dnewton3
Staff member
I recently attended a workshop put on by Glock/Speer reps and the topic was wound-balistic performance of the common calibers. Admittedly, this was Glock/Speer sponsored, and so they were touting their own products. But the info and demonstrations that were exhibited did tell a very interesting story line emerging in today's ammo.
As a generalization, high velocity no longer has much to do with terminal performance. Yes - you read that right. I realize many of you are reeling on the floor in pain and/or "LMAO" because that seems like heresy. But the data revealed in the training, as well as the actual exhibition on the range, show that this is true, within reason. And I'm limiting this to handgun topics and not rifles; that was the premise of the day's training. I am not saying velocity isn't important; that's not true. In fact it is VERY important. But what I'm going to show you (as was proved to me) is that HIGH VELOCITY is not important. Control of velocity is PARAMOUNT because it must be matched with other factors of the bullet; propellant and bullet must work together. But the "need for speed" is gone. Read on ...
Specifically, because of MUCH tighter controls in terms of design and manufacturing, as well as an ever-growing knowledge base, bullets/propellants are now able to be paired in combinations that make the general penetration abilities nearly equal. I say "nearly" because there is essentially overlap in the newest products today that blur the performance envelopes.
The Speer rep presented great evidence in data format that shows each and every round can be tailor-designed for proper penetration and expansion; these are the two most paramount criteria to meet. It used to be thought that velocity was the greatest contributor; and back in the day, that was mostly true. But as the control of design and making rounds has vastly improved, together the propellant burn and bullet design usurp the "need for speed". In fact, (because Speer does all manner of projectiles, they have a VERY diverse base of knowledge), until you get upwards for 2200 fps, velocity means little AS LONG AS the bullet/propellant are complimentary to the task at hand! Yes - you can reread that a few times as you curse my name in disbelief.
To "put up or shut up", we went out to the range and spent a few hours poking holes in block after block after block of ballistic gelatin. We shot into bare gelatin, clothed gelatin, and even clothed gelatin behind laminated auto-glass (simulating a windshield; one of the toughest barriers that alters terminal performance). And as most of you know, my background in statistical process control made me start asking a lot of questions. We all got to shoot many different combinations of rounds in 9mm, .40S&W, .45ACP. And without exception, all of them performed with such overlap in performance (defined as expansion and penetration) that there was no essential difference. The variance of one design was generally greater than the variance between calibers. The "range" of penetration and expansion for a 9mm was just as effective as .45ACP and .40S&W. In short, they all went about to the same depth and opened up with great reliability.
This all becomes easier to understand thinking of it this way:
rather than making velocity king (as a set output), and hoping for a result of penetration/expansion, they focus on the penetration/expansion and place velocity as just one of many variables, using all to achieve a two things (penetration depth and expansion percentage). They basically design a complimentary propellant that burns at a desired rate, developing a specific pressure, and couple that with bullet that has features making it open/peel in a controlled manner so that the targeted depth of penetration (15-18 inches) and open-petal mass are maintained.
I walked away from that session with a complete paradigm shift. I was always a fan of "big and fast" (hence my love of the 10mm). But now I see that even 9mm will do everything the other two will do, and do it reliably. So whether you favor big and fast, big and slow, slow and fat, it does not matter. Your .357Sig is no longer going to outperform a 9mm, as long as you choose the right ammo for your specific weapon.
Now - it is IMPERATIVE to realize that these products are much more specific to the application. If you want this kind of performance, the products are not cheap. And, they are specific even to length of barrel (LOB). You can no longer just have one favorite round, and stick it in any gun you want. If you favor 9mm, you cannot use the same ammo in both your little Glk 26 and your long Glk 17; that same round will not perform the same way out of both guns. Same can be said for a Long Slide 1911 and stub-barrel Kahr .45. I am not saying that one round will not work for every gun, but I am saying that they will not work as well as intended in every gun length. Sure, they will fire and penetrate, regardless of which you choose. But they will not penetrate, and expand, equally well when you vary the barrel so much.
