With a little luck in about two months we’ll be doing the formal chop tests of .45 Super, .45 SMC, and some additional .45 ACP loads. We’ve now got all the ammo on hand, and it’ll be a fun (but tiring) weekend. I thought I would share what actual ammo we will be testing, with the manufacturer’s velocity data:
45acp Low Recoil Std P 185gr FMJ-FN 850fps
45acp Std P 230gr FMJ-RN 850fps
45acp +P 185gr JHP 1150fps
45acp +P 230gr JHP 950fps
45 Super 185gr JHP 1300fps
45 Super 200gr JHP 1200fps
45 Super 230gr FMJ 1100fps
45 Super 230gr JHP 1100fps
45 Super 255gr Hard Cast 1075fps
45acp +P 160gr Barnes TAC-XP 1200fps from 5” 1075fps from 3.5”
450 SMC 185gr JHP 1310fps from 5” 1911
450 SMC 185gr Bonded Defense JHP 1310fps from 5” 1911
450 SMC 230gr Bonded Defense JHP 1135fps from 5” 1911
Critical Defense 45acp Std P 185gr FTX Muzzle 1000fps
Critical Duty 45acp +P 220gr Flexlock Muzzle 941fps
45 Super 170gr CF 1250fps
45 Super 185gr XTP JHP 1300fps
45 Super 230gr GD JHP 1100fps
In addition to the first data for both the .45 Super and .45 SMC cartridges, this will also almost double the number of .45 ACP loads we’ve tested. We’re looking forward to it!
As I said last time, before I get into all the nuts & bolts detail of the handloads (which I will do below), let me summarize what I learned for those who aren’t into the geeky stuff. Please note all of this is VERY TENTATIVE, based on this second set of experiments!
- Going to a tighter crimp pretty much solved the problems I had encountered the first time with bullet separation in the Boberg. This time I only had one partial separation, in a 230gr bullet.
- Likewise, going to shorter O.A.L. (Over All Length) for most of the loads eliminated most problems I had experienced with feeding.
- These factors, combined with some different power levels, have put me on the right track to developing a ‘true’ .45 Super load (something which is actually more than just a .45 ACP +P).
To re-iterate: Coming up with a hand load is more art than science, since there are many different factors to consider: type and amount of propellent (gunpowder), weight and profile of the bullet chosen, the overall length (O.A.L.) of the final cartridge because the depth of the bullet seating changes the case capacity and hence the pressure profile, what type and degree of crimping, and the type of primer used.
Here are the numbers, in the same format as last time for easy comparison. Once again, let me note that these are experimental loads, and you choose to use the information here entirely at your own risk, without endorsement from me:
Titegroup powder Bullet O.A.L.* Glock 21 (5.0″) Boberg XR45 (3.75″)
6.7gr 185gr XTP 1.175″ 1050fps 970fps
7.3gr 200gr RNFP 1.250″ 1000fps 925fps
6.3gr 230gr RNFP 1.250″ 950fps 900fps
HP-38 powder Bullet O.A.L.* Glock 21 (5.0″) Boberg XR45 (3.75″)
7.2gr 185gr XTP 1.175″ 900fps 840fps
7.2gr 200gr RNFP 1.250″ 900fps 830fps
6.8gr 230gr RNFP 1.250″ 860fps 790fps
Longshot powder Bullet O.A.L.* Glock 21 (5.0″) Boberg XR45 (3.75″)
10.0gr 185gr XTP 1.200″ 1100fps 1025fps
9.5gr 200gr RNFP 1.250″ 1010fps 910fps
9.0gr 230gr RNFP 1.250″ 1020fps 960fps
Curiously, while generally going to a shorter O.A.L. (meaning that the bullet was seated deeper) resulted in the expected increase in velocity, there are a couple of instances where that didn’t happen. I’m not sure how to explain it — could have been an data reporting error on my part (or from the chrono) either this time or last time. Or it could have been not having a large enough sample size. Or it might have some variation in the handloads made for either batch of tests. I just don’t know.
But I’m not going to worry about it overmuch. Now that I seem to have resolved the separation and feeding issues, and seem to be getting good numbers, I am going to build off of these results. That means slight increases in propellant levels so that I surpass published performance numbers for .45 ACP +P. Because of my previous tests, BBTI formal testing, and published numbers for .460 Rowland, I have an upper bound for how the Glock will handle the loads safely and there’s still a lot of leeway before I start pushing those bounds.
One step at a time.
Oh, and I continue to be happy with how the XR45-S is performing. I am still waiting on some “Generation 2″ magazine springs, which I think will eliminate the last of the problems I was having with feeding.
Well, we’re having another delightful warm spell here in mid-Missouri, so yesterday afternoon I took advantage of it and went out to the range to give the little guy a try.
As I noted before, I have actually shot this particular gun a couple of times previously, and just loved it. But it had been a while, and I couldn’t remember specifically what ammo types we had used. So I packed up what variety of 9mm loads I had on hand, along with my chrono (which I needed to also do some more testing of .45 Super loads — more on that later), and to see whether anything had changed.
Because of the way they operate, the Boberg pistols have a tendency to be very particular about what ammo they like. Ammo which doesn’t have a sufficient crimp is prone to separate (the case being jerked away from the bullet). It’s an issue which is well known, and there’s a list of compatible ammo for both the XR9 and the XR45. But while those crowd-sourced lists are useful, the final word is always what specific ammo your particular gun will handle. For me, that’s particularly something I want to determine for any self-defense pistol before I will carry it.
Full details to follow, but for those who just want the short version: oh baby! The XR9 ate everything I fed it without a problem. Including my standard 9mm reloads. No mis-feeds. No bullet separation. No problems. And it was a real joy to shoot, which isn’t something I normally say about a pocket pistol handling full-power SD loads.
OK, for those want the details …
Below are informal* chrono numbers for seven different ammo types I had. These are all for the Boberg. But I also ran a few through my Steyr S9 for comparison, which usually just had an advantage of about 10 fps over the Boberg (the barrel on the Steyr is about a quarter of an inch longer). If that much.
- Buffalo Bore 124gr JHP +P+ 1,230 fps
- Federal 124gr Hydra Shok JHP 1,025 fps
- Reloads. (4.4gr HP-38, 124gr Rainier FMJ bullet) 1,020 fps
- Remington 124gr FMJ 1,040 fps
- Speer GDHP 115gr JHP 1,210 fps
- Speer GDHP 124gr JHP 1,100 fps
- Speer GDHP 124gr JHP +P ‘Short barrel’ 1,150 fps
As you can see, all pretty respectable numbers. And in keeping with both the claims of the manufacturer as well as what we had tested previously (where there’s overlap). I wouldn’t have any qualms carrying any of the Speer ammo, but my preferred SD ammo is currently the Buffalo Bore. Happily, the Boberg shot all of them without a glitch. And after getting my chrono numbers, I ran several magazines worth through the gun doing some quick shooting at cans, was getting excellent accuracy from it at about 15 yards.
I brought it home, stripped and cleaned it, and now consider it reliable enough to carry. Of course, I will continue to practice with it regularly, and keep a close on on how it performs with my reloads, and occasionally run a mag of carry ammo through it, but I don’t expect any problems. It’s a nice little gun.
*By ‘informal’, I mean just using one chrono and without the lighting rig we now use for formal testing. And I would just run a magazine of ammo through, mentally noting the numbers in a running tally, then writing them down for that particular ammo, so they are necessarily just ‘ballpark’ figures. But since they jibe well with our previous numbers and what the mfg claims (which I only discovered when I sat down to write this), I think they’re pretty good.
Over the course of the Christmas holiday weekend we had some unseasonably warm and pleasant weather, so I decided to go out to the range and test the first in a series of experimental hand loads I had developed for my new Boberg XR45-S. Since the XR45 is rated for the .45 Super cartridge, these loads were intended to start at about the power level of a .45 ACP+P load to give me a baseline, which I can then build up from there. I wanted to do this because there are actually very limited commercial choices in the .45 Super cartridge, and even less in the way of good testing or reloading data (which is one of the reasons why we’re going to be doing the BBTI chop tests on that cartridge in 2015 as I’ve previously mentioned).
Now, before I get into all the nuts & bolts detail of the handloads (which I will do below), let me summarize what I learned for those who aren’t into the geeky stuff. Please note all of this is VERY TENTATIVE, based on this first set of experiments!
- The ballistic performance ‘sweet spot’ seems to come in a 200gr bullet loading, in terms of how much loss comes from a shorter barrel (the difference between the 3.75″ XR45 barrel and the 5.0″ Glock 21 barrel I used for comparison.
- I consistently had problems with not having a tight enough crimp on the rounds at these higher power levels over a lower power standard .45 ACP practice loads. This makes sense because the slide would be moving faster with the higher power loads, leading to more problems with bullet separation.
