Glock Talk banner

Quick ballistics test: G42 vs G26 vs G34

21K views 161 replies 37 participants last post by  GunQuest 
#1 · (Edited)
It's late, but I wanted to share results of some testing I did today.

Short version:





Clear Ballistics FBI block (16 x 6 x 6).



With penetration measurements



Equipment used



Block and camera setup



It was meant initially as a G42 380 ammunition test with 9mm Speer Gold Dot 124gr +P through different length barrels as the control.



Conclusions:
  • To get 380 to penetrate adequately, the trade off is teeny bullets without much expansion.
  • Speer Gold Dots are interesting. It seems like the higher velocity initial impact, the more the petals are forced outwards which leads to a larger surface area but the trade off of reduced penetration. There is a distinct difference to how the Gold Dots looked when shot through different length barrels.
  • I was surprised at the marked difference in size of a JHP 380 vs 9mm. It's pronounced enough that I think I might start carrying my G26 again instead of the G42....
EDIT 3/2/2017: LINK to Fruit Shooting thread
http://www.glocktalk.com/threads/quick-ballistics-test-fruit-shooting-with-g42-and-g34.1654547/

Updated below:



EDIT 3/18/2017: Added Xtreme Penetrator testing
 
See less See more
2 7
#2 ·
Thanks for the info.

In the 9mm if you want more FPS, Underwood is
the answer,

https://underwoodammo.com/product-category/pistol-ammunition/

This is what I got,

UW, 9mm, 115GD JHP+P+ AND 147GD JHP+P+
115GR.+P+
p95,,,,,,,,,,G27/LW,,,,,,P85,,,,,,,,,G2O/LW,,,,RBH with 9mm cylinder
3.875'',,,,,,,,4.060'',,,,,,,,4.5'',,,,,,,,,,,,6'',,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6.5''
1443fps,,,1420fps,,,,,1461fps,,,,,1539fps,,,,1613fps
147+P+
1126fps,,,,1140fps,,,,,1123fps,,,,,1211fps,,,,1224fp
 
#3 ·
It was interesting. It was a 16" FBI gelatin block. The 380 FMJs went through the entire block. So penetration wasn't an issue, but the holes and cavities were very small.

Two of the G26 Gold Dots with the expansion seen above also went through the whole block.

All of the G34 and JRC rounds stopped at around 13-14" with the full expansion.

I might do a little denim testing next.
 
#128 ·
It was interesting. It was a 16" FBI gelatin block. The 380 FMJs went through the entire block. So penetration wasn't an issue, but the holes and cavities were very small.

Two of the G26 Gold Dots with the expansion seen above also went through the whole block.

All of the G34 and JRC rounds stopped at around 13-14" with the full expansion.

I might do a little denim testing next.
Very nice job testing, and great pics :)
 
#4 ·
It's late, but I wanted to share results of some testing I did today.

Short version:





Clear Ballistics FBI block (16 x 6 x 6).



With penetration measurements



Equipment used



Block and camera setup



It was meant initially as a G42 380 ammunition test with 9mm Speer Gold Dot 124gr +P through different length barrels as the control.



Conclusions:
  • To get 380 to penetrate adequately, the trade off is teeny bullets without much expansion.
  • Speer Gold Dots are interesting. It seems like the higher velocity initial impact, the more the petals are forced outwards which leads to a larger surface area but the trade off of reduced penetration. There is a distinct difference to how the Gold Dots looked when shot through different length barrels.
  • I was surprised at the marked difference in size of a JHP 380 vs 9mm. It's pronounced enough that I think I might start carrying my G26 again instead of the G42....
^ That would be a good move.
 
#5 ·
Your tests do not inspire confidence in the .380ACP. There should be absolutely no surprise at the results.

It is surprising how easily some convince themselves that .380ACP is a competent choice for a self-defense round. There are rare times when circumstances may force the carry of a .380ACP handgun, but it is unwise to regularly rely on one as a carry weapon.

The G42 (and 25 and 28) are Glock's most unsuitable "weapons" for serious purposes due to the round they fire, just as you have shown here.

TANSTAAFL! :)
 
#13 ·
Your tests do not inspire confidence in the .380ACP. There should be absolutely no surprise at the results.

It is surprising how easily some convince themselves that .380ACP is a competent choice for a self-defense round. There are rare times when circumstances may force the carry of a .380ACP handgun, but it is unwise to regularly rely on one as a carry weapon.

The G42 (and 25 and 28) are Glock's most unsuitable "weapons" for serious purposes due to the round they fire, just as you have shown here.

TANSTAAFL! :)
I disagree, this is a comment from another internet story on the Glock 42:

"Below I will explain my choice for carrying the 42 as well as a long rant about how I hate when people talk about stopping power.

I shot both, and the 9mm was too snappy. In simulated self defense scenarios, the Glock 42 in .380 proved to be more effective in my hands. If you are considering the 42 or 43, please try shooting both. Besides being more effective, the Glock 42 was much more fun and comfortable to shoot compared to the 43 and other small .380's.

