10mm for self defense

[TunnelRat]

I saw that. Power isn’t the only factor. Again, the article details their reasonings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[agtman]

The FBI didn't switch because 9mm was better.

True.

The FBI switched to 9mm from the .40S&W because:

(a) it's way easier to get non-shooter agents qualified on a 9mm pistol than a .40 pistol (remember, 90%+ of FBI agents are some version of degreed professional, most without a military background or even other minimal firearms training - i.e., J.D.s/lawyers; C.P.A.s/accountants; Masters or PhDs in psychology; B.S. science-types serving as anaylsts in hair/fiber & crime-scene forensics, et al);

and (b), the FBI/FTU folks bought into what for lack of a better description I'll call the 'Wiley Clapp Theory of Improved Projectile Science', after an article he published in the very early 2000s in Guns & Ammo magazine.

Basically Wiley argued that improvements in modern bullet technology, in terms of advances in both HP design and in the materials from which projectile are constructed, have made the 9mm, ballistically, a waaay better 'man-stopper' today than what it was in past decades, especially in L.E. use, where it first garnered a poor reputation in the '70s and '80s.

Wiley further argued that while 'a rising tide does indeed lift all boats,' i.e., we can expect to see all the 'service cartridges' reap some 'stopping-power' benefits from using better bullets, the 9mm will see the most dramatic improvement in 'street lethality' over its rather poor historic performance.

So as to (b) above, the FTU staff basically took a look at Wiley's theory, checked the recent ballistics literature and studies, and said:

'We agree with the experts. The 9mm's good enough for our people. Plus, there's still reason (a), which means we'll have less remedial training and re-quals to do each year with all these non-shooter guys & gals they keep hiring who struggle to qualify with a .40'

It's clearly way inferior in terms of power.

Always has been, ... and despite the argument the '9mm's-running-better-bullets-today,' I'll still stick with my 10mm pistol. It'll be loaded hot with similar 'better bullets,' ... or even an excellent Old School projectile like Hornady's great penetrator, the XTP-HP.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by agtman

True.

The FBI switched to 9mm from the .40S&W because:

(a) it's way easier to get non-shooter agents qualified on a 9mm pistol than a .40 pistol (remember, 90%+ of FBI agents are some version of degreed professional, most without a military background or even other minimal firearms training - i.e., J.D.s/lawyers; C.P.A.s/accountants; Masters or PhDs in psychology; B.S. science-types serving as anaylsts in hair/fiber & crime-scene forensics, et al);

and (b), the FBI/FTU folks bought into what for lack of a better description I'll call the 'Wiley Clapp Theory of Improved Projectile Science', after an article he published in the very early 2000s in Guns & Ammo magazine.

Basically Wiley argued that improvements in modern bullet technology, in terms of advances in both HP design and in the materials from which projectile are constructed, have made the 9mm, ballistically, a waaay better 'man-stopper' today than what it was in past decades, especially in L.E. use, where it first garnered a poor reputation in the '70s and '80s.

Wiley further argued that while 'a rising tide does indeed lift all boats,' i.e., we can expect to see all the 'service cartridges' reap some 'stopping-power' benefits from using better bullets, the 9mm will see the most dramatic improvement in 'street lethality' over its rather poor historic performance.

So as to (b) above, the FTU staff basically took a look at Wiley's theory, checked the recent ballistics literature and studies, and said:

'We agree with the experts. The 9mm's good enough for our people. Plus, there's still reason (a), which means we'll have less remedial training and re-quals to do each year with all these non-shooter guys & gals they keep hiring who struggle to qualify with a .40'





Always has been, ... and despite the argument the '9mm's-running-better-bullets-today,' I'll still stick with my 10mm pistol. It'll be loaded hot with similar 'better bullets,' ... or even an excellent Old School projectile like Hornady's great penetrator, the XTP-HP.

Good info.

To the points made in (a), that also describes most people. Most people don’t have a military background or extensive experience with firearms. That’s not just an FBI thing, it’s a people thing.

I will add that before the “9mm is the choice of novices” argument comes in, we can point to any number of high proficiency law enforcement organizations and units in the special operations community that use 9mm. This is not me arguing that 9mm is the best. This is me pointing out that for something that many seem to argue is “way inferior” it’s good enough for a number of people with experience, including people with the decision authority and discretionary budget to make their own decisions, at least to an extent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wild cat mccane]

I don't care if someone is being a jerk.

