Measuring Terminal Ballistics
In the previous parts we have looked at the performance of various rounds as well as how barrel length affects the performance of various calibers. Now we’ll be looking at how performance is measured and compared according to the FBI standards, and proposing a new, possibly more civilian relevant, way to measure ammunition performance.
I believe that this new system, is far and away a better way to gauge the performance of a given handgun caliber because it gets away from a myopic view of just the round, but factors in all of the various figures of the gun, the bullet, and the magazine capacity.
Table of Contents
A Brief History Lesson
If you have read the pervious articles or have some level of knowledge about self-defense shooting, then you are familiar with the FBI ballistics testing standards. These were laid out by the FBI in the wake of the 1986 shoot out in Miami, Florida. So, before we begin, we should probably discuss the history of the Miami Shoot Out.
The 1986 Miami Shootout: A Brief Account
On April 11, 1986, in Miami-Dade County, Florida, eight FBI agents attempted to apprehend two violent bank robbers, William Russell Matix and Michael Lee Platt, who were suspected of a series of armed robberies and murders. The suspects, both military veterans, were armed, notably with a Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic rifle. The ensuing confrontation escalated into a fierce gun battle that lasted approximately five minutes. Despite being outnumbered, the suspects’ superior firepower resulted in the deaths of two agents, Special Agents Benjamin Grogan and Jerry Dove, and injuries to five others. Both Matix and Platt were killed during the exchange.
Aftermath and Impact on Law Enforcement
The shootout exposed significant issues in law enforcement practices:
Firearm Upgrades: The inadequacy of agents’ weapons against semi-auto rifles led the FBI and other agencies to reevaluate their standard-issue firearms, transitioning from revolvers to semi-automatic pistols with greater ammunition capacity.
Ammunition Testing: The incident underscored the need for more effective ammunition, prompting the development of the FBI Ammunition Testing Protocol to ensure rounds could penetrate barriers and incapacitate threats reliably.
Tactical Training: Law enforcement agencies intensified training programs, emphasizing tactical scenarios involving heavily armed adversaries to better prepare officers for similar confrontations.
Body Armor: The event highlighted the necessity for improved body armor, leading to the widespread adoption of higher-grade protective gear capable of stopping rifle rounds.
Beyond this there’s much more that could be dived into, from tactics to handgun selection, not to mention the development of the .40 S&W cartridge. However, for this article we’ll be focusing on the testing protocols that they developed.
Development of the FBI Ammunition Testing Protocol
In response to the Miami shootout, the FBI sought to establish a standardized method for measuring ammunition performance to ensure agents were equipped with effective rounds. This led to the creation of the FBI Ammunition Testing Protocol, which evaluates a bullet’s ability to penetrate and expand after passing through various barriers, simulating common obstacles encountered during shootings.
How the FBI Protocol Works.
The protocol consists of six standardized tests, each designed to assess bullet performance through specific barriers. For a detailed breakdown of how the testing is conducted Brass Fetcher has an excellent article, but to summarize it, it breaks down into the following tests:
Bare Gelatin: Bullets are fired into a 10% ordnance gelatin block, simulating human muscle tissue, to establish baseline performance.
Heavy Clothing: The gelatin block is covered with four layers of clothing—cotton T-shirt material, cotton shirt material, Malden Mills Polartec 200 fleece, and cotton denim—to evaluate bullet performance against clothed targets.
Steel: Two pieces of 20-gauge, hot-rolled steel with a galvanized finish are set three inches apart to simulate the weakest part of a car door. The clothing-covered gelatin block is placed 18 inches behind the rearmost piece of steel.
Wallboard (Drywall): Two pieces of ½-inch standard gypsum board are set 3.5 inches apart to simulate a typical building interior wall. The gelatin block is placed 18 inches behind the rearmost piece of gypsum.
Plywood: One piece of ¾-inch “AA” fir plywood is set 18 inches in front of the gelatin block to simulate the resistance of typical wooden doors or construction timbers.
Automobile Glass: One piece (15″ x 18″) of A.S.I. ¼-inch laminated automobile safety glass is set at a 45-degree angle to the horizontal and 15 degrees to the side, resulting in a compound angle. The gelatin block is placed 18 inches behind the glass to simulate a shot taken at the driver of a car from the left front quarter of the vehicle.
