[Kovernm]

I have a M&P 40 and was looking at getting some personal defense ammo, and was wanting to know if one ammo was better than another, or if it was all personal preference. I was looking at Remington Golden Saber. Is the Golden Saber any good? I was also looking at the Hornady TAP. I am planning on using this as a second gun come hunting season.

 

[choochboost]

Not all ammo is the same. Some don't expand reliably, some don't penetrate well, some break up, etc.



You can pick something from this list: http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tact...c;f=78;t=000964



I would suggest you use the search function on that forum and spend some time reading up on various ammo.

 

[jediihaf]

I personally carry Remington Golden Sabers right now, but the Federal HSTs are looking mighty good right now too. I'd like to try them out one of these days. Chooch is right though, stick to the list and you are good to go.

 

[pilotdane]

Whichever personal defense round you choose make sure you give it a good test (at least one full box, minimum) in your gun.



A gun "should" shoot anything you feed it, but they do have a preference. My .40c still does not like Federal HydroShoks at all. Speer Gold Dots are OK and Remington Golden Sabers have been very reliable.

 

[SilentHyena]

I have a M&P 40 and was looking at getting some personal defense ammo, and was wanting to know if one ammo was better than another, or if it was all personal preference. I was looking at Remington Golden Saber. Is the Golden Saber any good? I was also looking at the Hornady TAP. I am planning on using this as a second gun come hunting season.

I think Wideners still has a deal on the Federal FXM40HB.



http://www.wideners.com/itemdetail.cfm?ite...;dir=18|606|608



Not bad for the price.

 

[MTech]

Stick to doc's list.



The following loads all demonstrate outstanding terminal performance and can be considered acceptable for duty/self-defense use:



9 mm:

Barnes XPB 105 & 115 gr JHP (copper bullet)

Federal Tactical 124 gr JHP (LE9T1)

Speer Gold Dot 124 gr +P JHP

Winchester Ranger-T 124 gr +P JHP (RA9124TP)

Winchester Partition Gold 124 gr JHP (RA91P)

Winchester Ranger-T 127 gr +P+ JHP (RA9TA)

Federal Tactical 135 gr +P JHP (LE9T5)

Federal HST 147 gr JHP (P9HST2)

Remington Golden Saber 147 gr JHP (GS9MMC)

Speer Gold Dot 147 gr JHP

Winchester Ranger-T 147 gr JHP (RA9T)



.40 S&W:

Barnes XPB 140 & 155 gr JHP (copper bullet)

Speer Gold Dot 155 gr JHP

Federal Tactical 165 gr JHP (LE40T3)

Winchester Ranger-T 165 gr JHP (RA40TA)

Winchester Partition Gold 165 gr JHP (RA401P)

Federal HST 180 gr JHP (P40HST1)

Federal Tactical 180 gr JHP (LE40T1)

Remington Golden Saber 180 gr JHP (GS40SWB)

Speer Gold Dot 180 gr JHP

Winchester Ranger-T 180 gr JHP (RA40T)



.45 ACP:

Barnes XPB 185 gr JHP (copper bullet)

Federal HST 230 gr +P JHP (P45HST1)

Federal Tactical 230 gr JHP (LE45T1)

Speer Gold Dot 230 gr JHP

Winchester Ranger-T 230 gr JHP (RA45T)

Winchester Ranger-T 230 gr +P JHP (RA45TP)

 

[Steelshooter]

Most of the well known self defense loads are roughly equal. Some people/theoriticians favor highest grain bullets traveling at moderate velocities and some favor light grain bullets traveling at high velocities. I prefer a 155 or 165 grain .40 for the additional velocity and therefore better expansion. Yes I know lots of people prefer the 180 grain. I think it has potential expansion and over-penetration issues. Classic Federal Hydrashok is not great at penetrating layers of clothing. Federal has many other SD rounds that are state of the art. TAP rounds have excellent quality control but their consistent expansions is under question in my opinion only because Hornady bullets in general have that reputation. I think CCI Speer Gold Dots are the most consistently performing expanders. I prefer Black Hills 155 grain which uses a Gold Dot bullet and is essentially a match round. It is certainly the most accurate .40 round I have ever used and I don't generally notice that much difference in accuracy between .40 rounds. They also make a 180 grain .40 round. I don't think you will find many people who have anything bad to say about Black Hills ammo and if they do they are wrong.

http://www.black-hills.com/factorynew.htm

.40 SMITH & WESSON

155 Gr. Jacketed Hollow Point

Velocity 1150 FPS

Energy 450 Ft. Lbs.