I've asked for comparison mediums and had the same bullet shot into it from 9mm, 40, and 10mm that proves 10mm lives up to the hype.

Silence.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by wild cat mccane
It's even worse for "good" 10mm loads.

Underwood loads Speer "uni-cor." That is the round before version one of Gold Dot. Otherwise, they would call it Gold Dot. G2 is actually version 3 of Gold Dot.


https://www.underwoodammo.com/collec...18785724923961

Again, do you have any documentation of this? The only .400" JHP bullets that Speer lists on their website are Gold Dots.

https://www.speer-ammo.com/products/...caliber_s=.400

The only reference I can even find to "uni-cor" is this reference to the manufacturing process for Gold Dots

Originally posted by Speer
Using our exclusive Uni-Cor® method, we bond the jacket to the core one molecule at a time at the very beginning of the bullet construction process.

https://www.speer-ammo.com/performance/gold-dot

Also, the bullets in the Underwood link you provided look exactly like those loaded in Speer factory .40 S&W 180 gr Gold Dot ammo. I really think these "old uni-core bullets" you keep referencing are either another name for Gold Dots, or something long discontinued by Speer. Either way, I've seen nothing to convince me that Underwood isn't using Gold Dots. I think they simply call them something else for legal reasons.

Originally posted by wild cat mccane
Double Tap doesn't load Gold Dots anymore..."Bonded Defense." Isn't a Speer name...

Again, nobody that I know of advertises ammo loaded with "Gold Dot" bullets, they all use some non-Speer name. As I pointed out, I suspect this to be for legal reasons as "Gold Dot" is a trademarked name.

originally posted by wild cat mccane
Agreed. Buffalo Bore hollow points are junk. That company is pretty shady. No one should buy their crap and expect premium stuff. But I take issue with your Obama comment. They actually did it 2007. When their 380 gold dot became very popular they ran out of gold dots and started loading it with Seirra crap. I still have a box of that crap when they made the switch and didn't tell anyone and had Gold Dots in the picture of the rounds.

I was specifically referring to their 10mm 180 gr JHP loading. It was during the 2012-2013 Obama/Sandy Hook panic buy that Buffalo Bore's changeover to Montana Gold JHP's in this particular loading became widely known. To be fair, in response to the backlash, Buffalo Bore did update the picture on their website and added the following disclaimer:

Originally posted by Buffalo Bore
PLEASE NOTE: Actual projectile may sometimes differ from photograph

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.ph...duct_list&c=24

As far as calling Buffalo Bore's ammo "crap," saying "you can't expect premium ammo," or calling them "shady" well you're certainly entitled to your opinion. What you apparently perceive as an attempt to deceive customers could just as easily be the combination of component supply issues combined with an oversight of the marketing department. Buffalo Bore has since come clean about what bullets they're using and put the above disclaimer in bright red font very clearly on their website.

As far as being premium ammo, any Buffalo Bore product I've ever used has displayed excellent quality and they routinely meet or exceed their advertised velocities. Also, many of the bullets they use in their other loadings such as the Barnes TAC-XP and Rim Rock cast bullets are excellent. Honestly, I've had far more quality issues from a certain "mainstream" ammo maker including badly tarnished cases in new ammo, hollowpoint cavities clogged full of tumbling media, primers loaded backwards, case rims so malformed that they couldn't even be loaded into the chamber, severely overpressure and underpressure ammo in two different boxes of the same loading, and a high primer that causes a semi-automatic rifle to fire out of battery.

Originally posted by wild cat mccane
I don't care if someone is being a jerk.

I've asked for comparison mediums and had the same bullet shot into it from 9mm, 40, and 10mm that proves 10mm lives up to the hype.

Silence.

Look at the Lucky Gunner tests you've referenced

9mm Gold Dot
115 gr Standard Pressure
Penetration 15.4 in
Expansion .55 in

124 gr +P
Penetration 16.8 in
Expansion .52 in

124 gr +P Short Barrel
Penetration 18.2 in
Expansion .51 in

124 gr Standard Pressure
Penetration 18.1 in
Expansion .54 in

147 gr Standard Pressure
Penetration 16.1 in
Expansion .42 in

.40 S&W Gold Dot
155 gr
Penetration 16.3 in
Expansion .67 in

165 gr
Penetration 27.1 in
Expansion .40 in

180 gr
Penetration 14.5 in
Expansion .65 in

180 gr Short Barrel
Penetration 12.3 in
Expansion .64 in

10mm Gold Dot
200 gr
Penetration 19.7 in
Expansion .68 in

The 10mm Gold Dot either expanded significantly larger or penetrated significantly deeper (in some cases both) than any of the 9mm or .40 S&W Gold Dot loadings.

