[MichaelOrick]

Go to :

http://greent.com/40Page/

And read why you should avoid the 180s in the 40S&W. What do you think?

Much ado about nothing?

I keep reading the 165s don't expand/penetrate enough, but the ones I have tested myself sure do (165 Gold Dot, Golden Saber, Supreme SXT, PMC JHP). Gel results I've seen for all of them have been 12+/.65+. The Fed 165 HS/EFMJ penetrated fine too, though it expanded less than the others (.60-.62).

The 155s? Some of them dip under 12 inches at times (Silvertip, Gold Dot) but the HS, XTP, Remington and Federal are OK (12-14/.64+). The INS/BP got 12.75/.72 w the Remington 155 JHP. Know of a shooting where one entered above the armpit on one side, went across destroying the top of the heart, and exited the other side; can't do much better?

 

[Guest]

Michael:

Very interesting site. Thanks.

 

[Clay]

I've fired over 20,000 rounds of 180gr FMJ/JHP through my two Glock 23's without any problems.

 

[MichaelOrick]

Me too.

Which may just mean we were "lucky" enough not to have any 180s set back enough?

Do the 165s raise pressure less w the same amount of setback if they start at the same pressure/OAL? The site suggests this, but is that true?

 

[Guest]

Avoid the 180gr .40?

Ok, and Elvis really is working at that gas station in Arkansas.............

 

[MichaelOrick]

From Charles E. Petty (handloading editor quoted in article):

> There is a little to it, but much less than the post would suggest.
>
> It is true that the 180 gr. bullet occupies a lot of the case but the
> table he took from my article is certainly not limited to the 180 gr.
> in the 40. Similar results would be found when you increase the
> seating depth of any bullet.
>
> The statement that Glock kBs happen with the 180 probably proves that
> more are used than any real risk associated with the weight.
>
> My work suggests that the 165 is probably a better choice, but the
> goal of the development was to duplicate the FBI 10mm. The earliest
> ammo was safe, but not necessarily the "right" powder. They had to
> get something on the market in a hurry. Now things are much better
> across the board.
>
> My table was taken somewhat out of context and none of the
> accompanying information was shown. The table was based on computer
> calculations and there to illustrate the point of why it's a good
> idea to avoid using damaged ammo

 

[Guest]

Mike,
I am not familiar with this article is Charles retracting or clarifying his meaning in the quoted article?
Was he misquoted?

 

[MichaelOrick]

Click the link in the first post. A table from an article he wrote was used out of context to support it's position the 180s should be avoided. He meant to show why you should avoid damaged ammo (of any weight), not avoid the 180s all together.

I just picked up 3 cases of 180 ammo myself.:smile:
_________________
Mike >>>>----->

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: MichaelOrick on 2001-08-30 16:44 ]</font>

 

[JLM]

180 grainers don't scare me

I've shot plenty of 180 thru various guns, with no troubles :grin: