65 Grain Xtreme Defender in 357 Sig - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Advertise Here
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-18-2019, 02:41 PM
Bobcat In The Woods's Avatar
Bobcat In The Woods Bobcat In The Woods is offline
At 5000AGL
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: At an airport
Posts: 531
Thanks: 82
Thanked 867 Times in 331 Posts
Default 65 Grain Xtreme Defender in 357 Sig



Advertise Here

Hello all.

I discovered that Underwood has a 65 grain Xtreme Defender loaded to 2100fps in their 357 Sig line.

https://www.underwoodammo.com/products/357-sig-65-grain-xtreme-defender?variant=18785699397689

Why?

What is the point of such a light bullet?

The only thing I can really think is maybe to defeat soft armor, but even then I don't think 2100fps is fast enough for that.

What does the tiny bullet do that the 90 grain version, or a 125 grain Gold Dot won't?

I don't have a 357 Sig, nor do I have a dog in the fight. I'm just curious what everyone thinks about this.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-18-2019, 02:56 PM
justin22885 justin22885 is offline
Awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 15,162
Thanks: 0
Thanked 23,921 Times in 7,892 Posts
Default

probably just marketing, i've seen more damage done with 124 grain JHPs such as gold dots and HSTs than with 115s or 90s, i doubt 65 grains would fare any better.. for 9mm, i'll stick with 124 federal HST, if i was going to use .357 sig i'd see if they manufactured ammo with that same bullet
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-18-2019, 03:05 PM
Snyper708's Avatar
Snyper708 Snyper708 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Eastern North Carolina
Posts: 2,092
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3,393 Times in 1,270 Posts
Default

People love new things they think might work better.
Ammo manufacturers love new things because people will buy them.

It will generate sales of ammo that isn't really all that popular to begin with.
Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-19-2019, 04:58 AM
browningv308 browningv308 is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,197
Thanks: 44
Thanked 1,120 Times in 551 Posts
Default

Like the description says they are designed to do damage- leave large holes in meat
I have a M&P Compact in .357 sig and I have it loaded with every other bullet as an extreme defender and extreme penetrator
I shot up a freezer burnt 16 pound ham at 15 yards and the Defenders did what they advertised and left a huge hole all the way through it including through the bone I ended up with a blob of copper twice the size of the original Then the penatrators did what they advertised and when all the way through and didn't expand at all, they just made holes in the meat.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-19-2019, 11:54 AM
T.$.Racing's Avatar
T.$.Racing T.$.Racing is offline
Target Shooter
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Chicago
Age: 30
Posts: 487
Thanks: 819
Thanked 744 Times in 315 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobcat In The Woods View Post
Hello all.

I discovered that Underwood has a 65 grain Xtreme Defender loaded to 2100fps in their 357 Sig line.

https://www.underwoodammo.com/produc...18785699397689

Why?

What is the point of such a light bullet?

The only thing I can really think is maybe to defeat soft armor, but even then I don't think 2100fps is fast enough for that.

What does the tiny bullet do that the 90 grain version, or a 125 grain Gold Dot won't?

I don't have a 357 Sig, nor do I have a dog in the fight. I'm just curious what everyone thinks about this.
That would be my guess as well. Sounds like they're trying to make a poor man's 5.7mm. Light, pistol caliber projectile traveling real, real fast to defeat low level BA
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-19-2019, 12:05 PM
justin22885 justin22885 is offline
Awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 15,162
Thanks: 0
Thanked 23,921 Times in 7,892 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by browningv308 View Post
Like the description says they are designed to do damage- leave large holes in meat
I have a M&P Compact in .357 sig and I have it loaded with every other bullet as an extreme defender and extreme penetrator
I shot up a freezer burnt 16 pound ham at 15 yards and the Defenders did what they advertised and left a huge hole all the way through it including through the bone I ended up with a blob of copper twice the size of the original Then the penatrators did what they advertised and when all the way through and didn't expand at all, they just made holes in the meat.
and when you compare an extreme penetrators to an FMJ, you'll be hard pressed to find any actual difference in performance... the problem with the ballistics gel era is its not really that good of an analog for a human body.. it gives a somewhat no-variable testing medium to test bullets against other bullets, but all we end up with are bullets designed to look good in gel (for marketing) but provide no actual benefit over existing options
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-20-2019, 05:36 AM
thess02 thess02 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 3,504
Thanks: 1,290
Thanked 2,045 Times in 1,232 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobcat In The Woods View Post
Hello all.

