http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE5ZnQmKy2o
In short the bullet only penetrated ~9", interesting results since this is one of the barrier blind loads suggested by Doc which I assume should meet the FBI min. penetration. Im guessing this occurred because it was shot from a 20" barrel at ~3000 fps it opened too rapidly reducing its penetration. Does this mean we should only be using this ammo in 16" barrels or less?
It’s only one shot, which only serves as a snapshot of possible performance. It’s best to have a spread of five or more to assess extremes and average.
The sim-test medium adds its own variables. Preparation and calibration is important. I don’t know how sim-test performance compares to real tissue or any validations for it.
Velocities published by Federal are for different barrel lengths. The F223FS1 is from a 24" test barrel. The MSR is from a 16". His velocities aren’t surprising.
Bullets also have minds of their own and all the imperfection of their human makers. It could be a valid result, but I suspect it’s not a representative sample for one or more reasons.
Another thread discussing the regular and MSR fusion loadings of this bullet:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=128836&highlight
Here’s a 64gr GDSP (#24447) recovered from tissue a few weeks ago. Performance between this loading and the commercially packaged 62gr Fusions are often identical.
This round was recovered from a 200lb whitetail buck. I shot him at about 35yds from a kneel. He was shot broadside once just behind the shoulder above the heart. After spinning 180 degrees he offered up the opposite broadside, and was shot at the same approximate location. After jumping in place a few seconds, he fell dead.
During recovery, two entrance wounds and two bullet paths were identified. The first round entered and struck the opposite chest wall and caused trauma as it tried to exit but ran out of gas. The second round had a more angular trajectory and ended up traveling into the guts and was not recovered.
This load chronos about 2700fps from the gun.
In the third photo, it looks like a petal has broken off. It’s actually folded over onto an adjacent petal, maintaining full structural integrity.
I have basically switched to the 62g Fusion load away from 75g TAP. I believe the 62g Fusion is one of the best all around loads for self defense, hunting, etc… for the AR platform. Maybe its not THE BEST, but as an all around performer, its hard to beat. I havent sold any of my 75g TAP and still keep a few mags of it around, but I dont have it in the guns any more.
I believe in the other thread that was linked it was determined that there was, in essence, zero difference between the two loadings, just that the testing was done with a 16" vs. 24" barrel. Oh and the non-MSR is put into prettier cases.
My primary load is 64gr GDSP as its the most accurate barrier blind load out there. However it can be pretty difficult to find and I always looked at the Fusion load as a backup. Supposedly the difference between the two is that the GD bullet has more antimony mixed in to make the bullet tougher.
I also recall seeing someone do a wallboard test with the Federal XM223SP1 62gr ICE load. Because it uses a 62gr bullet and not a 64gr one we can assume it uses the same bullet as the fusion load since Doc stated the XM223SP1 was similarly constructed, however that bullet did not hold up too well either making me think the Fusion bullets are simply not as robust.
This stuff seems to be the most readily available bonded sp around. And a great value. I picked up 200 round case recently on GB for about .80 per round.
I this currently stoked in my HD 11.5" SBR. I figured that between all the data we have out there, the test on the federal website, the fact that Doc states this is similar constructed to the gold dot, and there was a test Ive seen around here where the xm223sp1(same 62gr bullet right?) where it expands down to 1900 or less. So all things add up to me that it would be a great round from my 16" or my SBR.
I have probably 100 rounds of RA556B, about 100 rounds of the XM556FBIT3 and maybe 200 rounds of MK318.
The FBI stuff I’ve loaded into my HD gun; with the idea that the Winchester stuff will be “just in case” ammo.
But with the MSR being $17/20, and the RA556 being about $33/20, I’m wondering if I should shift all my eggs into the MSR platform and stock twice the amount for the same money. Part of the problem I have is I don’t shoot enough to do more than function check. I mean, why shoot, say, 5 mags at a cost of $200 to ensure it works well? With the MSR, I might be able to.
Anyone know the going rate on the MK318? Might be able to sell it off and put that towards either the Federal or Winchester rounds instead.
