The Best +P+ 9mm JHP for barrier penetration

[Neko456]

I'm down with the corbon rounds and the double tap. But the powerball ammo is not for pentetrating through heavy 2nd objects like auto glass its for leaving all its energy in the inital target and not going much further. I don't see how that bullet design would help much against auto glass then a subject inside the car.

Powerball is defensive ammo against winter coats and such, and bare flesh.

[Tech]

Hey what happened to Valorious I was just going to reply to his comment? What was he banned for?

[Tech]

Well the voting is pretty close in this poll so far...

[Tech]

Corbon 115gr DPX is my favorite

Those are very pretty!

[Edg]

I got a box of winchester ranger 124gr bonded hollow point. Supposed to be pretty good, They were not cheap.

[Tomcat088]

I'm down with the corbon rounds and the double tap. But the powerball ammo is not for pentetrating through heavy 2nd objects like auto glass its for leaving all its energy in the inital target and not going much further. I don't see how that bullet design would help much against auto glass then a subject inside the car.

Powerball is defensive ammo against winter coats and such, and bare flesh.

I'll reply to your post and also talk a bit more about what Valorius knows and is hitting on, but hasn't quite out and said it. I'm not sure what he was banned for, but if you click on his name and look at his posts and recent posts, you'll probably find what he was given an infraction for. If you don't see a post that he was given an infraction for, it could be something that you won't see like rep commentary, or something in PM's. He's relatively new and I haven't seen him with a timeout before, so he'll be back soon enough.

Neko, why is that you say powerball isn't made for penetrating through objects like auto glass? I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I'm asking why. Most people would say what you said about leaving energy on the target about ALL hollowpoints. They're designed to deliver and leave all their energy on the target, and not over penetrate, so that they do dump all the energy on target. This gets complicated though since whatever they hit first can cause them to expand. This means that jackets/parkas, denim, walls, glass, and all kinds of things can cause them to first start expanding. Honestly, the bullets aren't just designed to go through winter coats, denim, and bare flesh. They're designed to have as broad of use as possible, but still have reliable expansion and no overpentration when it's just parkas, skin, etc. The manufacturers know that if you really have to use their bullets, the bullets have a high possibility of needing to pass through barriers like car doors, windshields, sheetrock, parkas, etc. Most gunfights aren't out in the open, people are running and trying to get behind things for cover or concealment, there is a difference.

One of the hardest things for the bullet makers to design for is when bullets have to pass through angled glass. It doesn't have to be auto glass, but auto glass is more difficult because of the angle, thickness and how much it's laminated. The problem that most bullets suffer when passing through auto glass is "jacket seperation". The copper jacket of the bullet will seperate from the lead core of the bullet. This causes for a MAJOR difference in mass of the object, and it to be MUCH different from the way it was originally balanced. You have to keep in mind that this is occuring while the bullet is moving at a VERY high number of rpm's. With all of this happening, it's no wonder that bullet flight gets erratic. It's really common on targets that are shot through windshield glass to see 2 impacts; one from the lead core, and one from the copper jacket. The glass is so thin that a large amount of energy isn't used up, and the time it takes for the bullet to pass through the glass isn't very long, so the bullet begins to expand and would have the ability to stop expanding, hit the target and dump the remaining energy IF jacket seperation didn't occur. So that's the main thing that you have to avoid when shooting through auto glass, jacket seperation.

So there's a couple of approaches that you can take to try to defeat glass. One of those approaches is to just use a non expanding bullet, similar to an FMJ. It will shoot through the glass or other barriers without any problem. The problem is that they will still overpenetrate and expend all the energy on target, making for less lethality. Another approach is to do what the Barnes did/is, make a bullet that is one solid piece and there's no jacket and core to seperate. That's part of why the Barnes bullets do better when passing through barriers and auto glass, there's no way for the jacket and lead core to seperate because there's no lead core.