For example, I have a Ruger LCP and I really don't like shooting that gun, its just not comfortable and I have a hard time hitting targets farther than the 7 yards self defense standard. With the Glock 42, I'm shooting the same targets that I shoot at with my Glock 19 and Ruger Mark II and its not snappy or annoying to shoot.

As far as "stopping power" goes, understand that stopping power in handguns is always lacking unless you are talking about rounds are the .45ACP range and larger. Much of the stopping power argument is based on people like me and you arguing at ranges and on the internet. Massad Ayoob did a comparative study which found small but statistically significant differences with some larger calibers, but without controlling for who was shooting and who was being shot, those numbers are hard to apply to real world situations (i.e. maybe 9mm is more likely to stop an attacker than .22lr because trained police officers are the ones shooting the 9mm and its grandpa with cataracts shooting at robbers with his 10/22).

Most attackers will run when they see you are armed. Out of those that don't run, most will run or surrender after being shot. Of the 0.001% of attackers who continue to fight after being shot and must be physically incapacitated to be stopped, you need to hit the heart, brain, spinal cord, or femur to stop them. This requires luck or good shot placement. In those cases, a larger caliber only gives you a small advantage and that advantage is going to be eliminated in most shooters anyway because unless you are an extensively trained and experienced shooter (i.e. military designated Marksman), you are going to shoot slower and less accurately with more recoil. In those cases, most people (including myself) are better off with a more manageable firearm that they can deliver multiple shots quickly and accurately with, that is what is going to help you hit one of those vital areas, not a bigger bullet.

Basically my argument against being concerned about stopping power is that when you take the odds of being attacked and multiply them by the odds of failing to stop an attacker where you would have been able to stop him with a more powerful round, you will find that you are far more likely to accidentally shoot and kill yourself than be killed as a result of not having enough firepower.

The most important things to consider for self defense carry are that you have a 99.999999999...% reliable combination of gun and ammo and that you can consistently draw your weapon and fire rounds quickly and accurately into your attacker. The round you use to do this doesn't matter, and the advantages of a larger round will in 99% of cases be mitigated by the downsides (more recoil causing decreased rate of fire and accuracy, greater chance of over travel and harming an innocent bystander, greater chance of the fleeing criminal you shot dying (make your legal troubles much worse), more hearing damage (yes I know that is a small consideration in terms of self defense), larger/heavier/harder to conceal gun that also has a greater chance of snagging on something, greater change of death if the attackers gets your gun and uses it against you...the list goes on).

The point of my rant is to hopefully convince at least one person that which caliber to carry should be a choice based on the gun in which you are most confidently able to conceal, draw, and fire quickly and accurately with quick and accurate follow up shots, and that you carry a reliable gun/ammo combination. The Glock 42 was perfect for me for this purpose, it was small enough to conceal easily but large enough to get a good grip, has the legendary Glock reliability, was affordable (blue label pricing at least), and compared to the Glock 19 I usually carry and to the Glock 43 I also tested, I was able to perform much better in simulated self defense tests with the 42 than the 43 and my performance with the 42 compared to the 19 was very similar while coming in a smaller and lighter package.

Stopping power looks legit on paper, but in the real world it just
doesn't seem to have a noticeable effect. The only instances where more
firepower might have helped someone involve firefights between police
and criminals. In those cases, the criminal is fighting for his life
against armed and trained police officers so yea, they will continue to
fight as long as possible because at that point they know if caught
their life is over anyway. In the civilian world, criminals have no
reason to fight an armed civilian. A mugger or robber has no vested
interest in you specifically and would much rather run away and try
mugging/raping someone else or robbing another house than try their luck
against a would be victim armed with a gun.

In short, there are about 10,000 homicides a year. Most gun deaths in the US are caused by the .22lr. The CDC estimates 250,000-3 million justified instances of self defense involving a firearm occur every year in the US (most of which involve no injuries, adding validity to my point that most attackers flee when they realize you are armed). Even though there have been millions of self defense instances involving firearms since the internet was born, I have searched the internet and been unable to find a single example of a civilian being successfully victimized after using a small caliber firearm against their attacker. In fact, the whole stopping power obsession was based off one single shootout between police and criminals in the 1980's where the criminals were shot multiple times and continued fighting."
 
#8 ·
An interesting addition to your test data would be the measured muzzle velocity and calculated muzzle energy of each ammo type from each weapon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9jeeps
#9 ·
Interesting, but academic. There have been plenty of people who have done those tests. But for me it doesn't serve a practical purpose and takes time. These are the firearms I have available to me in a personal defense / home defense scenario. Unless there was an unexpected result that would lead me to believe one of my firearms was defective / malfunctioning the velocities are what they are.

Where it would be useful is if I was comparing different 9mm or 380 guns with similar barrel lengths. But here, barrel lengths correlate roughly to velocities within an ammunition type. And that's good enough for practical purposes for me.

My main goals are to be as educated as possible for the scenarios I might possibly encounter so I can make the safest choices for my family and I.