[wild cat mccane]

Speer "Uni-cor" is not Gold Dot.

Someone using the Google Wayback Machine can go check out 4 years ago when they listed it as its own bullet on the Speer website.


If it's a Gold Dot, it will be listed as a Gold Dot. Why wouldn't it be?

Uni-Cor Speer is not Speer Gold Dot and have lower performance and is less expensive. When buying the Underwood Uni-Cor bullet, you are buying a cheaper and poorer performing Speer bullet than the current Gold Dot. It's kind of a rip, if you ask me.

When Speer made the Gold Dot 10mm, low FPS. They might know something.

All you wanted to know about Speer Uni-Cor not being Gold Dot:
http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/showth...low-Point-quot


See. We are getting deeper and deeper into the myth of 10mm. It isn't panning out for it being a better hollow point. Simply nothing supports it is magically or significantly different than even 9mm.

If FPS were everything, we'd see the return of Federal 115gr +P+. Simply isn't needed with the changes from HydroShok to HST and Gold Dot.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by wild cat mccane
Speer "Uni-cor" is not Gold Dot.

Someone using the Google Wayback Machine can go check out 4 years ago when they listed it as its own bullet on the Speer website.


If it's a Gold Dot, it will be listed as a Gold Dot. Why wouldn't it be?

So how do you explain Speer referencing the "Uni-Cor method" in the manufacturing process of Gold Dots in their own literature? As far as why someone other than Speer might not list ammo as being loaded with Gold Dot bullets, as I've explained multiple times perhaps they want to avoid legal trouble for using Speer's trademarked name without permission.

This is done with other bullets too. For example, Underwood's .380 102 gr JHP loading is pretty obviously loaded with Remington Golden Saber bullets (it actually used to be advertised as such) but they list it as "Brass Jacketed JHP" instead.

Originally posted by wild cat mccane
When Speer made the Gold Dot 10mm, low FPS. They might know something.

Low FPS as compared to what? Speer advertises their .40 S&W 180 gr Gold Dot loading at 1025 fps, while the 10mm 200 gr loading is advertised at 1100. So 75 fps faster and a 20 gr heavier bullet.

Likewise, Federal lists the .40 S&W 180 gr HST at 1010 fps while the 10mm 200 gr HST is listed at 1130 fps, 120 fps faster and 20 g heavier.

The original Norma 10mm loading, which is considered quite powerful, was advertised as a 200 gr FMJ at 1200 fps, so the Gold Dot and HST are within 100 fps of that. If we look at a couple other 10mm loadings with modern bullets, Winchester Defender and Sig Sauer V-Crown are loaded to 1240 fps and 1250 fps respectively both with 180 gr bullets.

Originally posted by wild cat mccane
All you wanted to know about Speer Uni-Cor not being Gold Dot:
http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/showth...low-Point-quot

Sorry, an 11-year-old thread from another forum full of links that don't work anymore isn't really all that informative. How about something from Speer's own literature referencing Uni-Cor as anything other than a manufacturing process. Based on what I've seen thus far, I'm going with these "old uni-cor bullets" as being either something that has long since been discontinued, or a mistaken name for something else. I simply cannot swallow that Underwood and Double Tap are using some mysterious low-quality bullet that there are no references to in the manufacturer's literature when Gold Dots are in high demand and readily available.

Originally posted by wild cat mccane
See. We are getting deeper and deeper into the myth of 10mm. It isn't panning out for it being a better hollow point. Simply nothing supports it is magically or significantly different than even 9mm.

Again, look at the Lucky Gunner tests you referenced. For the sake of brevity I'll only mention the two most "modern" 10mm loadings. The 10mm Gold Dot penetrated 8% deeper and expanded 25% larger than the best 9mm Gold Dot. The 10mm Critical Duty penetrated 13% and 7% deeper and expanded 19% and 30% larger than the 9mm Critical Duty +P and standard pressure respectively. If that isn't significantly different, I don't know what is.