There's also another approach which we haven't seen in pistol hollow points yet, but I'm sure we will someday, and that's "bonded" bullets. A bonded bullet is where the design and/or a particular metallurgic process is used to permanent bond the jacket and lead core together. They are locked together so that even after very violent expansion, they can't come apart. The effect is basically what the Barnes bullet is, you have "one" solid piece of metal that can't come apart, even though it's actually 2 pieces of metal. This isn't a new techology and something that has been used on hunting bullets for quite a long time now. It's reliable, and if it works on rifle bullets going MUCH faster, it shouldn't have a problem working at the slower speeds that handgun bullets are performing at. Really, it's not something that most consumers really put much though in, and up until this point, there hasn't been a very high demand for it; so we haven't seen it offered yet. The process to make bonded bullets takes more time, is a bit particular, and so it costs more. When you factor in that it takes time to design, and to thoroughly test, and it might make some pretty big changes to their already running assembly line, it's not something that the manufacturers are really jumping to get into. People are getting more educated and serious about their own personal defence, and I believe it's only a matter of time before we'll start seeing bonded handgun bullets. I'm with Valorius, if ANY manufacturer starts offering bonded pistol hollowpoints, I'll be all over them.

I also wanted to mention something that was kind of slightly hinted at in the linked page's tests. It sounds like the testers were surprised at the behavior of the Barnes bullets when they were hitting the ballistics gel and exiting. Something that some people may not be aware of (possibly the testers), is that when bullets pass through glass, they ARE deflected. Sometimes this deflection is pretty significant, and it DEFINITELY must be accounted for. The deflection isn't the same for every bullet, and there's no "exact" way to tell besides trying it or looking at someone else's similar results with a similar combination. When all things are equal (angle of incidence, velocity, bullet diameter), the heavier bullets are deflected less than a lighter bullet. When all other things are equal (angle of incidence, bullet weight, bullet diameter, etc.), the bullet that is moving the fastest will deflect less than a bullet moving slower. Obviously, these two variables usually change in a fashion that's opposite of each other. When you're shooting a heavier bullet, it's usually going slower than if you shot a lighter bullet, so it's all a trade off. There's quite a few other factors that are difficult to account for like bullet design (ogive, bearing length, efmj, hp, solid copper, etc.), and the angle that the bullet impacts the windshield, angle of the winshield, and it's composition will all play a part. Multiple hits and how much glass the bullet passes through also effect the deflection, if any. I'm not surprisd that the bullets exited the ballistics gel in the test. The blocks were probably on a flat table that is parallel with the ground, when the bullets weren't traveling in that fashion anymore after passing through the glass. I would suspect that if the gel would have been placed on an angle that the bullet was traveling on, we'd have seen better test results, and more ballistics gel penetrated.

While I don't consider this to be the "end all, be all" of the discussion, it's worth people reading and considering both of these scenarios that are outline by the Box O' Truth guys.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot1.htm <<inside car shooting out
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot2.htm <<outside car shooting in

[Tech]

I'll reply to your post and also talk a bit more about what Valorius knows and is hitting on, but hasn't quite out and said it. I'm not sure what he was banned for, but if you click on his name and look at his posts and recent posts, you'll probably find what he was given an infraction for. If you don't see a post that he was given an infraction for, it could be something that you won't see like rep commentary, or something in PM's. He's relatively new and I haven't seen him with a timeout before, so he'll be back soon enough.

Neko, why is that you say powerball isn't made for penetrating through objects like auto glass? I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I'm asking why. Most people would say what you said about leaving energy on the target about ALL hollowpoints. They're designed to deliver and leave all their energy on the target, and not over penetrate, so that they do dump all the energy on target. This gets complicated though since whatever they hit first can cause them to expand. This means that jackets/parkas, denim, walls, glass, and all kinds of things can cause them to first start expanding. Honestly, the bullets aren't just designed to go through winter coats, denim, and bare flesh. They're designed to have as broad of use as possible, but still have reliable expansion and no overpentration when it's just parkas, skin, etc. The manufacturers know that if you really have to use their bullets, the bullets have a high possibility of needing to pass through barriers like car doors, windshields, sheetrock, parkas, etc. Most gunfights aren't out in the open, people are running and trying to get behind things for cover or concealment, there is a difference.

One of the hardest things for the bullet makers to design for is when bullets have to pass through angled glass. It doesn't have to be auto glass, but auto glass is more difficult because of the angle, thickness and how much it's laminated. The problem that most bullets suffer when passing through auto glass is "jacket seperation". The copper jacket of the bullet will seperate from the lead core of the bullet. This causes for a MAJOR difference in mass of the object, and it to be MUCH different from the way it was originally balanced. You have to keep in mind that this is occuring while the bullet is moving at a VERY high number of rpm's. With all of this happening, it's no wonder that bullet flight gets erratic. It's really common on targets that are shot through windshield glass to see 2 impacts; one from the lead core, and one from the copper jacket. The glass is so thin that a large amount of energy isn't used up, and the time it takes for the bullet to pass through the glass isn't very long, so the bullet begins to expand and would have the ability to stop expanding, hit the target and dump the remaining energy IF jacket seperation didn't occur. So that's the main thing that you have to avoid when shooting through auto glass, jacket seperation.

So there's a couple of approaches that you can take to try to defeat glass. One of those approaches is to just use a non expanding bullet, similar to an FMJ. It will shoot through the glass or other barriers without any problem. The problem is that they will still overpenetrate and expend all the energy on target, making for less lethality. Another approach is to do what the Barnes did/is, make a bullet that is one solid piece and there's no jacket and core to seperate. That's part of why the Barnes bullets do better when passing through barriers and auto glass, there's no way for the jacket and lead core to seperate because there's no lead core.

There's also another approach which we haven't seen in pistol hollow points yet, but I'm sure we will someday, and that's "bonded" bullets. A bonded bullet is where the design and/or a particular metallurgic process is used to permanent bond the jacket and lead core together. They are locked together so that even after very violent expansion, they can't come apart. The effect is basically what the Barnes bullet is, you have "one" solid piece of metal that can't come apart, even though it's actually 2 pieces of metal. This isn't a new techology and something that has been used on hunting bullets for quite a long time now. It's reliable, and if it works on rifle bullets going MUCH faster, it shouldn't have a problem working at the slower speeds that handgun bullets are performing at. Really, it's not something that most consumers really put much though in, and up until this point, there hasn't been a very high demand for it; so we haven't seen it offered yet. The process to make bonded bullets takes more time, is a bit particular, and so it costs more. When you factor in that it takes time to design, and to thoroughly test, and it might make some pretty big changes to their already running assembly line, it's not something that the manufacturers are really jumping to get into. People are getting more educated and serious about their own personal defence, and I believe it's only a matter of time before we'll start seeing bonded handgun bullets. I'm with Valorius, if ANY manufacturer starts offering bonded pistol hollowpoints, I'll be all over them.

I also wanted to mention something that was kind of slightly hinted at in the linked page's tests. It sounds like the testers were surprised at the behavior of the Barnes bullets when they were hitting the ballistics gel and exiting. Something that some people may not be aware of (possibly the testers), is that when bullets pass through glass, they ARE deflected. Sometimes this deflection is pretty significant, and it DEFINITELY must be accounted for. The deflection isn't the same for every bullet, and there's no "exact" way to tell besides trying it or looking at someone else's similar results with a similar combination. When all things are equal (angle of incidence, velocity, bullet diameter), the heavier bullets are deflected less than a lighter bullet. When all other things are equal (angle of incidence, bullet weight, bullet diameter, etc.), the bullet that is moving the fastest will deflect less than a bullet moving slower. Obviously, these two variables usually change in a fashion that's opposite of each other. When you're shooting a heavier bullet, it's usually going slower than if you shot a lighter bullet, so it's all a trade off. There's quite a few other factors that are difficult to account for like bullet design (ogive, bearing length, efmj, hp, solid copper, etc.), and the angle that the bullet impacts the windshield, angle of the winshield, and it's composition will all play a part. Multiple hits and how much glass the bullet passes through also effect the deflection, if any. I'm not surprisd that the bullets exited the ballistics gel in the test. The blocks were probably on a flat table that is parallel with the ground, when the bullets weren't traveling in that fashion anymore after passing through the glass. I would suspect that if the gel would have been placed on an angle that the bullet was traveling on, we'd have seen better test results, and more ballistics gel penetrated.

While I don't consider this to be the "end all, be all" of the discussion, it's worth people reading and considering both of these scenarios that are outline by the Box O' Truth guys.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot1.htm <<inside car shooting out
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot2.htm <<outside car shooting in

Very good post thanks.

[Mr. S]

There's also another approach which we haven't seen in pistol hollow points yet, but I'm sure we will someday, and that's "bonded" bullets. A bonded bullet is where the design and/or a particular metallurgic process is used to permanent bond the jacket and lead core together. They are locked together so that even after very violent expansion, they can't come apart. The effect is basically what the Barnes bullet is, you have "one" solid piece of metal that can't come apart, even though it's actually 2 pieces of metal. This isn't a new techology and something that has been used on hunting bullets for quite a long time now. It's reliable, and if it works on rifle bullets going MUCH faster, it shouldn't have a problem working at the slower speeds that handgun bullets are performing at. Really, it's not something that most consumers really put much though in, and up until this point, there hasn't been a very high demand for it; so we haven't seen it offered yet. The process to make bonded bullets takes more time, is a bit particular, and so it costs more. When you factor in that it takes time to design, and to thoroughly test, and it might make some pretty big changes to their already running assembly line, it's not something that the manufacturers are really jumping to get into. People are getting more educated and serious about their own personal defence, and I believe it's only a matter of time before we'll start seeing bonded handgun bullets. I'm with Valorius, if ANY manufacturer starts offering bonded pistol hollowpoints, I'll be all over them.

I also wanted to mention something that was kind of slightly hinted at in the linked page's tests. It sounds like the testers were surprised at the behavior of the Barnes bullets when they were hitting the ballistics gel and exiting. Something that some people may not be aware of (possibly the testers), is that when bullets pass through glass, they ARE deflected. Sometimes this deflection is pretty significant, and it DEFINITELY must be accounted for. The deflection isn't the same for every bullet, and there's no "exact" way to tell besides trying it or looking at someone else's similar results with a similar combination. When all things are equal (angle of incidence, velocity, bullet diameter), the heavier bullets are deflected less than a lighter bullet. When all other things are equal (angle of incidence, bullet weight, bullet diameter, etc.), the bullet that is moving the fastest will deflect less than a bullet moving slower. Obviously, these two variables usually change in a fashion that's opposite of each other. When you're shooting a heavier bullet, it's usually going slower than if you shot a lighter bullet, so it's all a trade off. There's quite a few other factors that are difficult to account for like bullet design (ogive, bearing length, efmj, hp, solid copper, etc.), and the angle that the bullet impacts the windshield, angle of the winshield, and it's composition will all play a part. Multiple hits and how much glass the bullet passes through also effect the deflection, if any. I'm not surprisd that the bullets exited the ballistics gel in the test. The blocks were probably on a flat table that is parallel with the ground, when the bullets weren't traveling in that fashion anymore after passing through the glass. I would suspect that if the gel would have been placed on an angle that the bullet was traveling on, we'd have seen better test results, and more ballistics gel penetrated.

While I don't consider this to be the "end all, be all" of the discussion, it's worth people reading and considering both of these scenarios that are outline by the Box O' Truth guys.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot1.htm <<inside car shooting out
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot2.htm <<outside car shooting in

There are plenty of Bonded hollowpoints currently availabe. Speer Gold Dot, Winchester Ranger Bonded, Remington Bonded Golden Sabre, and Federal Tactical Bonded to name a few.

I think you are missing the point of the auto glass test.
You want to chose a load that will be impacted the least by the glass.Where you aim is where you want the bullet to go.If the load you are using is that far off course(that you need to place the gel at an odd angle etc...) then a different load would be a better choice.

[Tomcat088]

There are plenty of Bonded hollowpoints currently availabe. Speer Gold Dot, Winchester Ranger Bonded, Remington Bonded Golden Sabre, and Federal Tactical Bonded to name a few.

I think you are missing the point of the auto glass test.
You want to chose a load that will be impacted the least by the glass.Where you aim is where you want the bullet to go.If the load you are using is that far off course(that you need to place the gel at an odd angle etc...) then a different load would be a better choice.

Yes, there are some "bonded" hollow points available, but not necessarily in ammunition that I'd recommend, or that some of the best put their faith in. Some of the ammunition that you name sort of mentions that the bullets are "bonded", but don't really push the advertisement that they are. Speer does, and they make some pretty good hollow points. I have still seen some tests where these bullets DO have jacket seperation through auto glass, and it makes me question how "bonded" they are. The golden sabres sort of mention it, but don't press the advertisement. That doesn't exactly make me put faith in the fact that they're "bonded", although they do perform pretty well for cheap hollow points. Federal "tactical bonded", along with their HST's is always toted as "law enforcement" bullets, and some of the best that money can buy. I've seen some pretty mediocre performance from them, and don't trust my life with their ammunition. In my experience either they dont expand at all, or they are a bit "volatile" and don't get enough penetration. I am a fan of the Rangers, but of the "Ranger T" variety, the design on the other lines of Ranger ammunition is slightly different. I don't have experience with the Ranger bonded bullets, so I can't really speak for them.

I didn't miss the point of the auto glass test at all, maybe you did. It's obvious that you want to choose the bullet that is least effected by deflection so that where you aim is where the bullet goes. It's also a fact that lots of people aren't carrying a caliber where the bullet weight and speed allows for little to no deflection. I do in fact carry a .45 ACP with 230 grain Ranger T's, so yes I will probably have much less deflection than most people. There's still quite a few who are shooting 9mm, .357 Sig, .40 S&W, and in most of those weights, there WILL be some deflection. So yes a "different load" with no deflection would be nice, but it's not possible some of the caliber and loadings that people are carrying. When this is the case, the deflection must be taken into account so that people can make their hits. Simply saying "use a different load that doesn't have deflection" is ignoring that happens, and ignorant. I didn't miss the point at all, I think that you do. The point of the experiment and exercise is to know generally what happens with your pistol, load, velocity, caliber, etc. so that you are knowledgable and can make hits.

[Mr. S]

Yes, there are some "bonded" hollow points available, but not necessarily in ammunition that I'd recommend, or that some of the best put their faith in. Some of the ammunition that you name sort of mentions that the bullets are "bonded", but don't really push the advertisement that they are. Speer does, and they make some pretty good hollow points. I have still seen some tests where these bullets DO have jacket seperation through auto glass, and it makes me question how "bonded" they are. The golden sabres sort of mention it, but don't press the advertisement. That doesn't exactly make me put faith in the fact that they're "bonded", although they do perform pretty well for cheap hollow points. Federal "tactical bonded", along with their HST's is always toted as "law enforcement" bullets, and some of the best that money can buy. I've seen some pretty mediocre performance from them, and don't trust my life with their ammunition. In my experience either they dont expand at all, or they are a bit "volatile" and don't get enough penetration. I am a fan of the Rangers, but of the "Ranger T" variety, the design on the other lines of Ranger ammunition is slightly different. I don't have experience with the Ranger bonded bullets, so I can't really speak for them.

I didn't miss the point of the auto glass test at all, maybe you did. It's obvious that you want to choose the bullet that is least effected by deflection so that where you aim is where the bullet goes. It's also a fact that lots of people aren't carrying a caliber where the bullet weight and speed allows for little to no deflection. I do in fact carry a .45 ACP with 230 grain Ranger T's, so yes I will probably have much less deflection than most people. There's still quite a few who are shooting 9mm, .357 Sig, .40 S&W, and in most of those weights, there WILL be some deflection. So yes a "different load" with no deflection would be nice, but it's not possible some of the caliber and loadings that people are carrying. When this is the case, the deflection must be taken into account so that people can make their hits. Simply saying "use a different load that doesn't have deflection" is ignoring that happens, and ignorant. I didn't miss the point at all, I think that you do. The point of the experiment and exercise is to know generally what happens with your pistol, load, velocity, caliber, etc. so that you are knowledgable and can make hits.

As for the bonded rounds I would feel comfortable with anything from Federal Speer and Winchester as I have used all of them in 9mm.


All loads will have some deflection and I and the people who performed the test(who have tested more ammo than you and I ever will) know that as well.However the DPX did something that was obviously unexpected,so much so that they made a point of adding a note for this specific instance.My point is if I were going to be using a load strictly for glass penetration(like the op) I would chose something else(probably bonded),nothing ignorant about that just common sense.