aguila 9mm
 

i was wondering if anyone used the aguila 117gr 9mm hp and if i could get some feedback.

Sorry, no experience with 117 gr but, 115 gr had served me well. 100s of rounds

Which round are you talking about?

Aquila made the IQ JHP in .45ACP (117 gr.) and in 9mm (65 gr.) so it is kinda hard to know which round you are talking about.

The Aquila IQ was a line of zinc-alloy JHPs that suffered from major fragmentation and shallow penetration.

Here's an example- http://www.firearmstactical.com/tact...2/article2.htm

It has been discontinued.

what type of pistol do you use? i shoot a glock 19.i just want to know if its reliable for glocks.

i don't know but ammo to go.com has it on their site for sale.

What works in my gun may not work in yours.


Only one way to find out. Gotta shoot it in your gun.

:dunno:

Given it's performance, I'd avoid it for SD/CCW use.

That leaves target practice and plinking. Kind of expensive for that. There are better options out there.

rubsy,

Have you seen this?

Water tests are beyond worthless for determining anything other than how you'd fare in a fight with Aquaman.

Their 115gr RN bullets are pretty good and seem a little bit snappier than others. I paid $197 for 500 and liked them,

(Those were some pretty sophisticated tests, too, huh?)

This...

...conflicts with the facts and the research conducted by numerous experts in the field of terminal ballistics.

Aguila of Mexico is a good brand and they make reliable ammo, but I'd never use their HP ammo for SD, just plinking/practice.

...who have never been in a gunfight. :upeyes:

Maybe these "experts" should make an appearance on "Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader" TV show, because even a First Grader can coherently comprehend the difference between a living human being and a 55 gal. barrel filled with water let alone quivering blocks of ballistic gel.

Tiro is 100% correct. Such back yard ballistics test prove absolutely nothing when it comes down to what bullets do or don't do in living human beings.

I am locked oin mortal combat with cottontail, jackrabbits, and other small table fare much more often that with anything that need kill with a defensive round. A good shooting 115 gr that workds the slide will and addresses the sight pretty well is a real joy especailly when it was cheap. i feed 4 or 5 9 mm with plinking and small game loads. i use a 115 HP most of the time if I can find one in the appropriate price range.

I have one 9 mm that is on of my favorite small game guns. It is a Swiss Police P220 in 9mm. has the lanyard loop and the bottom release clip. It sights have been set by the sig shop as well as the treggier workd over. Capable of very good groups

http://i1340.photobucket.com/albums/...psb6ec9e67.jpg

When I can come up with a couple cases of a 115 HP plinking load agin I'll buy anooother two ro three cases.

I got about a case and 1/2 of the 115 grMagtech 9C left


I really enjoy plinking with the 9mm

Rusty

Why on earth don't you get a nice .22lr for that variety of mortal combat?

So, if the number of gunfights you have been in are what it takes to be able to make such informed declarations, how many gun fights have you two been in that makes your opinions superior to those of researchers like Dr Fackler, Dr Roberts, Dr DiMaio, Dr Williams, Duncan MacPherson, Charles Schwartz, Beat P. Kneubuehl, and Eugene Wolberg?

Contrary to your empty claims, gelatin and water are valid test mediums.

Let me ask you a few simplistic Yes/No questions (don't worry I'll provide you the correct answers to the questions) and hopefully you will understand why such ballistics tests are worthless. Here we go:

1) Is a plastic gallon jug of water (or water soaked newspaper stuffed in a plastic gallon jug) a living, breathing human being made of various types of tissue, blood and bones?
Yes / No.

2) Is a 55 gallon drum of water a living, breathing human being made of various types of tissue, blood and bones?
Yes / No.

3) Is a block of ballistic gel a living, breathing human being made of various types of tissue, blood and bones?
Yes / No.

If you haven't guessed correctly yet, let me provide you the answers.
1) No. 2) No. 3) No.

In otherwords, there is absolutely nothing that can simulate or replicate the flesh, blood and bones of a living breathing human being. This is an absolute fact. Period.

And BTW, how many of those "experts" you named have ever been involved in a gunfight with a homicidal jug of water or a murderous block of Kind & Knox ballistic gel??

Well, you didn't lie. Those were some very simplistic questions.

Those simplistic questions also suggest a misunderstanding of how ballistic test mediums work- test mediums that have been found to produce penetration and expansion that very closely matches that found in bullets recovered from bodies at autopsy.

However, there is hope!

Here are four independent citations that will help you correct that deficiency:

1) Here is a study that demonstrates this truth with great simplicity that I am sure that you will enjoy: http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Fac...hester_9mm.pdf

2) In "Bullet Penetration", Duncan MacPherson states in Chapter 7 on page 123 (in which he explains why water and gelatin are both valid test mediums):

"The near identical expansion of bullets in water, tissue, or realistic soft solid tissue simulants is known to be true from experiment."

3) In "Quantitative Ammunition Selection", Charles Schwartz concludes in Chapter 2 on page 14, which he dedicates to explaining the equivalence of water and gelatin, that:

"Upon consideration of the comparative analysis presented herein, it should be evident to the armed professional that water possesses dynamic qualities (a similar density and a virtually identical internal speed of sound) that are nearly identical to those of calibrated 10 percent ordnance gelatin, making it suitable for use as a ballistic test medium."

4) Finally, Dr. M. L. Fackler, M.D. states in his paper, “Applied Wound Ballistics: What’s New and What’s True”, that:

"Water can be used as a tissue simulant and causes just slightly more bullet deformation than gelatin or soap..."

:rofl:

If this is the standard that defines expertise in the study of terminal ballistics, then perhaps you could provide us with a verifiable record of how many gun fights you have been in and your research that led you to your conclusion?

Oh well. At least you have a good sense of humor. :winkie:

CDC estimates there were 30,000 death by gun shot wound in USA in 2007. If exstrapulated thru 2012 that would be a large sample to compare the validity of ballistic medium to human tissue.

So you could look at the reverse logic. If the current method of ballistc testing mediium was not comparable, it would have been pointed out.

The biggest point to me is that at worst you can compare different bullets to each other being shot thru the same medium So to a great extent it does not make any difference, you are comparing ballistics and bullets shot thru the same stuff.

Back on topic: Aguila is garbage. The Mexicans even hate it & it's made there. Worst 'Kaboom" I've ever seen was with Aguila ammo in a Glock. Having lived/worked in Mexico I know what "quality control" there implies. :upeyes:

OK, fair enough.

How about some details about the failure? Was the Glock damaged or the shooter injured, and if so, in what way? :dunno:

WTF does that matter? Are you Quincy M.E.?

Factory overload blew up the gun like a grenade. Beyond that is over your pay grade.

My, my, my, such hostility and bitterness. :animlol: