sandy
Regular Member
imported post
You can find my post in support of EFMJ on page 3 of this thread, and since it came up againI'll add some more details about my own ad-hoc testing. I think what's been said here is fair. EFMJ is not the "best" technology out there and everything is a tradeoff. But I am personally convinced of EFMJ's effectiveness and it is what I carry.
I was shooting .40 caliber through a foam target at the range, and decided to try some expansion comparisons. I layered two pieces of foam together for a thickness of around an inch and a half. On the front of that I taped a plastic target disc. No surprise, firing FMJ into this made a clean hole in all layers. Firing a Winchester Ranger (formerly Black Talon) into this pile caused some significant expansion. The plastic disc had a small hole just like the FMJ, and there was some progressive expansion through the foam layers. Obviously I can't measure how big the bullet eventually expanded to or how deep it would have penetrated, but the expansion looked decent. It did expand somewhat. I then fired my EFMJ into it. The entry hole was the same, but the effect on the foam in back was explosive in comparison. It looked like the bullet expanded to its full diameter when it passed through the plastic, and took out the maximum width of both foam layers.
Although this is not the most scientific test, it supports Federal's claim that this round resists the tendency to clog, and expands in circumstances when hollowpoints might not. The comparison round (Ranger) is rated pretty highly in terms of reliable expansion, so I think it is a fair test.
I've also done water jug tests, but I've never managed to get enough in a row to capture the expanded bullet. I can clearly see that it expanded quickly, but it always seems to get away from me, usually because it strays from a straight line after about 3 jugs.
EFMJ is a good price point for me, and the biggest factor in my personal choice was mentioned in my previous post:When I miss, I think EFMJ is more likely to expand sooner and go through fewer walls before stopping. Yet its on-target performance is on par with the best of them. I'm happy with my choice. Test your own choiceso you are similarly happy with yours.
--Sandy (WA)
You can find my post in support of EFMJ on page 3 of this thread, and since it came up againI'll add some more details about my own ad-hoc testing. I think what's been said here is fair. EFMJ is not the "best" technology out there and everything is a tradeoff. But I am personally convinced of EFMJ's effectiveness and it is what I carry.
I was shooting .40 caliber through a foam target at the range, and decided to try some expansion comparisons. I layered two pieces of foam together for a thickness of around an inch and a half. On the front of that I taped a plastic target disc. No surprise, firing FMJ into this made a clean hole in all layers. Firing a Winchester Ranger (formerly Black Talon) into this pile caused some significant expansion. The plastic disc had a small hole just like the FMJ, and there was some progressive expansion through the foam layers. Obviously I can't measure how big the bullet eventually expanded to or how deep it would have penetrated, but the expansion looked decent. It did expand somewhat. I then fired my EFMJ into it. The entry hole was the same, but the effect on the foam in back was explosive in comparison. It looked like the bullet expanded to its full diameter when it passed through the plastic, and took out the maximum width of both foam layers.
Although this is not the most scientific test, it supports Federal's claim that this round resists the tendency to clog, and expands in circumstances when hollowpoints might not. The comparison round (Ranger) is rated pretty highly in terms of reliable expansion, so I think it is a fair test.
I've also done water jug tests, but I've never managed to get enough in a row to capture the expanded bullet. I can clearly see that it expanded quickly, but it always seems to get away from me, usually because it strays from a straight line after about 3 jugs.
EFMJ is a good price point for me, and the biggest factor in my personal choice was mentioned in my previous post:When I miss, I think EFMJ is more likely to expand sooner and go through fewer walls before stopping. Yet its on-target performance is on par with the best of them. I'm happy with my choice. Test your own choiceso you are similarly happy with yours.
--Sandy (WA)
