Underwood Ammo

[BehindBlueI's]

I use the Extreme Defenders in my 380s. I like them & they are about the only 380 ammo to meet FBI standards.

They meet FBI standards? Or they pass some of the tests?

 

[minuteman32]

They meet FBI standards? Or they pass some of the tests?

From the evidence I have seen they passed the FBI standards for penetration w/ & w/o four layers of denim (12-16”). And the videos I have seen, the wound chanels are equal to or superior to any other round. Better than fmj & jhp.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

From the evidence I have seen they passed the FBI standards for penetration w/ & w/o four layers of denim (12-16”). And the videos I have seen, the wound chanels are equal to or superior to any other round. Better than fmj & jhp.

There's more to meeting FBI standards than two tests. To my knowledge, no .380 round passes the entire battery. Windshield test is also a good indicator of success vs bone, and one where .380 generally falls short.

Pistol rounds do not result in permanent damage from the stretch cavity or display the same "hydraulic" reaction that gel shows. The point of gel is to measure penetration and expansion, not to simulate actual damage. Picture your "meat" like a rubber band. It has a certain amount of stretch it can take without damage. Handgun velocities can stretch, but not snap, the rubber band. Not until you get to rifle velocities do you exceed the stretch your "meat" can snap back from. Rifle rounds can snap the rubber band. Handgun rounds just stretch it then release it. Gel does not have the same elasticity as your "meat". Note your body is not a consistent density/elasticity, and some organs are ruptured/damaged away from the permanent wound channel, but most aren't.

The .380 can be an effective round, but it is not the same as a 9mm/.40/.45 and the bullets do not destroy tissue they do not touch (again, other than in certain organs).

What you *might* gain is more resistance to being deflected by round bone when compared to FMJ of the same weight. I'm not sure at what point increased weight would outweigh the shape of the nose. At that point, you're splitting the hair pretty fine, though.

 

[churchmouse]

One thing to consider.......When I load up 18 rounds in my 6" ported barrel rated well north of 1500FPS and touch them off the resulting booms and the light show (if done at dusk) is well worth the price of admission.

Call me immature or what ever but it makes me giggle....

 

[BE Mike]

Many of the derogatory statements regarding Underwood ammo are based on Dr. Roberts' opinions. Although he has done a lot of research, his testing of LeHigh bullets, as found in Xtreme Penetrator ammo is mostly speculation. Dr. Sydney Vail, who has done research on LeMas BMT bullets and their effect on live tissue, has issues with Dr. Robert's opinions. Here is a video of the damage of LeHigh bullets on Ohio deer. I found the segment regarding the .357 Mag. Underwood Xtreme Penetrator the most interesting. https://www.full30.com/video/20437495d624b6be7456f87e1d40312b

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Here is a video of the damage of LeHigh bullets on Ohio deer.

What does tissue do when the creature is deceased? What does tissue that is normally under tension do when that tension is released?

Hint: You have to put tension back on the tissue to determine the shape of the item that penetrated it.

Le Mas? The company that claimed some special "bimetal" hybrid bullet and was subsequently determined to be taking standard varmint rounds, loading them WAY overpressure, and putting a lube on them? The one that subsequent gov't testing showed their claims were false?

They were frauds. Taking lightweight bullets, loading them to unsafe pressures, and then claiming they were some new technology...which sounds familiar, actually.

This IPT thenproceeded to procure and test several models of LeMas ammunition including 9 mm, 5.56 mm, and 7.62 mm variants. The test showedthat the LeMas rifle cartridges were constructed with commercial bullets that were marked with a thin coating of molybdenum disulfide(a dry lubricant). Operational tests with the ammunition showed that the LeMas projectiles performed well against specific targets inspecific scenarios, but do not meet the range of requirements, specifications, and operational needs that are required.

The maximum individual pressure for the LeMas 9-mm CQB SPLP cartridge was recorded as high as 51,147 psi (table 32), which is 14,887 psi (or 41.1%) over the maximum allowable pressure for an individual cartridge conditioned at 70°F. Cold and hot conditioned ammunition resulted in even higher individual pressures.

