FMJ v. JHP performance difference, excellently presented.

1
I'm a bit of a data geek (big surprise, eh?), but I think that this presentation really demonstrates well just how big a difference there is between FMJ and JHP bullet performance:



Bit more info on the BBTI blog: http://ballisticsbytheinch.wordpress.co ... hs-slo-mo/


Jim
James Downey

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/ - handgun cartridge research
http://www.stcybiswell.com/ - my latest novel
http://www.legacybookbindery.com/ - my professional site

Re: FMJ v. JHP performance difference, excellently presented

2
I really have to chrono my 115gr JHP .380 loads that are over 3.4gr of HP-38. I also got some 100gr LFP cast bullets that I plan on loading in both 380 and 9mm. Conventional wisdom is that in the 380 it doesn't really matter whether you use JHP or FMJ but moreso where those shots end up. Still, an 8"+ wound channel is nothing to sneeze at, I may have to get some Pow'rBall. :)
In a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich the chicken and cow are involved while the pig is committed.

Re: FMJ v. JHP performance difference, excellently presented

3
ErikO wrote:Conventional wisdom is that in the 380 it doesn't really matter whether you use JHP or FMJ but moreso where those shots end up.
Personally, and based on both our data and John's, I'm now of the opinion that *up to* .380 it doesn't matter, but that with the .380 loadings out there it can make a very big difference.

And I was impressed with the performance of the "FBI load" of 158gr LHP out of a .38 ... of course, my personal carry ammo in that cartridge is the Buffalo Bore version which is almost 50% faster than the brand John tested ... :mrgreen:

Jim
James Downey

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/ - handgun cartridge research
http://www.stcybiswell.com/ - my latest novel
http://www.legacybookbindery.com/ - my professional site

Re: FMJ v. JHP performance difference, excellently presented

4
9mm Police -> man, Fuck the Police for wanting to out gun us :sarcasm:

Really though, 9 x 18 Police? I had never heard of such a thing.

Also, all the ballistics are great, but I have to be able to stumble out of bed and hit the target before these do me any good. I almost want to have my gun loaded with simunition and have a trusted colleague test my middle of the night reactions (don't think it would be pretty and would have to repaint my walls rather than wash my friends clothes).
Texan Liberal interested in guns

Image

Re: FMJ v. JHP performance difference, excellently presented

5
auggiecc87 wrote:Really though, 9 x 18 Police? I had never heard of such a thing.
It's also known as the "9mm Ultra". It's pretty uncommon here. One of the other BBTI guys was intrigued with the cartridge some years ago, so we did a test of it,and at the time we could only find one commercial loading: http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9ultra.html


Jim
James Downey

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/ - handgun cartridge research
http://www.stcybiswell.com/ - my latest novel
http://www.legacybookbindery.com/ - my professional site

Re: FMJ v. JHP performance difference, excellently presented

8
I was shocked at the low velocities of the .38 specials. I can only wonder how much more of an "impact" the extra 200+ fps from the BB FBI load would make over the Remington.

I do need to figure out what a good load for the Zastava is going to be. I'd like to figure out the best standard pressure 9mm JHP out there.
Live like you will never die, love like you've never been hurt, dance
like no-one is watching.
Alex White

Re: FMJ v. JHP performance difference, excellently presented

9
wlewisiii wrote:I do need to figure out what a good load for the Zastava is going to be. I'd like to figure out the best standard pressure 9mm JHP out there.
I use a Speer GDHP 115gr standard pressure round in my little Rohrbaugh, and like that. There are some other standard pressure rounds we've tested in the past. And soon we'll be posting a new sequence of tests comparing polygonal v. traditional rifled barrels which include a couple additional standard pressure loadings.

Jim
James Downey

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/ - handgun cartridge research
http://www.stcybiswell.com/ - my latest novel
http://www.legacybookbindery.com/ - my professional site

Re: FMJ v. JHP performance difference, excellently presented

10
Jim,

I don't see that standard pressure GDHP in your test list. Did I miss it?

The GDHP standard pressure 38 Spec is also my favorite, though at the moment I don't recall if mine are 115 gr or 124/125 gr. I called Speer customer service to ask why they didn't regularly catalog them. He said those standard pressure loads that occasionally showed up on the market were overruns from sales to police departments, or the departments themselves cleaning out inventory. He wasn't clear about whey they didn't sell them commercially, but did say that if they did a commercial run, it would be the last time they made the load. Again, I didn't understand his point but didn't want to inquire more closely.

He did say that all Gold Dot Hollow Point loads were designed to penetrate 12 inches, regardless of velocity or weight of bullet. I asked him then, if that were the case, why anyone bothered with +P and its less controllable nature. He said it really beat him, too, but that's what the market wanted. So, along with an old run of standard pressure Nycad rounds, I now have enough GDHP stand 38 spec to last the foreseeable future.
There are 10 kinds of people: those who understand binary and those who don't.

Re: FMJ v. JHP performance difference, excellently presented

11
Jaywalker, I double-checked, and we did not test that standard pressure round from Speer. Which isn't surprising, since we usually try and select items which are readily available to the public, and that doesn't seem to be.

If you are interested in just standard pressure loads (and there's very good reason to go for that option out of really light snub-nosed guns or for people who are recoil sensitive), then I think Buffalo Bore is your best bet. My wife prefers the BB 158gr LHP out of her 642. Though it sounds like you're pretty well set for at least a while.

Jim
James Downey

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/ - handgun cartridge research
http://www.stcybiswell.com/ - my latest novel
http://www.legacybookbindery.com/ - my professional site

Re: FMJ v. JHP performance difference, excellently presented

12
Great video and interesting. However, my wadcutters hit at 950fps at 296 ft/lbs, not 650fps at 140ft/lbs. :evo: Back in the day when wadcutters were used as duty ammo, there were far more powerful loadings, that load used is the traditional target load and a very soft shooter. The other logic concerning wadcutters is their tendency to ricochet less and the the old 'lead pencil' used in bowling pin shoots that didn't deflect but rather bit into the pins.

I'm thinking about the old "2 #000 buck balls" load as well. Should be interesting I'm going to start low with a slow powder, expect it to lead up like crazy.

My alternate snubbie load is a 125gr flat point exactly as shown in the video (surprised me) or 125gr hp at about 930fps. All my reloads are hp ammo, probably as fast or a little faster. These are the 'other than winter' loads.

Also I'd still prefer a deeper cavity and penetration for .380's (which is where I think the line is also) I'm probably sticking with FMJ, but I've always thought HP's were the way to go with higher velocity .38's and 9mm's and larger.

My final critique is he wasn't getting much velocity in those 9mm Mak shots. I get about 1020fps with Fiocchi and 980 with Silver Bear.

However, huge props for him undertaking this. I really liked the overpressure .25acp test, I don't think you can push enough powder into that round to make it dangerous to shoot, but the recoil must have been...interesting.
When only cops have guns, it's called a police state.
I carry due to toxic masculinity.......just other people's.

Re: FMJ v. JHP performance difference, excellently presented

13
It turns out John Ervin DID do a full power wadcutter test - in 2007! Here's a link: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=275800

And at 900 fps he's getting 22-23" of penetration. Wow, I'm now carrying 125 hp's. Even with 4 layers of denim, which where I live is a minimum in the winter - 6 layers is more likely - and hitting a bone or two - this thing is penetrating like a FMJ in .44 mag. Crazy effective - for bears maybe.

Also found out John is a Picatinny alumnus. I used to work on Picatinny contracts with those guys, they are awesome. Picatinny was the first in the world I believe to set up statistical basis for product acceptance, which is so radical most of the world still hasn't done it, and it's drop dead simple to do. A spec for ammunition might be - '200 rounds from a lot pulled at random, fired with test weapon must have average velocity between xxxfps and yyyfps with a standard deviation not to exceed zzz. Simple, damned effective, makes the producer sweat his product a lot to make sure he hits it.
When only cops have guns, it's called a police state.
I carry due to toxic masculinity.......just other people's.

Re: FMJ v. JHP performance difference, excellently presented

14
Yeah, John's great, and i have a lot of respect for how he approaches his research. I helped set him up with some early testing goodies, and he's been out for one of our test sequences, stayed here with me. Sharp guy, with more solid engineering and product testing than the rest of us in BBTI.

Thanks for the link to that earlier data!



Jim
James Downey

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/ - handgun cartridge research
http://www.stcybiswell.com/ - my latest novel
http://www.legacybookbindery.com/ - my professional site

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests