Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

extreme shock ammo???

Spartacus
with the "shortage" of SD .380, i bought a box of extreme shock 380. 28 bucks for 20 rounds. the ad described it as the "ultimate" SD ammo, and i didn't ask for any details.
well, it's frangible! maybe i'm wrong, but i didn't think frangible rounds were good for anything and wouldn't have spent the money if i had known.
then i read the box again and it SOUNDS reasonable that these are effective for SD.
I normally use hornady or remington golden saber, but right now i'm carrying el dorado starfires.
what do you guys think about this frangible stuff?

EDIT; appreciate all the info and links. i guess i'm looking at two issues, penetration of a 380 jhp and penetration of a frangible 380, right? i like the new hornady SD rounds because they SAY they offer better penetration thru heavy clothing, with proper expansion, something the 380 is notoriously week at. but like most of us, you can never have enough ammo, hence these expensive frangibles. maybe i should just load every other round in the mag with jhp (?). with the 380 i figure i need the best possible performance (and placement), agreed?


EDIT:
quote:Interesting. I'd like to see an explanation of why most of the bullets in this test penetrated clothed gelatin MORE than bare gelatin! EG:

.380 ACP 90 grain Federal HydraShok JHP, 5/21/91:
Test Gun Walther PPKS Barrel Length 3.25" Velocity 971 fps
Bare Gelatin Penetration 6.70" Expansion 0.66"
Clothed Gelatin Penetration 12.00" Expansion 0.49"

It has to be because of a different testing modality for the clothed gelatin (EG like Golden Loki's above).


take this for what it's worth, but Hornady says the small 380 rounds in jhp get "clogged up" when passing thru clothing and do not expand properly. this is what causes the increased penetration (and less expansion) If i remember right, honady has pics of the ballistic tests om their website.
0

Comments

10 comments

Date Votes
  • glabray
    In my opinion, over the years the pendulum has swung way too far in the direction of "rapid expansion", "super blowup", etc. SD ammo. Sure, that stuff puts on a good show when shot into jugs of water, or a melon, but to be effective in the real world, a bullet first needs to penetrate to a vital area if it is to be a stopper. A bullet that blows up or falls apart on the first thing it strikes is a questionable choice for SD. Especially in a low power round like a 380 which isn't going to do a lot of penetrating no matter what the load.
    0
  • select-fire
    quote:Originally posted by glabray
    In my opinion, over the years the pendulum has swung way too far in the direction of "rapid expansion", "super blowup", etc. SD ammo. Sure, that stuff puts on a good show when shot into jugs of water, or a melon, but to be effective in the real world, a bullet first needs to penetrate to a vital area if it is to be a stopper. A bullet that blows up or falls apart on the first thing it strikes is a questionable choice for SD. Especially in a low power round like a 380 which isn't going to do a lot of penetrating no matter what the load.

    Really? Check out the link.

    http://www.goldenloki.com/ammo/gel/380acp/gel380acp.htm
    0
  • Herschel
    I checked out the link and still agree with glabray. That being said, I still carry a .380 PPK for self defense. The larger and heavier the handgun, the less likely one is to be carrying it when it is needed. Shot placement trumps large bore, heavy bullets and high velocity.
    0
  • quickmajik
    I carry it, mines called EPR, It will kill well enough. i also use magsafe, Which I like better. I have thier loads for my 380s and 9mms. I have also used DRT, but it is expensive and isnt as versitile as the Magsafe stuff in my opinion..
    0
  • beantownshootah
    quote:Originally posted by tplumeri
    what do you guys think about this frangible stuff?

    IMO, the company should change its name to "Extreme Hype" since their product is mostly about the marketing it uses to justify absolutely outrageous prices for ammo without proven advantage.

    Hype aside, can this ammo be effective? Of course it can, given the usual caveats of shot placement, the intrinsic limitation of the fairly weak .380 round.

    It wouldn't be my first choice, but in today's climate where you might consider yourself lucky to get your hands on ANY .380 ammo at all, I'd still carry it.

