The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: The Semi-automatic Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 9, 2018, 04:10 PM   #26
ThomasT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,746
Quote:
Being killed by a 4-legged predator ranks in probability right up there with being struck by lightning (and I have been struck by lighting several times, but never attacked by a bear). But anyway, I get your gist.
I would really like to here more about being struck by lightning several times. Please explain.

My bud just bought a Glock 10mm to wear while trout fishing in Colorado. Even though he about half grew up there and his dad built a 3 story A-Frame house right on the Taylor river just down from Almont and he has fished there for many years and never seen a bear. Now he needs a bear gun. I don't get it. He has a really nice 44 mag Redhawk with express sights on it.

I have shot the Glock. Its a nice gun but not the wrist wrenching moster I was expecting. And maybe its a step up from a 357 but I would feel just as well armed with my 4" GP-100 and some 180gr bullets. And its a chunky gun but with a good heavy belt I forget its on me.

And those TKO tables were design to measure big game FMJ/solid bullets used on African game. Not handgun rounds.
ThomasT is offline  
Old January 1, 2019, 02:11 PM   #27
UltralightBob
Member
 
Join Date: November 26, 2018
Posts: 18
Thank you all for your insightful comments. A couple things I would like to clarify:

The TKO and KPS scoring systems are merely a means of quantifying the "stopping power" of a particular bullet so that it can be compared with other options. I am all about the math... and yes, I agree, I am WAY over thinking it, but hey, that is part of the FUN. At the end of the day, (as it has been said) the actual likelihood of needing to use the weapon in an animal attack is low, and any of the mentioned options would likely be effective.

My appeal here is merely academic. I am trying to find the ultimate compromise of functionality, lightweight, reliability, and stopping power. I am into the whole "ultralight backpacking" and ultralight hunting scene, and spend a lot of dough trying to shave ounces off of my gear. This is NOT a hobby for everyone, and most would argue I would be far better off losing a pound off of my waistline than to try to shave an ounce off of my pack weight. They are 100% correct, except that I choose to do both... and I enjoy the challenge of trying to find the ultimate compromises in gear choices. And that is the key... every thing is a compromise! I could achieve "super ultralight" weights by simply leaving a lot of gear at home... but I find that the utility of some gear outweighs the actual "weight" penalty I get for taking it. For example, these past several years, I have been hauling the 6 ounces of "Garmin InReach" a satellite communication device that lets me text two ways, even when I don't have a cell signal. Many outdoors folks would be more than comfortable entering the backcountry without such a device in their pocket... and honestly I would too... were it not for ONE major influence: I have a wife and kids back home, and it makes HER feel better that I have the device with me. In fact, she "lets" me go (lets be honest here... happy wife, happy life is my motto) on excursions now into some really remote country, that she really had a problem with me going to before I had the InReach. So if I want to shave 6 ounces off of my gear weight, I cant just leave the InReach at home... that is not an option (for me). HOWEVER, for Christmas... I just got myself the new(ish) Garmin InReach MINI, which only weighs 3oz!!! So, I get all the benefit of having the ability to communicate with my wife when I go into the backwoods, but I also get to shave 3oz off of my gear weight! Win Win (even though it cost $300).

So, I only use that example to illustrate what I am going for here. I get it that my approach may seem odd, or even ridiculous, but I am looking for the ultimate compromise of weight vs utility. As I mentioned in my first post, if you are interested in engaging in this debate, I am looking for pistol options that (when fully loaded, with at least 10-12 rounds to spare) are under 32-34 ounces. So, this precludes many offered options (which albeit may be excellent backwoods carry options... like shotguns, large frame revolvers, etc).

Thank you again for your input
UltralightBob is offline  
Old January 1, 2019, 02:30 PM   #28
UltralightBob
Member
 
Join Date: November 26, 2018
Posts: 18
So, in case anyone is interested, I have created a spreadsheet that compiles what I believe to be the pertinent data for comparing "apples to apples" when it comes to the "stopping power" of various pistols and cartridge options. Unfortunately, I could not get the data of the multiple columns to copy and paste over... if someone knows a better way for me to share this, I would be happy to oblige. In the meantime, here is a list. It starts with the smallest calibers/grain weighted bullet options, and ends up at the largest.

To decipher my data below, each different cartridge choice will have 6 total lines of data with it. For example, the first one in line is the 22 Magnum Cartridge, the second line is the 40 grain bullet weight, the third line is the 1100 feet per second velocity at the muzzle I would expect out of my Kel Tec PMR30 barrel, the 4th line is the calculated foot pounds of Energy at the muzzle, the 5th line is the calculated numerical designation on the TKO scoring system, and the 6th line is the calculated numerical designation on the KPS scoring system.
Then the following line after that is the data from my FN5.7x28mm... and so on and so on.


22 mag
40
1100
107.5
1.38
0.48
5.7x28
40
1533
208.79
1.93
0.94
5.7x28
40
1699
256.45
2.14
1.15
P3AT 380 Auto
102
787
140.32
4.07
1.61
P3AT 380 Auto
80
1020
184.86
4.14
1.66
P3AT BB hard cast
100
1061
250.03
5.38
2.81
340PD 38 special
110
1080
284.97
6.02
3.52
340PD 38 Special
158
800
224.59
6.45
3.98
340PD 38 special BB
125
1050
306.09
6.66
4.29
340PD 357
125
1088
328.64
6.94
4.61
Kahr CM9
124
1116
343.01
7.02
4.77
Kahr CM9
127
1117
351.94
7.19
5.01
LC9 BB hard cast
147
1021
340.35
7.61
5.61
P938 BB hard cast
147
1024
342.35
7.63
5.65
340PD 357 Mag
145
1055
358.45
7.8
5.83
340PD 38 special hard cast
158
989
343.25
7.92
6.08
9mm +p outdoorsman
147
1100
395.06
8.2
6.52
g43 with 5 inch barrel BB
147
1100
395.06
8.2
6.52
G26 3.5 barrel doubletap (estimated)
147
1105
398.66
8.24
6.58
G19 4inch Doubletap 9mm FMJ
147
1120
409.55
8.35
6.75
G17 4.5 inch Doubletap 9mm FMJ
147
1135
420.6
8.46
6.94
LCRx 3inch 38 special BB
158
1076
406.29
8.62
7.2
45 ACP +p
120
1420
537.42
8.64
7.24
SP101 38 special
158
1112
433.93
8.91
7.69
G19 960R
147
1200
470.15
8.95
7.75
charter bulldog 44spc
200
900
359.81
11.03
8.07
357 sig
180
1000
399.79
9.13
8.07
357 sig
147
1255
514.23
9.36
8.48
357 sig, 4 inch
125
1480
608.12
9.38
8.53
45 ACP Kahr PM45 BB
200
931
385.02
12
8.64
40S&W BB heavy
180
1038
430.75
10.68
8.7
45 ACP Kahr PM45 BB
185
1015
423.31
12.1
8.79
40S&W BB outdoorsman
200
969
417.09
11.07
9.36
g27 40S&W doubletap FMJ
200
990
435.37
11.31
9.77
G27 40S&W doubletap hard cast
200
1009
452.24
11.53
10.15
40SW 6 inch barrel
155
1320
599.84
11.69
10.43
45 ACP
185
1117
512.67
13.31
10.64
40S&W Underwood HC
200
1050
489.74
12
10.99
DT 9x25 Dillon hardcast 6inch barrel
180
1200
575.69
10.95
11.63
DT 9x25 Dillon 6 inch barrel
147
1495
729.72
11.15
12.04
40S&W doubletap FMJ 4.5 inch barrel
200
1100
537.49
12.57
12.06
40SW doubletap HC 4.5 barrel
200
1106
543.37
12.64
12.19
G29 10mm
180
1230
604.84
12.65
12.22
45ACP +p doubletap 5 inch barrel
255
875
433.62
14.38
12.41
40S&W doubletap HC 6 inch estimate
200
1150
587.46
13.14
13.18
G29 10mm outdoorsman
220
1050
538.71
13.2
13.3
jframe 3 inch 357 BB
180
1300
675.64
11.93
13.65
45 ACP +p
255
925
484.6
15.2
13.86
45 Super
200
1200
639.66
15.46
14.35
44 special
255
950
511.14
14.85
14.62
10mm heavy
180
1350
728.61
13.89
14.72
g29 doubletap HC
230
1075
590.34
14.13
15.23
g29 10mm doubletap 200gr hardcast
200
1240
683.01
14.17
15.33
45 Super g30s (stock lenght)
240
1040
576.55
16.08
15.53
G20 10mm outdoorsman
220
1140
635.02
14.33
15.67
357 Mag outdoorsman (5 inch barrel)
180
1398
781.34
12.83
15.78
45 Super
230
1100
618.11
16.3
15.95
g20 doubletap HC
230
1120
640.8
14.72
16.54
45 Super hand loads
185
1400
805.35
16.69
16.72
g20 doubletap HC
200
1300
750.71
14.86
16.85
45 super doubletap 5inch barrel
255
1030
600.86
16.92
17.19
10mm outdoorsman
220
1200
703.62
15.09
17.37
45 Super
255
1075
654.51
17.66
18.73
460 Rowland
185
1500
924.51
17.88
19.19
45 Super hand loads
215
1300
807.01
18.01
19.47
41 Mag
170
1650
1027.95
16.43
19.61
45 super
250
1150
734.33
18.52
20.6
40 Super
200
1450
933.95
16.57
20.96
40 Super Underwood Hardcast
220
1350
890.53
16.97
21.98
460 Rowland
230
1350
931
20.01
24.03
44 Mag low recoil
255
1264
904.88
19.75
25.89
460 Rowland
255
1300
957.16
21.36
27.39
41 mag
230
1450
1074.04
19.53
27.72
41 Mag
265
1350
1072.68
20.95
31.89
44 Mag
305
1325
1189.29
24.77
40.7
UltralightBob is offline  
Old January 1, 2019, 03:14 PM   #29
UltralightBob
Member
 
Join Date: November 26, 2018
Posts: 18
In comparing the most effective options side by side, I find that the KPS system is the most comprehensive.

Here is how it works:

Multiply the Muzzle Energy by the Cross Sectional Area and the Sectional Density of the particular bullet.

Muzzle Energy calculation requires the use of the Bullet Weight and the Velocity of the bullet,
Cross Sectional Area requires the dimensions of the bullet
Sectional Density considers the penetration capability of a particular weight and diameter of the bullet.

So, by using the KPS system, you are taking into account (empirically) the most important features of a bullet's capability to do its job effectively.

The only thing that the KPS score cannot consider would be bullet construction and the difference between one style of bullet (hard cast vs HP for example) in the terminal performance of a particular bullet choice.


Using this system, I have learned some interesting things:

Based on advertised velocities (because I don't own one) a pistol like the Charter Arms Bulldog in a 44 Special, pushing a 200 Grain Bullet at only 900fps is going to have less "Umph" than a Glock 27 shooting 200 grain 40S&W hard cast ammo from DoubleTap at 1009 feet per second... even though the 44 Special will likely have more recoil, and fewer round capacity. Even the 357 Sig out of a Glock 32 will have a slight edge with a 125 gr bullet at 1480 fps (an 8.53 KPS score vs the 8.07 score from the Bulldog).

Here is something else VERY interesting IMO:
Most reported velocities for the G29 (10mm) out of the relatively short barrel that I found showed 180gr bullets at between 1200 and 1240 fps. That gives a KPS of around 12.
However, a Glock 27 (40S&W) with an aftermarket KKM 4.5 inch barrel, shooting 200gr DoubleTap ammo is clocking 1106 fps, for a KPS score of 12.19. In this case, the Glock 29 weighs nearly 7 ounces more than the glock 27 when loaded and with comparable options.
Adding in a 6 inch barrel to the G27, and you get 1150-1175 fps for the same 200gr bullet, and a 13.18-13.75 KPS score. By comparison, the Buffalo Bore 220gr Hardcast out of the short G29 10mm barrel is only doing 1050fps, and getting about the same 13.3 score on the KPS scale. Even at the upper limits of the G29's 3.5 inch barrel with DoubleTap's 200gr HC at 1240fps, the KPS score is only 15.33, which is only a marginal increase in firepower over the G27 at 13.75 KPS, considering the weight penalty.

On the other hand, putting a 5 or 6 inch 10mm barrel in a G30S (with the lightweight G36 slide) the weight penalty over the G27 is only about 2-3 ounces, but the DoubleTap ammo is pushing a 230gr Hard Cast bullet at more than 1120fps (4.5 inch G20 barrel length) which gives a 16.54 KPS, or the BB 220 HC at 1200fps gives a KPS of 17.37. That is where we start seeing the 10MM get close to 41 mag capabilities (which put the 41 Mag at about a 19 on the KPS scale).

It is also interesting to see where venerable cartridges like the 357 Mag come out in all of this. Out of a 5 or 6 inch barrel, it can get up to the 15-16 KPS range, but out of the short stubby barrel lengths, it is clear down about 5-6KPS... which is LESS than Buffalo Bore 9mm out of a Glock 26.

In fact, just the difference between the Ruger LCRX 38 Special with the 3 inch barrel vs the S&W 340PD 357 Mag with 1.8 inch barrel puts gives the 38 Special far more velocity (grain for grain) than the 357 mag, and a 7.2 on the KPS. So, by my research, for the 38 special to beat (ballistically) the 9mm, it needs to be fired out of a 3 inch or longer barrel.

If recoil wasnt an issue, this would put pistols like the S&W 337Ti 3 inch 38 Special Kit Gun (only 12 ounces with a 3 inch barrel) at the top of the list for utility and weight compromise. It would be lighter than any compact 9mm, and have more energy and velocity than its 9mm brothers. Likewise, the S&W 386 Mountain Lite 357 mag with 3.25 inch barrel and 7round Cylinder would also be an excellent option, at only 18.5 ounces, it would weigh an ounce less than the G27 (with the same number of bullets, but have the capability of getting the 357mag bullet to velocities in the 13-15KPS range. However I would guess recoil would be ridiculous with full power loads out of either of these options.

Thoughts?
UltralightBob is offline  
Old January 1, 2019, 03:22 PM   #30
UltralightBob
Member
 
Join Date: November 26, 2018
Posts: 18
The question was posed above: what is wrong with my 460 Rowland Conversion? Nothing inherently, I find the recoil to be very manageable out of my FNX 45 Tac and the comp on the muzzle. It is actually quite accurate as well. With the 15 round mag, I have a lot of rounds on Tap. While I need to get it over a chrono to be sure, the advertised velocities tell me I should be getting 1300fps for a 255gr bullet! that is a 27 on the KPS scale!!! (Same as a 230gr 41 mag doing 1450fps) and MORE than the Low Recoil 44Mag stuff that Buffalo Bore puts out for shooting out of the S&W 329PD (255gr at 1264fps).

HOWEVER

It weighs a TON!!! Over 48 ounces loaded.

Is it a sweet pistol? yes. Would I consider it for a dedicated Alaska side arm? possibly. Would I carry it around 20 miles back in the Frank Church Wilderness of Idaho? No. I would prefer something MUCH lighter weight.
UltralightBob is offline  
Reply

Tags
10mm , 45 super , backwoods , bears , glock

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.04859 seconds with 11 queries