Originally posted by wild cat mccane
If FPS were everything, we'd see the return of Federal 115gr +P+. Simply isn't needed with the changes from HydroShok to HST and Gold Dot.

I'll let you in on a little secret, there are still people using the Federal 115 gr +P+ 9mm. Federal still makes it in their LE line and I doubt they'd continue to do so if nobody was buying it. It may be an old load but it's accurate, has a reputation for feeding reliably in persnickety guns, and when available is usually cheap enough to be stocked up on for an affordable price. They don't perform all that badly either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yclNrBqvgS4

[Kevin Rohrer]

It’s overkill for sd purposes.

Hardly.

Pistols and the calibers they shoot are sub-optimal for SD work. A pistol exists because it is easier to handle and conceal than a shotgun or rifle, not because it is more effective.

The only reason it is not more popular is due to the recoil, which is too much for most girls and girly-men. Same for the .45ACP and .40S&W.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Kevin Rohrer

It’s overkill for sd purposes.

Hardly.

Pistols and the calibers they shoot are sub-optimal for SD work. A pistol exists because it is easier to handle and conceal than a shotgun or rifle, not because it is more effective.

The only reason it is not more popular is due to the recoil, which is too much for most girls and girly-men. Same for the .45ACP and .40S&W.

So when MARSOC uses Glock 19s and not Glock 29s or Glock 20s they do so because they are “girly men”? Good to know.

This discussion can exist without insulting people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wild cat mccane]

Friend, you just made my point on Uni-Cor.

Look at post 10. It's a link to ATK. RECALL, I've already said Speer is owned by ATK which was owned by Northrup. ATK dropped all munition and Northrup moved Speer under Vista. When that happened, Speer changed it's website.

However, you can use that forum or Google Wayback Machine which snapshots the internet and you can look at pages as they were years and decades ago.

The forum I posted from 11 years ago asked that very question. Is Uni-Cor Gold Dot? Answer. Nope. It's the cheapest Speer hollow point. It Details exactly what Underwood Speer Uni-Cor bullets are.

There have been 3 news models of Gold Dot since Uni-Cor and Uni-Cor was mentioned as cheaper 11 years ago.

It is impossible that Underwood is using the brand Uni-Cor as a filler for Gold Dot. It's an actual product from Speer.

Ya made my point.

[wild cat mccane]

Shoot. I'll do it for you:

http://web.archive.org/web/200903061...etsCatalog.pdf

(I put that link into Google Wayback and automagically, that 2009 Speer Catalog appears from Google auto cataloging the website on March 6, 2009)

Speer Catalog, 2009
Page 8: Gold Dot.
Page 10: Uni Cor

Directly from Speer: "Uni-Cor Great Performance and Economy"

From Speer. The maker of both. Two totally different bullets. One marketed as cheap. One as premium.

Additionally, the external skiving (those cuts you see on the copper on the tip of the bullet) didn't make Gold Dot. So there are Uni-Cor bullets with and without external skiving that are not Gold Dot. Underwood defenders have previously said look at Underwood ammo, clearly Gold Dot. No. Uni-Cor also comes with skiving. It's not Gold Dot. Followup, what premium reloading company (Underwood) would pay more for a better model components (Gold Dot) and advertises it as the economy model (Uni-Cor) while selling a "premium" product? Either Underwood isn't smart while loading Gold Dots or they are loading Uni-Cor. It's Uni-Cor.

Federal HST introduced internal and external skiving which Gold Dot G2 uses (Speer Gold Dot and Federal HST are after all owned by one company) (another example is Gold Dot 223 and Federal Fusions 223 bullets looking exactly the same--they are).

Underwood loads the cheapest hollow point Speer makes. It is 2 versions older than current on the shelve Got Dot and 4 versions older than G2 (since Gold Dot G2 was pulled and reintroduced, there were 2 G2 versions).

What does Double Defense load? Previously they loaded Gold Dots. Not now. Beats me what "Bonded Defense" is. Had to guess? It's Speer Uni-Cor. Either way, it's not Gold Dot.

Honestly, not trying to be a jerk. I just know this information

[Webleymkv]

wild cat mccane,

If you look closely at the catalog in your link, you'll notice that the uni-cor bullets were not, at that time, offered in .400" diameter. Looking at Speer's current website, they now list a bullet that looks remarkably similar to what the 2009 catalog listed as "uni-cor" now listed simply as "Jacketed Handgun Bullet".

https://www.speer-ammo.com/products/...Hollow%20Point

The reason that I did not see them before is because they are not available (nor were they in 2009) in .400" diameter as would be loaded in 10mm or .40 S&W. Given the diameters and weights, these bullets seem to be intended primarily for use in revolvers as they are not available in .355" or .400" and are only available in .451" in 260 gr and 300 gr weights which are heavier that what is typical in .45 ACP (usually 230 gr or lighter).

Now that I know what they are, I actually have seen these bullets before as they're what come loaded in some of the Blazer ammunition in revolver calibers. That being said, they look very distinctively different than Gold Dots as they have very shallow hollowpoint cavities. The pictures I've seen on both Underwood and Double Tap's websites look nothing like Speer's "Jacketed Handgun Bullet" which was apparently formerly called "Uni-Cor". They do, however, look exactly like Gold Dots. Also, the Underwood .38 Special +P 125 gr "Bonded Jacketed Hollowpoints" that I'm currently carrying in my S&W 442 is loaded with bullets that look exactly like those loaded in Speer's own .38 +P 125 gr Gold Dot loading. The bullets in my Underwood .38 ammo also look nothing like those loaded in the Blazer .38 Spl +P 125 gr JHP.

Also, remember we're discussing 10mm here. I really don't see how it's possible for Underwood, Double Tap, or anyone else to load 10mm ammunition with Speer "Uni-Cor" or "Jacketed Handgun Bullets" when those particular bullets are not and have apparently never been available in the proper diameter for 10mm ammunition. Either Underwood and Buffalo Bore are using Gold Dot bullets, or they are using something not made by Speer that still looks exactly like Gold Dots. Regardless, they're certainly not using the "Uni-Cor" bullets you've been referencing in 10mm.

I'm not trying to be a jerk either, but you obviously don't know what you think you know.

[JohnKSa]

Just a quick word about the FBI caliber selection.

Years ago, the FBI developed a protocol for testing handgun ammunition. For years after they developed it, the 9mm wouldn't reliably pass it. Therefore, it was not eligible for selection as the FBI's issue caliber.

Awhile back, bullet technology developed to the point that 9mm ammunition that would reliably pass the FBI's testing protocol became available. When that happened, 9mm became eligible for selection as the FBI's issue caliber. In a not too surprising development, not long after it became eligible for selection, it was selected because it offers a number of advantages (unrelated to terminal performance) over the previous issue caliber.

Keep in mind that the FBI protocol provides a hard threshold on the bottom end of performance.

The FBI's selection of the 9mm is not necessarily an indication that they believe it offers superior terminal performance to other calibers on the market--their assessment of terminal performance is more an endorsement of suitability than superiority.

Before anyone asks, yes, I've seen some sources that suggest that the FBI believes premium 9mm now outperforms premium ammo in other service pistol calibers in gel testing. Maybe they really do, but I kind of doubt it because I have yet to see convincing evidence of that in any gel testing results I've seen. Adequate performance? Yes. Fairly similar? Yeah, in some cases. Superior? Nah. It's pretty hard to get more penetration and expansion when you're starting off with a lot less metal in the projectile and roughly the same velocity. Ammo advancements? Ok, but why would they not apply across the board, instead of just to the 9mm?

I'm not dissing the 9mm. I realized that 9mm was sufficient for self-defense and carried one long before the FBI finally caught up and came to the same conclusion.

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by Swifty Morgan

The FBI didn't switch because 9mm was better. It's clearly way inferior in terms of power.

The FBI never said that 9mm was better than .40 or .45 or any other caliber, they merely made the change because they said that modern ammo made it preform at their levels of acceptability, namely the 12 to 18 inch penetration test and reliable hollow point expansion, not too mention that their agents shot better with it and FMJ practice ammo costs less.

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by Webleymkv

Sorry, an 11-year-old thread from another forum full of links that don't work anymore isn't really all that informative. How about something from Speer's own literature referencing Uni-Cor as anything other than a manufacturing process. Based on what I've seen thus far, I'm going with these "old uni-cor bullets" as being either something that has long since been discontinued, or a mistaken name for something else. I simply cannot swallow that Underwood and Double Tap are using some mysterious low-quality bullet that there are no references to in the manufacturer's literature when Gold Dots are in high demand and readily available.

If I'm correct in this assumption, the old Speer Uni-Cor bullets are still being made, but they're sold as simply "Jacketed HP" bullets and are designated as "Plinker" rounds, whereas Gold Dots are labeled as Gold Dots and are designated for self defense.





I can't tell you which bullet Underwood or Doubletap or Buffalo Bore are using, but just because they don't call them Gold Dots doesn't mean it's safe to assume that they're using their "Plinker/Jacketed HP" bullets. It could very well be that they don't or legally can't use the term Gold Dot in their advertising.

In this instance it would be best to contact them and ask directly and not rely on conjecture or decade old internet posts to conclude what components ammo companies are using.

Again, look at the Lucky Gunner tests you referenced. For the sake of brevity I'll only mention the two most "modern" 10mm loadings. The 10mm Gold Dot penetrated 8% deeper and expanded 25% larger than the best 9mm Gold Dot. The 10mm Critical Duty penetrated 13% and 7% deeper and expanded 19% and 30% larger than the 9mm Critical Duty +P and standard pressure respectively. If that isn't significantly different, I don't know what is.

The Wild Feline doesn't care about nor is making his argument based on what 9mm does in brands other than HST. His theory is the less mass and velocity that equals the highest expansion and penetration is automatically the better bullet.

For example, if there was a .32 ACP load that shot a 50 grain hollow point and it expanded to .7" and penetrated 18 inches and did it at under 1000 fps, he would say that is better than 9mm HST.

If it was a 200 grain bullet doing exactly that, but going 1200 fps, he would say that it's a talking point ammo companies are trying to make to steal your money because they're charging you for all that extra "oomphf" and it's doing nothing more than what 9mm HST does or the mythical .32 ACP load I just described.

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

From Speer. The maker of both. Two totally different bullets. One marketed as cheap. One as premium.

Additionally, the external skiving (those cuts you see on the copper on the tip of the bullet) didn't make Gold Dot. So there are Uni-Cor bullets with and without external skiving that are not Gold Dot. Underwood defenders have previously said look at Underwood ammo, clearly Gold Dot. No. Uni-Cor also comes with skiving. It's not Gold Dot. Followup, what premium reloading company (Underwood) would pay more for a better model components (Gold Dot) and advertises it as the economy model (Uni-Cor) while selling a "premium" product? Either Underwood isn't smart while loading Gold Dots or they are loading Uni-Cor. It's Uni-Cor.

From Speer's 2020 catalog, this is the image they have for their "Jacketed Hollow Point" bullet that has "Uni-Cor technology"



Also from Speer's 2020 catalog, but this is their image for Gold Dot bullets:



This is a screenshot of the picture for Underwood's 165gr 10mm ammo:

Underwood loads the cheapest hollow point Speer makes.

Clearly, they don't.

Honestly, not trying to be a jerk. I just know this information

Clearly, you don't.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by TruthTellers
If I'm correct in this assumption, the old Speer Uni-Cor bullets are still being made, but they're sold as simply "Jacketed HP" bullets and are designated as "Plinker" rounds, whereas Gold Dots are labeled as Gold Dots and are designated for self defense.

That's my understanding as well. It took me a while to piece it together because wild cat took quite a while to provide documentation and most of my reloading is done with cast bullets so I'm not familiar with products that Speer called by a different name over a decade ago.

Originally posted by TruthTellers
I can't tell you which bullet Underwood or Doubletap or Buffalo Bore are using, but just because they don't call them Gold Dots doesn't mean it's safe to assume that they're using their "Plinker/Jacketed HP" bullets. It could very well be that they don't or legally can't use the term Gold Dot in their advertising.

In this instance it would be best to contact them and ask directly and not rely on conjecture or decade old internet posts to conclude what components ammo companies are using.

This is correct. I think it is safe to assume, however, that nobody is loading the "Plinker/Jacketed Hollow Point/Uni-Cor" bullets in 10mm because Speer doesn't make them in .400" nor, as far as I can tell, have they ever made them in that diameter.

Originally posted by TruthTellers
From Speer's 2020 catalog, this is the image they have for their "Jacketed Hollow Point" bullet that has "Uni-Cor technology"...

Also from Speer's 2020 catalog, but this is their image for Gold Dot bullets:...