I like testing because bigger isn't always better and knowing what the minimum and maximum for size and penetration are could be useful. I don't want to hurt anyone in general and definitely don't want to hurt any innocent people inadvertently.

I really had no idea what to expect from the Carbine in 9mm. I actually expected it to blow out the back of the gel block, but the only rounds that did that were the less expanded ones from the G26. Surprised me and makes it a promising home defense firearm (if it doesn't clog with denim or drywall).

Next, I'd like to see the difference between the 9mm Carbine and a 223 soft point. I've kind of ruled out the 223 as a home defense round, but we shall see. I want to be an educated user, I feel it allows me to make better choices about the trade off of other people's safety and my own (a very important balance IMHO).
 
#11 ·
It's late, but I wanted to share results of some testing I did today.

Short version:
Really interesting test. Thank you. You might check out Shooting The Bull review about the ARX in both 380 and 9mm. (Out of 3inch barrel) The ARX had a high velocity due to the polymer/copper bullet is very light. The flutes on the ARX did a very acceptable job relative the
wound channel. I liked the tendency to tumble for a defensive round. Polycase's first mission was developing a polymer case in place so the bad guys in the middle east couldn't collect spent brass and reload it. The polycase can't be reloaded. The test of the poly cased ammo by the American Rifleman was impressive. However, Polycase has not as yet released ammo with both the polymer case and the polymer fluted bullet. It's be nice for saving weight in a pistol with
16 rounds. I have a G26 and its a shooter. Nice results regarding your tests.
I never dismiss any breaking new anything out of hand. Many did the G17 "Plastic gun".
We need some real world results but the ARX idea looks good. Lehigh Defense has a similar
bullet in solid brass that is fluted. I think Lehigh may have been first?
PoliViejo




Clear Ballistics FBI block (16 x 6 x 6).



With penetration measurements



Equipment used



Block and camera setup



It was meant initially as a G42 380 ammunition test with 9mm Speer Gold Dot 124gr +P through different length barrels as the control.



Conclusions:
  • To get 380 to penetrate adequately, the trade off is teeny bullets without much expansion.
  • Speer Gold Dots are interesting. It seems like the higher velocity initial impact, the more the petals are forced outwards which leads to a larger surface area but the trade off of reduced penetration. There is a distinct difference to how the Gold Dots looked when shot through different length barrels.
  • I was surprised at the marked difference in size of a JHP 380 vs 9mm. It's pronounced enough that I think I might start carrying my G26 again instead of the G42....
 
#12 ·
Nothing there I did not expect except I thought the round out the 16 inch barrel might have broken up. Numbers are consistent with other tests but having a comparison picture there lays it out pretty well. I don't think I have ever seen that before.

Common sense should tell you that a bullet is going to expand to less size and have less penetration than a bullet a third again in weight that is traveling almost 20% faster. More energy to push expansion and penetration and more bullet to expand. Common sense is also going to say you need a bigger gun to shoot that round.
 
  • Like
Reactions: halfmoonclip
#19 · (Edited)
The best way to measure the permanent cavity a bullet makes is to fill the cavity with a silicone, let it harden, remove it, and place it a container of water to measure how much it rises.

Unfortunately no one does that so the best we can do for this internet discuss is treat the cavity as a cylinder and take it's volume (pi*r^2*h, r=.5expansion and h=penetration).

Using Lucky Gunners data, http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/, I'm using the best performing HST round from each caliber: 124+P, 180, and 230.

124+P: pi*(.5*.66")^2))*18.3"=6.26 cubic inches
180: pi*(.5*.72")^2))*18.5"=7.53 cubic inches
230: pi*(.5*.79")^2))*14"=7.94 cubic inches

Take the cavity per round and multiply that by the total number of rounds in the gun.

G17 (18): 18*6.26=112.68 cubic inches
G22 (16): 16*7.53=120.48 cubic inches
G21 (14): 14*7.94=111.16 cubic inches

G19 (16): 16*6.26=100.16 cubic inches
G23 (14): 14*7.53=105.2 cubic inches
G30 (11): 11*7.94=87.34 cubic inches

G26 (11): 11*6.26=68.86 cubic inches
G27 (10): 10*7.53=75.3 cubic inches
G36 (7): 7*7.94=55.58 cubic inches

Next factor to consider is hits on target. LEOs miss 70-80% of the time, http://soldiersystems.net/2014/09/25/fbi-9mm-justification-fbi-training-division/. It does not matter if it is your first time shooting or you are Rob Leeham, the more recoil a gun has the harder followup shots will be.

Recoil:
This calculation is based on a public domain free recoil equation that takes into account the bullet weight and muzzle velocity plus the cartridge powder charge weight and expelling gas muzzle velocity applied against the gun's weight. The result is measured in foot-pounds of energy.

vgu = {(mp • vp) + ( mc • vc)} / mgu • 7000 → Etgu = mgu • vgu2 / 2 • gc

Where:
Etgu is the recoil energy expressed in foot-pounds (ft·lb).
mgu is the weight of the gun expressed in pounds (lb).
mp is the weight of the bullet expressed in grains (gr).
mc is the weight of the powder charge expressed in grains (gr).
vgu is the total forward velocity of the gun expressed in feet per second (ft/s).
vp is the velocity of the bullet expressed in feet per second (ft/s).
vc is the velocity of the powder charge expressed in feet per second (ft/s).
gc is the dimensional constant and is the numeral coefficient of 32.1739.
7000 is the conversion factor to set the equation equal to pounds.

G17: 5.6 ft-lbs
G22: 8.5 ft-lbs
G21: 8.7 ft-lbs

G19: 5.8 ft-lbs
G23: 9.1 ft-lbs
G30: 9.1 ft-lbs

G26: 6.2 ft-lbs
G27: 9.5 ft-lbs
G36: 10.9 ft-lbs

Source - http://www.genitron.com/

With more recoil there is less hits on target, on one end is 30% hits on target and the other is 20%.

Take the 5.3 ft-lbs difference (10.9-5.6) and break that down to 53 .1ft-lbs and divide the 10% LEO accuracy to it. Every .1 ft-lb more of recoil decreases accuracy .1886%.

The accuracy by recoil is:

G17: 30%
G22: 24.52%
G21: 24.15%

G19: 29.62%
G23: 23.39%
G30: 23.39%

G26: 28.87%
G27: 22.64%
G36: 20%

We take this hit rate and apply to the wounding capacity of the gun.

G17: 112.68 * .30 =33.804 cubic inches
G22: 120.48 * .2452 = 29.55 cubic inches
G21: 111.16 * .2415 = 26.85 cubic inches

G19: 100.16 * .2962 = 29.67 cubic inches
G23: 105.42 * .2339 = 24.66 cubic inches
G30: 87.34 * .2339 = 20.43 cubic inches

G26: 68.86 * .2886 = 19.88 cubic inches
G27: 75.3 * .2142 = 17.05 cubic inches
G36: 55.58 * .2 = 11.12 cubic inches
 
#129 ·
We take this hit rate and apply to the wounding capacity of the gun.

G17: 112.68 * .30 =33.804 cubic inches
G22: 120.48 * .2452 = 29.55 cubic inches
G21: 111.16 * .2415 = 26.85 cubic inches

G19: 100.16 * .2962 = 29.67 cubic inches
G23: 105.42 * .2339 = 24.66 cubic inches
G30: 87.34 * .2339 = 20.43 cubic inches

G26: 68.86 * .2886 = 19.88 cubic inches
G27: 75.3 * .2142 = 17.05 cubic inches
G36: 55.58 * .2 = 11.12 cubic inches
Interesting cummulative approach. Not the approach I would take, though, because I'd be more interested in a 1 shot damage effect comparison, and then think about capacity as a secondary consideration. But you obviously have put a lot of thought into the cummulative approach. Well done :)
 
#21 · (Edited)
Yup. So that's why my testing is for me. In my use and carry patterns, the 26 is worth the weight and convenience penalty for the trade off of ballistics after this test. YMMV.

I'm not saying it applies to others. Make your own conclusions as an adult.

My wife will likely wind up carrying the 42. She's been hounding me for it anyway. For her carry purposes, the 26 isn't viable. And I'm fine with her having a 380 (compared to nothing).

For me, I prefer the 9mm. Especially after the test. The permanent cavity of the 9mm was much more impressive than the 380.

People can quote all kinds of statistics for what doesn't matter... until it does.

You could come up with similar statistics about not needing a full size spare tire (lots of cars don't have them these days), flashlight, flares and FRS radio when traveling in desolate areas.

You could say, "statistics show that any tire patch equipment or waiting for AAA is a viable alternative since 99.9% of people won't have a blowout on the highway."

But when I go cross country, I carry flares, a flashlight and an FRS radio. Haven't had to use them in 300k+ miles.

If it's a good choice for you, then I'm happy for you. It'll be a good choice for my wife, but not for me.

You can show a video of someone being chased off by the sound of a gun and say that a pistol of blanks would have done the job. But I'd like to be able to defend against someone high on drugs and violently aggressive. What I don't want to happen is having to apologize to my wife for letting her get hurt because "I thought they would leave at the first sound of gunfire!" Again, if you feel comfortable, more power to you. I haven't been in a car accident for decades. By that logic, I don't need seat belts or airbags because I'm unlikely to need them.

Guess what? I kind of like my seat belts and airbags. And I buy vehicles with them for my family to ride in.

In my use patterns (mainly home defense, RV traveling), the size and weight of the 26 isn't a big deal. For going out in a low risk situation, I'd be fine with the 42. YMMV.
 
#22 · (Edited)
Yup. So that's why my testing is for me. In my use and carry patterns, the 26 is worth the weight and convenience penalty for the trade off of ballistics after this test. YMMV.

I'm not saying it applies to others. Make your own conclusions as an adult.