A total of 1035 rounds were fired through the threetest weapons. A total of 139 malfunctions occurred with this ammunition. Only 315 of 360cartridges were fired at 15°F. A majority of the fired cases at 15°F displayed one or more of thefollowing signs of excessive chamber pressure: perforated primer, primer leak, loose primer,blown primer, dropped primer, flow-back, punch-out, and primer setback. Additionally, thelocking block on test weapon SR 1105364 fractured due to the excessive chamber pressuresproduced by this ammunition at 15°F. No further function and casualty testing was conductedwith this ammunition DODIC at 15°F or -40°F.

The one that shot groups 4x bigger than Aguila ammo in the M9 in testing?

The 9mm that failed to penetrate 12" when shot at a 25y target, making messy but shallow injuries?

That Le Mas? Seriously, if someone is hanging their hat on those frauds, they already are starting in a hole. Le Mas was shown to be bunk over a decade ago when someone other than them ran the testing.

http://www.lightfighter.net/fileSen... Projectiles Review and Analysis_Redacted.pdf if you'd like to read the results.

I know we've had the conversation multiple times. Carry whatever you like. If you want to beta test based on marketing, youtube clear gel tests, amateur necropsy, etc. knock yourself out. I'll continue to carry a cartridge vetted by proven analogues and real world results and continue to recommend others do the same.

 

[BE Mike]

What does tissue do when the creature is deceased? What does tissue that is normally under tension do when that tension is released?

Hint: You have to put tension back on the tissue to determine the shape of the item that penetrated it.

Le Mas? The company that claimed some special "bimetal" hybrid bullet and was subsequently determined to be taking standard varmint rounds, loading them WAY overpressure, and putting a lube on them? The one that subsequent gov't testing showed their claims were false?

They were frauds. Taking lightweight bullets, loading them to unsafe pressures, and then claiming they were some new technology...which sounds familiar, actually.








The one that shot groups 4x bigger than Aguila ammo in the M9 in testing?

The 9mm that failed to penetrate 12" when shot at a 25y target, making messy but shallow injuries?

That Le Mas? Seriously, if someone is hanging their hat on those frauds, they already are starting in a hole. Le Mas was shown to be bunk over a decade ago when someone other than them ran the testing.

http://www.lightfighter.net/fileSen... Projectiles Review and Analysis_Redacted.pdf if you'd like to read the results.

I know we've had the conversation multiple times. Carry whatever you like. If you want to beta test based on marketing, youtube clear gel tests, amateur necropsy, etc. knock yourself out. I'll continue to carry a cartridge vetted by proven analogues and real world results and continue to recommend others do the same.

I am surprised that you discount the video of the deer that were shot with Underwood ammo. Have you even looked at Dr. Vail's article? There are always two sides to a story. I don't dispute that there are other good bullet designs out there and loaded ammo for self-defense, but I haven't seen any physical evidence discounting the performance of Underwood Xtreme ammo loaded with Lehigh bullets. Thanks, but having been around the block a time or two, I don't need anyone's permission to carry ammo of my choice.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I am surprised that you discount the video of the deer that were shot with Underwood ammo. Have you even looked at Dr. Vail's article? There are always two sides to a story. I don't dispute that there are other good bullet designs out there and loaded ammo for self-defense, but I haven't seen any physical evidence discounting the performance of Underwood Xtreme ammo loaded with Lehigh bullets. Thanks, but having been around the block a time or two, I don't need anyone's permission to carry ammo of my choice.

I don't respond to convince you. I respond for those who read these threads and don't know that things like the Le Mas bullet is junk. Much of this BS continues to circulate because it gets posted,goes unchallenged, then somebody finds it, they believe it, and it keeps getting passed along. It's been a decade since it was shown to be a fraud, yet still pops up. My point with the deer is what does it prove? Do you think it proves remote wounding? What's a wound channel with a semi-wadcutter with the same velocity look like? I'm not saying their phillip's head ammunition won't work. FMJ works. Wadcutters work. Semi-wadcutters work. So will phillip's head, and for the same reason and using the same mechanism. I'm saying it's not doing what it's claiming to do as far as any temporary wound channel, "hydraulic cutting", etc. It works like a semi-wadcutter works. Just at a higher price point.

As far as Vail, he wrote his Le Mas article before they were shown to be frauds. His '06 article is, therefore, based on faulty assumptions. Read the actual government testing above. If I tell you something is a 9mm and it works so well due to new technology, and then you base your findings on that belief, but what I really did is load ammo so hot as to not be 9mm ammo any longer, are your conclusions valid? No. I can load up a .38 Special brass to .357 Maximum pressure and the bullet will do things you don't expect a .38 to do. Because it's not really a .38. Le Mas did that. Vail believed it was a legit test. It wasn't.

So is that the article you mean? Or his more recent stuff? Because his 2018 take isn't the same as his 2006 take. 2018 article in Police magazine:

Vail: You really don't get much of a temporary cavity with a handgun. It's there, but it's minimal as compared to a rifle round and, you know, I think that's where ballistic gel [has value]. It's not my favorite substance in the world, but it demonstrates that if you fire a rifle round into it, the temporary cavity is extremely large. You don't really get much damage from the hydrostatic "pressure" of tissues ripping from a handgun.

And what does Vail actually carry now?

Vail: Well, for my SWAT team I carry a .45 with Speer Gold Dots issued. Personally I generally carry my 9mm most often because of its capacity (loaded with HST rounds).

Police Surgeon - Article - POLICE Magazine

In 2018 he's carrying HSTs in his personal gun and Gold Dots in his issued gun. Why do you think that is, and which of our positions in this debate does it support?

 

[BE Mike]

My point with the deer is what does it prove? Do you think it proves remote wounding? What's a wound channel with a semi-wadcutter with the same velocity look like? I'm not saying their phillip's head ammunition won't work. FMJ works. Wadcutters work. Semi-wadcutters work. So will phillip's head, and for the same reason and using the same mechanism. I'm saying it's not doing what it's claiming to do as far as any temporary wound channel, "hydraulic cutting", etc. It works like a semi-wadcutter works. Just at a higher price point.

I've shot and killed deer with a revolver and .30-06 rifle. Having seen the "damage" on the deer I killed, I can't go along with your assumption that a semi-wadcutter will do the same thing as the LeHigh bullet. Although rounds I shot deer with did the job, with better placed shots than in the video, they didn't do the damage shown. What amazes me is that people discount the Lehigh bullet with nothing to back up the statements. Since this thread is about Underwood ammo, I'll confine my remarks to Underwood. As far as saying that any handgun bullet will do the job or conversely, not do the job is true. Hollow points have been shown not to do what they claim when they hit real flesh and bone. Handgun ammo, in general, isn't the best choice for defense, but the handgun is usually what we have handy.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Hollow points have been shown not to do what they claim when they hit real flesh and bone.

So why is Vail, who you trotted out as the anti-DocGKR, carrying them when his own backside is on the line? And cartridges on DocGKR's list, at that? Why has he apparently recanted on handgun bullets causing significant damage from "hydrostatic shock"? (I know the answer, already laid it out, his original assumption was based on bad data due to the fraud that was Le Mas, but curious as to what your answer is.)

 

[BE Mike]

So why is Vail, who you trotted out as the anti-DocGKR, carrying them when his own backside is on the line? And cartridges on DocGKR's list, at that? Why has he apparently recanted on handgun bullets causing significant damage from "hydrostatic shock"? (I know the answer, already laid it out, his original assumption was based on bad data due to the fraud that was Le Mas, but curious as to what your answer is.)

Maybe he hasn't tested LeHigh bullets. I really can't speak about why someone else does something. A friend of mine says, when asked about why he carries the Underwood Xtreme Defender, says, "It doesn't have to deform, to perform!" He's says he's going into country highly populated by black bears soon. He said he would prefer to take a 12 ga. shotgun, but because of hiking poles, etc., he'll be relegated to packing a pistol. His choice is a Glock 20 loaded with Underwood Ammo with the LeHigh bullet. He, like me, likes the Underwood Xtreme Defender in 9mm for general self-defense. I have yet to see any evidence refuting the capability of the LeHigh bullets. I like the adequate penetration and design that lends itself to reliable feeding. So far it looks like it does the job on live game.