180 Gr. Jacketed Hollow Point

Velocity 1000 FPS

Energy 400 Ft. Lbs.



You can buy Black Hills at Midway USA

http://www.midwayusa.com/



The prevailing theories are based on gelatin tests, morgue results, and things like pig hearts placed in gelatin. I don't buy into the jello junkies (testing in gelatin alone) theories which I think is a lot of foolishness. Yeah I said it. ;-)

 

[nevrbvictim]

+1 on the gelatin tests... They should use death row inmates for study of bullet performance. :twisted:

 

[ToddG]

Stick to doc's list.

There are an awful lot of very successful rounds that don't seem to make it onto that list. So either reality is wrong or the testing methodology is. Hmmmm ...

For example:



9mm. Prince's George County (MD) Police Department has, or at least had for many years, the distinction of shooting more criminals per capita than any other large agency in the country. They used 115gr +p+ Federal 9BPLE for many years and were extremely happy with it. Then they switched to 124gr +p+ Hydra-Shok because in gelatin testing the 9BPLE was not doing well against windshields. They'd never had an actual problem, but they switched and were still very happy with the results. Neither of these loads is on the list above after about 200 successful shootings by this one department.



40 S&W: ICE/CBP (and before their creation, INS) has been using the 155gr JHP from either Remington or Federal for over a decade and they are extremely happy with its performance. They've shot an awful lot of people with a load that doesn't rate well in the Fackler test suite and somehow, the people who get shot seem to FDGB with great regularity. Must be voodoo!



.45 ACP: FBI issues the 230gr Golden Saber, again not on the list. They've been extremely happy with its performance in their SWAT pistols. Again, we can only explain this by facing the fact that reality is messed up and needs to conform better to the Facklerite view of terminal ballistic performance. :roll:

 

[stg58fal]

[quote name='MTech']Stick to doc's list.

There are an awful lot of very successful rounds that don't seem to make it onto that list. So either reality is wrong or the testing methodology is. Hmmmm ...

For example:



9mm. Prince's George County (MD) Police Department has, or at least had for many years, the distinction of shooting more criminals per capita than any other large agency in the country. They used 115gr +p+ Federal 9BPLE for many years and were extremely happy with it. Then they switched to 124gr +p+ Hydra-Shok because in gelatin testing the 9BPLE was not doing well against windshields. They'd never had an actual problem, but they switched and were still very happy with the results. Neither of these loads is on the list above after about 200 successful shootings by this one department.



40 S&W: ICE/CBP (and before their creation, INS) has been using the 155gr JHP from either Remington or Federal for over a decade and they are extremely happy with its performance. They've shot an awful lot of people with a load that doesn't rate well in the Fackler test suite and somehow, the people who get shot seem to FDGB with great regularity. Must be voodoo!



.45 ACP: FBI issues the 230gr Golden Saber, again not on the list. They've been extremely happy with its performance in their SWAT pistols. Again, we can only explain this by facing the fact that reality is messed up and needs to conform better to the Facklerite view of terminal ballistic performance. :roll:[/quote]





+1 To the loads menitoned above.

I also agree with your take on Facklerite s disproven science. If you examine Facklerite's theroies a knife wounds the excat same way as a bullet. Think on that for while and you will snap back to reality and start to look at street results and not Gello blocks.

 

[choochboost]

also agree with your take on Facklerite s disproven science. If you examine Facklerite's theroies a knife wounds the excat same way as a bullet. Think on that for while and you will snap back to reality and start to look at street results and not Gello blocks.

I've never read Fackler or other "Facklerites" making that comparison, but in many ways it is true. In both cases, a foreign object enters into the body, cutting and destroying tissue it comes in contact with and causes blood loss. What other factors are there that can be proven that don't involve speculation and assumption?

 

[stg58fal]

[quote name='stg58fal'] also agree with your take on Facklerite s disproven science. If you examine Facklerite's theroies a knife wounds the excat same way as a bullet. Think on that for while and you will snap back to reality and start to look at street results and not Gello blocks.

I've never read Fackler or other "Facklerites" making that comparison, but in many ways it is true. In both cases, a foreign object enters into the body, cutting and destroying tissue it comes in contact with and causes blood loss. What other factors are there that can be proven that don't involve speculation and assumption?[/quote]



The most obivous fact is street results. Handguns can and sometimes produce instant stops. Examine knife wounds to the same areas and they often do not produce instant stops. There has been a study into what is called ballastic waves. These waves are produced by higher engery rounds and are effective at producing instant stops.



I agree with Dr. Fackler that rounds must penenetate to work. The good thing about modern ammo is that the higher engery rounds penetrate to the same depth that only heavier rounds did in the past. With modern ammo you can have your cake and eat it do.

 

[choochboost]

The most obivous fact is street results. Handguns can and sometimes produce instant stops. Examine knife wounds to the same areas and they often do not produce instant stops. There has been a study into what is called ballastic waves. These waves are produced by higher engery rounds and are effective at producing instant stops.

"Street results" or real life wounds were always a part of Fackler's work.



A bullet that produces an instant physiological stop involved the CNS. The same would happen with a knife if the knife was capable of creating a similar wound.



The effectiveness from what you call "ballistic waves" using pistol ammunition is still being fought over and has not been proven.

 

[stg58fal]

The most obivous fact is street results. Handguns can and sometimes produce instant stops. Examine knife wounds to the same areas and they often do not produce instant stops. There has been a study into what is called ballastic waves. These waves are produced by higher engery rounds and are effective at producing instant stops.

"Street results" or real life wounds were always a part of Fackler's work.



A bullet that produces an instant physiological stop involved the CNS. The same would happen with a knife if the knife was capable of creating a similar wound.



The effectiveness from what you call "ballistic waves" using pistol ammunition is still being fought over and has not been proven.

I am aware of Dr. Falkner's work as a Army Doc.



There are many instant stops produced by handguns that does not involve CNS hits. Very very few that are produced by a knife. Not all scince can fit in a nice little box. I repesect Dr. Falkners work, however there is alot left to be learned.



The SD rounds listed by ToddG are some of the most proven. They may not be rated high according to Dr. Falkner's work, however they are proven were it matters.

 

[ToddG]

What other factors are there that can be proven that don't involve speculation and assumption?

But that's unfair. We know that there are countless "stops" that occur without the kind of trauma Facklerites claim is necessary for a "reliable" stop. They have decreed -- with absolutely no scientific evidence -- that all of these stops are simply "psychological." That's silly. To a Facklerite, "psychological" is a code-word for "stuff we can't explain."



stg58fal hit it right on the head ... do you really think there is no difference between slowly inserting a .45-cal rod into someone and shooting him with a bullet moving 850fps? Do you think it's just myth that tells us a .357 Magnum is more effective than a standard-pressure .38 Special? Especially when the .38 is more likely to get the kind of penetration that the Fackler camp claims is a necessity.



We know that there are any number of physiological responses to various stimuli. A proper choke works by dramatically and quickly disrupting blood flow, tricking the brain into thinking it's suffering a stroke and shutting down. Or look at a taser ... by the Facklerite viewpoint, tasers shouldn't work because they don't make any kind of permanent wound cavity. The Facklerite response to all of this, of course, is that "bullets aren't chokes" and "bullets aren't tasers" but that's just another dodge. You can't claim that "CNS destruction or significant TBV loss are the only means of reliable incapacitation" but admit that other means of incapacitation exist. It's intellectually dishonest.