    Here is somewhat of a more objective review of the product:
    http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot23.htm

    In general, frangible-type ammo (like Glaser safety slugs) are best used in situations where overpenetration is a real issue (eg inside the hulls of aircraft, or in apartment buildings, etc). In a .380 (where overpenetration isn't likely) I'd avoid them, if possible.

    quote:Check out the link.

    http://www.goldenloki.com/ammo/gel/380acp/gel380acp.htm
    I checked it, and in my opinion, its does NOT reflect well on the .380 load at all. In fact, the .380 here does worse than I thought!.

    The link shows a variety of .380 loads that max out at about 180 ft-lbs of energy. . .that's comparable to .38 special wadcutter loads, only with significantly lighter bullets.

    The rounds that yield max penetration are all full metal jacket rounds, somewhat supporting the idea that ball ammo is probably best in this caliber.

    Lastly, and most important, these tests were NOT performed using industry standard ballistic gelatin, but rather the testers own "homebrew" of 10% gelatin, shot through three layers of denim. From "Golden-Loki"'s notes:

    quote:http://www.goldenloki.com/ammo/gel/tests.htm
    Test Protocol

    The gelatin is 100% pure from Kind & Knox. It is mixed to 10% and calibrated using a .177 BB at 590 fps to a penetration range of 7.5 - 9.5 cm. A minimum of 3 rounds (unless otherwise noted) are fired into the gel from a distance of 3 feet through two layers of loosely layered denim.

    Note that STANDARD ballistic gelatin is a 20% mix (not 10%) and is supposed to calibrated to yield only 3.5" of penetration with a 600fps steel BB. In short, the really weak Jello used by Golden Loki in his testing greatly overstates the penetration of the ammo in comparison to industry-standard testing. That doesn't invalidate Loki's testing, it just means you can't use the number you might "know" in comparison.

    If you try an apples-to-apples test of .380 compared to more usual service type rounds using standard calibrated ballistics gelatin, the .380 generally comes up WAY short, for example:

    http://hunting.about.com/od/guns/l/aast9mmv380a.htm

    Most of the .380 rounds here yield only 6 inches penetration, which is FAR less than the minimum of 12 inches penetration recommended by many testers.
    0
  • SP45
    Far to many instances of handgun rounds not penetrating deep enough to reach vital organs or open a wound channel and cause severe blood loss. This is especially true with large heavy people or heavy clothing. Don't depend on expansion without penetration.
    0
  • Bill DeShivs
    Can any of you supply verifiable real-life information on any ammunition underpenetrating?
    0
  • select-fire
    http://www.firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/380acp.htm

    Pick your ammo well.
    0
  • beantownshootah
    quote: http://www.firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/380acp.htm

    Pick your ammo well.

    Interesting. I'd like to see an explanation of why most of the bullets in this test penetrated clothed gelatin MORE than bare gelatin! EG:

    .380 ACP 90 grain Federal HydraShok JHP, 5/21/91:
    Test Gun Walther PPKS Barrel Length 3.25" Velocity 971 fps
    Bare Gelatin Penetration 6.70" Expansion 0.66"
    Clothed Gelatin Penetration 12.00" Expansion 0.49"

    It has to be because of a different testing modality for the clothed gelatin (EG like Golden Loki's above).


    quote:Originally posted by Bill DeShivs
    Can any of you supply verifiable real-life information on any ammunition underpenetrating?

    Verifiable meaning what. . .that I can point to a piece of published literature that you can look up?

    Edit: How about this?

    http://www.geekologie.com/2009/02/womans_weave_proves_tighter_th.php


    Of course you've heard of the famous Miami shootout where one of the perps was hit with a 9mm luger round that ended up stopping one inch short of his heart, but kept fighting for several minutes afterwards. Arguably, that's a case of "underpenetration". For obvious political reasons, the FBI decided to blame the ammo, instead of its agents (who were caught flat-footed by two highly competent and overarmed gunmen).

    I can't "verify" them, but I can also provide you with anecdotal examples.

    For example, I've seen with my own eyes a guy shot in the head with a 9mm luger and the round simply skimmed under the soft tissue in his head and ended up under the skin in the back of his neck! He walked out of the hospital a few hours later.

