Glock Talk

Glock Talk (http://glocktalk.com/forums/index.php)
-   The 10 Ring (http://glocktalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=38)
-   -   Gelatin test: 10mm 155 gr Barnes TAC-XP (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1466661)

Andrew Wiggin 01-22-2013 14:38

Gelatin test: 10mm 155 gr Barnes TAC-XP
 
10mm hand load fired from EAA Witness through four layers of denim. 155 gr Barnes TAC-XP over 8.0 gr of 800-X, new Starline brass, Winchester LP primer. Data is noted in the video and in video description.


bac1023 01-24-2013 21:22

Thanks for the info.

blastfact 01-26-2013 14:27

I liked how the steel rang loud and clear. :)

gofastman 01-27-2013 11:12

keep up the good work!
lets see what those slugs do at 13-1400fps :supergrin:

RYT 2BER 01-28-2013 05:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by gofastman (Post 19917366)
keep up the good work!
lets see what those slugs do at 13-1400fps :supergrin:

Really appreciate your posts and tests, but yes I have to agree with the above?

1165fps with 155 gr = 467 ft lbs...

Why even bother going with 10mm? You're basically shooting .40...

I think most 10mm fans would like to see that testing @ 1300-1400 (maybe even 1500) ft per second as it would be interesting to see a full power 10mm load.

This video is honestly more like a .40 test. :dunno:

_The_Shadow 01-28-2013 09:51

What some of you don't realize is that the 100% copper bullets are very long for their weight. The 155 Barnes TAC-XP is longer than a Hornady 200 XTP, thus the bullet occupies powder space and will raise chamber pressures. Finding a balance of velocity/performance versus pressure will be paramount!

Also over driving any HP design can roll back the expansion past it maximum and shed petals or become a smaller diameter too guickly.

RYT 2BER 01-28-2013 18:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by _The_Shadow (Post 19920999)
What some of you don't realize is that the 100% copper bullets are very long for their weight. The 155 Barnes TAC-XP is longer than a Hornady 200 XTP, thus the bullet occupies powder space and will raise chamber pressures. Finding a balance of velocity/performance versus pressure will be paramount!

Also over driving any HP design can roll back the expansion past it maximum and shed petals or become a smaller diameter too guickly.

You may very well be correct on all accounts but again, then isn't that a glaring reason against copper? If its converting your 10mm into a .40 then there is no reason. Jmo

Bongo Boy 01-28-2013 20:21

That is indeed a light load of 800X when compared to Hodgdon's one published load for a 155 gr XTP of 9.8 gr. I would, however, expect it to be a challenge to get 9.8 gr of cornflakes into the case, even with the XTP bullet, without a bit of compression. Maybe that's why it's their maximum load of 800X, even with the pressure at only 30,000 psi. This is also the pressure limit shown for 800X in other bullet weights as well. There's something going on there.

RYT 2BER 01-28-2013 21:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bongo Boy (Post 19923437)
That is indeed a light load of 800X when compared to Hodgdon's one published load for a 155 gr XTP of 9.8 gr. I would, however, expect it to be a challenge to get 9.8 gr of cornflakes into the case, even with the XTP bullet, without a bit of compression. Maybe this is why they that's the maximum load of 800X, because their data shows the pressure at 30,000 psi. This is also the pressure limit shown for 800X in other bullet weights as well. There's something going on there.

That's quite a nice first post :cool:

_The_Shadow 01-28-2013 21:54

Hello BongoBoy, glad to see you here as well.
I had spoke with Andrew on another forum about initally starting at 8.4 grains of 800X to mimic the load Underwood was using under the 220 cast which is the same length as the 155TAC XP and would occupi the same case capacity. That would be where I would be for performance and pressure...

Like I mentioned the same weight lead core bullets are way shorter than these 100% copper by weight.

Bongo Boy 01-28-2013 23:01

So, does modest charge compression lead quickly to erratic pressure? I've seen loads listed as 'compressed', but I don't know if these were manufacturer's published loads or those from 'some guy on the internet'. I understand peak pressure is sensitive to that initial volume in the case, but I'm wondering now not so much about that particular effect as I am charge compression, specifically.

Regardless of any of that, the Barnes bullet seems to have done an incredible job at that velocity and in that medium. In fact I'd go so far as to say Andrew's test indicates that just might be the sweet spot for that projectile. Not a 50,000 rpm fan blade I'd want to walk into.

_The_Shadow 01-29-2013 09:48

BongoBoy, Yes the bullet is already within the designed velocity ofperformance, What my comment was basically pertaining to was this scenariowhich RYT 2BER was saying trying to drive them faster...1300-1400-1500. Buffalo Bore does show their load as being in these ranges, so pulling one down my reveal the amount and type powder being used to achieve these results.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RYT 2BER (Post 19920508)
Really appreciate your posts and tests, but yes I have to agree with the above?

