Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.
Discussion in 'Caliber Corner' started by Coffee Dog, Jun 30, 2012.
I tested the 115gr JHP 9x19 CorBon load many years ago. I got 1400 FPS out of my G17!
No doubt is has great velocity. But I'm willing to bet you got about 7-9 inches of penetration. That's what we got back then. Generally, just not enough hence the full discussion in the thread.
The original loading went approx. 10" - 11" in four layer denim/ballistic gel tests using the Sierra bullet from what I saw years ago. The new "in house" bullet made by Corbon goes over 12" according to M. Shovel, their Nat'l Sales rep. You won't find that on their website as Corbon does not publish their own in house testing in the name of objectivity, which I respect a lot.
The new bullet averages circa. 1360 fps in my G19.
It would have been great to get at least 11 inches, but we didn't unfortunately. Glad to see that they're getting 12 now though.
I am not qualified to contribute to the conversation, but there has been a lot of good information presented by those that, IMHO, seem qualified to contribute to the discussion. Hearing both sides of the argument helps those of us that will never investigate a shooting determine the best choice for our situation. Researching slow/heavy vs. fast/light has led me to believe there is a lot of bad information on the net. Reading these threads and seeing both sides of the argument help to sort the crap from the facts. Thank you contributors!
Well gentlemen without stirring up any tension bettween-the
fast and light crowd verus the heavy and slow(both have its pro's
& cons) I am taking the middle road -I like Underwood 9mm
124+p going at aprox,(made from Gold Dot Speer)
1300fps. giving me aprox 12 inches of penertration and yet hitting my target hard enough to get their attention!
Again thank-you for this large input of information!
Underwood link to the above ammo:
1,300 fps? Hmm. This test shows a little slower than advertised:
WOW hold the presses!!!! That's huge! I was gonna buy some underwood but now I'm glad I didn't!
Seriously, Coffee I'm sure your fine, don't stress it. The 124 gr +p is a fine load.
Check this out: http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4337-Service-Caliber-Handgun-Duty-and-Self-Defense-Ammo
Hope it helps. Like I said I think you'll be fine.
Did I miss the joke? I merely linked someone's real world chrono results from two different guns with the same barrel lengths. I see on Underwood's website someone says they got 1,360 fps with this load in a G17 & just over 1,300 fps with their G19. I like Underwood ammunition and have shot a box or two. However, in their defense as well as Double Tap and other "boutique" ammo makers, different guns at different altitudes, barometric pressure, etc., can give lower velocities. Perhaps this was the case here. The low standard deviation does tell us that the test was very consistent as well as the the load. Good SD's usually = good accuracy.
Thank-you for these chrono results! Seems like many(not all) of the 9mm velocity's are very close! If I recall
the 124+p gold Dot from the factory gets 1220fps out
of a 4 inch barrel! I'll stick with the factory load!
Thank-you for the tip!
The 124+P GD was our load until switching to the .45ACP. The switch came about, not due to a problem with the 9mm but rather the aging Beretta's and a deal from Glock that couldn't be passed up.
I still use them in my G19, along with the PDX1. Either will serve you well if you put them in the right spot.
I really tried to see what the takeaway from this thread would be, but I am still unsure.
Essentially, what I see is that people want to have a greater level of predictability about events that are very fluid and unique. Considering there are many variables that are tough or impossible to control, we are left with opinions and third party evaluations.
In my line of work, I generate and present reports that can be controversial or change current policies and practices. I take the position that despite having credentials to show competency, my arguments must be able to stand on their own without reference to how long I have been doing this. Others I work with respect my experience and credentials, however it is not the basis of my positions.
The issue of improperly cited sources and the debate on the authoritativeness of sources is not unique to the discussion of combat effectiveness of weapons and ammunition.
A common argument I have seen here is that individuals point to their own experience while attempting to diminish the credibility of others. I have faced many with the same perspective of credibility, but I often ask, how many years of doing something wrong does it take before it becomes right?
People invest their egos into their opinions and, too often, they are insulted when others disagree with their positions. I accept being questioned about the validity of my statements, even from the newest and youngest among us.
Additionally, what one man may call 20 years of experience in the field may, in reality, be 6 months of experience repeated 40 times over. This is the unfortunate reality many in the field face. They learn a job to a limited level of competency and, while staying at that level, refer to their many years of experience. Personally, I call these people "one trick ponies" since they look brilliant within the narrow limitations of their skills, however, they do not have the ability to adapt to changing circumstances.
Also, there is the "Peter Principal," where people are promoted based on doing their jobs well until the get to a position they do badly, and that is where they stay. Essentially, this is an organizational behavior that causes many to work at their level of incompency.
Small disclaimer: Another factor to consider in some arguments is the releasability of the information as well as the access granted to the audience. In these cases, one must trust the redacted and downgraded release based on the authority of position of the presenter. This is when we wear our blinders on purpose. Still, this does not invalidate the need to cite authoritative sources in more open cases.
All I ask of my fellow old guys with an opinion is that they present information that is intellectually honest and that they do not get so easily insulted by those who challenge their conclusions.
7-9inches. I suppose that most criminals are about 7-9inches thick front-to-back, so it is OK by me.
Called Mike Shovel and Mike told me that penetration with in-house made ammo (115+p) at Corbon is now 12 inches.
I wouldn't want a CorBon 115gr JHP to penetrate 7 inches into MY chest. It is a powerful little round.