Finally, a better option than ball out of a .380 pocket rocket.

Eli

https://www.full30.com/video/913d49f717a54171edcbd115c27efe5d

coolgunguy

As MAC said: "Pretty impressive". I agree. Not bad for one of those 'mouse gun' rounds!

NN

I had seen adds for this ammo and thought I need to try it, now I think I need to buy it to put in a HD mag.

I often wonder about these tests that shoot multiple shots in a block 0f gelation, same as paper bundles you can get better performance with more shots.
It was good they did switch blocks, but, I would want to see tests with a new block each time.

The barrier tests are good; but I would like to see the same tests with bones in the gelation.

bisley

Here's another one that penetrates 17" and has greater expansion with cutting edges:

http://www.alloutdoor.com/2015/03/09/making-380acp-limited-ballistics/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2015-03-17&utm_campaign=Weekly+Newsletter

shush

bisley wrote: »

Here's another one that penetrates 17" and has greater expansion with cutting edges:

Ah, but would they still perforate the frozen watchcoats ( greatcoats ) of the Muslim hoards?

bisley

shush wrote: »

Ah, but would they still perforate the frozen watchcoats ( greatcoats ) of the Muslim hoards?

When the Muslim hoards arrive, we will be using pitchforks and axes, I reckon. :tooth:

Eli

bisley wrote: »

Here's another one that penetrates 17" and has greater expansion with cutting edges:

http://www.alloutdoor.com/2015/03/09/making-380acp-limited-ballistics/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2015-03-17&utm_campaign=Weekly+Newsletter

:uhm:

According to the linked article, the jacket penetrated 7" and the pellet penetrated 14", neither of those would give me any sort of confidence.

shush

bisley wrote: »

When the Muslim hoards arrive, we will be using pitchforks and axes, I reckon. :tooth:

Tactical, I hope?

Eli wrote: »

....According to the linked article, the jacket penetrated 7" and the pellet penetrated 14", neither of those would give me any sort of confidence.

Come on now.....


Quote;

''the bullet does act like a cutter.''

And;

''....... the nose cap............ flips end over end twice during its travel.''

bisley

Eli wrote: »

:uhm:

According to the linked article, the jacket penetrated 7" and the pellet penetrated 14", neither of those would give me any sort of confidence.

You're right - I was thinking 17" which would satisfy me. Still better than hollow points, though. Yours is better, though.

NN

bisley wrote: »

Here's another one that penetrates 17" and has greater expansion with cutting edges:

http://www.alloutdoor.com/2015/03/09/making-380acp-limited-ballistics/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2015-03-17&utm_campaign=Weekly+Newsletter

Need barrier tests with these.

NN

cpj wrote: »

Looks like they named that round after me.

What TANGO---not very terrified of you Tango except that you may blow something up and inadvertently hurt someone.

BAMAAK

Someone must be getting a new G42 to stipple :tooth:

jbp-ohio

cpj wrote: »

Looks like they named that round after me.

No........... it's 'or' not 'ed'.

coolgunguy

jbp-ohio wrote: »

No........... it's 'or' not 'ed'.

Dang you Jbp, you beat me to it! :worthy:

horselips

I don't care what it does or how good it is, I refuse to pay more than fifty cents a round for pistol ammo.

Zee

Until I see something made dead by it............no bullet lifts my kilt. Gelatin don't mean squat to me. It just looks pretty.

Eli

Zee wrote: »

Until I see something made dead by it............no bullet lifts my kilt. Gelatin don't mean squat to me. It just looks pretty.

Granted.....

However, it has long been my opinion that if I were going to carry a .380 (I've personally never owned one), ball is the only thing that would penetrate deeply enough to make me comfortable. This stuff penetrates just as well as ball does and whether it's because it's a flat noses projectile or because of the goofy shape, it appears to leave larger wound cavity. If I were going to start packing a .380 tomorrow and this stuff worked out of it, it's probably what the gun would get loaded with.

NN

Right expensive, even from Underwood

Gene L

If I'm not mistaken, they make these bullets close to where I live. I've seen them in 9mm. They're very light bullets, and what you gain in velocity, you lose in mass. IOW, there is no free lunch.

In .380, I think I prefer ball. But I don't own a .380 (well, I do own a PPK-S which I don't carry) and I doubt I will again. Too many excellent alternatives.

coolgunguy

Technically, wouldn't this ammo be 'ball' ammo, at least in type, if not in name? Or, if not ball, at least comparable to an FMJ projectile?

topgun

Eli wrote: »

:uhm:

According to the linked article, the jacket penetrated 7" and the pellet penetrated 14", neither of those would give me any sort of confidence.

What doesn't give me any confidence, is the fact that if you look at the gel picture, the projectile has six pedals, while the one pictured has four. I left them a comment that he has some 'splainin' to do.

Bigslug

Interesting, but Winchester Q4206 will give you a .380 flat point without the price tag of a milled copper slug. They've been making it for years.

Eli

Bigslug wrote: »

Interesting, but Winchester Q4206 will give you a .380 flat point without the price tag of a milled copper slug. They've been making it for years.

http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/winchester-pistol-ammunition-q4206-full-metal-jacket-rdbx-p-74856.html

Bueno.

See, goes to show how much I know about different .380 loads. :tooth:

snake284

I would say that bullet in the .380 makes it a formidable carry weapon. I think I love .380s for carry.

snake284

cpj wrote: »

That's what she said.

17"? You guys have some wild imaginations,:yikes::silly::rotflmao:

Farm Boy Deuce

This load from Buffalo Bore seems to pretty well duplicate Underwood's load.
https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=127

This flavor is about the same as the Lehigh load.
https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=216

Teach

Do any of the hotrod .380's outperform the 9X18 Makarov round? Specifically, warmed-up handloads using the Hornady XTP bullet?
Jerry

NN

Teach wrote: »

Do any of the hotrod .380's outperform the 9X18 Makarov round? Specifically, warmed-up handloads using the Hornady XTP bullet?
Jerry

I believe this new rnd that is the subject here beats it by a few ft-lbs and should have a slightly wider wound channel.

I would not get out and buy a .380 because of it if I had a Makarov.

If I had that German 9mm Kurtz, I'd buy this ammo to carry in it.

Teach

My everyday carry piece is a Polish P-64 and I've got a double stack CZ-82 that shoots the same round. I handload for both of them, so I believe I can meet or beat the performance of most, if not all of the beaned-up .380's.
Jerry

Bigslug

Teach wrote: »

Do any of the hotrod .380's outperform the 9X18 Makarov round? Specifically, warmed-up handloads using the Hornady XTP bullet?
Jerry

I would be a bit dubious of ANY expanding bullet for either round. You have to make it to the Tootsie Roll Center of the Tootsiepop before expansion starts helping you, and neither is really a powerhouse.

You can buy flat nosed FMJ's for the .380 - like the Winchester - that feed reliably in most of the guns that are out there. I would take that over the slightly faster round noses commonly seen in the 9x18. Given equal bullets, yeah, faster is better, but then again, there's the guns. Lot more and smaller options for .380.