NWI INDIANA GUN OWNERS. #24 Lets face it we all love to shoot and eat

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    nonobaddog

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 10, 2015
    11,794
    113
    Tropical Minnesota
    I know this is not a gun forum but wondering about ultra-light bullets.

    I'm so old that at one point I learned that low velocity (approx 850 feet per second) 230 grain FMJ 45acp was the ultimate self defense ammunition.

    Now I'm seriously considering lightweight (50 to 75 grain) 9mm at 1600 to 2000 feet per second for self defense.

    The advantages of the ultra-light + ultra velocity ammo are multiple but include very low recoil and seriously increased energy transfer as measured by foot pounds of energy (at short ranges).

    Examples include but may not be limited to:
    Liberty Ammo 50 grain, 2040 fps, 462 ft lbs energy . . .

    Advanced PDF 65 grain, 1695 fps, 416 ft lbs energy . . .

    Cor-Bon's 90 grain, 1500 fps, 450 ft lbs energy . . .

    NovX's 65 grain, 1730 fps, 432 ft lbs energy . . .

    Cor-Bon is probably the closest thing to a 'name' brand in this group. The major name brands don't seem to offer this ultra-light stuff. Hornady has some 100 grain ammo, which they market to women as low recoil (they even donate a portion to Breast Cancer research) but I'm not sure it is as serious as some of the above brands. Hornady seems to focus on the reduced recoil and feminine marketing angle more than technology in their marketing.

    I'm currently using Hornady 115 grain JHP and Winchester Ranger 147 grain JHP as my primary carry and home defense rounds in 9mm ammo. But it seems like, at least at short ranges, the ultra light ammo might have serious advantages in terms of low recoil and high energy transfer.

    Compare the energy of any of the ultra light ammo to my Ranger's 147 grain JHP which has a velocity of 985 fps and energy transfer of 320 foot pounds. The energy transfer of the heavier ranger to the ultra light stuff is literally 100+ foot pounds/25+% less than the ultra light rounds. That is significant.

    I've never tried any of these types of rounds. Clearly for self/home defense they must be 100% reliable. But assuming they are reliable in my guns, it seems like switching from heavier/slower to much lighter/faster is a wise choice.

    Just using LIBERTY's claims as an example:
    • 32 to 38% less felt recoil
    • - 65 to 75% more velocity
    • - 25 to 30% more kinetic energy
    • - Reduced over-penetration
    • - More stopping power

    Anyone try anything like these (in any caliber)?
    That is kind of like the old energy vs momentum discussions, or even a little penetration vs expansion stuff.
    These light weight, high speed rounds have high energy but they also have low momentum.

    I don't like to go to an extreme in any direction. If I want more energy without losing penetration I would just go to a bigger cartridge.
     

    melensdad

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 94.7%
    18   1   0
    Apr 2, 2008
    23,986
    77
    Far West Suburban Lowellabama
    That is kind of like the old energy vs momentum discussions, or even a little penetration vs expansion stuff.
    These light weight, high speed rounds have high energy but they also have low momentum.

    I don't like to go to an extreme in any direction. If I want more energy without losing penetration I would just go to a bigger cartridge.
    Yes, agreed, this is pretty much that whole argument, taken to the extreme.

    I actually split the difference, sort of. Decided to try a few boxes. I picked a bullet weight that is on the heavy end of the ultra-light spectrum (70 grain) but also with the highest energy (462 foot pounds) traveling at only 1700 feet per second.

    Ultra lights tend to not penetrate deeply, so by picking a heavier ultra light, I figured I was hedging that bet just a little bit. But I never want over penetration (punching a hole clean thru) due to liability, and that should not be an issue. The biggest concern is probably heavy winter gear, like thick Carhartt clothing, some of the lightest weight stuff tended to rapidly slow down and not penetrate heavy clothing. But that was a real ultra light problem 15 years ago and newer bullet designs may have alleviated some of that?

    As for more energy without losing penetration comment, I'm a died in the wool, confirmed 45acp 1911 guy, carried that for 30+ years. But switched down to a 9mm for easy concealment and lighter weight. Looking to optimize my new Springfield HELLCAT for old arthritic hands (added larger controls, changed trigger to one I can feel better), and fading eyes (added holosight + green laser to the tritium factory sights). Finding LOW RECOIL, but still viable self defense rounds, is part of this process (I did mention arthritis) to tame a snappy little gun that, with the added optics, weighs only 18oz.

    tempImageT2Cimm.jpg


    @actaeon277 actually NO. Lightweight rounds are more likely to be frangible and less likely to ricochet or over penetrate. They tend to dump all their energy inside a target and fall apart. The obvious downside is they lose energy quickly as distance increases. But for a self defense round, where shots are typically inside of 30' and often inside of 10', energy loss is not a concern. At 50 yards or farther it might be a legitimate concern.
     

    nonobaddog

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 10, 2015
    11,794
    113
    Tropical Minnesota
    Yes, agreed, this is pretty much that whole argument, taken to the extreme.

    I actually split the difference, sort of. Decided to try a few boxes. I picked a bullet weight that is on the heavy end of the ultra-light spectrum (70 grain) but also with the highest energy (462 foot pounds) traveling at only 1700 feet per second.

    Ultra lights tend to not penetrate deeply, so by picking a heavier ultra light, I figured I was hedging that bet just a little bit. But I never want over penetration (punching a hole clean thru) due to liability, and that should not be an issue. The biggest concern is probably heavy winter gear, like thick Carhartt clothing, some of the lightest weight stuff tended to rapidly slow down and not penetrate heavy clothing. But that was a real ultra light problem 15 years ago and newer bullet designs may have alleviated some of that?

    As for more energy without losing penetration comment, I'm a died in the wool, confirmed 45acp 1911 guy, carried that for 30+ years. But switched down to a 9mm for easy concealment and lighter weight. Looking to optimize my new Springfield HELLCAT for old arthritic hands (added larger controls, changed trigger to one I can feel better), and fading eyes (added holosight + green laser to the tritium factory sights). Finding LOW RECOIL, but still viable self defense rounds, is part of this process (I did mention arthritis) to tame a snappy little gun that, with the added optics, weighs only 18oz.
    Are those high-energy rounds performing anywhere near the advertised velocity out of that short barrel?
     

    Quiet Observer

    Sharpshooter
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 10, 2022
    416
    63
    St. John
    I had my annual checkup the other day. At the end I asked my doctor what test was used to determine if an older person with reasoning problems might need to be put into a facility.

    He said they use the bathtub test. They ask the patient, "If I filled a bathtub with water. Then gave you a spoon, a cup, and a bucket What would you use to empty it?"

    I said the normal ones would use the bucket because it is faster.



    As he picked up the phone to call Happy Acres Home, he said a normal person would pull the plug.
    I like my room, pretty curtains.
     

    Ballstater98

    Certified Bro Shark
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Jan 18, 2015
    23,481
    113
    NWI
    I had my annual checkup the other day. At the end I asked my doctor what test was used to determine if an older person with reasoning problems might need to be put into a facility.

    He said they use the bathtub test. They ask the patient, "If I filled a bathtub with water. Then gave you a spoon, a cup, and a bucket What would you use to empty it?"

    I said the normal ones would use the bucket because it is faster.



    As he picked up the phone to call Happy Acres Home, he said a normal person would pull the plug.
    I like my room, pretty curtains.
    That should be on the Joke of the Day thread.
     

    melensdad

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 94.7%
    18   1   0
    Apr 2, 2008
    23,986
    77
    Far West Suburban Lowellabama
    And given the ways they measure this stuff, the 4" barrel can be up to 45% longer than the 3". I bet that makes a significant difference in velocity.
    Well I think the videos show actual 4" barrels that are not 5" barrels and of course there is some velocity drop, but most self defense ammo was tested out of 5" barrels and shot of 3.5-4" barrels so it seems like parity. Federal Hydra-Shok or Winchester Ranger or Speer Gold Dot is all going to test out of whatever they test out of and we have to take those numbers and adjust for our gun's barrel size.

    But you can run your own ballistics calculations. 70 grains at 1700 fps, downgraded to roughly 1575 fps for a 1" shorter barrel is still dumping a heck of a lot more energy into target than a 124 grain Hydra Shok at 1120 fps (similarly downgrade 995 fps for a 1" shorter barrel)

    Federal Hydra Shok = 273 ft lbs
    Liberty Overwatch = 386 ft lbs

    So even when you downgrade the velocity the energy is still substantially higher for the low recoil, high velocity, light bullets.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Site Supporter

    INGO Supporter

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    524,489
    Messages
    9,794,217
    Members
    53,638
    Latest member
    Dhlawson
    Top Bottom