December 9, 2018, 04:10 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 22, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,746
|
Quote:
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. |
|
January 1, 2019, 02:11 PM | #27 |
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 |
January 1, 2019, 02:30 PM | #28 |
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 |
January 1, 2019, 03:14 PM | #29 |
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? |
January 1, 2019, 03:22 PM | #30 |
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. |
Tags |
10mm , 45 super , backwoods , bears , glock |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|