testtest

Self Defense ammo comparison

KillerFord1977

SAINT
Founding Member
I think this is gun related ? Didn't know which thread to post under.
Found this pic interesting of the self defense ammo comparison.

B50F29BC-612E-4602-95E0-584E2CB433B5.jpeg
 
Honestly?

I’ve got versions of most of those rounds in various calibers loaded in various handguns...and if not, definitely some on hand. At the end of the day...the difference between them just isn’t going to matter.

About the only ones I don’t are the ones which are, imho...gimmicks. I don’t buy into the “fluid transfer” mumbo-jumbo rounds (screwdriver tips), and the “maximum expansion” rounds rarely offer reliable penetration. I’ll sooner carry FMJ than those types.
 
🔥💣
I think there’s a large difference in SD ammo. The pic shows perfect expansion and in testing many are far from perfect or even acceptable.
I rely on Luckygunner (although they haven’t updated in a while) because they use shorter barreled pistols and have easy to sort data sets.
One of my big issues is Hornady. So many people use them and they show to have significant expansion issues. You can even see it in the OP pic. When the difference between a “big hole” 45 and a 9mm is 0.17”, and between expanded Hornady (.5) and HST 150 (.71) is 0.21”, that’s significant. That’s not even considering the inconsistent expansion show with some rounds like Rem Golden Sabre 147, Ranger-T +p+, and Win Train/Defend.
 

Attachments

  • 0F25A787-8FD8-41CB-B7EF-6AE038C12B43.png
    0F25A787-8FD8-41CB-B7EF-6AE038C12B43.png
    1.6 MB · Views: 341
  • CDA75928-CC92-48F4-8FAC-9E8EC2E44934.jpeg
    CDA75928-CC92-48F4-8FAC-9E8EC2E44934.jpeg
    353.1 KB · Views: 277
🔥💣
I think there’s a large difference in SD ammo. The pic shows perfect expansion and in testing many are far from perfect or even acceptable.
I rely on Luckygunner (although they haven’t updated in a while) because they use shorter barreled pistols and have easy to sort data sets.
One of my big issues is Hornady. So many people use them and they show to have significant expansion issues. You can even see it in the OP pic. When the difference between a “big hole” 45 and a 9mm is 0.17”, and between expanded Hornady (.5) and HST 150 (.71) is 0.21”, that’s significant. That’s not even considering the inconsistent expansion show with some rounds like Rem Golden Sabre 147, Ranger-T +p+, and Win Train/Defend.
Excellent charts,
 
🔥💣
I think there’s a large difference in SD ammo. The pic shows perfect expansion and in testing many are far from perfect or even acceptable.
I rely on Luckygunner (although they haven’t updated in a while) because they use shorter barreled pistols and have easy to sort data sets.
One of my big issues is Hornady. So many people use them and they show to have significant expansion issues. You can even see it in the OP pic. When the difference between a “big hole” 45 and a 9mm is 0.17”, and between expanded Hornady (.5) and HST 150 (.71) is 0.21”, that’s significant. That’s not even considering the inconsistent expansion show with some rounds like Rem Golden Sabre 147, Ranger-T +p+, and Win Train/Defend.


I agree. The pic in the OP shows one round. Look at 10 consecutive rounds and see what they look like. Consistency is important.

I should modify my answer though as I do have a couple of my back up mags for the .40 Shield loaded with Gold Dots.
 
There is a difference in self defense ammo. And there is large differences in some manufacturer's. The Federal HST side by side other ammo with same bullet and grain simply outperforms many other self defense ammo. Large wound channel, and consistent performance.
Look at post #36 in the thread titled Self Defense Ammunition.
 
Last edited:
In all fairness to the Xtreme defender/penetrator those bullets being solid copper the rounds “flutes” are designed to cause a wound channel greater than a JHP, I researched a lot on those specific rounds before I started carrying them and hunting with the Xtreme Hunter 10mm bullets. With the other rounds those are great rounds, the Ranger bullets are actually no different than the Black Talon.
 
At least or more. I’d rather have a 380 center mass than a 10mm to the shoulder.

So...this is a trope that comes up often in caliber discussions.

To be honest—I've never understood this line of reasoning.

All things being equal, and assuming I’m doing my part as the shooter—that is, not spraying & praying, waiting until my sights are on target, and having proper grip & trigger press...

What's going to make me miss with the 10mm over the .380?

The way I see it...if you’ve got bad habits on the trigger, it doesn’t matter what caliber you’re shooting...those bad habits are there.
 
I've got HST in my edc right now, but I watched a show once that showed how several of these acted in ballistic jelly. Those tests showed the Maximum Expansion worked best because those 4 tabs broke off upon impact and created 4 wound channels besides the main slug. Really wicked looking wounds.
 
In all fairness to the Xtreme defender/penetrator those bullets being solid copper the rounds “flutes” are designed to cause a wound channel greater than a JHP, I researched a lot on those specific rounds before I started carrying them and hunting with the Xtreme Hunter 10mm bullets. With the other rounds those are great rounds, the Ranger bullets are actually no different than the Black Talon.

I respectfully disagree.

A lot of the extreme rounds proponents point to gel tests, and cracks in the gel, temporary cavity bulges, etc to prove how effective the rounds are...fact is, that is completely misusing gel testing, and what it was designed for.

Ballistic gel was designed to measure penetration, and expansion...that’s it. Temporary cavity effects are grossly exaggerated in gel due to it's inelasticity, and the cracks don’t mean anything.

I’ve also been around long enough that every 5-10 years, a company comes out with a “game changing” light weight, high speed bullet that is supposed to perform better than everything else out there...Glaser was one of the first, then RBCD, MagSafe, Extreme Shock, DRT, et al...all are based on bad science. I’ve yet to see real proof these are nothing more than the latest iteration.
 
Back
Top