Winchester PDX1 bonded JHP??

[kjf40]

I got a gift card for Gander Mountain over the holidays...so i went to get some Hornady ammo....alas they had none for the 9mm.

What i did get is Winchester PDX1 bonder JHP 147g....never used it before.

Has anyone used this ammo before?
Any opinions on it???

 

[paddling_man]

I've shot it enough through my 228 and Glock 36 to be certain of function. I can get it at Wal Mart if I'm short without mail-ordering. Comparable to HST, Gold Dot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uhBfA9Pqv4

 

[kjf40]

Cool thanks...i wasnt sure if it was worth it...20.00 for 20 bullets....sheesh

I used to have a DE .50, they were a buck a bullet...lol

 

[jd4320t]

Cool thanks...i wasnt sure if it was worth it...20.00 for 20 bullets....sheesh

I used to have a DE .50, they were a buck a bullet...lol

That's a good price...I figured GM would have it priced higher.

 

[sadclownwp]

I dug one of the bullets out of a hog caurcus and it was fully expanded and the jacket stayed on. mushroomed perfectly. It is my carry ammo

 

[kjf40]

Ok well i feel alot better about getting it then...im used to Hornady, ill go rack these off and see, might change my brand.

Thanks guys.

 

[jd4320t]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4sycG22BvI

 

[NIFT]

According to Paul Nowak, Sr. Tech. Specialist at Winchester-Olin, the .40 cal. 180 gr. PDX-1 is the exact same cartridge as the Q4355 round used by the FBI and other agencies.

Q4364 is the designation for the 147 gr. 9mm cartridge. I suspect it is the same as the PDX-1 version, but I did not broach that question with Mr. Nowak.

Regardless, as an earlier post correctly pointed out, it is on par with similar weight bullets in the Federal HST and Speer Gold Dot line--all excellent ammunition with outstanding terminal performance.

 

[cedartop]

That line is what I carry, except in 124 +P. I despise 147's, if I wanted something slow, I would use a .45.

 

[Robert Richardson]

Good stuff.My EDC in 45acp.

 

[kjf40]

That line is what I carry, except in 124 +P. I despise 147's, if I wanted something slow, I would use a .45.

I understand everyone has their preference, but if you really think about it...most "personal protective moments" happen within 25' or much closer.

My point is...is there really going to be a huge difference if your bullet hits its target at 1000 fps vs 1300 fps?

Its all going to happen faster then the eye can blink...imho

Thank you for your input on this ammunition, i now feel confident i have a good self defense round that is not my norm.

 

[cedartop]

I understand everyone has their preference, but if you really think about it...most "personal protective moments" happen within 25' or much closer.

My point is...is there really going to be a huge difference if your bullet hits its target at 1000 fps vs 1300 fps?

Its all going to happen faster then the eye can blink...imho

Thank you for your input on this ammunition, i now feel confident i have a good self defense round that is not my norm.

You are totally correct. This for me is personal opinion only on the bullet weight thing.

 

[Indy Wing Chun]

Food for thought (since one of his vids was just posted earlier in the thread)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-HktsSKV6Q

 

[Jeremy1066]

Ya that video is a certain bummer since I've been carrying the 124gr +p myself

 

[STEEL CORE]

Winchester PDX/SPEER GDHP same same if you ask me. Both bonded JHP's.

 

[meyer4589]

I carry that in my LCP, so far good stuff never had any problems with it

 

[Disposable Heart]

Ya that video is a certain bummer since I've been carrying the 124gr +p myself

Bear some things in mind:

1. See how much denim he chocked infront of the water? That's ALOT! How many denim jackets do you layer? Extreme towel/denim/cloth tests don't get alot of sway from me. Put the max that someone would wear and go.

2. Single round, fired into water. Not a fleet test, but a single round. Even the best ammo can clog or not work as designed. Fire about 5 more and you will have a test of fleet expansion, not just single round.