I cannot find M318 Mod 0 anywhere anymore, but I bought it from PSA a year ago for $15 a box of 20.
I want to stock up on Gold Dots, however, PSA has free shipping, and the MSR 62grs, for $17.
Is there any reason to pay more for 64gr Gold Dots?
The explanation I got on another forum is that the MSR penetrates deeper at distance. At shorter distances, the velocity causes more rapid expansion and less penetration. I haven’t quite figured out my true HD load yet. Most info out there is LE/Mil based and they frequently have different requirements. I’m leaning toward a lighter (50 gr.) JHP, but haven’t found data to back that up yet.
I don’t believe his test media is very well calibrated. Others on YouTube have done Fusion tests and it always penetrates to FBI specs. Tnoutdoors9 just reviewed Tula x39 FMJ and that test showed unrealistic results as well.
ELECTROPLATED, NOT BONDED.
Both the Federal Fusion bullet and the Speer Gold Dot are electroplated bullets.
At both manufacturer’s websites, they go to great lengths to CONCEAL this fact because they are terrified that consumers will confuse their excellent electroplated rifle bullets with cheap electroplated handgun bullets with thin plating - like Berry’s.
A true “bonded” bullet uses a traditional pre-formed tubular jacket that is chemically bonded to a swaged lead core - usually with a bonding agent like muriatic acid. Such bullets have nothing in common with electroplated Fusion and Gold Dot bullets.
I understand what you are saying. Can you explain to me how this means that electroplating the gilding metal jacket onto the core is not also a method of bonding?
Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk
If they went to such great lengths to hide it how does everybody know about it? True bonding just means that the jacket and core are combined to essentially become one piece rather than two. There is no difference in electro chemically bonding, chemically, welding or any of the other bonding processes. Some bonding processes create a stronger bond, but saying that the electro chemically bonded gold dot/fusions are not bonded is just ignorant.
I think speer knows how to bond bullets, they are one of the first to offer bonded bullets. They also could use any way they want to bond bullets. If they truly were not bonded as you suggest you would here professionals who test ammo speek out about it. Anybody that has shot bullet into water jugs can even see the difference in bonded and non bonded
He cant explain it. I have looked into making my own bonded bullets because you can not find a 70+ grain otm bullet that is bonded. I have found 64s but only in loaded ammo. There are a few different methods of bonding. They all result in the cores being bonded to the jackets, but some methods like welding are only as strong as the welding material.
Welding is applying a solder to the inside of the jacket placing the core than heating. Which welds the jacket to the core. This method is only as strong as the welding material. Corbin has some good info on making bonded bullets, they also sell everything you need to make your own bullets.
Fussion failed wallboard test?
No, the xm223sp1 did but supposedly the gold dot, fusion and xm223sp1 are very similar in construction.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?112461-So-Which-Round-for-Home-Defense-You-Decide
Nosler makes a bonded 64g for reloading. I have seen the Fusion pull’s being offered before. I have never seen anything heavier. I wonder what the reasoning is. Im wondering if its even needed since, in theory you get a 100% retained weight energy dump from the 62/64g offerings vs. a 77g OTM where you have to deal with possible jacket separation issues and thus not getting a 100% energy dump into one part of the target as the core separates from the jacket. I dont know, it sounds better in my head when thinking about it.
Electroplating requires activation such as hcl or h2so4. Electroplating is chemically bonded if done properly, and annealing increases the diffusion layer thickness. My experience does not involve lead so it may be a little different but the chemistry is what it is. I’d love to know how hcl bonds two dissimilar metals together.
If you have two relatively thick dissimilar metals with a very thin diffusion layer, they will shear apart rather easily, but this is do to specs, not process.
Wrong - you failed to explain that electroplating necesitates a plating of PURE COPPER. You can’t plate on “gilding metal” because “gilding metal” is an alloy.
I don’t think you understand the process of bullet making at all well.
I want to make sure I’m reading this correctly. Are you saying alloys cannot be electroplated? Brass cannot be electroplated?
There seems to be a pretty big difference between the performance of the 55gr gold dot and the 64gr gold dot. Why is this?