1165fps with 155 gr = 467 ft lbs...

Why even bother going with 10mm? You're basically shooting .40...

I think most 10mm fans would like to see that testing @ 1300-1400 (maybe even 1500) ft per second as it would be interesting to see a full power 10mm load.

This video is honestly more like a .40 test. :dunno:

I know that they are capable of more but 1225-1250 fps would be about where I see them for my needs.
I have some data, that I have not tested, that has pushed them to 1500 fps. However I don't know where the pressure stands...Finding the right powder combination is key. Buffalo Bore's ammo would have to be a safe pressure levels I would think!:shocked:
:wavey:

_The_Shadow 01-29-2013 10:34

In this video test of the Barnes 155 rated a 1500 fps you can see the results as follows from a G-20...

Their claim of 1401 fps - Glock Mod 20,4.6 inch barrel was missed...
Also the 1500 fps not even close!

Bongo Boy 01-29-2013 11:06

I don't see myself as a 'more is better' guy, and if that Barnes behaves that way rather consistently, I'm impressed. That's your 'advertising photo' quality of expansion, there now.

But still, I was beginning to get the idea from a variety of sources that, for some reason, 10mm was never going to really add much more to the 'repertoire' than 40SW. So, I just took published load data (Accurate, I believe) and ran the numbers for 36 loads of 40SW and 32 loads for 10mm.

The average ft*lbs for 10mm was 50% higher than the average for 40 (604 ft*lbs vs 404 ft*lbs), so I'm all okay now and not worried anymore. :)

Andrew Wiggin 02-04-2013 11:04

Yes, compressed powder might be an issue but the bearing surface of the bullet is the primary factor affecting chamber pressure. The Barnes technician advised me that I should treat this bullet about the same as a 200 gr jacketed bullet, even though the 155 gr all copper is longer.

dm1906 02-05-2013 00:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin (Post 19947879)
Yes, compressed powder might be an issue but the bearing surface of the bullet is the primary factor affecting chamber pressure. The Barnes technician advised me that I should treat this bullet about the same as a 200 gr jacketed bullet, even though the 155 gr all copper is longer.

The bearing surface is a non-factor. Only about 50% of the "bearing surface" is actually .400". The .40" bullets taper up from the base from .393", to about 1/2 way. The other calibers are similar. Maybe the engineers knew something?

RYT 2BER 02-05-2013 05:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bongo Boy (Post 19925381)
I don't see myself as a 'more is better' guy, and if that Barnes behaves that way rather consistently, I'm impressed. That's your 'advertising photo' quality of expansion, there now.

But still, I was beginning to get the idea from a variety of sources that, for some reason, 10mm was never going to really add much more to the 'repertoire' than 40SW. So, I just took published load data (Accurate, I believe) and ran the numbers for 36 loads of 40SW and 32 loads for 10mm.

The average ft*lbs for 10mm was 50% higher than the average for 40 (604 ft*lbs vs 404 ft*lbs), so I'm all okay now and not worried anymore. :)

I'm confused by your statement. 200ft lbs of KE sounds like a big difference to me.

dm1906 02-05-2013 14:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by RYT 2BER (Post 19950897)
I'm confused by your statement. 200ft lbs of KE sounds like a big difference to me.

The way I read it, he was initially disappointed with 10mm, seeing so many loads close to .40S&W ballistics. He conducted his own survey of published loads, and was relieved with restored appreciation to find the 10mm averaged 50% greater energy.

Taterhead 02-05-2013 21:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by dm1906 (Post 19952338)
The way I read it, he was initially disappointed with 10mm, seeing so many loads close to .40S&W ballistics. He conducted his own survey of published loads, and was relieved with restored appreciation to find the 10mm averaged 50% greater energy.

That is the way that I read it too.

Regardless of the relatively slowish velocity, that bullet seemed to have pretty effective results.

Andrew Wiggin 02-06-2013 10:35

As I mentioned, I intend to continue working this load up to higher velocity but frankly, I'd consider this to be acceptable performance for a self defense load.

We 10mm fans sometimes get too wrapped around the axle on power and forget that for a human target that extra power is often a waste. It generates greater recoil, muzzle blast, and TSC but not necessarily larger or more effective wounds. One of the greatest advantages of the 10mm in my book is versatility. Just because I *can* shoot nooklear death blast boolits doesn't mean I have to.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 23:55.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2013, Glock Talk, All Rights Reserved.