Winchester PDX 230gn .45acp Water Test

[Joshua M. Smith]

Saturday, Jan 22nd, 2010
3pm to 5pm, 43°F +/-

Tested: Winchester 230gn PDX1, factory load
Bullet Type: Hollowpoint, bonded
Factory Claimed Velocity: 920fps
Test Weapon: Personalized/modified 1911

Yesterday I picked up some Winchester 230gn PDX1 in .45acp.


Well, the packaging is impressive…

I test ammunition before I carry it, both for function in the weapon and terminal performance.

The hollowpoint is impressive.


… wide and fairly shallow hollow point…

This bullet is reminiscent of the Black Talon, and from what I’m given to understand, is a direct descendent of that line.

But how does it perform?  The FBI has selected it in .40 S&W as their primary duty round, and it was manufactured to their specifications – namely, it is bonded to better penetrate barriers, and I’m assuming a few other tweaks were made.

I dug my test box from the snow and filled it up with water jugs.


Most are familiar with my standard setup by now.

The standard setup is five, one gallon jugs filled with water with the front covered with four layers of denim.

Now, I’ve been described by some as “an excitable boy.”  I will concede this point today.  I forgot the fifth jug, grabbing my hearing protection and camera on the way out.  I decided to shoot without the fifth jug as every .45acp hollowpoint I’ve tested to date has stopped somewhere in the fourth jug.

Big mistake.  It blew through the fourth jug and departed for parts unknown – thought eh furthest it could have gotten was to the berm at the 100 yard mark.  It most likely ended up in a tree, however.

So, aching from a fall down into the creek earlier when the undercut bank gave way (physical therapy said don’t just sit around, so I had to set up some 100 yard targets!), I set everything up again.


The shot…

The first jug launched off the platform, the second was hurting, the third was shredded like wheat, the fourth had a couple holes in it, and the fifth



… EPIC FAIL…

… contained the under expanded bullet, base forward.

That was disconcerting; I wonder if the FBI knows about this?

This called for another test, one without the four layers of denim in place.

The effect upon the jugs was much the same.


WIN!

The fully expanded bullet stopped in the third jug.


Better, but I was expecting the fourth jug to contain the bullet.

This was equivilant to about 9” of gelatin penetration, give or take a couple inches.


Upon comparison, you can see the unexpanded bullet did begin to open just a bit, but ran out of steam to do so.

Conclusions:

First, it hurts to fall down a bank into icy water.  Don’t do it, especially if you’re recovering from an already-injured back.  If you do do this, don’t conduct bullet tests afterward.

Second, the PDX1 is not any more impressive than other ammunition, and less impressive than some.  It is reminiscent, to me at least, of the performance exhibited by the original Hydra-Shok 230gn loading:  Expansion is good until that four layers of denim is introduced.*

However, I do like the Hydra-Shok for this reason:  In a Northern Indiana winter, we normally wear thick clothing.  In my part of the state, thick hunting or Carhart coats are common.  I have therefore actively sought out the old style Hydra-Shok in anticipation of it clogging with clothing and providing needed penetration. 

The PDX1 seems to act the same way, but it also seems to tumble.  I have never seen ball or a clogged bullet blow water-filled jugs off the test bench like this did, so something was happening, anyway.

Weapon function proved one malfunction – a failure to fully extract.  When I built this pistol, I left the stock extractor in there and it works well with all ammo but Winchester.  I adjusted the extractor a bit tighter and my function test magazines worked flawlessly.  I will, however, be ordering a new extractor!

Recoil was brusque, and muzzle flash was not evident.  My practice rounds are 230gn LRN over 5.2gn BE powder (this is a bit over max listed; use with caution), and they feel very much alike.  I am guessing a powder similar to Win231 was used.

I do like this round, though my “perfect” handgun round would penetrate into the fifth jug and expand to over one inch.  I don’t think the PDX is worth the hype, and I wouldn’t mind if they toned down that box a bit, but it seems to work and shoot well.

Josh

*I encountered this same phenomena with Hornady TAP 230gn +P.  Must be a .45acp thing.

[oldgranpa]

As always, Josh, an excellent test. It's apparent that 4 layers of denim stops or slows expansion. Why a lot of folks still prefer to just use FMJ. I guess I should do more denim tests too. Only suggestion is maybe 4 layers negates the test. Maybe consider 2 layers is enough?

Nice expansion on that second bullet. I does look like the LE Ranger bullet. Did you notice any "talons" on the sides? I couldn't tell from the photo for sure.

Anyway, your waterjug testing meets valid ballistic testing rules in every way. As good as any of Carmon Crapson's tests on Steve's Pages.  And I'm glad you post your tests here.

og

[Joshua M. Smith]

Hi OG,

I think I'll keep the four layers of denim as I believe it probably best imitates the OVERALL winter clothing worn here.  I like to standardize, and it's easier to do with denim as I wear out jeans faster than I do leather or other clothing.