I discovered that Underwood has a 65 grain Xtreme Defender loaded to 2100fps in their 357 Sig line.

https://www.underwoodammo.com/produc...18785699397689

Why?

What is the point of such a light bullet?

The only thing I can really think is maybe to defeat soft armor, but even then I don't think 2100fps is fast enough for that.

What does the tiny bullet do that the 90 grain version, or a 125 grain Gold Dot won't?

I don't have a 357 Sig, nor do I have a dog in the fight. I'm just curious what everyone thinks about this.
The projectiles are actually manufactured by Lehigh Defense. These do quite a bit of damage from actual reviews of the projectiles. If you reload you can do these a lot cheaper than Underwood....to try them out.
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1018300718?pid=984551

For .357 Sig you would need to research powder/load data for this projectile: https://www.lehighdefense.com/lehigh...d-data-library
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-20-2019, 09:50 PM
thess02 thess02 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 3,504
Thanks: 1,290
Thanked 2,045 Times in 1,232 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by justin22885 View Post
and when you compare an extreme penetrators to an FMJ, you'll be hard pressed to find any actual difference in performance... the problem with the ballistics gel era is its not really that good of an analog for a human body.. it gives a somewhat no-variable testing medium to test bullets against other bullets, but all we end up with are bullets designed to look good in gel (for marketing) but provide no actual benefit over existing options
All of the existing options...use gel for development and testing.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-20-2019, 09:53 PM
justin22885 justin22885 is offline
Awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 15,162
Thanks: 0
Thanked 23,921 Times in 7,892 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thess02 View Post
All of the existing options...use gel for development and testing.
gel only offers a consistent medium to test cartridges against eachother, quite often we find rounds that perform one way in gel, but differently inside actual tissue.. thats the point i am making is companies will specifically design **** to look good in gel, use gel results to market their product, and sell people on **** that simply doesnt work as advertised
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-21-2019, 01:38 AM
HappyinID's Avatar
HappyinID HappyinID is offline
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,256
Thanks: 2,548
Thanked 4,207 Times in 1,949 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by justin22885 View Post
and when you compare an extreme penetrators to an FMJ, you'll be hard pressed to find any actual difference in performance... the problem with the ballistics gel era is its not really that good of an analog for a human body.. it gives a somewhat no-variable testing medium to test bullets against other bullets, but all we end up with are bullets designed to look good in gel (for marketing) but provide no actual benefit over existing options
Quote:
Originally Posted by justin22885 View Post
gel only offers a consistent medium to test cartridges against eachother, quite often we find rounds that perform one way in gel, but differently inside actual tissue.. thats the point i am making is companies will specifically design **** to look good in gel, use gel results to market their product, and sell people on **** that simply doesnt work as advertised
Yawn..... You do a great job of parroting what you read in gun magazines or on gun boards....

Properly calibrated ballistic gelatin is an extremely good predictor of bullet performance in human tissue, and has been proven so for more than 30 years.

As far as the bullet in the OP, the company makes much of the temporary cavity. Not a good predictor of performance at pistol velocities.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to HappyinID For This Useful Post:
Old 11-21-2019, 02:42 AM
justin22885 justin22885 is offline
Awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 15,162
Thanks: 0
Thanked 23,921 Times in 7,892 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyinID View Post
Yawn..... You do a great job of parroting what you read in gun magazines or on gun boards....

Properly calibrated ballistic gelatin is an extremely good predictor of bullet performance in human tissue, and has been proven so for more than 30 years.

As far as the bullet in the OP, the company makes much of the temporary cavity. Not a good predictor of performance at pistol velocities.
no, it isnt, human tissue is not homogeneous, muscle is fibrous, bones and organs exist and the results in gel can, and have varied wildly from real world usage.. putting your faith behind a gel test is simply idiotic.. its an even test for testing the performance of bullets against eachother, nothing more, and the gel in some ways may have a bias in showing extreme penetrators performing better than FMJ in penetration when real world applications show them to be about the same
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-21-2019, 04:02 AM
273andme 273andme is online now
Target Shooter
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: tx
Posts: 418
Thanks: 89
Thanked 471 Times in 192 Posts
Default

Justin OP isnt talking about extreme perpetrator, extreme defender is a different bullet, next gel is the industry standard and has been for a long time because well no one is going to volunteer their body to be shot to measure actual terminal performance.

Some independent testers will use various mediums to conducts their tests ie. pork ribs wrapped in flannel in front of the gel. But honestly each round even from the same lot can perform different. There are way to many variable to get an accurate indication of performance. people have even gone so far as to have bone and rib material inside the gel. So I think gel works fine.

I dont disagree some manufacturers make new things because people will buy it or it looks cool

But no LEO has ever been authorized to such bullets for duty and no physician has ever pulled a bullet and went to research it and measured wounding capability or terminal performance. so the only available medium to test performance would be calibrated gel.

So there really is no measurable real world usage therefore no real world data to compare.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to 273andme For This Useful Post:
Old 11-21-2019, 05:20 AM
thess02 thess02 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 3,504
Thanks: 1,290
Thanked 2,045 Times in 1,232 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by justin22885 View Post
gel only offers a consistent medium to test cartridges against eachother, quite often we find rounds that perform one way in gel, but differently inside actual tissue.. thats the point i am making is companies will specifically design **** to look good in gel, use gel results to market their product, and sell people on **** that simply doesnt work as advertised
No disagreement as far as gel being used however it is the only consistent media really that's available....since live 2 legged test subjects can't be used. All ammunition manufacturers use gel to test bullet performance. The engineering and science seem to be sound in the Lehigh designs...to me. Copper projectiles seem to perform well from other manufacturers as well. The design referenced in this thread simply doesn't rely on a hollow point to effect tissue disruption.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-22-2019, 02:07 AM
HappyinID's Avatar
HappyinID HappyinID is offline
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,256
Thanks: 2,548
Thanked 4,207 Times in 1,949 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by justin22885 View Post
putting your faith behind a gel test is simply idiotic.. its an even test for testing the performance of bullets against eachother, nothing more
When you've looked at as many bullets dug out of human bodies as I have, or as anyone who studies this for a living has, come talk to me.

I won't hold my breath.

Now I'll go back to just being amused at your comments....
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-22-2019, 02:14 AM
HappyinID's Avatar
HappyinID HappyinID is offline
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,256
Thanks: 2,548
Thanked 4,207 Times in 1,949 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thess02 View Post
No disagreement as far as gel being used however it is the only consistent media really that's available....since live 2 legged test subjects can't be used.
Those subjects would have to be exactly the same to be used as a test medium. And that would be difficult.

Bullets pulled from human bodies look remarkably the same as those tested in gel. And that fact just keeps being supported year after year. Despite internet commandos opinions from Mom's basement to the contrary.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to HappyinID For This Useful Post:
Old 11-22-2019, 02:36 AM
justin22885 justin22885 is offline
Awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 15,162
Thanks: 0
Thanked 23,921 Times in 7,892 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thess02 View Post
No disagreement as far as gel being used however it is the only consistent media really that's available....since live 2 legged test subjects can't be used. All ammunition manufacturers use gel to test bullet performance. The engineering and science seem to be sound in the Lehigh designs...to me. Copper projectiles seem to perform well from other manufacturers as well. The design referenced in this thread simply doesn't rely on a hollow point to effect tissue disruption.
they seem to perform well, IN GEL.. for an example, the screwdriver shape defender/penetrator projectiles from lehigh show, boast, and advertise 40+ inches of penetration in gel with a 9mm projectile.. people would look at that and think wow, thats as much penetration in gel as a 44 mag, that should be good for bear defense.. however actual animals shot with it have virtually identical wound cavities to that of a full metal jacket

so its very important for people not to put so much blind faith into a product based on gel results, someone looking for self defense ammo is far, far better served using proven JHPs like the gold dots or the HSTs over a well-marketed gimmick like these all copper bullets
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-22-2019, 02:37 AM
justin22885 justin22885 is offline
Awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 15,162
Thanks: 0
Thanked 23,921 Times in 7,892 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyinID View Post
Those subjects would have to be exactly the same to be used as a test medium. And that would be difficult.

Bullets pulled from human bodies look remarkably the same as those tested in gel. And that fact just keeps being supported year after year. Despite internet commandos opinions from Mom's basement to the contrary.
you may want to pay a bit more attention to the conversation as you're trying to use real world results from JHP ammunition to defend an all-copper projectile that no, doesnt perform the same in a human body as it does in gel
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-22-2019, 05:55 AM
Cuteandfuzzybunnies's Avatar
Cuteandfuzzybunnies Cuteandfuzzybunnies is offline
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,120
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1,601 Times in 665 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 273andme View Post
Justin OP isnt talking about extreme perpetrator, extreme defender is a different bullet, next gel is the industry standard and has been for a long time because well no one is going to volunteer their body to be shot to measure actual terminal performance.

Some independent testers will use various mediums to conducts their tests ie. pork ribs wrapped in flannel in front of the gel. But honestly each round even from the same lot can perform different. There are way to many variable to get an accurate indication of performance. people have even gone so far as to have bone and rib material inside the gel. So I think gel works fine.

I dont disagree some manufacturers make new things because people will buy it or it looks cool

But no LEO has ever been authorized to such bullets for duty and no physician has ever pulled a bullet and went to research it and measured wounding capability or terminal performance. so the only available medium to test performance would be calibrated gel.

So there really is no measurable real world usage therefore no real world data to compare.
We could use pigs. If a round will stop a pig , it will stop a human. They are even thicker than us with more hair. You might want to put the pig in some sort of denim jacket first. I guess you could even use a recently deceased pig.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-22-2019, 05:59 AM
Cuteandfuzzybunnies's Avatar
Cuteandfuzzybunnies Cuteandfuzzybunnies is offline
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,120
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1,601 Times in 665 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by justin22885 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thess02 View Post
No disagreement as far as gel being used however it is the only consistent media really that's available....since live 2 legged test subjects can't be used. All ammunition manufacturers use gel to test bullet performance. The engineering and science seem to be sound in the Lehigh designs...to me. Copper projectiles seem to perform well from other manufacturers as well. The design referenced in this thread simply doesn't rely on a hollow point to effect tissue disruption.
they seem to perform well, IN GEL.. for an example, the screwdriver shape defender/penetrator projectiles from lehigh show, boast, and advertise 40+ inches of penetration in gel with a 9mm projectile.. people would look at that and think wow, thats as much penetration in gel as a 44 mag, that should be good for bear defense.. however actual animals shot with it have virtually identical wound cavities to that of a full metal jacket

so its very important for people not to put so much blind faith into a product based on gel results, someone looking for self defense ammo is far, far better served using proven JHPs like the gold dots or the HSTs over a well-marketed gimmick like these all copper bullets
Haven’t these Lehigh copper projectiles been used to kill animals ? I think we can compare those results to human results. But they won’t be exactly the same.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-22-2019, 07:43 AM
AK103K's Avatar
AK103K AK103K is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 6,711
Thanks: 6,606
Thanked 11,188 Times in 4,538 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by justin22885 View Post
you may want to pay a bit more attention to the conversation as you're trying to use real world results from JHP ammunition to defend an all-copper projectile that no, doesnt perform the same in a human body as it does in gel
Just curious here Justin, but what data do you have that shows the contrary?

Is there something new that all the major manufacturers and people who dump a boatload of money on, doing the research on what performs and what doesnt, should be using, that you somehow know about, and they dont?

"Enquiring" minds and all.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AK103K For This Useful Post:
Reply

Bookmarks



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may 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 02:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net