- I had problems with a 185gr jacketed hollow point bullet that I didn’t have with either the 200gr or 230gr round-nose bullets. And the problem seemed to be worse with the Hornady XTP JHP bullet than in factory loaded JHPs I have tried. This *might* be due to the increased ‘throat’ size of the XTP in comparison to other brands. Maybe.
Now, about my hand loads. These were all figured based on a variety of sources and my own experience and experiments in creating loads for the .460 Rowland in 2013, since, as noted, there is very little good information readily available for the .45 Super. And while I wanted to try to start at about .45 ACP+P power levels, I wanted to be fairly conservative in doing so, just to be safe. Coming up with a hand load is more art than science, since there are many different factors to consider: type and amount of propellent (gunpowder), weight and profile of the bullet chosen, the overall length (O.A.L.) of the final cartridge because the depth of the bullet seating changes the case capacity and hence the pressure profile, what type and degree of crimping, and the type of primer used. I decided to just use all one type of primer (a fairly standard one) as well as the same amount of light crimp, to help reduce the number of different factors. I also decided to pretty much standardize the O.A.L. though you will see some variation in the Longshot loads. Like I said, it’s more art than science, and you have to start someplace.
OK, here’s a table showing the different loads and how they performed. These are experimental loads, and you choose to use the information here entirely at your own risk, without endorsement from me:
Titegroup powder Bullet O.A.L.* Glock 21 (5.0″) Boberg XR45 (3.75″)
6.5gr 185gr XTP 1.175″ 990fps 900fps
7.3gr 200gr RNFP 1.275″ 1100fps 1070fps
6.3gr 230gr RNFP 1.265″ 1020fps 970fps
HP-38 powder Bullet O.A.L.* Glock 21 (5.0″) Boberg XR45 (3.75″)
6.8gr 185gr XTP 1.175″ 600fps 560fps
8.0gr 200gr RNFP 1.275″ 920fps 850fps
6.8gr 230gr RNFP 1.265″ 840fps 770fps
Longshot powder Bullet O.A.L.* Glock 21 (5.0″) Boberg XR45 (3.75″)
10.0gr 185gr XTP 1.250″ 1020fps 960fps
9.0gr 200gr RNFP 1.250″ 1070fps 1010fps
8.0gr 230gr RNFP 1.275″ 980fps 880fps
*O.A.L. = Over All Length
OK, that’s obviously ‘warts & all’, following the same openness that we have done in the formal BBTI tests. I’ve only been back into reloading for about five years, and still have a hell of a lot to learn — as you can see from how badly underpowered the HP-38 loads turned out.
But it’s a decent start. I’m going to spend some more time thinking about the next step, see what additional research and comments suggest (feel free to offer your opinions!). The .45 Super loads available from Buffalo Bore are about 10-20% more powerful than these base loads, so I still have a ways to go in finding the right mix. Given the problems I was having with bullet separation (where the mechanical action of the Boberg causes the case to jerk away from the heavy bullet), the first step is probably to increase my crimp, and see what that does to the velocity (since a strong crimp will cause a greater pressure build-up before the bullet is released). I may also see what seating the bullets deeper does (meaning that the O.A.L. will be less, and again there will be a great pressure spike).
Wish me luck.
I thought I would share a question I got in email today, and my generalized answer, since it is something which comes up surprisingly often.
I love this data! Would it be possible to fund the testing of additional cartridges? I’m looking for more .XYZ load tests.
Our baseline costs for testing a particular cartridge (out to 18″ barrel length) runs a couple hundred dollars for the barrel blank, then perhaps another hundred to get the smithing work done on it to fit the T/C platform. Then add in the actual cost of ammo, with a minimum of probably 100 rounds (3 shots at each inch of barrel, additional rounds for each ‘real world gun’, and then another box or two for repeats when something goes buggy with the data). So realistically, to actually fund a test sequence is a minimum of close to $500 for just one ammo load, and another $100+ for each additional ammo. Add in equipment and site hosting costs, and that’s how we’ve managed to spend something on the order of $50k so far for the data on the site. Which doesn’t include any labor costs, of course, since we only do this because we were curious about the data, not as any kind of testing business.
Which is to say that we’re always happy to accept donations and feedback on what sorts of things people would like to see, but as of yet no one has been willing to step up and finance an entire test sequence for something we’re curious enough to want to sink the time into. (Each test sequence takes 100 man-hours of labor or more … from our vacation/weekend/fun time.)