I did not see any talons on the sides.  They were folded in.  From the animation on their website, Winchester shows that the talons open before folding flat.  I'm not sure this is really the case, but this is what they seem to claim.

Josh

[EJKaye]

Great test josh - thanks for the write up!

I wonder how a different test medium, like OG's wet packs or ballistic gel, would affect the expansion.  Do water jugs normally provide optimal expansion? 

[oldgranpa]

I've only done limited waterjug tests due to our range frowns on that especially if other shooters are present. Seems it scares people! So we depend on Josh for waterjug testing.
But the few I did to compare with wetpack, mainly with .380, seem to show the waterjug gives more expansion, deeper penetration. The wetpack is usually 2/3 of gelatin in penetration, based on comparing published data. The waterjugs have been 3/2 of gelatin.
Some years ago I had an argument with Corbon about the .32NAA cartridge and pistol they came out with. I got nasty fragmentation, poor penetration with the stuff. Nasty recoil too and I dumped that pistol. Corbon argued that wetpacks and waterjugs were too severe a test.
And that the round was designed based on gelatin with a denim cover.
Well, it's been said a lot of times, gelatin ain't people, neither are wet paper or water jugs.
The FBI started all this to find a better cartridge than 9mm after the big Miami failure. In spite of all tests by many, many people there still ain't no magic bullet!! The tests are just an indication. Not the Holy Grail. Sure a lot of fun though, and you get a nice souvenir after the test.
All I can say is, try it, you'll like it.
Here, once again is my favorite video of flyandscuba shooting a wetpack! (Nobody around.)
http://s3.photobucket.com/albums/y63/oldgranpa/?action=view&current=mudpackvideo.flv

We had a bucket of mud behind it which we won't try again. Too big a mess!! Josh has some good videos posted here as well.

og....who always says more than he should.

[D!rtyH@rry]

i once frowned on the denim test as being unrealistic.

i have changed my tune and feel it may not be severe enough based on RL shooting data with a very high percentage of un/under expanded JHP.

[Amend2]

Interesting report. While I agree with the reason to use 4 layers of denim, I am wondering if any valid conclusions can be drawn from just one shot.

[EJKaye]

Heh, Josh - I saw this, and I thought of your "Epic Fail" quote...

[oldgranpa]

the wetpack testing done so far includes only a few with denim cover. So all the bare wetpack tests do is compare ammo brands and different handguns at times. This way we can at least sort out ammo brands that do not measure up and do not perform the way expected. Never did we say the tests were certified or holy grail in any way.
Which ammo you choose for SD carry is dependant on reliabilty in your firearm based on your own range tests. Whether it will stop an attack is always an unkown quantity. The missing data here and everywhere else are actual street results and autopsy reports. So far as I know there is still no magic bullet and all manufacturer's claims have to be taken with a grain of salt.
The rest is up to you.
Cheers,
og.........who wishes street reports were not kept secret!!

[twoguns]

Howdy Mr. OG,

I understand your desire to see the results of street shootings sir.  But for reasons I have discussed in the past, I frankly do not expect they will likely ever be discussed.  Maybe if a reporter was covering a trial that involved a police shooting, he would hear some information during testimony.  But that is not the type of thing you would likely read in that reporter's account of the trial.  Perhaps because they don't have a good handle on what they heard being stated, or more likely because editors do not feel such comments are pc/appropriate.

Sometimes it is simply a coin toss in my view, because some LEAs are forced to use ammo off of a state contract they had not input into negotiating.  I know in AZ for example, local agenices primarily use duty rounds purchased from a state contract, that I believe is negotiated by AZ DPS.  But I suspect more times than not, the agencies creating the contracts, have done their own ballistic testing or at least discussed with other LEAs tests they have performed.

So in that respect, perhaps the best suggestion I can offer to those looking for a self-defense load is to say, find out what your local police issue and try to use the same round.  If you are involved in a shooting, in court you can at least respond to accusations of using a "blood thirsty bullet" that, well I used the same thing that x PD issues to its officers.  That has a good chance of taking at least some wind if not all wind out of that particular sail.

That said, I don't follow my own advice on that one either, lol.  But I do tend to use rounds that my agency allowed us to carry as duty rounds.  Since they were chosen for us off of the federal contract, but someone I considered a true "ballistics expert", I feel secure in making those choices.  Mr. Jim had retired from HP White Ballistics Lab and had grown tired of sitting around his house.  He jumped at the chance to go back to work and become our first true ammo expert at our national firearms unit.

For the most part, I opt to carry various calibers in Speer Gold Dot loadings.  But that said, Speer is not the only brand I will carry in certain calibers.  But for the most part, what I tend to use was chosen for my agency by Mr. Jim.

Since it is unlikely civilians will ever have access to the info contained in autopsy reports of how a round actually performed, my best suggestion is simply to try to use the same round your local police or even state police use.  Not a definitive bet every time, but I think they likely based their choice on real world info they obtained from various sources, including other LEAs who have done testing and reviewed such reports.

That is about the best I can suggest.

twoguns