My wife will likely wind up carrying the 42. She's been hounding me for it anyway. For her carry purposes, the 26 isn't viable. And I'm fine with her having a 380 (compared to nothing).

For me, I prefer the 9mm. Especially after the test. The permanent cavity of the 9mm was much more impressive than the 380.

People can quote all kinds of statistics for what doesn't matter... until it does.

You could come up with similar statistics about not needing a full size spare tire (lots of cars don't have them these days), flashlight, flares and FRS radio when traveling in desolate areas.

You could say, "statistics show that any tire patch equipment or waiting for AAA is a viable alternative since 99.9% of people won't have a blowout on the highway."

But when I go cross country, I carry flares, a flashlight and an FRS radio. Haven't had to use them in 300k+ miles.

If it's a good choice for you, then I'm happy for you. It'll be a good choice for my wife, but not for me.

You can show a video of someone being chased off by the sound of a gun and say that a pistol of blanks would have done the job. But I'd like to be able to defend against someone high on drugs and violently aggressive. What I don't want to happen is having to apologize to my wife for letting her get hurt because "I thought they would leave at the first sound of gunfire!" Again, if you feel comfortable, more power to you. I haven't been in a car accident for decades. By that logic, I don't need seat belts or airbags because I'm unlikely to need them.

Guess what? I kind of like my seat belts and airbags. And I buy vehicles with them for my family to ride in.
If someone is high on drugs and violently aggressive, your 9mm will be iffy too, and you had better count on a spine or brain shot.

I like seat belts and airbags too, and I'm not advocating not using them or not carrying a gun.

Again, does anyone know of a real world case where a civilian was hurt because his caliber was too small? IMHO the video I posted of the old guy with the Taurus .380 would be a pretty typical response from a BG. I read one test where a .380 hit a rib and only penetrated 1.5". Think about it, if you're the BG, you've unexpectedly been shot at by a gun of unknown caliber, you have a broken rib and probably a damaged and bleeding lung after one shot, if that's me I'm getting out of there, not risk death or another 20 years in jail by adding murder to an armed robbery charge.

I think we agree people should use the biggest gun they can comfortably carry at all times, which will vary for many. You just can't be completely prepared for every eventuality.
 
#31 ·
I love his videos. Very thoughtful. I do have a question about the inferences he is making from the ballistics gel. The ARX (which he has tested) really didn't do much in the ballistics gel when I tested.

And... those "slices" in his gel cross section might have more to do with his gel elasticity and may not be applicable in real tissue.

The reason why I say that is with the Clear Ballistics gel, there aren't any of those "tears," even with the 9mm hollow points. The gel had more elasticity and didn't tear like that with any of the rounds.

When taking the block apart, I did cut it in cross sections and for no rounds did I see that kind of a star shaped tear.

I don't know that his gel (or any gel) is a good wound cavity simulation. It might be, but I am at least mildly skeptical about some of the conclusions.

I wasn't impressed with the channel of the ARX, but I'm willing to test it again.

Maybe I'll shoot oranges. That way there's some skin and each piece is individually wrapped so I'd be able to see the internal damage.

I'll try and come up with simulants to see how much the "fluid effect" actually contributes. Because if the round starts tumbling, you lose all the reported fluid evacuating rotational benefit.

That's what happened with the ARX. It tumbled and it wasn't any better than a traditional hollow point (except for the reliability of no failure thing).
 
#32 ·
Excellent test, thanks for posting it.

Looks like bigger bullets at +p speeds from bigger guns work better than smaller, lighter, slower bullets from a smaller lightweight pocket pistol in a smaller caliber.
Not shocking results.

A G43 comparison would have been useful.
 
#34 ·
A G43 barrel is 3.39 inches in length. the G26 barrel is 3.42". Test results would not be different enough to be worth the effort. All you need to do is look at the results from the G26 and that's what your G43 would do.

I once Chronographed a bunch of different handguns and testing 357 magnum ammo, a 2 3/4 inch security six produced velocities higher than a 4 inch smith and Wesson model 66 using the same ammo.

Individual barrels differ in how much velocity they produce. If you were to take two identical guns with consecutive serial numbers off the assembly line and chronograph both guns you'd get different velocities with identical barrel lengths.

The general rule of thumb is that you lose or gain plus or minus 50 fps per inch of barrel length but there are many factors that effect velocity and sometimes an inch or even two inches of barrel won't make a difference and certainly between A 3.39 inch barrel and a 3.42 inch barrel the difference would hardly be significant in terms of bullet expansion in blocks of jello.
 
#33 ·
I think a good option, maybe the best,
would be a cross between a wfn/lfn GC
boolit, screw expansion, the biggest
meplat that will feed reliably, maybe
.280'' to .300''.

The GC will lower pressure and allow you
to get more fps, maybe 150 fps over a
jacketed bullet.

You will get lots of penetration and a nasty
wound.

I have shot different small and large animals
with cast boolits and with good velocity and
the right meplat good things happen.

This is what you learn from shooting a R N
bullet, things run away, even small critters.

With a fn boolit or hp if they run it will be dragging
their innerds, I am now talking about a 22lr
with RN and HP and FN non expanding bullets.

I made a die that swages any size fp on 22lr
bullets.

RN bullets suck, small and large.

I have seen this on many rodents, large rattlesnakes and bigger game.

I shot a deer at around 85 yards with a hard fn
boolit, it probably was going around 1100 fps
when it hit the deer, it had a .300'' meplat.

It went all the way through and almost split
the heart in two pieces. What you learn is
different kinds of meat can react different,
heart, lungs, muscle...

Last summer I shot a fat rattler, used a .358
boolit with a .260 meplat it was going around
1050 fps, around six inches of guts was hanging
out of the snake.

These are hard cast boolits that did not expand,
they penetrate and make a nasty wound.
 
#36 ·
I did look at the Shooting the Bull videos (it's how I came to test those particular rounds). When I did slow motion of the ARX, the temp cavity wasn't very impressive and the permanent cavity wasn't either. I'd pick the XTP over the ARX, but after testing I'd pick a Gold Dot 9mm over anything in 380.
The .380 is what it is so trying to squeeze a little more penetration or gel performance out of it isn't going to be of any practical value. The GD gets about 10 or 11 inches penetration and good expansion with the very reliable GD round. The vaulted Federal HST .380 gets even less penetration than the GD. Keep in mind these are the two best SD rounds on the market and neither hit the 12 inch mark in .380 that should tell you something. I only carry Gold Dots in my LCP and don't sweat the small feces!
 
#37 ·
The best way to measure the permanent cavity a bullet makes is to fill the cavity with a silicone, let it harden, remove it, and place it a container of water to measure how much it rises.

Unfortunately no one does that so the best we can do for this internet discuss is treat the cavity as a cylinder and take it's volume (pi*r^2*h, r=.5expansion and h=penetration).

Using Lucky Gunners data, http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/, I'm using the best performing HST round from each caliber: 124+P, 180, and 230+P.

124+P: pi*(.5*.66")^2))*18.3"=6.26 cubic inches
180: pi*(.5*.72")^2))*18.5"=7.53 cubic inches
230+P: pi*(.5*.79")^2))*14"=7.94 cubic inches

Take the cavity per round and multiply that by the total number of rounds in the gun.

G17 (18): 18*6.26=112.68 cubic inches
G22 (16): 16*7.53=120.48 cubic inches
G21 (14): 14*7.94=111.16 cubic inches

G19 (16): 16*6.26=100.16 cubic inches
G23 (14): 14*7.53=105.2 cubic inches
G30 (11): 11*7.94=87.34 cubic inches

G26 (11): 11*6.26=68.86 cubic inches
G27 (10): 10*7.53=75.3 cubic inches
G36 (7): 7*7.94=55.58 cubic inches

Next factor to consider is hits on target. LEOs miss 70-80% of the time, http://soldiersystems.net/2014/09/25/fbi-9mm-justification-fbi-training-division/. It does not matter if it is your first time shooting or you are Rob Leeham, the more recoil a gun has the harder followup shots will be.

Recoil:
This calculation is based on a public domain free recoil equation that takes into account the bullet weight and muzzle velocity plus the cartridge powder charge weight and expelling gas muzzle velocity applied against the gun's weight. The result is measured in foot-pounds of energy.

vgu = {(mp • vp) + ( mc • vc)} / mgu • 7000 → Etgu = mgu • vgu2 / 2 • gc

Where:
Etgu is the recoil energy expressed in foot-pounds (ft·lb).
mgu is the weight of the gun expressed in pounds (lb).
mp is the weight of the bullet expressed in grains (gr).
mc is the weight of the powder charge expressed in grains (gr).
vgu is the total forward velocity of the gun expressed in feet per second (ft/s).
vp is the velocity of the bullet expressed in feet per second (ft/s).
vc is the velocity of the powder charge expressed in feet per second (ft/s).
gc is the dimensional constant and is the numeral coefficient of 32.1739.
7000 is the conversion factor to set the equation equal to pounds.

G17: 5.6 ft-lbs
G22: 8.5 ft-lbs
G21: 8.7 ft-lbs

G19: 5.8 ft-lbs
G23: 9.1 ft-lbs
G30: 9.1 ft-lbs

G26: 6.2 ft-lbs
G27: 9.5 ft-lbs
G36: 10.9 ft-lbs

Source - http://www.genitron.com/

With more recoil there is less hits on target, on one end is 30% hits on target and the other is 20%.

Take the 5.3 ft-lbs difference (10.9-5.6) and break that down to 53 .1ft-lbs and divide the 10% LEO accuracy to it. Every .1 ft-lb more of recoil decreases accuracy .1886%.

The accuracy by recoil is:

G17: 30%
G22: 24.52%
G21: 24.15%

G19: 29.62%
G23: 23.39%
G30: 23.39%

G26: 28.87%
G27: 22.64%
G36: 20%

We take this hit rate and apply to the wounding capacity of the gun.

