Hi, I saw this over on the NRA Shooting Illustrated page; http://www.shootingillustrated.com/Ammo/Handgun/grizzlyextreme.html Penetration at 6.8" of gelatin is a bit light though Some more photos, though apparently LCP's are not rated to shoot +p Ammo and P3AT's are Photo Link: http://elsiepeaforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8930.0 Best Wishes:
I'd have to see some tests... In that last pic, the bullet laying sideways doesn't show any signs of being fired it looks like it was manually opened. I just don't see how a bullet could keep that profile. Of course JMHO
Hi, The link and the first picture are from tests the NRA did, I'd trust the NRA staff especially since they commented on both the penetration, and expansion of this round. Best Regards:
I see something around the base of the bullet (below the ring that is around it) that looks like rifling marks to me.
Hello, I noticed the same thing the blown up pictures seem to show rifling marks on the base of the bullet. Best Regards:
I saw that as well, but I can't find any other marks... and absolutely no deformation on the pedals. Other than the first pic, not discounting the round... but not quite buying it, yet.
I don't care how cool or scary a name you give it, there is no magic bullet, especially in smaller calibers. No one is going grizzly or buffalo hunting with a 380. Also, since there is no standard for +P in 380 apc (it does not exist), that is simply a marketing ploy which, right up front, makes the company's tactics suspect. In essence, to those who know better, they have admitted that they are liars. It is probably a decent quality round, but 6.8 inches of expansion does not raise the bar. That has already been surpassed - with expansion. It's the same old song and dance - in 380 acp, you can have good penetration or you can have good expansion. You can't have both. Everything is a compromise. Pick your poison.
Like many others here I'm sure, I load JHPs and FMJs alternated to help achieve both in a multiple round scenario. I've heard of other that carry JHPs in the weapon and another mag of FMJs as their second. I myself prefer the staggered method. I do this with all my carry weapons 45ACP, 9mm, 380, and 32. Just my 2 cents.
6.8" of penetration? Why would a person carry this when there are better rounds out there that penetrate and expand? Federal HST and Buffalo Bore have been independently test by many and are definitely leading the pack on these two traits of exp and pen.
I wouldn't touch those with a ten foot pole. "Penetration at 6.8" of gelatin is a bit light though" I have always thought that the minimum standard was 12" in gelatin. Thats just over half....the 380acp needs as much help as possible to work, why handicap yourself with ammo that doesn't reach far enough? According to GoldenLoki (.com) there are some (a very few) HP that reach the standard. I have found it hard to find my favorite rounds lately( CorBon non-DPX) so I have moved to the next round I have been able to find near me (Hornady Critical Defense)
The magic 12" number comes from the FBI specification. The FBI number is intended to allow for "sufficient" penetration to reach vitals after first passing through a barrier (such as drywall, a car door, windshield, or an intervening arm/leg). It was concluded that 12" of penetration in bare gelatin would represent sufficient penetration after first breaching one of those intervening barriers. It is, therefore, logical to conclude that if the target is NOT protected by intervening barriers and a clean shot at the CoM is available, such as is the case with most civilian Self Defense scenarios, then less than 12" penetration in calibrated gelatin would be sufficient. How much less is currently unquantified and unknown. I suspect that someone is willing to do some barrier tests to quantify how much penetration a windshield cuts out of a round that penetrates (more or less) exactly 12". I suspect it is somewhere around 4 to 6 inches, but that's just a WAG. Peace favor your sword, Kirk
Hi, Kirk has a nice post. The 12" bare gelatin penetration requirement was set up to deal with intermediate fleshy targets after the the barriers were penetrated. I think you can understand more of the FBI's mindset about this spec if you can read about the incident that the FBI based its pebetration specification on below: Part I:http://www.thegunzone.com/11april86.html Illustration:http://www.thegunzone.com/platt-shot.html Part II:http://www.thegunzone.com/11april86b.html It's my estimate that "the perfect shot" that wasn't on Matix needed at a minimum of 12" of penetration to reach the heart. As it was was it cut a major artery and perforated a lung and was a kill shot, but it took 4 minutes to do its work. The ironic thing is that had the bullet been a FMJ out of a P-32(32 ACP), P3AT (380 Auto), or PF-9 (9MM) it would have had the penetration to do the job almost instantly. I think if you look at the diagram, you could figure that 6-8" of penetration in a typical close range CCW situation with the P3AT would do the job. The idea that you have to use a specification drawn up to deal with monsters in CQB with you P3AT is buying into the idea of preparing for every possible contingency no matter how unlikely. The P3AT was designed as a CCW pistol plain and simple and not for combat, you are trading some capability for concealment, and its the idea of the pistol allow you get out of a really bad situation or allow you to handle lesser situations. People who want to handle monsters or maniacs shouldn't be using a P3AT but a round that has a proven record of breaking bones when hit, penetration, and lethality. Folks that is not the 32 ACP or 380 Auto, and pistols that handle such rounds are larger that the P-32 and P3AT. I feel comfortable carrying the P3AT, TCP, or P-32, because I've already made the decision to accept some trade-offs to get some security, and I'm confident that if I place my shots right I have the ability to stop, or slow a bad situation so that I can escape if need be. I think its a common problem that people want their tools like a knife or P3AT to be able to do everything when they can't. Best Wishes: Edited for spelling/grammar
excellent post. lets not forget that most times a firearm is used to stop a crime it is not discharged.
excellent post. lets not forget that most times a firearm is used to stop a crime it is not discharged. [/quote] I'm sorry, and I mean no disrespect, but I can't accept this statement. I don't carry a gun for the sake of what statistic say. If that was the case, then I shouldn't need to carry at all. I can just sell my gun or use it for fun at the range because "most times a firearm is not even needed to stop a crime because most people will not get mugged, or have their house broken into, etc." I carry my gun just in case. Every person who chooses to carry can fill in their own phrase for the just in case part.
heh, you have a very polite way of disagreeing, except i really dont think we disagree all that much. all i mean is that some is better than none. if you look long enough you can always find some self defence shooting where the caliber of weapon made the difference between life and death, but for each such case there will be an order of magnitude many more cases where simply the presence of a gun - often not even fired - made the necessary difference to stop a crime.
I think I understand the direction of your thoughts. Let me see if I do. Criminals are looking for easy prey. They want to surprise a victim and they want a victim that is unwilling to fight back. A person who is aware of their surroundings is less likely to attract the attentions of a bad guy. As the bg looks around for prey, they are often looking for the unaware person who has no clue the bg is there. People who carry are much more aware of their surroundings and potential threats. I know that I am. From the moment I even considered carrying, I began looking around more at the mall, in parking lots, etc. I began watching people and their actions more closely. I also can see that if a bg decided to mug someone, and that same someone pulled out a gun, the bg would have a reason to flee and to NOT continue their bad intentions. So, perhaps that is the direction of your thoughts. If so, I wholeheartedly agree. And thank you for your tactfulness in your rely. Even if we totally disagree, which I do not think is the case this time, we are doing it in a wonderful way.
yes, i would agree with all that, especially how carrying gradually comes to change ones behavior over time. keeping track of people and what they are doing, making mental notes about escape routes and covers, avoiding traffic confrontations etc, all of that has almost become second nature. back in the days before i got my ccw i never really thought about any of it, i simply took safety for granted, now i sometimes think im i'm getting borderline paranoid