Testing Procedure
For each test, five shots are fired from a distance of 10 feet into the gelatin block. The bullets are then examined for three primary performance metrics:
Penetration Depth: Measured in inches, with an ideal range between 14.0 and 16.0 inches. Penetration less than 12.0 inches is heavily penalized, while over-penetration beyond 18.0 inches is also discouraged.
Expansion (Upset Diameter): The increase in bullet diameter upon impact is measured, with larger expansions generally indicating better performance.
Retained Weight: The bullet’s weight after impact is assessed to determine how much mass it retained, which can affect both penetration and expansion.
Scoring System
Each performance metric is assigned a score, contributing to a cumulative total of up to 500 points:
Penetration: Accounts for 70% of the total score.
Expansion: Contributes 20% to the total score.
Retained Weight: Makes up the remaining 10% of the score.
Can We Do Better?
When it comes to measuring ammunition performance, these standards make sense and are useful to law enforcement as they have a far higher likelihood of having to deal with scenarios where barriers are possibly a concern.
Yet there are some aspects that are missing from the analysis or could be described as less important in a civilian self-defense scenario. Nor does the FBI’s scoring system take into account other factors such as capacity nor muzzle energy.
What Should We Consider?
First and foremost, not all of the barrier penetration tests are useful to the average civilian defender and that’s who I’m attempting to help with the OHREF Standard. Understanding how a bullet reacts to barriers such as car doors, windshields, and clothing are useful and have legitimate applications. However, the drywall and plywood test are questionable to me.
Identifying and knowing your target is incredibly important, and I’d argue that unless you have x-ray vision trying to shoot at an assailant through these kinds of barriers is unadvisable, bar some extremely edge case scenarios with half height divider walls in homes. This goes doubly so for civilians that lack the qualified immunity protections afforded to LEO’s. I could easily envision a situation where someone was attacking you with or from a car, so I can’t easily dismiss the other tests.
So, while informative, and useful for knowing ballistic behavior, the drywall and plywood tests I don’t think are worth considering in a civilian focused application and scoring system.
A secondary issue is that most data sets on handgun bullet performance available to civilians lack most of the barrier testing protocols. Such as the Lucky Gunner Labs tests, we’ve focused on in pervious installments. Testing these ammunition types is already an expensive endeavor, and moving beyond the clothing test is often cost prohibitive for those lacking a federal budget. So, testing of this kind is difficult to find data for, so we are left with having to focus on the heavy clothing test standards.
With this in mind, we can start to create a standard for scoring a particular defensive loading, focusing on what data is readily available and applicable to a civilian use case.
Creating a New Scoring System
As I noted previously, the FBI scoring standard does not include muzzle energy, but more importantly, capacity. There’s no denying that having 15 or even 17 rounds of 9mm are an effective force multiplication over the more limited capacity of the .45 ACP.
Beyond this, the reality of human physique has… “changed”. Given that today’s BMI’s are increasing, it may behoove us to allow for more penetration than the 18 inches that the FBI ballistics tests call for.
So, I’ve been tinkering with a new scoring system to attempt to create something that accounts for this. As looking at just one or two performance factors is not necessarily sufficient for a holistic view of a projectile’s performance as well as the overall performance of your entire carried load out, magazines and all.
This new scoring system attempts to factor in muzzle energy, penetration, expansion, capacity, and weight retention.
These factors are all combined with various weights to create a complete overview of the effectiveness of the round when paired with a given handgun’s magazine capacity. The intent is to create a scoring system where a 100 is a complete pass and anything above indicates above basic requirements performance.
I’m calling this the Objective Handgun Round Effectiveness Formula, or the OHREF Standard.
This is not intended to be a final say on how good a handgun round loading is, nor do I think it can’t be tweaked and improved. However, this tries to give someone who only has some basic testing information some yard stick to make a full comparison of a given handgun with a given loading and be able to in some ways make some apples to oranges comparisons where it may not be obvious what is being lost or gained by moving from one pistol and ammunition choice to another.