G17: 112.68 * .30 =33.804 cubic inches
G22: 120.48 * .2452 = 29.55 cubic inches
G21: 111.16 * .2415 = 26.85 cubic inches

G19: 100.16 * .2962 = 29.67 cubic inches
G23: 105.42 * .2339 = 24.66 cubic inches
G30: 87.34 * .2339 = 20.43 cubic inches

G26: 68.86 * .2886 = 19.88 cubic inches
G27: 75.3 * .2142 = 17.05 cubic inches
G36: 55.58 * .2 = 11.12 cubic inches
The best performing round in the .40 is the 165gr round not the 180. If you want to do an apples to apples comparison then the 147, 180 and 230 weights should be used.
 
#54 ·
I'm going using Lucky Gunners data. They only have 155 and 180 .40 HSTs. I chose the best performing variant of the same bullet design with a caliber based on the formula for finding the volume of a cylinder.
 
#38 ·
Just wondering if you make your own gels for these tests? If so how are they made? I think it would be fun to tinker around with comparing different handloads in the back yard.
This was my first use of the Clear Ballistics brand synthetic gel. They were having a sale on their website. I think the block cost around $50 and is reusable. The synthetic gel is less messy and doesn't rot.

With regard to testing, last night I came across the following PhD dissertation that brings up some concepts that make sense and that I'll try to incorporate for next tests.

http://ssf1910.dk/document/info/balistik.pdf

OP should redo the G42 test with the Lehigh Defense. It is very impressive in ballistics gel.

1. The fissure cracks that Shooting the Bull is referencing for the effectiveness of the Xtreme Penetrator round (and others) are reflective of TEMPORARY stretch cavity, not permanent cavity. Temporary stretch cavity does play a role in tissue damage, so it is something... but...

2. Testing of a block should probably be done with a series of retaining straps or in the dissertation sources, a "synthetic skin" elastic shroud. I've seen videos online that the block is squirming and jumping on slow motion. That's energy that is being dissipated and not delivered to the linear travel path (skewing distance results). Of note, I used gaffer's tape for the front strap but it did slide and break with the two last shots (G34 and JR Carbine) which could lead to underestimation of distance in the gel.

3. A full elastic shroud might make the gel fissure results a little different because it "contains" some of the stretch cavity (the Shooting the Bull test did not use a shroud). Also the amount of gel in each direction likely matters too in ability to disperse energy.

To be purely scientific, each round should probably have its own block and be fired into the center of the block. In my case, quick and dirty is as deep as I'm going to get into it. But things to consider when watching online YouTube testing...

I think gaffer taping the target is probably a decent compromise. I'll probably add another band towards the end of the block for the next testing.
 
#39 · (Edited)
Try your tests over with 4 layers of denim like the ones they sell at clearballistics. Your results will vary greatly from the bare gel results.
Speer gold dots +P performed very poorly for me when using 4 layers of denim in front of the block. They failed to expand 4 out of 5 times and overpenetrated
 
#42 ·
Gold Dots are indeed very sensitive to barrel length. If you show me pictures of Gold Dots shot from a G19 and a G26 I can tell you which was which. I don't think it matters much in terms of performance but it's interesting. HSTs on the other hand pretty much always looks alike regardless. For barrels < 4" I prefer HST.
 
#43 · (Edited)
The best way to measure the permanent cavity a bullet makes is to fill the cavity with a silicone, let it harden, remove it, and place it a container of water to measure how much it rises.

Unfortunately no one does that so the best we can do for this internet discuss is treat the cavity as a cylinder and take it's volume (pi*r^2*h, r=.5expansion and h=penetration).

Using Lucky Gunners data, http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/, I'm using the best performing HST round from each caliber: 124+P, 180, and 230+P.

124+P: pi*(.5*.66")^2))*18.3"=6.26 cubic inches
180: pi*(.5*.72")^2))*18.5"=7.53 cubic inches
230+P: pi*(.5*.79")^2))*14"=7.94 cubic inches

Take the cavity per round and multiply that by the total number of rounds in the gun.

G17 (18): 18*6.26=112.68 cubic inches
G22 (16): 16*7.53=120.48 cubic inches
G21 (14): 14*7.94=111.16 cubic inches

G19 (16): 16*6.26=100.16 cubic inches
G23 (14): 14*7.53=105.2 cubic inches
G30 (11): 11*7.94=87.34 cubic inches

G26 (11): 11*6.26=68.86 cubic inches
G27 (10): 10*7.53=75.3 cubic inches
G36 (7): 7*7.94=55.58 cubic inches

Next factor to consider is hits on target. LEOs miss 70-80% of the time, http://soldiersystems.net/2014/09/25/fbi-9mm-justification-fbi-training-division/. It does not matter if it is your first time shooting or you are Rob Leeham, the more recoil a gun has the harder followup shots will be.

