the thread is not specific about what the 9mm is enough for. I would say enough stop-ability to effectively and rapidly take town an attacker, enough penetration and sizable enough would channel to get to vital organs and tear a big enough hole to cause rapid/profuse bleeding.
After reading the article I posted, I believe this to be true about 9mm ammo today. It is not as big a round as the 40SW or 45acp. But you can get defensive rounds that are quite potent and open to 50 caliber diameters to create a very large would channel. After reading the other articles posted I am even more convinced. Not to mention that even with the rapid increase of ammo prices 9mm is still one of the lowest priced rounds you can get when buying range ammo.
We know what we are asking when we write it, but sometimes aren't clear, and forget that people don't read minds. Although women sometimes would like us to, or want us to think they can.
PB, I agree with your conclusion regarding the 9mm being able to stop a bad guy but at the same time I also believe that shot placement is equally involved. I've heard many people say that .380ACP can bring down the bad guy but I wouldn't bet my life on it. Jack
Sponsored content
Subject: Re: The question on 9mm, is it enough for CCW?