3. Humans aren't all water. They are not homogeneous. They have bone, air pockets and guts full of black stuff and 50 Slim Jims. Water is a poor choice as it does not act the same as human mortal coil does. Simple fact... Those who scream about the human body being a majority of water seem to be skipping some anatomy lessons.

4. Winchester would have more extensive testing facilities, engineers and field information folks than some youTube goon shooting water jugs. Not discrediting his test, but just saying: Winchester knows what they are doing.

5. Bonded bullets, for lack of intensive wording, seem to clog easily. Gold Dots, Ranger Bonded, etc... just don't seem to expand when faced with extreme cloth. My personal horsing around found that out. BUT, the cloth amount used in the guy's test was HORRENDOUS compared to even the most extreme dresser. Doesn't stop me from carrying bonded though: They work in most, if not all circumstances and work better in some (such as barriers, bones, etc...).

 

[Indy Wing Chun]

Bear some things in mind:

1. See how much denim he chocked infront of the water? That's ALOT! How many denim jackets do you layer? Extreme towel/denim/cloth tests don't get alot of sway from me. Put the max that someone would wear and go.

2. Single round, fired into water. Not a fleet test, but a single round. Even the best ammo can clog or not work as designed. Fire about 5 more and you will have a test of fleet expansion, not just single round.

3. Humans aren't all water. They are not homogeneous. They have bone, air pockets and guts full of black stuff and 50 Slim Jims. Water is a poor choice as it does not act the same as human mortal coil does. Simple fact... Those who scream about the human body being a majority of water seem to be skipping some anatomy lessons.

4. Winchester would have more extensive testing facilities, engineers and field information folks than some youTube goon shooting water jugs. Not discrediting his test, but just saying: Winchester knows what they are doing.

5. Bonded bullets, for lack of intensive wording, seem to clog easily. Gold Dots, Ranger Bonded, etc... just don't seem to expand when faced with extreme cloth. My personal horsing around found that out. BUT, the cloth amount used in the guy's test was HORRENDOUS compared to even the most extreme dresser. Doesn't stop me from carrying bonded though: They work in most, if not all circumstances and work better in some (such as barriers, bones, etc...).

All excellent points. The author of the Youtube video states that this is a SINGLE BULLET test and not to be even remotely considered a conclusive result. As for the denim, here is his reasoning:

Four layers of denim is an FBI parameter. I'm just trying to use something that is familiar. Admittedly, their testing protocol is very stringent and intricate. I continue to stress that my one-shot tests are only a single representation. When I look at the Metro Nashville police reports, I'm tempted to use a hoodie or sports jersey for testing fabric. That seems to be consistent apparel for the bad guys around here that get caught.

If you see his later videos, he's moved to a ballistic-type gel. His videos, as well as ANY other internet presence makes for great starting points, but you should always do as much of your own testing as safety, supply and logistics allow. A much better test, IMHO, is to make sure that your gun likes the round you choose. A particular round could have the world's best ballistics, but if your gun hiccups when eating it, then change ammunition (or buy a new gun)

 

[Disposable Heart]

Plus, I didn't even get into the idea that even if it doesn't expand, that round is flat faced, jagged and screaming through them at 1200+ FPS. It's going to rip something asunder. Keep shooting...

Funny thing is: in the 80s and 70s, all manufacturers used was water to test expansion. Furthering the painful 9mm developments and it's struggle against claims of no-stops were bullets designs that worked great on paper and in inaccurate lab tests, but were not working on the street. Fast forward and using proper testing, bad dudes are dropping like flies... Better designs, better results.

 

[NIFT]

Winchester would have more extensive testing facilities, engineers and field information folks than some youTube goon shooting water jugs. Not discrediting his test, but just saying: Winchester knows what they are doing.

I find this "test" video akin to somebody taking a wing from an aircraft, driving a tractor back and forth over it, looking at the results, and claiming the strength engineers at the manufacturer failed in the wing design.

The terminal ballistic testing at Winchester, Federal, FBI Ballistic Research Facility, Letterman Army Istitute of Research, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and other reputable testing agencies have credibility, where the "test" in the video does not. There is nothing scientific about the "test," and it gives no useful information.