I have not seen that before but thanks for posting. I will definitely study it further.
At first glance velocity seems to be the way to achieve rapid incapacitation with their data. I admit I skimmed the beginning and quickly went to the tables at the end.
2 Likes
With all due respect keeping saying I am lost in the numbers is a shallow argument in my opinion. You guys seem to be lost in the numbers as well by not considering something smaller than 9 mm which is all numbers. What’s wrong with the 25. It’s just two different numbers?
I went out and harvested a buck with a 9mm loaded with a self defense bullet. Lots of people shun self defense cartridges for hunting whitetail.
I’m using sectional density numbers for apples to apples comparison of different caliber projectiles. I thought that using published numbers would be an honest way to make the comparison.
The 30-30 Winchester commonly used a 150 grain bullet which is only three grains heavier than the 9mm bullet I harvested the buck with. No experienced hunter will say those two are equal. The skinnier 30 caliber bullet has a higher sectional density. This is my nerdy explanation of the difference to the best of my ability after work on a Friday night.
Excellent Reference, I’d forgotten about that test.
3 Likes
The 30-30 is about 2,500 FPS, is the difference. Rifles are rifles, pistols are pistols. 30-30 has several times more energy
4 Likes
Yes it has more energy.
But may I ask the reason nobody Seems to be interested in sectional density??
I think one reason for that is that bullet design has a significant impact on penetration/expansion and overall performance, such that sectional density becomes sort of an intermediary or at least, one of several factors all of which contribute greatly. Why worry about sectional density when you can jump right to the terminal ballistics?
Terminal ballistics are the results of a bullets impact to the best of my understanding.
There’s the construction of the bullet. FMJ, hollow-point or whatever.
There’s the weight of the given bullet.
There’s the diameter of the bullet.
There’s the velocity of the bullet.
There’s the bullet energy at impact which is velocity squared times bullet weight divided by the constant.
There’s the sectional density of a bullet which apparently is conveniently overlooked.
Sectional density to the best of my understanding is the relationship of the bullet weight to diameter. There are 185 grain bullets for 45 acp and 180 grain bullets for 30-06 and 300 magnum. If the heavier 185 grain 45 caliber bullet was launched at the same velocity as the 180 grain 30-06 bullet, would it be just as effective for harvesting elk? I don’t think so. Of course the bullet construction is different. But hear me out. If you cast bullets from lead and made them a common round nose profile in an attempt to make them as similar as possible, this is where sectional density is apparent.
Then all the modern tricks can be applied to any given bullet to enhance its performance for the intended purpose.
1 Like
I get ya
2 Likes
They made a solution to a problem that we never had. Sounds like another fad round that will vanish in a few years.
3 Likes
It’s the answer to a question very very few were asking.
Maybe it’ll take off, or maybe it’ll be like the .327 Fed magnum. Interesting, a few people buy it, but not huge numbers.
5 Likes
Deleted response.
Actually I am a bit torn with the new caliber the more I read about it. I think it might be an awesome caliber for my wife. She can shoot .22lr well in smaller pistols and 9 mm well in full size pistols. However .380 not as well I’m a Walther ppk. If recoil is softer with higher capacity than a .380, in small pistols, it may be an excellent choice for her for concealed carry. On the other hand it was tried with .327 magnum, it failed, however it was a revolver round.
It’s interesting. Just seems to be federal trying to increase capacity without much loss in performance in comparison to 9mm. I bet it won’t be able to compete with the prices of 9mm. I’m not going to go for it, but it seems like a viable option. The question for me is the extra 2 rounds going to be worth the diminished performance. A lot of people will argue for capacity of ballistic performance, but I still think 9mm is the most well rounded round in terms of capacity and ballistics.
I am going to reserve my opinion until Paul Harrell reviews it.
5 Likes
The meat target owns all!
3 Likes
IMO, 327 Mag might be more popular if they designed it to mimic 357 mag power out of a snub with less recoil and blast. From the reviews, it seems like the recoil isn’t significantly different, but the power is signficantly lower out of comparable snub nose revolvers (basically mimicing standard 9mm power levels from a 3.5" semi but with higher recoil). I could be wrong here.
At least they got “carry” in the name of the 30, but I haven’t seen a lot of marketing material comparing it out of SC’s or micro SC’s.
Both of these rounds should have better sectional density (SD) regarding penetration than their larger (and more powerful) rivals. The 380, for example is limited on SD because of the shorter cartridge.
Personally, (since I’m one of those rare Kahr fans), if they made a K9 version the same size and weight but with a double stacked 30SC and 14 rounds vs 7 (not going to happen) I’d grab one. I wouldn’t be interested in a +1 or +2 30SC variant. I might as well mention, if Kahr took a CW45/P45 frame and made a double stack 9mm version, I’d pick that up too.
Not quite. The sectional density is lower because of the shorter (lighter) bullet. The cartridge length has no effect.
For similar caliber and pressure offerings, the shorter the cartridge, the less room for gunpowder unless you shorten (lighten) the bullet… this usually means lower SD options. A longer cartridge often allows for longer (heavier) bullets… this usually means higher SD options.
2 Likes
I agree with that. And I’ve never seen a 147 grain bullet loaded in a 380 because of length limitations you brought up.
But a 95 grain bullet in a 380 ACP has the same sectional density if it’s loaded in a longer 9mm Luger cartridge. The bigger cartridge can just push it faster.
0.308” bullets of equal weight have higher sectional density than the 0.312” counterpart. Too bad they mis-named the new cartridge and chose the diameter with poorer SD.
I think we will find the rapid transfer of energy is the most important factor beyond precision / shot placement . Hollow point technology is not so much useful because of the larger wound channel as it is in to facilitating rapid transfer of energy from the bullet to the target resulting in hydrostatic shock / temporary wound cavity. That is where the most damage comes , and is likely analogous to “stopping power.” Again, it is secondary to shot placement.
That is not so say the bullet with the most energy and the most rapid energy transfer on a meat target is the best. There are many factors to consider (distance, barriers, capacity, etc)
Sectional density is probably not talked about because it is not well understood. To me seems most import for penetration, as you are talking about where the mass is centered right? More centered mass means less deformation through barriers in my mind .
Nice forum. Good discussion, sorry I’m late
2 Likes