Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - SPDSR

Pages: [1] 2
It’s $1.43 less at Kygunco. But they have free shipping, so $26.43 less. Never shot one personally.

General Discussion / Re: Shot Show 2018 Jan (23-26) Updates
« on: January 14, 2018, 02:08:52 PM »
Or even better maybe they will announce a limited edition FDE or weird digital pattern color version of their new .380! Such a game changing release would surely send everyone at Shot Show into mass hysteria.

10mm Hunting / Re: Hard Cast vs JHP for hogs
« on: January 14, 2018, 01:59:51 PM »
I mean other than the obvious - Xtreme defenders and hunters and penetrators which not only instantly explode a hog, but all its piggy family members too with the one shot. And due to the fluid dynamics of the rounds that defy physics, it will also butcher and vacuum package all the meat for you before your slide even returns to battery.

10mm Hunting / Re: Hard Cast vs JHP for hogs
« on: January 14, 2018, 01:55:58 PM »
That Razor Dobbs fellow hunts hogs and all kinds of game with 155 Barnes rounds. A lot of people more versed than I suggest a deep penetrating JHP for most hunting where you have more controlled shots and deliberate placement. The expanded diameter affords proper shots a larger wound for a quicker kill. The heavy flat bullets, like hardcast, are better for defense from those same game when you will not have the luxury of precision and will not be shooting it at ideal angles (thing is running at you, on you) and it is in adrenaline mode, so your focus goes to penetration.

So avid hunters correct me if I’m wrong, but the theoretical difference is hunting vs. defending. I’m curious what experienced folks use effectively as well.

10mm semi-auto handguns / Re: Dan Wesson Valor 10mm
« on: January 13, 2018, 01:04:13 PM »
Good to know!

10mm semi-auto handguns / Dan Wesson Valor 10mm
« on: January 13, 2018, 08:56:47 AM »
According to Dan Wesson Tech support, the Valor 10mm (and Silverback) are identical internally to the Valor 45acp. I asked if any components were beefed up or altered for use with full power 10mm rounds, and they said no, it’s identical, just chambered for the 10mm. 1911’s are not my strong suit, but is this perfectly acceptable? I thought most of the higher quality 1911’s in 10mm have a few beefier tweaks compared to their 45 counterparts.

Looks just like the little SIG P238

General Discussion / Re: Underwood, any practical experience?
« on: January 13, 2018, 08:43:44 AM »
I’m sure the original poster is still curious if anyone has actually shot something (alive) with these. Anyone hunted with them?

General Discussion / Re: New Glock 19X Jan 22nd
« on: January 13, 2018, 08:39:37 AM »
Sounds like every woman I’ve dated.

The one thing with this G19X that I find odd is I don’t believe it has the new flared magwell the Gen5’s do. I thought this was the only real improvement for the Gen5 and of benefit for military type applications.

Factory 10mm ammo / Re: Doubletap Velocities & Quality
« on: January 12, 2018, 01:41:15 PM »
I am just a little skeptical of doubletap because of the many opinions regarding drastic velocity discrepancies. It’s not even the actual velocities that really bug me, just the concept that if they are fudging those, what else is fudged? I found this chart

and the DT loads are listed as hundreds of FPS slower than advertised, while UW’s were frequently faster, to the nuclear point (not ideal either). I also noticed how great of a difference there was from (for example) DT’s 155 Barnes load in this table to the one linked on this site. It’s advertised at 1400fps from s G20. The one charts lists it as hitting an avg of 1102fps from a G20, 300 FPS below advertised, while one on here has 1448fps from a similar sized barrel, 50 FPS over advertised. So a 350fps difference between the two.

Does DT fluctuate - some years they ard hundreds of fps low, some years they meet advertised? I’m not sure what to think.

I looked at BB’s 200 FMJFN since they only have hard cast in 220 grain, and according to the manufacturer of that bullet it only has a BHN of 15. I asked BB what FMJ bullet was used, as many fmj’s are not built tough for bone or hard barriers like auto glass (the things BB Describes their fmjfn for) , and Tim would not respond to that question (asked about 5 times over a year). He’d answer other things though. Why are these companies so weird! Just tell us the truth!

Sig Legion front sight isn’t fiber optic, it’s a tritium vial with fluorescent colored ring around it like a Trijicon HD. They dinked the GLOCK for having trouble with the slide release, but GLOCK’s have a slide lock and have never recommended using the slide lock to chamber a round. That was kind of a bizarre “test”. Especially the different ammo thing and the sights.

General Discussion / Re: Underwood, any practical experience?
« on: January 10, 2018, 12:15:56 AM »
That’s ridiculous.

General Discussion / Re: Underwood, any practical experience?
« 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.

That’s awful. When it rains it pours.

General Discussion / Re: Underwood, any practical experience?
« 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.

Pages: [1] 2