    I'd consider that an example of "underpenetration", though it was pretty clearly because the bullet hit his skull at an acute angle.

    I've seen more or less the same exact case where the bullet punched a clean entry into the skull, then fragmented on impact with the rear of the skull, creating intracranial shrapnel-type injury. Needless to say, the shootee was in the morgue when I saw the results.

    I've heard cases of people being shot with .25s and having the rounds embed themselves in the chest wall (rather than penetrating).

    I also know of a case where a person was shot through the heart with a single .25 ACP and essentially dropped dead on the spot.

    I can't relate an example of underpenetration with a .380 that I have seen with my own eyes, but I have little doubt it can happen. I've heard anecdotally about about cases where .380 rounds were slowed down by winter clothing leading to superficial wounds.

    I'm sure any trauma surgeon could give you a zillion examples of gunshot wounds that ended up causing superficial injuries, as well as counterexamples of single-shot injuries that caused massive damage because of lucky/unlucky placement.

    Just consider as a general guideline, that over 50% of individuals hit by handgun bullets live to tell the tale. Consequently, I think if you're going to rely on a handgun as as defensive weapon, more penetration potential is generally better.
    0
  • select-fire
    quote:Originally posted by beantownshootah
    quote: http://www.firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/380acp.htm

    Pick your ammo well.

    Interesting. I'd like to see an explanation of why most of the bullets in this test penetrated clothed gelatin MORE than bare gelatin! EG:

    .380 ACP 90 grain Federal HydraShok JHP, 5/21/91:
    Test Gun Walther PPKS Barrel Length 3.25" Velocity 971 fps
    Bare Gelatin Penetration 6.70" Expansion 0.66"
    Clothed Gelatin Penetration 12.00" Expansion 0.49"

    It has to be because of a different testing modality for the clothed gelatin (EG like Golden Loki's above).


    quote:Originally posted by Bill DeShivs
    Can any of you supply verifiable real-life information on any ammunition underpenetrating?

    Verifiable meaning what. . .that I can point to a piece of published literature that you can look up?

    Edit: How about this?

    http://www.geekologie.com/2009/02/womans_weave_proves_tighter_th.php


    Of course you've heard of the famous Miami shootout where one of the perps was hit with a 9mm luger round that ended up stopping one inch short of his heart, but kept fighting for several minutes afterwards. Arguably, that's a case of "underpenetration". For obvious political reasons, the FBI decided to blame the ammo, instead of its agents (who were caught flat-footed by two highly competent and overarmed gunmen).

    I can't "verify" them, but I can also provide you with anecdotal examples.

    For example, I've seen with my own eyes a guy shot in the head with a 9mm luger and the round simply skimmed under the soft tissue in his head and ended up under the skin in the back of his neck! He walked out of the hospital a few hours later.

    I'd consider that an example of "underpenetration", though it was pretty clearly because the bullet hit his skull at an acute angle.

    I've seen more or less the same exact case where the bullet punched a clean entry into the skull, then fragmented on impact with the rear of the skull, creating intracranial shrapnel-type injury. Needless to say, the shootee was in the morgue when I saw the results.

    I've heard cases of people being shot with .25s and having the rounds embed themselves in the chest wall (rather than penetrating).

    I also know of a case where a person was shot through the heart with a single .25 ACP and essentially dropped dead on the spot.

    I can't relate an example of underpenetration with a .380 that I have seen with my own eyes, but I have little doubt it can happen. I've heard anecdotally about about cases where .380 rounds were slowed down by winter clothing leading to superficial wounds.

    I'm sure any trauma surgeon could give you a zillion examples of gunshot wounds that ended up causing superficial injuries, as well as counterexamples of single-shot injuries that caused massive damage because of lucky/unlucky placement.

    Just consider as a general guideline, that over 50% of individuals hit by handgun bullets live to tell the tale. Consequently, I think if you're going to rely on a handgun as as defensive weapon, more penetration potential is generally better.



    The explanation is simple. Bare geletin will cause the bullet to expand. Whereas the clothing will plug up the hollow point and cause it to act as a full metal jacket.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity