Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-01-2013, 20:46   #1
plouffedaddy
Senior Member
 
plouffedaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Carolina
Posts: 2,203
Winchester Ranger 40 S&W 135gr Gel Test

Caliber Corner


Caliber Corner

Finished up the testing of the Winchester Ranger 135gr 40 S&W JHP (Q4368) load. Here are the results:

Conditions:
-Test gun: Gen2 Glock 22
-Media: Clear Ballistics "FBI spec" (they're term, not mine....) gel block with 4 layers of denim

Chrono Data:
-1174 FPS, 414 FT/LBS energy from 10 feet

Terminal Performance:
-18'' penetration
-134 grains retained weight
-.58'' average expansion

I was quite surprised by the penetration but my guess is it was likely due to the fact that it didn't expand as much as other 40 S&W bullets I've tested to date.

Here's the video of the test so you can see how it all played out:

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Certified Glock Armorer
plouffedaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2013, 22:48   #2
NEOH212
Diesel Girl
 
NEOH212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: North East Ohio
Posts: 9,094
The lack of expansion may be due to the lower velocity when compared to other 135 grain loads on the market. There again it may just be the the nature of the beast with this bullet design.

I'm disappointed in the velocity though. I'd be figuring it would be a good bit higher than that with a 135 grain bullet. The penetration is a surprise too! I'm used to seeing this bullet weight have a lot less!

Good info.
__________________
When you finish speaking, don't forget to wipe.

Last edited by NEOH212; 06-01-2013 at 23:10..
NEOH212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2013, 23:05   #3
9mm +p+
Senior Member
 
9mm +p+'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: KS
Posts: 2,429
Great test as always, I've had a couple of boxes of this just sitting since I got back into 40. I wouldn't run them 1st line but it's nice to know they'd work if I needed them.
__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum
9mm +p+ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 06:16   #4
CDW4ME
Senior Member
 
CDW4ME's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 1,192
Interesting test.

Is that load supposed to be "better" than the 165 gr. Ranger T? (Doesn't look like it)
__________________
No internal lock or magazine disconnect on my pistols!
CDW4ME is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 07:35   #5
SDGlock23
Glockoholic
 
SDGlock23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Land of Forgetfulness
Posts: 7,725
I have some of those and I've shot them as well. They are a reduced recoil load, meaning they're not intended to be full power. I chronograph tested the Ranger 135gr and Federal HST 135gr and both were almost identical.

From my 3" Kahr CM40:

135gr Federal HST: 1,072 fps (33 fps ES)
135gr Winchester Ranger JHP: 1,082 fps (37 fps ES)

Compare that to a Triton 135gr JHP from the 3" CM40:

135gr Triton JHP (Sierra JHP): 1,260 fps (32 fps es)

You can compare that to Longshot with a 135gr Nosler from a 6" .40 (Glock 24):

135gr Nosler JHP, 12.6gr Longshot @ 1.125" (1x Fed, CCI SP): 1,849 fps (31 fps ES) That's 1,026 ft-lbs!
__________________
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."

Last edited by SDGlock23; 06-02-2013 at 07:36..
SDGlock23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 08:58   #6
barth
six barrels
 
barth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: The Free Zone
Posts: 5,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDW4ME View Post
Interesting test.

Is that load supposed to be "better" than the 165 gr. Ranger T? (Doesn't look like it)
Not in my book.
165 gr Ranger T all the way - LOL!

Actually, my choice for quality SD 135 gr 40 S&W is Cor Bon.
Try testing some of this -
Caliber Corner

Last edited by barth; 06-02-2013 at 08:59..
barth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 12:51   #7
plouffedaddy
Senior Member
 
plouffedaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Carolina
Posts: 2,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDGlock23 View Post
I have some of those and I've shot them as well. They are a reduced recoil load, meaning they're not intended to be full power. I chronograph tested the Ranger 135gr and Federal HST 135gr and both were almost identical.

From my 3" Kahr CM40:

135gr Federal HST: 1,072 fps (33 fps ES)
135gr Winchester Ranger JHP: 1,082 fps (37 fps ES)

Compare that to a Triton 135gr JHP from the 3" CM40:

135gr Triton JHP (Sierra JHP): 1,260 fps (32 fps es)

You can compare that to Longshot with a 135gr Nosler from a 6" .40 (Glock 24):

135gr Nosler JHP, 12.6gr Longshot @ 1.125" (1x Fed, CCI SP): 1,849 fps (31 fps ES) That's 1,026 ft-lbs!
Good info. Thanks.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Certified Glock Armorer
plouffedaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 13:23   #8
fastbolt
Senior Member
 
fastbolt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Within the lightning (Northern CA)
Posts: 9,985
If that was the 135gr load developed for the feds, as I recall the requested spec was for 1200fps +/- 40fps from their duty pistols, which puts your sampling right on the money.

It wasn't intended to duplicate the really lightweight hot-rodded .40 loads available elsewhere.

It was intended to be easier on guns (and shooters) than the 155gr loads, but still produce an acceptable balance of penetration & expansion.
__________________
Sub Club #9; .40 S&W Club #1953; S&W Club #3913
Retired LE - firearms instructor/armorer

Last edited by fastbolt; 06-02-2013 at 13:25..
fastbolt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 14:13   #9
WinterWizard
Senior Member
 
WinterWizard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,377
Slow for a 135gr load. Should be up around 1300 fps, no...?
WinterWizard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 15:01   #10
barth
six barrels
 
barth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: The Free Zone
Posts: 5,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastbolt View Post
If that was the 135gr load developed for the feds, as I recall the requested spec was for 1200fps +/- 40fps from their duty pistols, which puts your sampling right on the money.

It wasn't intended to duplicate the really lightweight hot-rodded .40 loads available elsewhere.

It was intended to be easier on guns (and shooters) than the 155gr loads, but still produce an acceptable balance of penetration & expansion.
I understand that but it seems strange to me.
When I want low recoil from a 40?
I'm thinking sub sonic 180s.
My Kahr MK40 Elite 3.0" bucks hard on 155 gr.
But is a kitty cat with Speer GDHP Short Barrel 180.

Last edited by barth; 06-02-2013 at 15:02..
barth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 15:59   #11
fastbolt
Senior Member
 
fastbolt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Within the lightning (Northern CA)
Posts: 9,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by barth View Post
I understand that but it seems strange to me.
When I want low recoil from a 40?
I'm thinking sub sonic 180s.
My Kahr MK40 Elite 3.0" bucks hard on 155 gr.
But is a kitty cat with Speer GDHP Short Barrel 180.
When it comes to prospective ammo sales numbering in the several tens of millions of rounds, or more, they'll often be happy to produce loads designed to meet the stated specs of some of the larger LE/Gov users. The customer is always right.

That's how a couple of the reduced recoil (power) 165gr loads came about, and then the stiff 155gr loads, followed by the hot 135/140gr loads ... and then we came full circle back to rediscovering the viability of the 180gr loads.

The 135gr JHP's loaded at 1200fps were popular by one major fed user for a bit, and may still be for ordering, but they've also been "released" (dumped?) in quantities onto the commercial market in recent years.

Now that the major bullet designs have been revised and refined, I stopped carrying about chasing after some specific bullet weight/velocity flavor that was popular at the moment, and simply use whatever 180gr/165gr loads may be ordered and stocked at the agency range where I still work upon occasion.

Guns, calibers & loads may change, but skillset/mindset isn't something you find in a box, is it?
__________________
Sub Club #9; .40 S&W Club #1953; S&W Club #3913
Retired LE - firearms instructor/armorer

Last edited by fastbolt; 06-02-2013 at 16:00..
fastbolt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 16:43   #12
Tiro Fijo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,281
This was a round made for ICE as was the ATK version. It was for border checkpoints as the handwringing Libs feared over penetration. However, if they jacked up the velocity to where it should be, i.e., 1,300 fps, there would be far less penetration and more "mushroom". Then again, the recent waves of Affirmative Action new hires would whine about recoil.
Tiro Fijo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2013, 02:26   #13
barth
six barrels
 
barth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: The Free Zone
Posts: 5,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastbolt View Post
Guns, calibers & loads may change, but skillset/mindset isn't something you find in a box, is it?
I couldn't agree more.
barth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2013, 08:37   #14
Coffee Dog
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiro Fijo View Post
This was a round made for ICE as was the ATK version. It was for border checkpoints as the handwringing Libs feared over penetration. However, if they jacked up the velocity to where it should be, i.e., 1,300 fps, there would be far less penetration and more "mushroom". Then again, the recent waves of Affirmative Action new hires would whine about recoil.
Couldn't agreed with ya more regarding increasing the speed. For example Corbon's 135gr. 40 caliber exits a 4 inch barrel at 1325fps. and expands to aprox. .80 or better with a
penetration of 10.5 inches. This round copies the ballistics of the 357 magnum 125gr. Just my thoughts.
Coffee Dog is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 18:05.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,191
375 Members
816 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31