For example, I want to compare a Glock G17 with a 17-round capacity to a Glock G21 with a 13-round capacity and two given loadings for 9mm Luger and .45 ACP. Or I want to compare the effectiveness of my .380 ACP pocket pistol to a compact or full-sized handgun in 9mm. How does the added capacity compare? What am I loosing or gaining? Can I make up for some of the loses with extra magazines? The OHREF Standard is trying to combine the proven standards of the FBI ballistics testing with a more complete picture of the capabilities of the firearm, and given that attackers may be much larger than in decades past, account for some of these changes.
Below I’ll go through the OHREF Standard and how each element in the score works in detail.
The OHREF Standard in Detail
This Objective Handgun Round Effectiveness Formula (OHREF) is designed to evaluate self-defense ammunition by penalizing underperformance in critical areas and rewarding rounds that meet ideal performance standards. The formula is structured to prioritize penetration, capacity, and expansion, while also considering muzzle energy and retained weight.
The goal is to let you compare one bullet and gun combo to another bullet and gun combo objectively.
Data Sources
If you are going to be using the OHREF standard, then you’ll want to get data for the rounds that you want to compare. It should adhere to the standards of the FBI testing for heavy clothing and will give you information on penetration depth, recovered weight, expansion, and muzzle velocity. Lucky Gunner Labs has a ton of this data and their data set was used in developing this standard.
Many others also do testing as well, many YouTube channels in the firearms sphere do this, however you do want to find testing for the specific loading that you are looking at with a barrel length that is the same as or as close as possible to the barrel length you are considering carrying.
If anything, go shorter, if the test data is for a 4″ inch barrel, and you are considering a 5″ then you’ll likely get better performance out of the 5″ barrel due to the extra length.
Weeding Out Unacceptable Performance and Tweaked Standards
The first aspect of the OHREF standard is that, while based mostly on the FBI ballistics standards it deviates from them in a few key areas.
First is penetration, instead of 12″ at a minimum we move this to 13.5 inches, slightly more, with an ideal range of 14 to 19 inches.
The there are a couple of reasons for this. As I’ve already talked about, the average size of an assailant has increased and you may find yourself having to deal with someone who’s much larger than what was common during the time when the FBI first developed these protocols.
But what about over penetration? Well, given that the FBI’s standard really only translates to about six to eight inches of real world penetration then if we are trying to account for increased assailant sizes then we do want a bit more penetration. We’ll go into the standards in a bit more detail further on but this is one area where the OHREF standard changes slightly from the FBI standards.
So before we start scoring, we look at a few key factors:
- Penetration depth must be more than 13.5 inches, and less than 24 inches.
- Expansion should be more than 1.2 times the bullet’s original diameter.
- Retained weight should be 85% or more
If any of these key tests are failed then the overall score of the round is reduced by 25%
With those basic checks out of the way we get to the individual parts of the score. Each part is weighted so that no one factor can overpower the others, but some factors are more heavily weighted than others such as capacity and penetration. Finally since we are dealing with different kinds of measurements we need to normalize each of these numbers into something where we can get a final score that is easy to understand.
Muzzle Energy
Let’s start by looking at the scoring for muzzle energy. Since most defensive encounters are at incredibly short range, distances where any pistol round won’t see appreciable drop in energy or velocity we look only at the muzzle energy.
Since we are dealing with a number that is easily in the hundreds of foot pounds, we need to divide down this number so that we keep our scoring system readable.
We divide the number by 100 then in half, and use a weighting variable to keep muzzle energy from over powering the overall score.
The formula from the excel prototype looks like this
("Muzzle Energy"/100)/2)*0.1
("Muzzle Energy"/100)/2)*0.1
Penetration Depth
Next, we look at the penetration depth of the round, This is where we start to get complicated.
If the penetration depth is below 12 inches then it scores zero
If the penetration depth is between 12 to 19 inches then it receives normal scoring, after 19 inches it receives a smaller bonus, and if it goes beyond 24 inches then it receives a zero score for over penetration.
This allows for a greater depth of penetration then the normal FBI standard, but any radical over penetration is severely penalized. This additional penetration allows us to still possibly make vital organ or central nervous system hits, even when firing from an odd angle.
For example I am a small guy, and at most tip the scales at 140 pounds, to go completely through my body, at least 12 inches of penetration would be needed from left to right, barring bone or other obstructions. Most of the general population is going to be much larger than myself, and would need even more penetration for a “through and through” at such an odd angle.