We don’t *currently* have any plans to retest the .XYZ anytime soon. Actually, we don’t have plans to do any specific tests at all in the near term. But we are looking at revisiting most or all of the cartridges tested to date at some point in the future, just to see how ammo quality/selection may have changed over a 5 or 10 year period.
A friend dropped me a note, after looking over my previous experiments with putting .460 Rowland load power into .45 ACP cases, and asked a fairly simple question: Do you think that the case walls are actually thicker in the .460 Rowland?
Now, I have read several articles over the years which mentioned that the .460 Rowland cases were “stronger” with others saying that the cases were “thicker”. In fact, in the blog post cited above, I myself said:
Even shooting them in a gun designed to handle .460 Rowland power was risky, since the .45 ACP cases do not have the same strength as the .460 Rowland cases.
But is that actually true?
Good question. My Lyman 49th Edition Reloading Handbook doesn’t give case wall thickness for the .45ACP, and doesn’t list .460 Rowland at all. A quick check online also didn’t turn up any case wall thickness specs for either cartridge. As noted above, there are some gun writers out there who claim that the .460 Rowland case has thicker walls “for strength” but this claim isn’t made on the 460Rowland.com site that I could find.
So, being the data-curious guy that I am, I decided to just take some measurements and see what I found.
The only .460 cases I have are all Starline brass (I ordered 500 from them, and supplemented with other brass from factory Buffalo Bore ammunition – again, all of it marked as Starline), and I went through and checked a bunch with my simple calipers. Now, those calipers aren’t the pincer type, just the standard parallel-jaws type, so I only trust the measurements to about halfway down the case. And they all fell into a range of wall thickness from 0.0012″ to 0.0014″.
Doing the same measurement with ten different ‘marked’ sets of .45 ACP brass I also have readily to hand, the results were almost identical, with the vast majority of cases being 0.0012″ or a thousandth of an inch on either side of that. It didn’t matter whether the cases were nickle-plated or marked “+P”. The ‘marked’ brass was as follows:
- Cor Bon +P
- Federal Brass
- Federal Nickle
- Speer Brass
- Speer Nickle
And when you stop to think about it, there would be no reason or way for the case walls to be significantly thicker in the .460 Rowland cartridge, and still allow you to use standard .45 ACP reloading components and dies. If the case walls were substantially thicker, then you’d have to have slightly smaller bullets, if nothing else, and would probably need a different resizing die and/or neck expanding die.
Also, when I was conducting those experiments last summer, I didn’t note any differences in how the .45 ACP cases looked or functioned (when being reloaded) after being shot with .460 Rowland power loads.
My conclusion? That the .460 Rowland cases are no thicker walled than .45 ACP cases. They may still be “stronger”, if there is some metallurgical difference, but I doubt it. The real difference is in whether or not the chamber of the gun in which the ammo is being used is strong enough to handle the much-greater pressure of the .460 Rowland loads. Because remember, the maximum pressure for standard .45 ACP is just 21,000 PSI, and 23,000 PSI for .45 ACP +P — while the .460 Rowland cartridge reaches pressures of 40,000 PSI.
Of course, there are additional factors to consider (like recoil and timing) with the .460 Rowland cartridge, so you can’t just make the chamber of the gun stronger and then start putting those kinds of loads into .45 ACP cases. And you really wouldn’t want to accidentally put such power into a ‘normal’ .45 ACP gun — that could lead to catastrophic failure of the gun, and result in serious injury or death. So it still makes ALL KINDS OF SENSE to only load the longer .460 Rowland cases with that much power.
Some weeks back I put up a post about my preliminary experiences with a .460 Rowland conversion for my Glock 21 Gen 4. In it I mentioned how much I like the resultant gun, but also how I was having some problems with magazine wear when shooting full-force .460 loads.
Well, after thinking a lot more about it, as well as discussing it with people online and with the other BBTI members when they were here for the recent tests (one of whom has been a Glock armorer for 15+ years) a couple different strategies emerged for me to test. Briefly, those were:
- See whether putting in a heavier mag spring would help
- See whether the problem was due to the case length of the .460 Rowland cartridges (they’re 1/16″ longer than .45 ACP).
- See whether the problem was due to the *power* of the cartridges rather than the length of the cases.
To test the first, it was a simple matter to get a more powerful mag spring and test it in one of the magazines. I picked up a Wolff magazine spring from Midway and did so.
To test whether it was the simple case length of the .460 Rowland cases, I made up some .460 Rowland rounds using .45 ACP reloading standards.
To test whether it was the *power* of the .460 loads but not the case length was another matter. Here’s where we get to the Don’t Try This At Home part of today’s blog post: I made up a number of .45 ACP rounds which were loaded to .460 Rowland specs.
Let me repeat that again: Don’t Try This At Home. These are wildcat rounds, and potentially dangerous. Shooting them in a gun not rated for .460 Rowland stresses could very well result in catastrophic failure of your gun, of the “KABOOM!” variety. Even shooting them in a gun designed to handle .460 Rowland power was risky, since the .45 ACP cases do not have the same strength as the .460 Rowland cases. I made up just 10 rounds of each of these loadings, and was careful to make sure I shot them all, so that they didn’t accidentally wind up in a .45 not strong enough to take the punishment.
Here are each of the loadings I made up, just for reference, along with their approximate chrono results:
- 185gr XTP bullet, .45 ACP case, .460 Rowland power 1480fps
- 200gr RNFP bullet, .45 ACP case, .460 Rowland power 1440fps
- 230gr RNFP bullet, .45 ACP case, .460 Rowland power 1350fps
- 250gr LFN bullet, .45 ACP case, .460 Rowland power 1250fps
- 230gr RNFP bullet, .45 ACP case, .45 ACP power 920fps
- 230gr RNFP bullet, .460 Rowland case, .45 ACP power 925fps
- 185gr XTP bullet, .460 Rowland case, .460 Rowland power 1490fps
- 200gr RNFP bullet, .460 Rowland case, .460 Rowland power 1420fps
- 230gr RNFP bullet, .460 Rowland case, .460 Rowland power 1355fps
- 250gr LFN bullet, .460 Rowland case, .460 Rowland power 1265fps
No, I’m not going to give the specific powder amounts for any of those. I used Hodgdon Longshot powder, and you can look up the specs if you want to know more.
In addition, I had these factory loads on hand for comparison, along with their approximate chrono results:
11. 185gr DPX .45 ACP +P 1110fps
12. 230gr GDHP .45 ACP 850fps
13. 230gr JHP .45 ACP +P1040fps
14. 230gr JHP .460 Rowland 1380fps
15. 255gr LFN .460 Rowland1260fps
OK, a couple of comments before I go further: those are “approximate” chrono readings because I wasn’t being anywhere near as careful as we are when we do formal BBTI testing. To wit: I was just using one chrono; I wasn’t worried about getting the exact same number of readings (so long as I got three or four, I wasn’t too worried about it); and I didn’t do anything to control for consistent lighting or suchlike. But they should all be in the right ballpark.
So, looking over all those, you will see what I see: that there was a remarkable consistency in power levels, whether you’re looking at my reloads or factory loads, and between those rounds which used either .45 ACP cases or .460 Rowland cases. That tells me that following the published data for .460 Rowland reloads, and making some intelligent decisions on how to adapt those to the .45 ACP cases for purposes of this experiment, was by and large successful. Meaning that I can use those loads to fairly evaluate what makes a difference on the basic problem I was investigating: what is causing the magazine damage and how to resolve it.
So, what conclusions did I draw from all this?
First, the more powerful magazine spring seemed to help with consistent loading. I will be swapping out all the Glock 21 mag springs I have. This makes intuitive sense, since the slide is moving faster when shooting the more powerful rounds.
That doing a little customizing on the magazines also seems to help a great deal. Here’s a pic showing an unaltered magazine and one I have taken a Dremel tool to:
Note that these are just the magazine ‘boxes’ — the guts (spring, follower, etc) have all been removed for clarity.
With the altered magazine and stronger spring, any problems I had with Failure To Feed was minimized.
And most important, it is the *power* of the round, not the case length, which seems to cause damage to the unaltered magazines. Shooting the .460 Rowland power loads in the .45 ACP cases demonstrated this. Conversely, shooting the .45 ACP power loads in the .460 Rowland cases didn’t cause any magazine damage at all.
Two additional notes I want to add: the first is that I had pretty consistent problems with the heavy Lead Flat Nose rounds in all configurations. They kept getting jammed up in transitioning from the magazine into the chamber. I’ll probably continue to experiment with this in the future, but I’m not too worried about it, since many guns run into some ammo specific problems.