The fact is, no one has ever studied in detail what happens to a human being as he's being shot. Facklerites have studied corpses and then compared what they find in a corpse (permanent wound cavity) to what they find in a block of jello. That isn't the same thing as measuring the instantaneous effects of a bullet when it strikes someone.



What we do know, however, is that a number of agencies with real experience shooting real people in the real world have found that the Facklerite viewpoint isn't the only path to success.



I happen to carry a "Doc-approved" load, but whether it's on his list or not has nothing to do with my choice. NYPD has been using it and shooting people dead with it for years, which is all the evidence I need that it's effective.

 

[DocGKR]

”So either reality is wrong or the testing methodology is. Hmmmm ...”

The U.S. government recently gathered numerous experts from a variety of disciplines, including military and law enforcement end-users, trauma surgeons, aero ballisticians, weapon and munitions engineers, and other scientific specialists to form the Joint Service Wound Ballistic Integrated Product Team to conduct a 4 year, 6 million dollar study to determine what terminal performance assessment best reflected the actual findings noted in combat the past few years. The test protocol that was found to be correct, valid, and became the agreed upon JSWB-IPT “standard” evolved from the one first developed by Dr. Fackler at LAIR in the 1980’s, promoted by the IWBA in the 1990’s, and used by most reputable wound ballistic researchers, including the FBI BRF and CHP for the past two decades…so it seems that the test methodology in question in the posts above has been judged by our Nation’s SME’s to indeed match reality and that it is far from being “disproven”…



In fact, it is the only one proven so far to match reality.

 

[Steelshooter]

Thats all very impressive. Now tell me why our military uses 9mm ball and 5.56 rounds. While your at it show us the results of these studies we paid for because all I ever see is gelatin blocks.

 

[Steelshooter]

I believe that is also the Illinois State Police load and it has been very successful for them as well. In fact I thought this round got its reputation from the ISP.

[quote name='MTech']Stick to doc's list.

There are an awful lot of very successful rounds that don't seem to make it onto that list. So either reality is wrong or the testing methodology is. Hmmmm ...

For example:

9mm. Prince's George County (MD) Police Department has, or at least had for many years, the distinction of shooting more criminals per capita than any other large agency in the country. They used 115gr +p+ Federal 9BPLE for many years and were extremely happy with it. [/quote]

 

[ToddG]

”So either reality is wrong or the testing methodology is. Hmmmm ...”

The U.S. government recently gathered numerous experts from a variety of disciplines, including military and law enforcement end-users, trauma surgeons, aero ballisticians, weapon and munitions engineers, and other scientific specialists to form the Joint Service Wound Ballistic Integrated Product Team to conduct a 4 year, 6 million dollar study to determine what terminal performance assessment best reflected the actual findings noted in combat the past few years. The test protocol that was found to be correct, valid, and became the agreed upon JSWB-IPT “standard” evolved from the one first developed by Dr. Fackler at LAIR in the 1980’s, promoted by the IWBA in the 1990’s, and used by most reputable wound ballistic researchers, including the FBI BRF and CHP for the past two decades…so it seems that the test methodology in question in the posts above has been judged by our Nation’s SME’s to indeed match reality and that it is far from being “disproven”…



In fact, it is the only one proven so far to match reality.

Dr. Roberts -- Interesting, as of this past Spring I know Picatinny was still questioning what did and didn't account for wounding/stopping "power" in small arms projectiles.



I know the IPT was able to demonstrate that 10% gelatin penetration and expansion results were consistent with real world penetration and expansion in "indigenous test media." Personally, I had long considered that a proven fact. However, I was not aware that it had also officially adopted the conclusion that pen/exp was the last word on wounding/stopping effectiveness.



Can you clarify this for me?

 

[ToddG]

I believe that is also the Illinois State Police load and it has been very successful for them as well. In fact i thought this round got its reputation form the ISP.

ISP was one of the major early proponents of the 115gr +p+ load, followed by the US Secret Service and many others.



However, ISP currently issues .40-cal Glocks, I believe, and has for a while.