This is a screenshot of the picture for Underwood's 165gr 10mm ammo:

Thank you for posting those images. As we can all see now, the "Plinker/Jacketed Hollow Point/Uni-Cor" bullet looks very distinctively different from a Gold Dot. The ammo pictured on Underwood's website looks exactly like the very distinctive looking Gold Dot as does the Underwood ammo that I have. I hope we can put this whole notion that Underwood uses "old uni-cor bullets" to bed, as this myth is clearly busted.

[wild cat mccane]

Good info.

I just emailed Underwood and got mixed info on it.

[agtman]

To the points made in (a), that also describes most people. Most people don’t have a military background or extensive experience with firearms. That’s not just an FBI thing, it’s a people thing.

Yes, but 'most people' aren't employed in active law enforcement in which qualifying with and carrying a handgun is a mandatory job requirement.

A higher probability exists that an officer or agent will actually have to use his weapon when engaged in an enforcement action - significantly higher on a day-to-day basis, in fact, than legally armed CCW folks who work non-L.E. jobs.

Hence, the more important factor in the Bureau's decision to switch from .40 to 9mm is (a) above.

(B) can be viewed as a policy or 'public relations' justification, making the decision appear supported by the current weight of 'expert' ballistic opinion.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by agtman

Yes, but 'most people' aren't employed in active law enforcement in which qualifying with and carrying a handgun is a mandatory job requirement.

A higher probability exists that an officer or agent will actually have to use his weapon when engaged in an enforcement action - significantly higher on a day-to-day basis, in fact, than legally armed CCW folks who work non-L.E. jobs.

Hence, the more important factor in the Bureau's decision to switch from .40 to 9mm is (a) above.

(B) can be viewed as a policy or 'public relations' justification, making the decision appear supported by the current weight of 'expert' ballistic opinion.

I don’t think I said anything that counters the idea of law enforcement having to use their firearms. I’ve also met and shot with members of law enforcement that weren’t particularly good shooters and members of law enforcement that were excellent shooters. My point above was simply that 9mm can be easier for people to use and that applies to many if not most people, not just people in the FBI because of the varied tasks of its members. I do understand that the members of law enforcement organizations have to qualify with specific scores in order to pass. There are certain states that also have requirements of CCW permit holders, no doubt not as stringent, but the idea of needing to shoot to a bare minimum isn’t foreign to civilian shooters. Even beyond the need to qualify, most people don’t enjoy doing poorly. They will often switch firearms, calibers, etc when they find themselves doing poorly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wild cat mccane]

To be fair, no one is really arguing the FBI switch to 9mm is because 9mm is better.

It was pointed out to someone saying they carry 10mm because of the FBI that this information is for 30 years ago.

Kinda no real reason to fight out why the FBI went to 9mm.

[TunnelRat]

^that. When I brought up the switch it was simply to point out that the same organization that lead to the development, we can argue how much, of the 10mm has now gone back to the 9mm. At no point did I say, “That is because the 9mm is superior ballistically”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Swifty Morgan]

I read Jim Cirillo's book last week. Has me reevaluating a lot of things. He was in a bunch of gunfights in New York City, he killed a lot of men, and the surprising thing I took away from his book is that you really, really want a powerful pistol.

He shot a man in the head, which should have ended the fight, but the criminal kept going. The bullet had glanced off his skull. In another fight, he and another cop shot a man several times in the face and assumed he was dead. Shortly thereafter, the corpse asked them to help him up. He wasn't even seriously wounded. The bullets traveled around his ox-like skull and ended up in the skin on the back of his head. Amazing.

Cirillo spent years trying to come up with a really good penetrator.

I think 10mm 180-grain Gold Dots moving at over 1200 fps are probably very good choices. I'm also starting to think Lehigh Xtreme Defense rounds are something to consider very strongly.

[Forte S+W]

Out of curiosity, what firearm chambered in what cartridge failed to penetrate the skull in both of the aforementioned scenarios?

I ask because I seriously doubt that it was a modern duty cartridge. I presume it was either a .32 or one of those extremely politically correct .38 Special squib loads that certain police were being issued at one point in time.

[Webleymkv]

I haven't had a chance to read Cirillo's book, but based on the timeframe in which he was in the NYPD, I'd say a Standard Pressure .38 Special 158 gr LRN fired from a 4" service revolver would be a likely candidate as these were standard issue for NYPD for decades. IIRC the old 200 gr LRN .38 Special "Super Police" load was developed at least in part as an attempt to address such failings.