Finally we use a weighting value of 0.4 on the penetration depth score.
The formula looks like this in Excel
=IF("penetration depth"<12,
0,
IF("penetration depth"<=19,
(("penetration depth" - 14) / (6 ^ 1.5) * 0.15 + 0.85) * 0.4,
IF("penetration depth"<=24,
(((19 - 14) / (6 ^ 1.5) * 0.15 + 0.85) * 0.4) +
(("penetration depth" - 19) / (6 ^ 1.5) * 0.15 * 0.1) * 0.4,
IF("penetration depth"<=24,
(
(
((19 - 14) / (6 ^ 1.5) * 0.15 + 0.85) +
(5 / (6 ^ 1.5) * 0.15 * 0.1)
) * 0.4
) * (1 - (("penetration depth" - 24) / 5)),
0
)
)
)
)
Expansion Diameter
For the expansion score we break it into a major and minor part.
For the minor part we compare it to an ideal expansion diameter of 1.5 times an unfired 9mm bullet, this is 25% of this part of the score. For the major part we look at how much more the bullet expanded compared to the unfired bullet. This is 75% of the score.
These are added together and weighted at 0.15 to create a final expansion score. This is to compare to an ideal expansion and also not unfairly penalize calibers such as 5.7 that might perform well but would loose out if ALL that we looked at was the expansion of the round compared to larger diameter bullets.
We also test again if the round has expanded to at least 1.2 times it’s starting diameter, if it has not then it is given a zero score for this aspect.
Finally we weight this at 0.15 to prevent larger bullets from simply winning by default in this aspect of the scoring system.
The excel formula is shown below.
=IF("Expansion">=("Starting Diameter"*1.2),((((("Expansion"/0.5325)^2)*0.25)+((("Expansion"/"Starting Diameter")^2)*0.75))*(0.25))*(0.15),0)
Magazine Capacity
Capacity in a self-defense situation is important because it gives you more opportunities to hit something important. Here I have set the ideal capacity at 15 rounds. This is the standard capacity for a 9mm compact handgun such as a Glock 19 or its clones. To me this is a median for concealability and capacity, higher capacity obviously has benefits, but smaller guns may afford better concealability at reduced effectiveness. By looking at capacity we get an idea of how much is lost or gained overall from moving from a 1911 with 8 to 10 rounds of .45 ACP to a Glock G17 with 17 rounds in the magazine.
For this score we take the capacity of the handgun and compare it to this ideal, weighted at 0.4, this puts it in importance on par with penetration. The results of the Miami Shootout put a stark emphasis on capacity, and we’ve seen the transition to higher capacity for a reason in handguns especially.
Bottom line is they suck for stopping a threat NOW, and with this aspect of the scoring system we are attempting to acknowledge that reality.
The formula for this section has two parts, one we consider the capacity in the pistol and then we consider additional ammunition carried. The additional ammunition carried does receive less weight than the capacity in the gun as it must be reloaded prior to being fired.
=(("Magazine Capacity"/"Ideal Magazine Capacity")*0.4)+((("Extra Rounds Carried"*0.1)*0.25)/"Ideal Magazine Capacity")*0.4
Fired Weight
Finally, we look at fired weight. Or the weight of the bullet (or the bullet fragments) after being retrieved from the gel block. A bullet that fragments too early will often have issues with penetrating deep enough to meet the standard for a full score. However, we do still want to make sure that the rounds that are impacting the target are penetrating with enough mass at the end to deliver enough damage deep enough into the body of an attacker. So, we compare the fired and unfired weight.
If the round loses more than 85% of it gets a score reduction as noted previously but here, we look again to see how much of the weight was lost. Ideally, we want to see a 100% weight retention and the score is reduced based on how much of the bullet’s weight is lost. This can be unfavorable to lighter projectiles that lose a few grains in expansion, however if they are being driven with more speed they can easily make up for any loss in that area as other factors are far more important.
The excel formula is reproduced below. In it the weight is checked and penalized if it is less than 85% retained by the recovered rounds.
=(IF("Fired Weight"/"Starting Weight">=("Starting Weight"*0.85),"Fired Weight"/"Starting Weight")*0.15,(("Fired Weight"/"Starting Weight")*0.85))*0.15)
Final Notes and The Equation
Below is the full equation from the Excel prototype, to finalize the score. As you can see the tests are run first, and then the score is added up, and multiplied by 100 to get a final score.