Recoil:
This calculation is based on a public domain free recoil equation that takes into account the bullet weight and muzzle velocity plus the cartridge powder charge weight and expelling gas muzzle velocity applied against the gun's weight. The result is measured in foot-pounds of energy.

vgu = {(mp • vp) + ( mc • vc)} / mgu • 7000 → Etgu = mgu • vgu2 / 2 • gc

Where:
Etgu is the recoil energy expressed in foot-pounds (ft·lb).
mgu is the weight of the gun expressed in pounds (lb).
mp is the weight of the bullet expressed in grains (gr).
mc is the weight of the powder charge expressed in grains (gr).
vgu is the total forward velocity of the gun expressed in feet per second (ft/s).
vp is the velocity of the bullet expressed in feet per second (ft/s).
vc is the velocity of the powder charge expressed in feet per second (ft/s).
gc is the dimensional constant and is the numeral coefficient of 32.1739.
7000 is the conversion factor to set the equation equal to pounds.

G17: 5.6 ft-lbs
G22: 8.5 ft-lbs
G21: 8.7 ft-lbs

G19: 5.8 ft-lbs
G23: 9.1 ft-lbs
G30: 9.1 ft-lbs

G26: 6.2 ft-lbs
G27: 9.5 ft-lbs
G36: 10.9 ft-lbs

Source - http://www.genitron.com/

With more recoil there is less hits on target, on one end is 30% hits on target and the other is 20%.

Take the 5.3 ft-lbs difference (10.9-5.6) and break that down to 53 .1ft-lbs and divide the 10% LEO accuracy to it. Every .1 ft-lb more of recoil decreases accuracy .1886%.

The accuracy by recoil is:

G17: 30%
G22: 24.52%
G21: 24.15%

G19: 29.62%
G23: 23.39%
G30: 23.39%

G26: 28.87%
G27: 22.64%
G36: 20%

We take this hit rate and apply to the wounding capacity of the gun.

G17: 112.68 * .30 =33.804 cubic inches
G22: 120.48 * .2452 = 29.55 cubic inches
G21: 111.16 * .2415 = 26.85 cubic inches

G19: 100.16 * .2962 = 29.67 cubic inches
G23: 105.42 * .2339 = 24.66 cubic inches
G30: 87.34 * .2339 = 20.43 cubic inches

G26: 68.86 * .2886 = 19.88 cubic inches
G27: 75.3 * .2142 = 17.05 cubic inches
G36: 55.58 * .2 = 11.12 cubic inches
Interesting. Too many questionable assumptions though, especially regarding the wound volume and the fact that Lucky Gunner's penetration figures run on the high side and are somewhat inconsistent. Your penetration for the 230+P was wrong, it's 14.9, not 14. That's a large error right there. Most HST testing shows penetration among all the calibers to be in the 12-14" inch range so an 18" result for the 9mm and .40 but not the .45 skews the calculations way too much.

Your calculated result is also wrong.

230+P: pi*(.5*.79")^2))*14"=7.94 cubic inches

Should be:

230+P: pi*(.5*.79")^2))*14=6.86 cubic inches
 
#44 ·
I'll admit that I never cared that much for the idea of the Glock 42, until recently.

I like having a pocket gun, they're just handy and once you get used to having one and then don't, it's easy to want another. I had fairly recently bought an LCPII and I liked it, but the gun isn't easy to shoot. The recoil isn't exactly bad, but it's snappy enough from the 10oz LCPII that I didn't really enjoy shooting it, and I'm not recoil sensitive.

I sold the LCPII and now want another pocket gun. I've had the G43 and it was a good gun I thought, recoil wasn't bad and it's definitely pocket friendly, but my thing is, if I get a G43 then eventually I'll get another Glock in 9mm and frankly I don't want to get back into the 9mm, nothing against it at all. The G42 presents itself as an easy to shoot gun that is slightly smaller than the G43, and while it might not be way smaller, every little bit helps when you're going to be carrying it in your front pocket.

I'm torn between the G43 and G42. The 42 is smaller and while I'm not a HUGE fan of the 380, I also know that if you put the bullets where they need to go, chances are you're going to get pretty good results, I don't buy into stopping power, heck these are small pocket guns for crying outloud, it's more about size than it is about power. If I get the G42 it'll be my only 380 and it'll serve its purpose as a good pocket gun. The downside is that the G43 9mm has better ammo selection and FMJ ammo is slightly cheaper and it's a little more powerful.

I know that if I get a G43 that down the road I'll pick up another Glock 9mm or two, which isn't a bad thing, but I don't shoot as much as I used to so I don't know how heavily invested into the 9mm I want to get. If I could keep the G43 as my only 9mm, I would probably lean that way, but I know how I am. At least with the G42 I can honestly say that it's the only 380 that I have any interest in whatsoever.

Decisions decisions!
 
#49 ·
The G42 presents itself as an easy to shoot gun that is slightly smaller than the G43, and while it might not be way smaller, every little bit helps when you're going to be carrying it in your front pocket.
The G42 is also 29% lighter loaded than the G43.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aslan and SDGlock23
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top