[Hunter]

and another thing
Jacketed hollow points are designed to expand when it strikes a target such as gel.
To get proper expansion bullet design matters but so does velocity. Lighter bullets will accelerate faster than heavier bullets (you are going to have to take my work on that or go back to school).
The shorter the barrel the less time a bullet is in the bore and affected by the expanding gases, once again I am not making this up.
Are you with me so far?
So generally speaking you would carry a lighter weight bullet in a shorter barrel, that is why when you see manufactures such as Speer develop a defensive round for short barreled handguns they use a lighter bullet. So you may want to ask Speer if they know what they are doing.
From reading your posts I do believe you are overeducated for your own good and are trying to assert that on this forum. I also believe you are not well versed in firearms or ammunition and are talking above your pay grade.

 

[Aimright]

Yeah a bit smug indeed....a great article and great testing. I will continue to carry 230 grains in my 1911 and when I get my compact 45 I will carry 185s....good stuff

 

[grey]

and another thing
Jacketed hollow points are designed to expand when it strikes a target such as gel.
To get proper expansion bullet design matters but so does velocity. Lighter bullets will accelerate faster than heavier bullets (you are going to have to take my work on that or go back to school).
The shorter the barrel the less time a bullet is in the bore and affected by the expanding gases, once again I am not making this up.
Are you with me so far?
So generally speaking you would carry a lighter weight bullet in a shorter barrel, that is why when you see manufactures such as Speer develop a defensive round for short barreled handguns they use a lighter bullet. So you may want to ask Speer if they know what they are doing.
From reading your posts I do believe you are overeducated for your own good and are trying to assert that on this forum. I also believe you are not well versed in firearms or ammunition and are talking above your pay grade.

Did you check Speer's short barrel loads? I linked to the page for easy reference. NONE of them are light-for-caliber weights, and Speer Gold Dots have consistently been the at the top of the heap for SD bullets for quite some time, but I'm sure you already knew that since you've been testing guns and ammunition for quite a while.

 

[fieldgrade]

Carrying 185 Golden Sabres in my G30.

 

[Hunter]

Yea I did, Speer's short barrel load for .38 Special is 135gr while the standard weight is 158gr You do the math.

You are welcome to ride up here, weight and measure the recovered rounds I still have them.

http://www.speer-ammo.com/products/short_brl.aspx

 

[Swordfish14]

Grey,

You are obviously the man. The ballistic gelatin test did not meet your pseudo-scientific requirement. The caliper must have been miscalibrated to measure expansion. The digital scale used apparently did not reflect true weight retention.


You are an amazing person, and I can't wait to see your work.

 

[B00GER]

WTF is "propoganda"?

Seriously guys. Hunter did some good work. If you disagree with his results then feel free to post some results of your own.

 

[grey]

Yea I did, Speer's short barrel load for .38 Special is 135gr while the standard weight is 158gr You do the math.

You are welcome to ride up here, weight and measure the recovered rounds I still have them.

http://www.speer-ammo.com/products/short_brl.aspx

The .38 Special seems to be an interesting anomaly in Speer's short barrel loads. I'd be interested to know what it is about that particular design that necessitated a light-for-caliber bullet.

However, picking one anomaly out of a larger group to prove a point is problematic on its own, but that's a whole other topic of discussion.

Did you see how I addressed your valid point with calm "adult speak"? Perhaps it is not I who should be weary of his words.

Grey,

You are obviously the man. The ballistic gelatin test did not meet your pseudo-scientific requirement. The caliper must have been miscalibrated to measure expansion. The digital scale used apparently did not reflect true weight retention.

You are an amazing person, and I can't wait to see your work.

Swordfish,
While I am an amazing person, that doesn't change the fact that you completely missed the point of pretty much everything said up to this point, so while I try to have an intelligent conversation, how about you read up on how to do a high school science experiment so you can catch up. ;guntoot

 

[Swordfish14]

Thank you Booger! I was there, I am the editor. The results are accurate. If anyone wishes to duplicate said test, I encourage them to do so. We spent 4 hours at the range and countless hours going through data and photo's. They can buy a chronograph, 2 blocks of FBI regulation ballistic gel and procure ammo. Wait, they will also need a caliper, a digital scale and some decent photography skills.

.380 ammo test coming up soon, stay tuned. We have 2 barrel lengths and are using 3-4 ammo types.

 

[Swordfish14]

grey, in my best Ben Stein voice... wow

You are the man and I bet chicks really dig you. I wish you the best.

 

[Aimright]

WTF is "propoganda"?

Seriously guys. Hunter did some good work. If you disagree with his results then feel free to post some results of your own.

Baby break down
Go ahead and give it to me...
I think grey needs to lay off the crack and listen to some tom petty....you know come back down to earth man

 

[grey]

WTF is "propoganda"?

Seriously guys. Hunter did some good work. If you disagree with his results then feel free to post some results of your own.

Interestingly enough, it's spelled incorrectly on purpose I'm honestly flattered to see people actually took the time to look at my profile.

That aside, my disagreement is not with the results. In fact, I find it absolutely hilarious that anyone would think that! My disagreement was with the inclusion of an unqualified and unverified assertion of fact in an otherwise perfectly fine article.

 

[fieldgrade]

Interestingly enough, it's spelled incorrectly on purpose I'm honestly flattered to see people actually took the time to look at my profile.

That aside, my disagreement is not with the results. In fact, I find it absolutely hilarious that anyone would think that! My disagreement was with the inclusion of an unqualified and unverified assertion of fact in an otherwise perfectly fine article.

My mom used to smack me around when I talked like that.

 

[Aimright]

Interestingly enough, it's spelled incorrectly on purpose I'm honestly flattered to see people actually took the time to look at my profile.

That aside, my disagreement is not with the results. In fact, I find it absolutely hilarious that anyone would think that! My disagreement was with the inclusion of an unqualified and unverified assertion of fact in an otherwise perfectly fine article.

Unverified misspellings.....and with your remark you try to justify your intelligence and/or lack thereof. My assertion is that you sir have let your emotions take advantage of you. Unqualified I may be to make such judgement, it is my conclusion that an amazing person such as you have made my response all but perfection all be it distasteful

 

[B00GER]

 

[Aimright]

However grey on a side note I'm glad you've used this forum to make yourself look like and ass and not only sell stuff....hope ur creaming urself since I looked deeper into ur profile than booger

 

[Inebriated]

Interestingly enough, it's spelled incorrectly on purpose I'm honestly flattered to see people actually took the time to look at my profile.

That aside, my disagreement is not with the results. In fact, I find it absolutely hilarious that anyone would think that! My disagreement was with the inclusion of an unqualified and unverified assertion of fact in an otherwise perfectly fine article.

It was not an unverified assertion of fact. Bullet performance as it relates to velocity is very much verifiable. Not only could you do your own testing, but you could even just hop over to YouTube, and see the exact controlled conditions that you want to see.

Stop being difficult for the sake of being difficult.

 

[Hunter]

Interestingly enough, it's spelled incorrectly on purpose unqualified and unverified assertion

This statement implies you know me well enough to say this, and you sir do not. You are also not aware of what I have done as far as verifying statements I included in the article.

As far as I am concerned gray has unveiled himself as a fool, and in which case his thoughts henceforth have absolutely no importance to me.
I did go look at a few of his past posts and it appears if nothing else he is consistent.

 

[Hunter]

WTF is "propoganda"?

Seriously guys. Hunter did some good work. If you disagree with his results then feel free to post some results of your own.

Thank you very much BOOGER.
As Gunclassifieds.com is a sister sight to Carolina Shooters Club, Jason and I aim is to promote both sites as a premier firearm information forum.
I really do appreciate all the support from my friends here and I look forward to further articles. If anyone wants to be included please let me know as we are all in this together.

 

[NCFlyfisher]

So pseudo-scientific requirements mean cadavers (frozen or thawed)?

Anyone know of any unclaimed to test out with?

Wild boar is sort of a match, right?

shm...