I have not done any ballistic gel tests in awhile. However with the inability to get my usual Speer Golden Saber bullets in .45 ACP I ordered some new 10% ballistic gel and loaded up some 200 gr XTPs so I could run comparison tests between:

- Federal 230 gr HST +P;
- Speer 230 gr Golden Saber; and
- Hand loaded 200 gr XTP;
shooting all three loads in my 4” Kimber CDP II.



All of the loads and shots fired displayed varying degrees of bounce back in the ballistic gel, so penetration was measured from the end of the farthest permanent cavity in the gel.



——

The Federal HST +P load is IMHO pretty much the biggest, baddest .45 ACP load available and I keep a small stock on hand for benchmark testing purposes. We’ll look at its performance first.

Federal 230 gr HST +P

The HST bullet are on the right side in the pictures above and below. They produce the nice spidery shaped petals that are popular, and they give a large diameter relative to the over all surface area.

Expansion for the four shots fired were:
.856”;
.847”;
.852”; and
.852”
averaging .852”.

Velocity for the four shots were:
876FPS;
857 FPS;
850 FPS; and
851 FPS;
averaging 859 FPS.

Penetration measured to the closest 1/4” was:
14”;
15”;
15”; and
14.25”
averaging 14.56”.

Weight retention was:
230.2 gr / 100%;
230.2 gr / 100%;
230.3 gr / 100%; and
229.8 gr / 99.8%.


Next up is the Speer 230 grain Golden Saber. It’s been my go to bullet for over a decade in .45 ACP mainly because it offers excellent performance in a commander sized 1911 and is available in both a factory load and as a hand loading component. (Normally, but not lately.).

In terms of expansion traits it’s the middle ground between the spidery shaped bullets like the HST and the closer to simple mushrooming bullets like the XTP.



Expansion for the four shots fired were:
.696”;
.709”;
.726”; and
.722”
averaging .713”.

Velocity for the four shots were:
780 FPS ;
798 FPS;
854 FPS; and
835 FPS;
averaging 824 FPS.

Penetration measured to the closest 1/4” was:
14.5”;
14”;
13.75”; and
14”
averaging 14.06”.

Weight retention was:
230.1 / 100%;
230.1 / 100%;
230.3 / 100%;
229.3 gr / 99.5%



Finally the 200 gr XTP. I’ve never shot or tested the Hornady 200 gr XTP before. The 90 gr XTP is my go to bullet in the .380 ACP as it is the only bullet that will both reliably expand at .380 ACP velocities and penetrate 12” in ballistic gel. That’s the benefit of a moderately expanding bullet in a marginal cartridge like the .380 ACP.

I also use the 115 gr XTP in 9mm Luger as it gives reasonable and reliable expansion to around .475” to .500” and gives 15-16” of penetration in 10% ballistic gel from a 4” barrel.

The XTP has not been a go to bullet for me in .45 ACP as the .45 ACP isn’t any where near marginal. But as noted above I bought it because it was available and also because every XTP bullet I have ever worked a load up for has been exceptionally accurate. (My 1215 FPS 4” 9mm 115 gr XTP handgun load also produces 1600 FPS and 2 MOA accuracy out to 200 yards in my 9mm AR-15 carbine.)

Not having a factory velocity to duplicate I just opted for a Hornady 11th edition max load of 8.2 grains of Power Pistol. Hornady claims 1000 FPS in a 5” Springfield 1911. My 4” results seem to be more or less consistent with those numbers.

Expansion for the four shots fired were:
.664”;
.725;
.658”; and
.641”
averaging .672”.

Velocity for the four shots were:
948 FPS;
951 FPS;
943 FPS; and
963 FPS;
averaging 951 FPS.

Penetration measured to the closest 1/4” was:
15”;
14.5”;
15.75” and
14.5”
averaging 14.93”.

Weight retention was:
200 gr / 100%;
196.7 gr / 98.4% (the low weight for this bullet was mostly my fault as I broke off a grain or so of lead digging the round out of the gel);
200.1 gr / 100%; and
199.6 gr / 99.7%.


Below are all three loads with two 115 gr XTP bullet shown for comparison purposes.




So… the best load to pick is clearly the Fedsral HST and I’m wasting my time with the XTP right.

Well…no, that’s not the case at all.

One of the local gun shops does have 3 boxes of HST on the shelf at $99 per box. So there are 150 rounds *available*, but at $2 per round the price is so high that it tends to discourage most folks from actually expending the ammo on anything close to a regular basis, let alone put a couple hundred rounds through the gun to ensure it is 100% reliable.

If the Speer 230 gr Golden Sabers were available, I’d stock up on them and take advantage of the ability to duplicate a factory load with hand loads for practice and on going reliability testing. But they are not.

The XTPs had the smallest expanded diameter of the three rounds tested, but also had an average penetration 1” better than the Golden Sabers and .5” better than the HST. Plus while the average diameter of .672” was less than the GS at .713 and the HST at .852”, 15” of penetration by a .672” bullet is nothing to sneeze at.

In the big picture, the very few 9mm loads that can match the expanded diameter won’t come close to the penetration - and unlike those few 9mm rounds that will expand that much, that .672” diameter is an honest nearly .35 sq inch frontal area, not just some spider shaped petals poking out from a .355” core.

More importantly they are available and are comparatively cheap to load and shoot. People get way to hung up one boutique ammo that makes pretty spidery looking bullets in gel, but is too expansive for them to actually shoot on a regular basis. The fact is that that potentially better terminal performance is wasted every time you miss. You are better off shooting more with less expansive carry ammo you can actually afford to practice with.

Even with a hit, if you are not hitting center of mass with a higher probability of a cardiac of CNS hit, that extra expanded diameter won’t be significantly better at producing rapid incapacitation. If you are hitting center of mass, that extra diameter still won’t make much difference.

——

****Bonus points if you spotted the unfired XTP and HST rounds being reversed in the pictures.

Nice job, very informative.

Do I get any bonus points for observing that Speer makes Gold Dots, and that Golden Sabers are made by Remington?

__________________
What, me worry?

Nice job with the gel tests. Good summary and photos too. This makes me feel good about my choice of self defense ammo. Years ago, I loaded up on a dozen or so boxes each for my 9mm and 45 ACP pistols. I still carry Federal HST.

__________________
What could possibly go wrong?

In .45 I miss the old "Flying Ashtray" 200 gr Speer for bowling pin shooting in the Blazer version. (If I have to leave the brass on the ground, I'll leave aluminum.) I wonder how the bullets of 40 years ago compare to modern rounds in Ballistic Gel?
Geoff
Who is a curious fellow.

Yes you do. I gotta stop writing after my normal bedtime.

Thank you for the info.

__________________
Hue 68 noli me tangere

Good question. If I come across any I’ll test them. As it is the “oldest” design I’ve tested is the XTP. It was designed for only moderate expansion but good penetration back in the day when hollow points tended to either expand a lot very quickly but only penetrated 8-10 inches, or penetrated well but failed to expand. They do a good job in both bare gel and in the heavy clothing test.

Remington’s green and white box hollow point ammo is still around. They also sell the HTP round which I uses the same classic old school jacketed hollow point bullet.

The Federal Hi-Shok load is also still made as is the Hydra-Shok (the Hi-Shok with a center post in the hollow point cavity. Both are old school hollow points. (The HST is the “Hydra-Shok Two” even though it’s an entirely new design.)

Based on results I’ve seen (but not done myself) those particular old school hollow points will do well in bare gel but fail to expand in a heavy clothing test or the non standard but common 4 layer denim test.

The FBI standards call for the following to simulate a worst case scenario of heavy clothing as all of the following materials like to plug hollow points. From the outside in it replicates a person wearing a heavy fleece lined denim jacket, a cotton shirt and a tee shirt.

1. 50 thread per inch, 14.4 oz cotton denim
2. Polartec 200 fleece; and
3. 80 thread per inch, 3.5 oz cotton shirt material; and
4. 48 thread per inch, 5.25 oz cotton t-shirt material.

I don’t know many people anymore who wear lined denim jackets, an outer shirt and a cotton under shirt. It was pretty standard dress back on the ranch when I was a kid, but not so much any more. I still own a denim jacket but it doesn’t get worn much here in eastern NC, where it pretty much works as a winter coat. I only wear a tee shirt under another shirt if I am also wearing concealable body armor in between the two as it makes the armor slightly less hot and sticky feeling.

I suspect the 4 layer denim test came about as an easier to reproduce “worse” worst case scenario. Or maybe they had this guy in mind and were worried about hitting him in a pocket.



——

Either way it’s messy as the bullet drags a lot of stuff into the gel and makes it a lot harder to clean the gel when you remold it. As noted above modern hollow points from the XTP forward expand well in heavy clothing and 4 layer denim tests, provided you meet a minimum velocity requirement. Most max loads in normal barrel lengths for a cartridge will do that and you can usually find the required minimum velocity with some research.

On the other hand virtually all hollow points will expand more and start expanding much faster in bare ballistic gelatin and can under penetrate. That’s one downside of relying on gel tests on internet websites or youtube that only test in 4 layers of denim or heavy clothing. The other downside is that most of those videos use only a single round or two rounds in testing (although a few sites use more). That can give variable and misleading results, especially in a 4 layer denim test where expansion and penetration tend to vary more in the first place. Bare gel tends to give pretty consistent results which helps when comparing different loads and four shots is usually enough to give you an accurate representation of performance. It’s also the worst case for potential under penetration.

I generally use four rounds as I can fit four rounds in a block with no interference in the wound tracks and all four rounds are within a couple inches of the surface where they are easier to remove without damage. It also leaves room for a 5th center of the block shot in the event one for the previous four exited the side of the block.

I’m also satisfied with rounds that penetrate 14-15” in bare gel. Since the 4 layer denim tests are so popular, I can normally find someone else’s testing of the same bullet at comparable or lower velocities in a heavy clothing or 4 layer denim test to cover that contingency,

Consequently I don’t normally bother with a heavy clothing test unless I am testing a load for one of my short barrel pistols or revolvers for a round where I can’t find other heavy clothing or 4 layer denim tests, or identify a minimum acceptable velocity that produces reliable expansion in heavy clothing.

But…for old school hollow points a 4 layer denim test would be important. I’d also like to do both gel and 4 layer denim tests on those older loads as they are normally available at reasonable prices. I’m a big fan of reasonably priced self defense ammo options for shooters. It encourages them to practice more with their actual carry ammo. It also encourages shooters to expend their carry ammo on a regular basis in range practice, rather than carrying it until it is dark and or green with corrosion and verdigris.

Thanks for that, very informative. I got to say that Federal HST bullet makes me a little queasy. 😳😁

You have to cut a pretty long slice in the gel to be able to reach in and expand it enough to get the bullet out. Those HSTs Andy even the Golden Sabers always gets me thinking how large an incision a surgeon would need to get one out.

I’d rather not get shot with one.

More likely a medical examiner than a surgeon will be recovering one of those bad boys…

__________________
S&W factory revolver armorer

Do they make Ballistic gel with rib bones in it ? That would really show bullet performance in body cavity.

__________________
V/r,
Markham

__________________
Music/Sports/Beer fan

Federal really hit a home run with the HST design, it is well proven and works very well across a great many calibers. Other really good bullet designs are the Remington Golden Sabre, the Speer Gold Dot, and Winchester's Ranger-T. These are all modern designs and are highly effective, much better than the handgun bullets of the 20th century.

__________________
VCDL, GOA, NRA

Rusty’s post is spot on. The only time I have ever seen a full on ballistic torso complete with ribs, organs, etc was on Myth Busters. They are more or less single use and I suspect are really expansive. I don’t have anywhere near their production budget.

——-

Paul Harrel uses what he calls the meat target but it’s a new take on an older concept.

The older school “meat target” uses a double thickness of pork chops to simulate skin and the pectoral muscle, then pork ribs to simulate ribs, followed by watermelon to both simulate lung tissue but also to make up for he lack of water in the pork as people have a lot more water in their torso than is present in pork chops and pork ribs. Finally there are more pork ribs on the back.

Paul’s meat target uses a leather jacket for skin, pork chops for the pectoral muscles, pork ribs for ribs, a bag of oranges for lung tissue and more pork ribs on the back.

——-

There are pros and cons to meat target versus ballistic gel testing.

Ribs do screw up hollow point performance. Ribs also tend to screw up the new generation of large and fast expanding hollow points like the HST more than they screw up the older mushroom style hollow points like the Hornady XTP or the even older designs like the Federal Hi-Shok.

Those older bullets like the Federal Hi-Shok penetrate quite well in meat targets, and *when* they expanded in real world shoots they were generally pretty effective at stopping assailants. However they didn’t always expand and when they did not they were a lot less effective at stopping assailants.

As noted in my original post, the XTPs don’t expand as much as the Golden Saber and the HST but they penetrate well and do expand reliably provided they have a certain minimum velocity.

There’s a valid “meat target” based argument then for the older school hollow points over the latest generation of hollow points (another reason I don’t have any qualms about the 200 gr XTP load tested above for self defense).

We have to be very careful not to get totally obsessed with ballistic gel as while it is reliable, it has no actually validity in and of itself. No one in the history of self defense shoots has ever been attacked by a gun or knife wielding block of ballistic gel.

Establishing validity for a certain level of performance in ballistic gel is where the data on the actual demonstrated effectiveness of various loads in real world shoots becomes important. Meat targets might be a closet approximation than ballistic gel, but *nothing* simulates real assailants better than real assailants.

There are of course all kinds of messy variables and pitfalls involved in researching actual shoots, but with a large enough number of shoots involving a specific cartridge and bullet the variables tend to start coming out in the wash and you can start making reasonable comparisons between different loads based on their field performance.

Like the meat target, in the real world bullets either get a “pass” or a “fail”. Inches of penetration etc just don’t matter, provided the assailant is stopped and the bullet doesn’t over penetrate to pose a risk to a bystander behind the assailant. In short, what works is what works.

The benefits of ballistic gel testing are reliability (repeatability) and the ability to quantify the results in a measurable manner.

Putting the two together is important. When you find a load that has demonstrated the ability to stop an assailant a high percentage of the time in the field, you can then test that round in ballistic gel to see how it performs. Conversely, when you find a round with a record of comparatively poor performance in the field with a lower percentage of shoots where the assailant was stopped, you can test it in ballistic gel and see how it performs.

Once you have enough data on “good” and “bad” performing bullets and their respective performance in ballistic gel, you can start using performance parameters in ballistic gel to try to predict performance in the field. That’s the process the FBI used to develop the current model with the 12” to 18” range for penetration in ballistic gel.

*However:

1. You still need to validate a model that says “X inches of penetration in ballistic gel should produce good results in the field” with continued data collection from real world shoots;

2. you also have to validate the performance of “new” bullet designs that show great performance in ballistic gel with their actual performance in real world shoots; and

- you have to evaluate the performance of a given load and bullet in your actual handgun.

If you don’t do numbers 1 and 2 you run an increasing risk over time of developing bullets that do a superb job of stopping homicidal blocks of ballistic gel, but might not work all that well on homicidal humans.

If you don’t do number 3 you run the risk of assuming you have internal, external no terminal ballistics that you don’t actually have.

For example the 60 gr XTP launched from a 3.9” barrel .32 ACP will expand and penetrate 12” in ballistic gel, but only when you get it up around 1000-1050 FPS. That requires a 3.9” barrel and the .32 ACP takes a huge velocity hit in shorter barrels. Similarly the 90 gr XTP will both expand and penetrate 12” in ballistic gel, but only with a similar 1000-1050 FPS of velocity. Again that takes a 3.5 to 3.9” barrel. In a 2.75” barrel that’s a lot less likely to happen. (I’ll do a test in the near future with .380 ACP at different velocities to demonstrate the effects of loss of velocity in shorter barrels.)

An excellent presentation, very thorough.

XTPs are best for cartridges which have trouble penetrating deeply, like .380 ACP, which can actually meet the minimum FBI/IWBA Specifications by consistently achieving 12+ inches of penetration in Ballistics Gel with XTPs. Otherwise, they're really only good for use against large predatory animals, and even then, there are better choices, so yeah, XTPs just aren't very good in Duty Cartridges.

HSTs on the other hand, are excellent because they penetrate adequately, and expand greatly.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

You might want to read my last post on gel versus meat target tests and the limitations of relying solely on ballistic gel testing.

I am not a meat target fan as I prefer to eat my pork chops, pork ribs and watermelon, it’s messy, and potentially inconsistent based on whether you hit a rib or not. That is also one of its key points and virtues. It arguably does a much better job of simulating hits on human torsos.

I am a fan of data on real world shoots as a necessary and essential part of validating performance in ballistic gelatin - and lacking sufficient data, meat target results are worth some attention.

Next you might want to watch this episode where Paul Harrel tests the HST in 9mm and .45 ACP. I mostly like his presentations as he keeps things on a very practical level. He also makes common sense points rooted in real world data and then let’s you more or less make your own conclusions - with a few exceptions.

One of those exceptions is magazine capacity where he lakes the fact/data based observation that once you get past 6 or 7 rounds having more magazine capacity probably isn’t going to change the outcome of a self defense shoot.

Another exception to the usual “let you make your own conclusion norm” his his position on “hyper” or “boutique” self defense ammo. Paul has stated frequently that hyper performance or boutique ammo really doesn’t offer very much (if any) more performance than more generic (Winchester white box and Remington green and white box) hollow point ammo. That’s based on his meat target testing of various hollow points.

In this segment he tested 9mm and .45 HST ammo against Winchester white box, along with some Remington Golden Saber and PDX1. He was not impressed with the performance of the 9mm HST and felt that the performance advantage of the HST over Winchester white box in .45 ACP was minimal and not worth the premium in price.

Again, that based on meat target testing and thus doesn’t look at the greater expansion in ballistic than gelatin. And that’s the point - performance in ballistic gel has no validity in an of itself, and instead relies on the correlation of ballistic gel performance with real world performance.


In this one he rests 9mm HST with sig Sauer Ultimate defense and REM green and white box.


In short, your conclusion that the HST ammo is a better duty round than the XTP ammo is based solely on ballistic gel performance. It doesn’t do any better, and in some cases doesn’t do as well in meat target testing as other high end hollow points and generic hollow point ammo.

That puts enough doubt on the subject that you really can’t make that conclusion until you collect and analyze enough data on HST performance in the field to support a conclusion that it is indeed more effective at stopping assailants.

——

That also goes back to my point that all three rounds I tested in ballistic gel demonstrate expansion and penetration that the FBI feels correlates well with performance in real world shoots.

From that perspective, I am comfortable that the 200 gr XTP round tested is “good enough”, and like the Golden Saber it generally performs better in a meat target and arguably isn’t giving up much if anything to an HST.

Plus they are cheap and I’ll load up 500 at a time. I paid $26 per box of 100 projectiles couple weeks ago, put them in cleaned and process same headstamp once fired brass that cost me $45 per 500 and loaded them with $15 worth of CCI 300 primers and $15 worth of Power Pistol powder, for a total cost of $0.41 per round. That compares to $2.00 per round for 230 gr HST at current local prices and around $1.00 per round at on line prices, rising to around 1.25-1.35 per round once you factor in shipping.

That’s 3 to 5 rounds of 200 gr XTP for the cost of 1 HST round. If you just buy a box of HST and carry it for the next 20 years the cost isn’t a factor. But…that minimal (if any) extra performance in a real world shoot will be far outweighed by the greater accuracy you’ll have from 3 to 5 times more practice with the XTP and being able to practice with your actual carry round 3 to 5 times more often than with the HST.