Author Topic: Underwood, any practical experience?  (Read 633 times)

Bazzer

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Underwood, any practical experience?
« on: January 01, 2018, 08:43:22 PM »
I don’t suppose there is anybody here with practical experience with either the Underwood Xtreme Defender or the Xtreme Hunter?
I’m not expecting that anybody has actually shot anyone with either, but perhaps hunting.  If so what was the damage inflicted etc?  Has anybody even done a decent test on either of these rounds? I’m asking because intend to use one of them for self defense.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

sqlbullet

  • Moderator
  • Sharpshooter
  • *****
  • Posts: 5893
    • View Profile
Re: Underwood, any practical experience?
« Reply #1 on: January 02, 2018, 09:21:37 AM »
Not me.

However, I have seen some ballistics gel videos on the defender round in 9mm and 10mm and am impressed.

The Defender version does not wildly over-penetrate like a solid.  It does make it further than a traditional JHP usually by about 5-6".  This seems to indicate it dumps energy about as well as a JHP, but looses no energy to the task of bullet deformation.

I have a couple thousand HST and XTP's in my closet right now, but once those are gone I will be looking for some deals on these heads.

Rojo27

  • Contributing Member
  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
Re: Underwood, any practical experience?
« Reply #2 on: January 02, 2018, 09:53:37 PM »
Kentucky Ballistics has shot a bunch of Underwood (10mm & other) Defender & Hunter ammo tests.

Not the most scientific but decent as he shoots different flavors at same time so you can see how they compare against each other.

Regards

https://m.youtube.com/user/whatsupitsdabrick

4949shooter

  • Contributing Member
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2417
    • View Profile
Re: Underwood, any practical experience?
« Reply #3 on: January 04, 2018, 01:17:07 PM »
The Defender round is HOT, like all Underwood 10mm. It is controllable out of a Glock 20. I would have no qualms carrying it for self defense here in a state that does not allow hollowpoints, even for retired law enforcement.

tommac919

  • Contributing Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
    • View Profile
Re: Underwood, any practical experience?
« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2018, 01:19:58 PM »
The Defender round is HOT,  I would have no qualms carrying it for self defense here in a state that does not allow hollowpoints, even for retired law enforcement.

But if under HR218, as retired ,  hollow points are allowed ...

SPDSR

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Underwood, any practical experience?
« Reply #5 on: January 04, 2018, 04:55:56 PM »
I personally don’t see these Lehigh bullets as being a replacement for jhp’s. They may have some barrier penetration uses, and the penetrators may also work for animal defense, but not for normal duty type ammo. All these gel tests with them are interpreted incorrectly. There is no correlation between the “wound track” in gel and in a living target. Gel shows penetration depth and bullet expansion diameter, nothing more. And even those are not completely correlated to living tissue measurements (ie 18 inches of gel penetration does not mean 18 inches of bad guy penetration) just a way to compare apples to apples. I’d be far more interested in Speer’s new 10mm Gold Dot offering, Critical Duty 175, or one of the Barnes 155’s by Buffalo Bore or DT. If I see a YouTube gel test where measurements and discussions on the width of the “wound track” or permanent or temporary wound cavity, I dismiss it as someone who never took the time to read the actual FBI ballastics gel testing protocol. Heck, it actually does not state a “maximum” of 18 inches, as everyone seems to think. That is more of a defacto rule. Penetration depth and diameter of the projectile penetrating that depth are what is evaluated.

Lehigh and Underwood and whoever else is marketing and selling these don’t even publish (or probably even conduct) ballistic testing that adheres to the detailed protocols. I’ve asked Underwood for their testing data, and they referred me to the “rigorous” testing MAC did on his site. While entertaining, not very scientific. Corbon is another one - I’ve asked them how they test their defensive ammo and they replied they make some gel, drive to the junkyard and pick up some “stuff” to shoot through, head to a field and “have fun” . I asked how the temperature of the gel was maintained while driving with it to a junkyard and then to a field, or how they properly set up this “stuff” they shoot through, but they would not reply any longer. Not bashing any company, but I think many of these smaller outfits tend to completely skip the testing part, or do it very poorly.

In a nutshell, for critter defense, the smaller ammo companies have some great options - be it xtreme penetrators, hunters, etc. or heavy flat nosed rounds, but I’d stick with the big companies with solidified performance histories for human defense. Or at least choose offerings using proven bullets like Barnes, Gold Dots, etc. so long as their velocities are not so nuclear that it actually deminishes performance.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2018, 05:02:19 PM by SPDSR »

inv136

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
Re: Underwood, any practical experience?
« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2018, 06:56:06 PM »
Other than paper targets, I haven't shot anything with my Underwood LeHigh rounds. The ballistics look outstanding for two or four legged predators and that's what my EDC ammunition is and will be until a round with better ballistics comes out. Speer Gold Dot 10mm ballistics don't look anywhere near as good as the LeHigh rounds.