They are literally getting to the point where even the propellant characteristics are being tailored; they can control how quickly a primer fires, how quickly a powder burns, and where the peak pressure wave exists in the overall explosion process (early, mid or late rise). Does the powder burn fast and early, peaking soon and then tapering quickly? Will the powder burn evenly throughout the process? Shall the powder "ramp up" the burn towards the end of the cycle? It is literally that technical now. And it matters. They can prove it.
Because of the incredible control they now have, they are able to design and make rounds with bullets and propellants so specific that even a few milli-seconds of time in the chamber and barrel make a difference in terminal performance, if paired with the appropriate bullet design. If you favor a Glk 26, you're going to actually want a particular round, where jacket, web and density of materials are so TIGHTLY engineered that the design is not going to work as well in a Glk 34, where the bbl length is so vastly different. You may get over-speed in the longer bbl, and that would actually degrade the expansion because it goes too fast to properly expand at the desired depth. Or conversely, using a round designed for a Glk 17 LOB (length of bbl) will not develop enough energy to propel the bullet fully to it's desired intent if used in a short bbl gun.
It was facinating. I came away a with a whole new view of how to look at this topic. I was impressed.
And as I said, this was a sponsored event, so I cannot comment on other brands of ammo and guns. Although the reps did say that this is not unique to them; all manufacturers are gleaning this info now.
The bottom line is this:
the debate about how effective a round is, based upon caliber, is moot.
The industry has realized, and is positioning itself due to engineering and manufacturing advancements, to be able to make any round perform as needed, when used in the correct application. Rather than focusing on inputs first, they are looking at the end result as paramount. They are manipulating variables (speed, burn rate ramping, bullet weight, bullet web and jacket design, etc) all to do two things ...
penetrate 15-18 inches and open to full expansion quickly after entry.
And they are doing it quite well now.
But doesn't that sound familiar? Kind of like the things I talk about when it comes to motor oils? Don't focus on inputs; look to manage results.
Food for thought.
You may now pick yourself up, utter your contempt, and rejoin your morning routine.
As a generalization, high velocity no longer has much to do with terminal performance. Yes - you read that right. I realize many of you are reeling on the floor in pain and/or "LMAO" because that seems like heresy. But the data revealed in the training, as well as the actual exhibition on the range, show that this is true, within reason. And I'm limiting this to handgun topics and not rifles; that was the premise of the day's training. I am not saying velocity isn't important; that's not true. In fact it is VERY important. But what I'm going to show you (as was proved to me) is that HIGH VELOCITY is not important. Control of velocity is PARAMOUNT because it must be matched with other factors of the bullet; propellant and bullet must work together. But the "need for speed" is gone. Read on ...
Specifically, because of MUCH tighter controls in terms of design and manufacturing, as well as an ever-growing knowledge base, bullets/propellants are now able to be paired in combinations that make the general penetration abilities nearly equal. I say "nearly" because there is essentially overlap in the newest products today that blur the performance envelopes.
The Speer rep presented great evidence in data format that shows each and every round can be tailor-designed for proper penetration and expansion; these are the two most paramount criteria to meet. It used to be thought that velocity was the greatest contributor; and back in the day, that was mostly true. But as the control of design and making rounds has vastly improved, together the propellant burn and bullet design usurp the "need for speed". In fact, (because Speer does all manner of projectiles, they have a VERY diverse base of knowledge), until you get upwards for 2200 fps, velocity means little AS LONG AS the bullet/propellant are complimentary to the task at hand! Yes - you can reread that a few times as you curse my name in disbelief.