The second is that once again I was really impressed at just how well this reconfigured Glock 21 did with .45 ACP loads. Seriously, with the .460 Rowland conversion in place, there was very minimal recoil (more than a .22, but not much) and it was VERY easy to control and shoot the gun well. I suspect that going forward the vast majority of the shooting I will do with this will be using standard .45 ACP reloads, saving the much more powerful .460 Rowland rounds for occasional practice. In this sense, I am thinking of the .45/.460 relationship the way I think about .38/.357 — it seems to be a perfectly appropriate analogy.
Now that I have all this sorted, I can go ahead and write up a formal review. But I thought I would share a little of the process of how I got to this point.
We’ve long known that many pistol calibers/cartridges are optimized for fairly short barrels — you see real benefits in increasing barrel length out to 6″ or 8″ or so, with diminishing returns beyond that. (The exception to this is the ‘magnum’ rounds: .44mag, .357mag, etc.) It’s not that you don’t see any benefit in a longer barrel, but the gain tends to flatten out. Take a look at the muzzle energy graph for the 9mm Luger (9×19) and this is quickly apparent:
Take a look at the left side of that graph. There’s some indication that the bullets are actually slowing down in the last couple of inches of an 18″ barrel. Whether or not this is just a glitch in our earlier test data, or an indication that friction is starting to win out over the remaining energy from the expanding gas of a fired cartridge is something I’ve always wondered about. Clearly, at some point a bullet will start to slow down, even stop; anyone who has ever fired a squib load and had to hammer the bullet out of a barrel knows that this can indeed happen. But at what point would this effect start to be clear?
Good question. And not one we really wanted to spend the money on to find out. See, the barrel blanks we’ve used all along came in an 18″ length standard for pistol calibers/cartridges. Longer barrels were available from different sources, but there was a big jump up in price for those, and it just didn’t make much sense to get into that.
When we started to set up to do the so-called “Glock Tests” we had to find a different source for our barrel blanks, since our other supplier couldn’t provide a polygonal barrel (the kind of barrel Glock uses, though they are not unique in this). We sourced the barrels from Lothar Walther. And as it turned out, their barrel blanks are longer than 18″. Specifically, we received a 26″ barrel with traditional land-and-groove rifling and a 24″ barrel with polygonal rifling. Here they are:
Well, we didn’t want to spend the time and money doing full chop tests from 26/24 inches down to 18″. But we did decide to just go ahead and get some benchmark data at the full length, just for shits and grins. And here is the data for those lengths, along with data from 18″, 17″, and 16″ lengths for comparison:
PNW Arms STD P 115gr SCHP
Trad: 1074 fps 1161 fps 1163 fps 1171 fps
Poly: 1064 fps 1131 fps 1131 fps 1135 fps
Federal STD P 115gr Hi-Shok
Trad: 1305 fps 1330 fps 1333 fps 1330 fps
Poly: 1323 fps 1331 fps 1336 fps 1135 fps
CorBon +P 115gr DPX
Trad: 1117 fps 1232 fps 1249 fps 1236 fps
Poly: 1057 fps 1186 fps 1195 fps 1208 fps
Black Hills +P 115gr JHP
Trad: 1494 fps 1508 fps 1512 fps 1498 fps
Poly: 1496 fps 1521 fps 1515 fps 1518 fps
Federal STD P 147gr JHP
Trad: 1036 fps 1061 fps 1084 fps 1085 fps
Poly: 1046 fps 1088 fps 1098 fps 1088 fps
So, there ya go: in each and every case, there is a noticeable decrease in velocity in going from an 18″ barrel to either the 24″ or 26″ barrel. And keep in mind that the protocols for this test were 10 shots of each ammo at each barrel length over two chrono units, rather than just 3 shots as we had done for previous chop tests.
Not too surprising, but nice to see actual data.
We hope to have the full data sets, with charts & graphs, up on the website soonish (maybe next week?). Watch here and on our FaceBook page for a posting when it is available.
- .25 ACP
- .30 carbine
- .32 ACP
- .32 H&R
- .327 Federal Magnum
- .357 Magnum
- .357 SIG
- .38 Special
- .380 ACP
- .40 S&W
- .41 Magnum
- .44 Magnum
- .44 Special
- .45 ACP
- .45 Colt
- .45 Super
- .450 SMC
- .460 Rowland
- 6.5 Swedish
- 9mm Luger (9×19)
- 9mm Mak
- 9mm Ultra
- Boberg Arms
- General Procedures
- Shotgun ballistics