Get hooked up with your firearms training team and find out what THEY pay.
I order ammunition at half that price.
Thanks for the correction. I'm always glad to get more up-to-date information.
I've been shooting Fiocchi and Independance with good results, for about $16/box of 50 for .40 S&W. I thought they were both foreign-made, but I was surprised to see that my boxes say "Made in USA".
Even the last full-velocity .40 S&W Winchester Ranger hollow points I got from http://www.ammunitiontogo.com were less than $25 for box of 50, but now the Sub-Sonic are the only ones that cheap. Now it looks like the full-velocity are about $30, but I see their Gold Dot LE and Federal LE Hollow Points are about $25 per 50: HOLLOW POINT Ammo : Ammunition To Go. they're located down around Houston, but I forgot what shipping charges are.
I usually run a box of my carry ammo at least once every six months or so, just to make sure it feeds properly. The Ranger feeds perfectly, but I've had trouble with Remmington HP before because the noses have a sharp edge, whereas the Rangers are smoother.
I found out there's at least four types of Rangers. One is just FMJ NATO, not good for much except target ammo.
The best is Ranger SXT (the Black Talon design without the moly coating). They have nickle cases and very smooth noses (almost polished). I have a few boxes of them, but they were expensive. I think I paid $50 orr one box during the ammo shortage. The bonded ones that AmmunitionToGo has aren't as smooth on the nose, and have brass cases but they feed great too. Then there's the Sub-Sonic. I've never tried them.
Sorry PGG, but I think our carry ammo is cheaper than your target ammo if we buy the cheaper HP's like Fiocchi, and I got 250 rounds of UMC .40 S&W FMJ the other day for $60 with a $20 coupon I saw in our Entertainment restaurant discount book for the Dick's Sporting Goods store here. What's that, $12/box? :D
If you plan to carry Ranger, then you should be buying RA40T or preferably RA40B.
LOL - I've heard so many myths about Blazer aluminum that I can't remember them all. One of the popular ones going around was that the primer wasn't sealed good, so it would erode the bolt face. I've shot like 30,000 thru my old HS2000, and I've yet to see any erosion on the bolt face, just mild discoloration which seems to be normal on every gun I've ever owned, Blazer or not.
I can't remember a Blazer misfiring either, and NEVER saw one bursting or know of anyone who's seen one bust, which was another rumor going around for a while.
Ahhh, those were the days - 9mm Blazer used to be $3.99 / box of 50 here at Academy Sports, until dumb ol' Obama got elected. Now I think it's about $15.
Interestingly enough, the test data Winchester just sent me indicates the RA40T and RA40B perform about the same through most of the media they were shot through.
The B retained a grain or two of weight and penetrated 1/2 inch to 1 inch more.
Both were well within the FBI protocol for penetration.
As far as practice ammo cheaper is better, if you can get it close to the same bullet weight as the desired carry round it will smooth the transition from training ammo to carry ammo. Not all carry ammo is created equally but most hollow point designs nowadays are good to go. Gold dot hollow points are some of the best I have ever tested, if not the best.
Doc Roberts info is very good info but outdated as to current ammo selections and people that use his info as religion can't seem to see much past his views.
Ranger T ammo from Winchester is also a fantastic hollow point design, probably as close to a gold dot as you can get. The DPX round that is used by Corbon is another very well designed bullet that does very well out of short barreled weapons. But in my opinion and based on the over 5 years I did on hand gun ballistics I have done most of the current hollow points manufactured are pretty damn good.
The rest can be held as personal experience or opinion based discussion on preferences but they all do pretty well in testing.
My personal opinion is to use rounds that local police departments use, the department you work for uses or maybe look at what the state police carry. Normal they do pretty well in picking ammo and it will be a benefit if you need to use the ammo in a defensive situation for legal and civil issues that will happen shortly after the fight is stopped.
The second part, with new technology coming as quickly as it has people will find more to look at when it comes to terminal ballistics. The old secondary wound track affects of pistol ammo and secondary affects caused by getting hit but a 45acp vs a 357 sig and all that. There is normally one side or the other in regards to the choice of people's ammo.
I have seen a few dozen gunshot wounds on people now, seen hundreds on animals and done about 4 deer seasons with handguns to study affective ammo. IMO (none expert but trying to gain more experience) the ballistic medium used to test most ammo today fails on so many fronts and people place WAY to much in the tests. The gel is really not gel and does not carry a lot of what is needed imo to test what bullets really do or the affect they have on a living creature.
Some of the folks doing the tests make word as law on that medium and I just don't buy it thats all. If you ever have a change look up some of the posts I have on Glocktalk.com and there is a Doc on there that I had some back and forth with that has done extensive testing in terminal ballistics to the point of having grants for the process. Controlled testing even on aniimals during season. Very good info. But it inspired me to do a shit load of testing myself and it is VERY easy to see just how far off the current "law" in regards to ballistic testing and the loop holes that go with it.
But the basic theory he has is sound. Bullets should expand, have good weight retention and hit a 12-15" on the penetration charts. That makes a good round and most of the newer designed Hps make that happen. The rest makes for good conversation and heated debates lol. and for spelling I am falling asleep at the keyboard. See yall tomorrow :D
Well, I appreciate your explanation.
The chart (post) that I referenced has been updated a whole mess of times, and is updated when he has new data.
I respect your opinion about the test media.
I can't find anyone with better data (yet) than Doc Roberts. When I do, I'll post that.
No one person has all the answers, but you can generally find one guy who knows more than others.
Most of my studies were posted on Glocktalk if they are still around and spans some 2200 posts of discussion with people from every interest in firearms to Phd's in physics and folks like Roberts who push it a bit further. Good stuff, might need to see if I can find some of those old charts and start a new post.
I had some video of ballistic medium we tried that had a much higher hydration base to it and was much closer to living tissue than anything tested before.
But further just to make it clear, what Roberts had done is very valuable to the shooting industry as are anyone's efforts that are in the same suit. I am not discounting his info with any of my posts above, and it obviously came off a bit like that. The chart with the penetration test I looked at on the link was the same exact chart that has been around for (doing some research was actually around in 2003 and could be dated further I am sure) for years.
All I was saying is the ammo choices used in that exact picture was outdated and currently all of those were actually discontinued with newer models of the same product.
But yea, one of my favorite topics to discuss:D
Mine too, you and I need to shoot the shit!