To "put up or shut up", we went out to the range and spent a few hours poking holes in block after block after block of ballistic gelatin. We shot into bare gelatin, clothed gelatin, and even clothed gelatin behind laminated auto-glass (simulating a windshield; one of the toughest barriers that alters terminal performance). And as most of you know, my background in statistical process control made me start asking a lot of questions. We all got to shoot many different combinations of rounds in 9mm, .40S&W, .45ACP. And without exception, all of them performed with such overlap in performance (defined as expansion and penetration) that there was no essential difference. The variance of one design was generally greater than the variance between calibers. The "range" of penetration and expansion for a 9mm was just as effective as .45ACP and .40S&W. In short, they all went about to the same depth and opened up with great reliability.
This all becomes easier to understand thinking of it this way:
rather than making velocity king (as a set output), and hoping for a result of penetration/expansion, they focus on the penetration/expansion and place velocity as just one of many variables, using all to achieve a two things (penetration depth and expansion percentage). They basically design a complimentary propellant that burns at a desired rate, developing a specific pressure, and couple that with bullet that has features making it open/peel in a controlled manner so that the targeted depth of penetration (15-18 inches) and open-petal mass are maintained.
I walked away from that session with a complete paradigm shift. I was always a fan of "big and fast" (hence my love of the 10mm). But now I see that even 9mm will do everything the other two will do, and do it reliably. So whether you favor big and fast, big and slow, slow and fat, it does not matter. Your .357Sig is no longer going to outperform a 9mm, as long as you choose the right ammo for your specific weapon.
Now - it is IMPERATIVE to realize that these products are much more specific to the application. If you want this kind of performance, the products are not cheap. And, they are specific even to length of barrel (LOB). You can no longer just have one favorite round, and stick it in any gun you want. If you favor 9mm, you cannot use the same ammo in both your little Glk 26 and your long Glk 17; that same round will not perform the same way out of both guns. Same can be said for a Long Slide 1911 and stub-barrel Kahr .45. I am not saying that one round will not work for every gun, but I am saying that they will not work as well as intended in every gun length. Sure, they will fire and penetrate, regardless of which you choose. But they will not penetrate, and expand, equally well when you vary the barrel so much.
They are literally getting to the point where even the propellant characteristics are being tailored; they can control how quickly a primer fires, how quickly a powder burns, and where the peak pressure wave exists in the overall explosion process (early, mid or late rise). Does the powder burn fast and early, peaking soon and then tapering quickly? Will the powder burn evenly throughout the process? Shall the powder "ramp up" the burn towards the end of the cycle? It is literally that technical now. And it matters. They can prove it.
Because of the incredible control they now have, they are able to design and make rounds with bullets and propellants so specific that even a few milli-seconds of time in the chamber and barrel make a difference in terminal performance, if paired with the appropriate bullet design. If you favor a Glk 26, you're going to actually want a particular round, where jacket, web and density of materials are so TIGHTLY engineered that the design is not going to work as well in a Glk 34, where the bbl length is so vastly different. You may get over-speed in the longer bbl, and that would actually degrade the expansion because it goes too fast to properly expand at the desired depth. Or conversely, using a round designed for a Glk 17 LOB (length of bbl) will not develop enough energy to propel the bullet fully to it's desired intent if used in a short bbl gun.
It was facinating. I came away a with a whole new view of how to look at this topic. I was impressed.
And as I said, this was a sponsored event, so I cannot comment on other brands of ammo and guns. Although the reps did say that this is not unique to them; all manufacturers are gleaning this info now.
The bottom line is this:
the debate about how effective a round is, based upon caliber, is moot.
The industry has realized, and is positioning itself due to engineering and manufacturing advancements, to be able to make any round perform as needed, when used in the correct application. Rather than focusing on inputs first, they are looking at the end result as paramount. They are manipulating variables (speed, burn rate ramping, bullet weight, bullet web and jacket design, etc) all to do two things ...
penetrate 15-18 inches and open to full expansion quickly after entry.
And they are doing it quite well now.
But doesn't that sound familiar? Kind of like the things I talk about when it comes to motor oils? Don't focus on inputs; look to manage results.
Food for thought.
You may now pick yourself up, utter your contempt, and rejoin your morning routine.
Last edited:
