Glock Forum - GlockTalk banner

1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,425 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
I just fired five rounds through my Glock 29 (10mm). I'm very pleased with the results:
1631 fps
1628 fps
1607 fps
1617 fps
1621 fps

These are the solid copper projectiles that have a point on them that resembles a Phillips screw driver. These rounds offer an alternative to hollow point. Because they are copper not lead, they weigh less and of course go faster for a given charge. I normally carry and fire 180 gr ammo so this was little different for me.

Underwood specs this ammo at 1700 but we all know that that we get less when firing from a short barreled weapon like the Glock 29. In the intrest of full disclosure I use a KKM match barrel.

I had two concerns.
1) I was not sure how my steel gongs would react when hit with a powerful copper round.
2) What the the recoil would feel like from such a powerful round.
The gongs had no problem and reacted the same as when they are hit with lead bullets. No damage was done to the steel. The recoil was substantially less than I expected.

I saw on YOUTUBE how these rounds can penetrate bullet proof armor and glass. I also saw how they make 4 inch wide wounds as they pass through ballistic gel! I was apprehensive when I squeezed off the first round. In the resent past I had fired some 180 gr hollow point Buffalo Bore that caused failure to feed and gave me considerable felt recoil.

These five Underwood rounds fired and fed buttery smooth with little recoil. I really don't understand why they feel and feed so much better. I think it might have to do with the way the projectiles are shaped. This Underwood ammo is pointy when compared to the blunt end of Buffalo Bore ammo. I think this helps them feed better, with less friction and banging around within the gun? The foot pounds of energy is very close in both the Buffalo Bore and Underwood ammo I used. The bad news this Underwood ammo cost me about $2 per round! I'll be practicing with less expensive ammo but from now on this is the ammo that will be in my CCW. (See my avatar).

Some might worry about over penetration, but these rounds can be used to hunt/stop a charging bear or wild bore, and if young toughs, who would do me harm, will oblige me by standing behind each other it could save me $2.
 

·
KoolAidAntidote
Joined
·
5,902 Posts
Dave, Glock Talk founder Eric created the GATE section to be an "express lane" where one poster asked a question, and one designated responder gave an answer. This requires me or other moderators to delete additional comments by others.

Thus, I've had to delete a few from here. However, since you generated that many comments, that tells us your post is a topic of interest and you should probably re-post it in Caliber Corner and get a good discussion going.

All the designated responder can say is --

1. If you knew it was armor-piercing, you could have some legal problems.
2. If, as you indicate in your post, you knew it could go through and through an identified assailant and kill anyone behind him -- and if that ever actually happened -- I've met prosecutors and plaintiffs' lawyers who would consider that "wanton disregard for innocent human life."

Just sayin',
Mas
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,425 Posts
Discussion Starter #3 (Edited)
Dave, Glock Talk founder Eric created the GATE section to be an "express lane" where one poster asked a question, and one designated responder gave an answer. This requires me or other moderators to delete additional comments by others.

Thus, I've had to delete a few from here. However, since you generated that many comments, that tells us your post is a topic of interest and you should probably re-post it in Caliber Corner and get a good discussion going.

All the designated responder can say is --

1. If you knew it was armor-piercing, you could have some legal problems.
2. If, as you indicate in your post, you knew it could go through and through an identified assailant and kill anyone behind him -- and if that ever actually happened -- I've met prosecutors and plaintiffs' lawyers who would consider that "wanton disregard for innocent human life."

Just sayin',
Mas
I don't think I understand what you are saying to me. Are you saying people can not ask a question and have it answered or make a remark and have it responded to? I must be missing something. It's too many rules for me and not important enough for me to care. I'll stay away.

Edit-----
After rereading your response I think this must special section controlled and dedicated to your contributions. I did not know that when I made my posting. I'm new to Glock Talk and was looking for the proper forum to place it.
 

·
KoolAidAntidote
Joined
·
5,902 Posts
You got it right, Dave.

Eric, Glock Talk's founder, wanted folks to be able to ask a question of one designated responder, if they just wanted a quick answer and not a long dialogue. Hence, the GATE concept, an acronym for Go Ask The Experts. Responses had been moderator-controlled by the designated responder.

A recent change in GT format allowed anyone to respond to the GATE sections, the way it works with all the rest of GT. It created the need to delete some posts in GT. I don't like it any better than you do.

Thanks for understanding, and welcome to Glock Talk,
Mas
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,425 Posts
Discussion Starter #5 (Edited)
Thank you for getting back to me. I'm confused by some things I have read and viewed about this type of round.
As I understand it this round can can pass through some bullet proof vests and very thick bullet proof glass. I saw it on YouTube so it got to be true, right? LOL

The rounds are supposed to drastically slow down once they enter a living (fluid filled) body, due to viscous friction of the spinning high velocity round in a fluid, dumping the energy into the living tissue. I'm not sure of the danger/success of a through and through shot. I guess it depends on how fat the primary target is?

I plan to test a round on some of the many groundhog living tissue samples that roam my property. I'm very curious to see if makes as devastating wound channel as Underwood claims it does. Underwood claims that ballast gel does not provide an accurate representation of what these bullets will do in living flesh. They pass through ballast gel a distance thicker than normal human body. Supposedly they do slow more quickly in living (blood filled) flesh? I'll believe it when I see it. The rounds are legal to buy.
Edit----
BTW, I re-posted the original post to where you suggested.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top