Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Caliber Corner' started by Staffordshire, Apr 2, 2020.
No but velocity might.
I shoot both 165 and 180 grain WWB in .40 and out to 25 yards see no real difference in accuracy and very little difference in recoil energy. Both parameters are somewhat subjective. The 165's seem to have a momentary hitch, presumably which is the nose of the bullet meeting the ramp of the barrel which does not seem to be apparent with the 180's. This is something that appears with both FMJ and my self defense loads, HST and Ranger T's. The "hitch" does not affect reliability in any of my .40 pistols. Either weight works perfectly and I doubt anyone on the receiving end would be able to tell the difference.
And yet we hear over and over that 115gr 9mm has so much more "felt recoil" than a 147 or 124 (2 to 1-1/2 postage stamps).
not that hard, 135gr Nosler JHP over little dose of Longshot powder out of a G35. Actually 10% under book max. I ran a few at max and broke 1500 fps (675 FPE!). Made a chunky smoothie out of a watermelon. Who needs 357 Sig? The 180 gr HST bullets just under max w/ same powder and barrel do over 1100 fps easy.
I like 165 grain. It is a bit faster and uses less lead when I am casting.
That's a good point. I prefer 180's in the 40 but I favor penetration over expansion and run HST's.
 Nonsense. I weighed a typical postage stamp. It weighed 11-1/2 grains. I wouldn't say that a 15 grains is "a lot more" than a postage stamp. Try it yourself, actually I was surprised.
ETA: I really effed this one up. Stamp was 1.15 grains. Now I’m less surprised about the weight, but am surprised that I effed it up so badly.
 Again - Nonsense. First - I don't know what a "grainer" is. Muzzle blast doesn't mean jacks**t. A 7-1/2" SBR .223/5.56 has physically painful muzzle blast (even with hearing protection). A 16"-18" .223/5.56 has much, much less muzzle blast but has better terminal ballistics for a given load.
[3 - And including momentum] Again - Nonsense. Check the Lucky Gunner tests on .40 S&W for MV. I did, and then did the calculations for energy and momentum for a few well respected loads, ie Federal 180 Gr HST, 180 Gr Speer Gold Dot, Federal 165 Gr Tactical Bonded, Federal 165 Gr Hydrashock, and 165 Gr Speer Gold Dot (and these were not "cherry picked" to "make a case", they were picked because they all typically perform well in FBI testing) .....
Here's the data -
Mfr Type/Bullet Weight/Muzzle Velocity (Ft/S)/Muzzle Energy (ft-#)/Momentum (PF):
Fed HST / 180 gr / 960 ft/s / 368 Ft-# / 172.8 PF
Speer GD / 180 gr / 956 ft/s / 365 Ft-# / 172.0 PF
Fed TB / 165 gr / 983 ft/s / 354 Ft-# / 162.2 PF
Fed HS / 165 gr / 948 ft/s / 329 Ft-# / 156.4 PF
Speer GD / 165 gr / 942 ft/s / 325 Ft-# / 155.4 PF
Look at the data - the 180 grain (not grainer) loads have more energy and momentum than the 165 grain (not grainer) loads. Not that K(e)/P are an indication of effective terminal ballistics, but are only ancillary to terminal ballistics.
 Again - nonsense. Recoil is a function of momentum. For a given firearm weight, recoil will be directly proportional to momentum (P). So the greater the momentum/power factor/P the greater the recoil; however, recoil has nothing to do with terminal ballistics - zero/nada/zip/zilch/didilly-squat/naught/NAFT.
 Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinions - no matter how incorrect they are.
In the Lucky Gunner testing, the 180 grain loads typically did just as well, or better, than the 165 gr loads in short barrel (3.42" Glock 27) autos. (Charts are my analysis based on LG data).
ETA: I guess I should note that the "y" axis is expansion, and the "x" axis is penetration, with the FBI penetration range designated by the red vertical lines.
Well I did weight a typical postage stamp and it weighed .9 grains on my RCBS powder scale. Maybe your stamp was atypical.
I have a chronograph to test my loads. Most of my ammo was bought about 6-10 years ago. But I remember that the 180 grain loads were about 35-60 foot pounds less energy than the 165 grain loads. Maybe Lucky Gunner tested some weaker loads or maybe today they load them the same these days. Out of my Glock 24 and 32 (KKM conversion barrel) many 165 loads would go super sonic that added a noticeable increase in the muzzle blast. The 180 grain loads were sub-sonic in my tests with my ammo on my chronograph.
Recoil is subjective but for me, and others, the 180 grain loads seem to have less snap. More of a push. Maybe some of the differences is that most of my testing was with the longer barrel Glocks and not very much with my G27. My G27 kicked too hard to enjoy testing it!
Recently shot side by side 180 and 165 Federal HST out of my G27 and unlike a poster above, for me, the felt recoil was noticeably less with the 180's and they also grouped slightly but noticeably tighter than the 165's. Also, all the online video tests I've seen on the .40 HST's (both weights) out of short barrels expanded beautifully with substantially above 12" of penetration.
I might be wrong, but I choose not to decrease bullet weight for use in shorter barrels. Some reasons.
1. Less velocity loss using a heavier bullet.
2. Increases the overall weight of smaller pistol which reduces perceived recoil (slight advantage)
3. You gain in penetration what you may lose in expansion. (It' s nice to have both but, pick one, it's penetration.
4. Recoil impulse is longer (less snappy)
5. Less flash/blast
All that said, if there's only an inch or less diff. in bbl length (ex. G27 vs G23) probably splitting hairs in terms of self defense use. Use what works for you type of thing.
Well if the velocity is 100+ FPS more then yes.
I've got HST & Gold Dot in 180 gr, and 165 Ranger Bonded.
I'd be equally comfortable carrying any of them, 165 hits a bit closer to my POA.
I’m going to try and compare by shooting the 180 S&B back to back with the Blazer 165 grain. I went back today and picked up a 100 round box of WWB in 165 and a 50 round box of Perfecta 170 grain for more comparisons with the S&B 180 grain.
As I mentioned previously, my plan during this time of no competitions and ammo shortage is to just shoot .40 rather than 9mm. I probably won’t shoot as often or as many rounds in a session, but I’ll still be able to shoot. I have one striker fired pistol in my G22 and one hammer fired with my recently acquired PX4 Storm.
It'd be good to have same brand in each bullet weight so you could have a closer comparison. I like to alternate rounds in the same magazine. That way you're not skewing results based on hand/wrist fatigue etc. A blind test is even better (not when shooting)
I agree, but I’m getting whatever is available and going from there. If 9mm was plentiful at a good price, I probably wouldn’t be shooting .40 right now.
Yeah, I hear you. I have 180's showing up today so I can do some reloading, but not sure when I'll be able to actually chrono anything.
Stick with the grain bullet the cartridge was DESIGNED for!
Well where's the fun in that?
Back in my prime USPSA days I could see and feel a clear difference between 180 / 200 / 220 grain weights in the .40cal. Slide speed was noticeable too... the 220s seemed like I had lubed with molasses!
Tried this out with my 9mms... similar results.
So my own little findings were that lighter bullets produce more snap with a faster slide speed than heavier bullets... and the heavier you go, you will begin to notice a reduction of slide speed.
AND - That's my $0.02 worth!