 

Rojo27

  • Contributing Member
  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
Re: Underwood, any practical experience?
« Reply #7 on: January 04, 2018, 07:22:27 PM »
Lehigh Xtreme bullets are certainly not a replacement for JHP.  Their cost alone guarantees that. 
In additionally to normal barrier blind situations, other worthy applications might include:
Significant improvement over FMJ in States that forbid JHP.
General barrier blind category but more specifically: better performance (vs. JHP) against soft body armor (such as Sutherland Springs terrorist was "reported" to wear). 

Some intelligent, experienced and well read people here agree about no value in wound track examination in gel testing... 
Other intelligent, experienced and well read people here may not completely agree.  I think an example of possible value in observing ballistic gel wound tracks can be found when examining non-expanding monolithic bullets that might be prone to tumbling (even out of a handgun) upon impact.  Seen Lehigh Xtreme bullets do it and Fort Scott Munitions are purpose designed to do it.     

Personal G20 is stoked with BB 155gr TAC-XP right this moment, and when hunting utilize Underwood 200gr XTP quite effectively.  Also relied on DT 200gr WFN loads in the same pistol when camping in areas with Brown Bears recently.  However, I still have several boxes in various calibers and various flavors of Underwood Xtreme ammunition...  Because it makes sense to me. 

SPDSR...  If you decide to take up ballistics gel testing utilizing strict FBI protocol, it'd be great.  Too few people are publishing tests anymore.   

« Last Edit: January 05, 2018, 08:08:31 PM by Rojo27 »

Spudmeister

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Re: Underwood, any practical experience?
« Reply #8 on: January 05, 2018, 09:02:06 AM »
I have shot a bunch of Underwood ammo in general and the Extreme Defender out of an OEM G29 in specific.  It is typical Underwood.  Ammo is hotter than the surface of the Sun, very reliable and quality constructed.  But I only shot some steel with it.  It is not what I carry or hunt with but it's good ammo.

Bazzer

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: Underwood, any practical experience?
« Reply #9 on: January 06, 2018, 02:27:46 PM »
Shooting a block of gel or a steel plate is definitely not representative of a human torso. I like the dummies used on Forged in Fire or a couple of racks of beef ribs separated by a couple of water melons to represent chest and lungs.  Could put a pigs heart in the middle if you like.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

sqlbullet

  • Moderator
  • Sharpshooter
  • *****
  • Posts: 5893
    • View Profile
Re: Underwood, any practical experience?
« Reply #10 on: January 06, 2018, 06:29:57 PM »
Blocks of gel aren't meant to represent a human torso.  They are meant to provide a uniform medium.

Trapper6L

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: Underwood, any practical experience?
« Reply #11 on: January 06, 2018, 06:47:47 PM »
I'm of the school that first you have to hit the target. Then the bullet has to penetrate the target. Some of the more known HPs fail on that last part. I've gotten to witness a lot of Border Patrol units that end up in fire fights with the drug dealers here in Texas. Frankly, from what I've seen one of the best bullets is a lead round nose. It doesn't do anything tricky, it just penetrates and that usually wins the game.
Probably have seen this before but worth the read again. The Speer 9mm Gold Dots failed to stop a perp immediately while the bullets are stopped by his Carhart coat. Liking my Carhart coat more every day.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/05/robert-farago/carhartt-jacket-stops-nypd-speer-gold-dot-p-9mm-hollow-points/

SPDSR

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Underwood, any practical experience?
« Reply #12 on: January 07, 2018, 04:05:17 AM »
I believe that whole NYPD / Carhartt article turned out to be propaganda. The NYPD did not suggest the ammo failed, just some media outlet. I believe the follow up a few months later was the 4 rounds were embedded in the jacket on the posterior aspect after fully penetrating the front torso. Gold Dot ammo is typically very effective. I’ve seen it perform spectacularly through auto glass and vehicle barriers in actual ois incidents. But the more new options, the better.

Rojo27

  • Contributing Member
  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
Re: Underwood, any practical experience?
« Reply #13 on: January 07, 2018, 12:40:34 PM »
SPDSR is right....  The NYPD/Carhartt story was fake news.  Not that there is anything wrong with your Carhartt (nice coat) but it'd be potentially fatal mistake to think of it as bullet resistant. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4FqEEgq9eA

NYPD uses 9mm 124gr +P Gold Dots and they're very effective....  When of course they hit their target.  NYPD's miss ratio is notoriously high....  Which I'm sure has nothing to do with their stupid 12lbs NYPD trigger requirement :-\!
« Last Edit: January 07, 2018, 12:43:16 PM by Rojo27 »

4949shooter

  • Contributing Member
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2417
    • View Profile
Re: Underwood, any practical experience?
« Reply #14 on: January 09, 2018, 07:29:45 PM »
The Defender round is HOT,  I would have no qualms carrying it for self defense here in a state that does not allow hollowpoints, even for retired law enforcement.

But if under HR218, as retired ,  hollow points are allowed ...

Unfortunately, not in NJ for the state's own retirees. NJ has a permit system for retirees which predates HR218. We are still bound by this.

Out of state retirees are good with hollowpoints.