The same is done with rounds that do not pass all of the initial tests, but with reduced scoring.
=(IF(AND("Penetration">=13.5,"Penetration"<24,"Expansion">=("Unfired Diameter"*1.2),"Fired Weight"/"Loaded Weight">=0.85),
("Fired Weight Score"
+"Penetration Score"
+"Expansion Score"
+"Muzzle Energy Score"
+"Magazine Capcity Score")*100,
(0.75*("Fired Weight Score"
+"Penetration Score"
+"Expansion Score"
+"Muzzle Energy Score"
+"Magazine Capcity Score)*100)))
Of course, there are some other factors beyond the caveats that I have already noted above.
First, we are assuming that the FBI ballistics standards for 12 to 18 inches of penetration is good but more penetration is better. We are assuming that an over penetration to below 24 inches is acceptable.
We are also assuming that 15 rounds of capacity are a desirable minimum for held rounds in a magazine.
We are assuming that an expansion of 1.5 times a 9mm bullet, or 0.5325 inches is ideal, and anything less than 1.2 times the original diameter is not acceptable.
We can’t easily account for felt recoil as this is lacking from most testing data sets and can vary from gun to gun and shooter to shooter in how it is perceived. The closest analogy to this would be to measure degree offset from a Ransom style rest, and I simply have not (yet) seen that kind of data in the wild.
We also can’t account for follow up shot time, or time to reload as this is shooter and handgun dependent, some guns can fire “faster”, and some shooters have incredibly fast split times for their shots due to training. Some handguns are easy to reload, others may take more time, such as revolvers. Finally a reload can be fumbled under pressure, so I encourage you to compare capacity with a single magazine.
We are not taking into account accuracy as most handguns have acceptable levels of accuracy at 25 yards. In the future, if more data on ballistic behavior through glass or car door analogue barriers becomes available this could be incorporated to account for trajectory deviation or expansion lost due to barriers.
Bullets that are non-expanding, or are intended to do more damage through tumbling are currently not well accounted for with the OHREF Standard. Cartridges such as the 5.7x28mm cartridge fits into this category that would be considered for defensive use in a handgun. Future versions may attempt to account for this, but since the 5.7 remains relatively niche (but growing) and unusual in the design of the cartridge, intended for rifles such as the P90 and damaging through tumbling, makes comparing it with usual factors an interesting question. However for 5.7 rounds that are intended to expand they can still be used with the OHREF Standard in its current form.
We can’t take into account other factors such as concealability with this scoring system, as this is dependent on the shooter, their clothing, how they are carrying, and what level of concealment they need.
Finally, with any mathematical metric this is NOT a replacement for real world events. Attackers have been stopped with misses and been failed to be stopped immediately by direct hits to the heart.
The OHREF Standard is a yardstick, NOT a real-world performance metric.
Some Examples Scores
Below I’ve produced the scoring for the passing rounds using the OHREF standard with data from Lucky Gunner Labs on .380 ACP, 9mm Luger, .40 S&W, .357 SIG, and .45 ACP. Any round with a score that is 100 or higher is considered to be a passing grade, anything below that should be failing due to issues with expansion, penetration, or don’t have enough performance to make up for capacity losses.
As you can see a number of .45 ACP rounds performed exceptionally due to high expansion and good penetration, making up for their loss of capacity if combined with a 13-round magazine. However, plenty of 9mm, .40 S&W, and .357 SIG loadings do very well in the scoring system. Leaving it very much up to shooter preference with any of these rounds. Of course, the OHREF Standard is designed to changed based on capacity of the firearm, so these rankings will change when combined with other magazine capacities.
| Ammo | Caliber | OHREF Score Total | Loaded Weight (gr) | Fired Weight | Fired Weight Score | Penetration Depth (inches) | Penetration Depth Score | Expansion (inches) | Bullet Diameter | Expansion Score | Muzzle Velocity (fps) | Muzzle Energy (ft-lbf) | Muzzle Engery Score | Magazine Capacity | Magazine Capacity Score | Energy Per Magazine (Standard Capacity) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Winchester 125 gr PDX-1 Defender | .357 SIG | 136.18 | 125 | 125 | 0.176 | 15.4 | 0.346 | 0.690 | 0.355 | 0.122 | 1423 | 562 | 0.281 | 16 | 15 | 0.437 | 8991 |
| Federal 125 gr HST Tactical LE | .357 SIG | 133.17 | 125 | 125 | 0.176 | 18.0 | 0.356 | 0.610 | 0.355 | 0.095 | 1387 | 534 | 0.267 | 16 | 15 | 0.437 | 8542 |
| Sig 125 gr V-Crown | .357 SIG | 132.74 | 125 | 125 | 0.176 | 15.4 | 0.346 | 0.620 | 0.355 | 0.098 | 1395 | 540 | 0.270 | 16 | 15 | 0.437 | 8641 |
| Remington 125gr Golden Saber Bonded | .357 SIG | 132.73 | 125 | 125 | 0.176 | 19.7 | 0.361 | 0.580 | 0.355 | 0.086 | 1388 | 535 | 0.267 | 16 | 15 | 0.437 | 8554 |
| Remington 124 Golden Saber +P | 9mm Luger | 132.50 | 124 | 124 | 0.176 | 18.2 | 0.357 | 0.660 | 0.355 | 0.112 | 1170 | 377 | 0.188 | 18 | 17 | 0.491 | 6783 |
| Federal 124 gr HST +P | 9mm Luger | 132.48 | 124 | 124 | 0.176 | 18.3 | 0.358 | 0.660 | 0.355 | 0.112 | 1168 | 376 | 0.188 | 18 | 17 | 0.491 | 6760 |
| Remington 125 gr UMC JHP | .357 SIG | 131.95 | 125 | 125 | 0.176 | 18.2 | 0.357 | 0.590 | 0.355 | 0.089 | 1369 | 520 | 0.260 | 16 | 15 | 0.437 | 8322 |
| Winchester 127 gr Ranger T-Series +P+ | 9mm Luger | 130.92 | 127 | 127 | 0.176 | 21.2 | 0.361 | 0.540 | 0.355 | 0.075 | 1207 | 411 | 0.205 | 18 | 17 | 0.491 | 7394 |
| Federal 125 gr Premium JHP | .357 SIG | 130.39 | 125 | 125 | 0.176 | 22.4 | 0.362 | 0.520 | 0.355 | 0.069 | 1368 | 519 | 0.260 | 16 | 15 | 0.437 | 8309 |
| Winchester 147 gr Ranger T-Series | 9mm Luger | 130.28 | 147 | 147 | 0.176 | 16.5 | 0.350 | 0.740 | 0.355 | 0.140 | 941 | 289 | 0.144 | 18 | 17 | 0.491 | 5202 |
| Winchester 165 gr Ranger Bonded | .40 Smith & Wesson | 130.06 | 165 | 165 | 0.176 | 14.7 | 0.343 | 0.770 | 0.400 | 0.124 | 1098 | 442 | 0.221 | 16 | 15 | 0.437 | 7066 |
| Federal 124 gr HST | 9mm Luger | 129.80 | 124 | 124 | 0.176 | 18.3 | 0.358 | 0.610 | 0.355 | 0.095 | 1135 | 355 | 0.177 | 18 | 17 | 0.491 | 6383 |
| Remington 165 gr Golden Saber | .40 Smith & Wesson | 129.17 | 165 | 165 | 0.176 | 19.6 | 0.361 | 0.660 | 0.400 | 0.091 | 1113 | 454 | 0.227 | 16 | 15 | 0.437 | 7260 |
| Corbon 115 gr DPX | 9mm Luger | 129.04 | 115 | 115 | 0.176 | 13.9 | 0.340 | 0.690 | 0.355 | 0.122 | 1123 | 322 | 0.161 | 18 | 17 | 0.491 | 5796 |
| Remington 124 gr Golden Saber Black Belt +P | 9mm Luger | 128.75 | 124 | 124 | 0.176 | 18.3 | 0.358 | 0.590 | 0.355 | 0.089 | 1121 | 346 | 0.173 | 18 | 17 | 0.491 | 6227 |
| Federal 147 gr HST +P | 9mm Luger | 128.63 | 147 | 147 | 0.176 | 19.2 | 0.360 | 0.600 | 0.355 | 0.092 | 1008 | 332 | 0.166 | 18 | 17 | 0.491 | 5969 |
| Federal 150 gr Micro HST | 9mm Luger | 128.17 | 150 | 150 | 0.176 | 17.3 | 0.353 | 0.710 | 0.355 | 0.129 | 888 | 263 | 0.131 | 18 | 17 | 0.491 | 4727 |
| Remington 180 gr Ultimate Defense | .40 Smith & Wesson | 128.03 | 180 | 180 | 0.176 | 15.5 | 0.346 | 0.790 | 0.400 | 0.130 | 977 | 381 | 0.191 | 16 | 15 | 0.437 | 6103 |
| Remington 147 gr Golden Saber | 9mm Luger | 127.96 | 147 | 147 | 0.176 | 16.4 | 0.350 | 0.630 | 0.355 | 0.102 | 991 | 321 | 0.160 | 18 | 17 | 0.491 | 5769 |
| Hornady 147 gr Custom XTP | .357 SIG | 127.83 | 147 | 147 | 0.176 | 23.9 | 0.362 | 0.480 | 0.355 | 0.059 | 1222 | 487 | 0.244 | 16 | 15 | 0.437 | 7797 |
| Winchester 165 gr Ranger T-Series | .40 Smith & Wesson | 127.82 | 165 | 165 | 0.176 | 21.0 | 0.361 | 0.670 | 0.400 | 0.094 | 1071 | 420 | 0.210 | 16 | 15 | 0.437 | 6723 |
| Winchester 165 gr PDX-1 | .40 Smith & Wesson | 127.81 | 165 | 165 | 0.176 | 14.6 | 0.342 | 0.740 | 0.400 | 0.114 | 1066 | 416 | 0.208 | 16 | 15 | 0.437 | 6660 |
| Winchester 230 gr Ranger T-Series | .45 ACP | 127.80 | 230 | 230 | 0.176 | 14.5 | 0.342 | 1.000 | 0.452 | 0.171 | 900 | 414 | 0.207 | 14 | 13 | 0.382 | 5790 |
| Winchester 124 gr PDX1 +P | 9mm Luger | 127.73 | 124 | 124 | 0.176 | 19.6 | 0.361 | 0.520 | 0.355 | 0.069 | 1142 | 359 | 0.180 | 18 | 17 | 0.491 | 6462 |
| Corbon 115 JHP +P | 9mm Luger | 127.68 | 115 | 115 | 0.176 | 13.6 | 0.338 | 0.560 | 0.355 | 0.080 | 1221 | 381 | 0.190 | 18 | 17 | 0.491 | 6851 |
| Speer 124 Gold Dot Short Barrel +P | 9mm Luger | 127.68 | 124 | 124 | 0.176 | 18.2 | 0.357 | 0.510 | 0.355 | 0.067 | 1160 | 370 | 0.185 | 18 | 17 | 0.491 | 6668 |
| Winchester 230 gr Ranger T-Series +P | .45 ACP | 127.65 | 230 | 230 | 0.176 | 14.5 | 0.342 | 0.990 | 0.452 | 0.167 | 904 | 417 | 0.209 | 14 | 13 | 0.382 | 5842 |
| Speer 155 gr Gold Dot | .40 Smith & Wesson | 127.09 | 155 | 155 | 0.176 | 16.3 | 0.349 | 0.670 | 0.400 | 0.094 | 1117 | 429 | 0.215 | 16 | 15 | 0.437 | 6869 |
| Remington 115 gr HTP +P | 9mm Luger | 126.99 | 115 | 115 | 0.176 | 17.7 | 0.355 | 0.530 | 0.355 | 0.072 | 1171 | 350 | 0.175 | 18 | 17 | 0.491 | 6302 |
| Magtech 115 Guardian Gold +P | 9mm Luger | 126.93 | 115 | 115 | 0.176 | 15.2 | 0.345 | 0.560 | 0.355 | 0.080 | 1175 | 352 | 0.176 | 18 | 17 | 0.491 | 6345 |
| Hornady 135 Critical Duty +P | 9mm Luger | 126.85 | 135 | 135 | 0.176 | 18.1 | 0.357 | 0.470 | 0.355 | 0.057 | 1118 | 375 | 0.187 | 18 | 17 | 0.491 | 6743 |
| Speer 124 Gold Dot +P | 9mm Luger | 126.77 | 124 | 124 | 0.176 | 16.8 | 0.351 | 0.520 | 0.355 | 0.069 | 1141 | 358 | 0.179 | 18 | 17 | 0.491 | 6451 |
| PNW Arms 115 gr Tac Ops SCHP | 9mm Luger | 126.72 | 115 | 115 | 0.176 | 13.5 | 0.338 | 0.690 | 0.355 | 0.122 | 1045 | 279 | 0.139 | 18 | 17 | 0.491 | 5018 |
| Winchester 180 gr Defender | .40 Smith & Wesson | 126.64 | 180 | 180 | 0.176 | 16.5 | 0.350 | 0.710 | 0.400 | 0.105 | 995 | 396 | 0.198 | 16 | 15 | 0.437 | 6330 |
| Federal 180 gr HST | .40 Smith & Wesson | 126.55 | 180 | 180 | 0.176 | 18.5 | 0.358 | 0.720 | 0.400 | 0.108 | 964 | 371 | 0.186 | 16 | 15 | 0.437 | 5942 |
| Remington 180 gr Golden Saber | .40 Smith & Wesson | 126.33 | 180 | 180 | 0.176 | 13.8 | 0.339 | 0.820 | 0.400 | 0.140 | 924 | 341 | 0.171 | 16 | 15 | 0.437 | 5459 |
| Remington 165 gr Golden Saber | .40 Smith & Wesson | 126.26 | 165 | 165 | 0.176 | 19.2 | 0.360 | 0.680 | 0.400 | 0.097 | 1025 | 385 | 0.192 | 16 | 15 | 0.437 | 6158 |
| Federal 147 gr HST | 9mm Luger | 126.25 | 147 | 147 | 0.176 | 15.2 | 0.345 | 0.610 | 0.355 | 0.095 | 973 | 309 | 0.154 | 18 | 17 | 0.491 | 5561 |
| Federal 155 gr HST | .40 Smith & Wesson | 126.21 | 155 | 155 | 0.176 | 17.2 | 0.353 | 0.670 | 0.400 | 0.094 | 1084 | 404 | 0.202 | 16 | 15 | 0.437 | 6470 |
| Speer 115 gr Gold Dot | 9mm Luger | 126.19 | 115 | 115 | 0.176 | 16.4 | 0.350 | 0.550 | 0.355 | 0.078 | 1143 | 334 | 0.167 | 18 | 17 | 0.491 | 6004 |
| Remington 180 gr Golden Saber Bonded | .40 Smith & Wesson | 125.89 | 180 | 180 | 0.176 | 13.8 | 0.339 | 0.780 | 0.400 | 0.127 | 948 | 359 | 0.180 | 16 | 15 | 0.437 | 5746 |
| Federal 135 gr Tactical Bonded +P | 9mm Luger | 125.89 | 135 | 135 | 0.176 | 13.8 | 0.339 | 0.610 | 0.355 | 0.095 | 1022 | 313 | 0.157 | 18 | 17 | 0.491 | 5635 |
| Speer 124 gr Gold Dot | 9mm Luger | 125.60 | 124 | 124 | 0.176 | 18.1 | 0.357 | 0.540 | 0.355 | 0.075 | 1067 | 313 | 0.157 | 18 | 17 | 0.491 | 5641 |
| Hornady 135 gr Critical Duty | .357 SIG | 125.35 | 135 | 135 | 0.176 | 18.9 | 0.360 | 0.470 | 0.355 | 0.057 | 1222 | 448 | 0.224 | 16 | 15 | 0.437 | 7161 |
| Federal 155 gr Hydra Shok | .40 Smith & Wesson | 125.17 | 155 | 155 | 0.176 | 18.4 | 0.358 | 0.630 | 0.400 | 0.083 | 1072 | 395 | 0.198 | 16 | 15 | 0.437 | 6327 |
| Hornady 147 gr XTP Custom | 9mm Luger | 125.11 | 147 | 147 | 0.176 | 19.3 | 0.361 | 0.490 | 0.355 | 0.062 | 994 | 322 | 0.161 | 18 | 17 | 0.491 | 5804 |
| Hornady 165 gr Critical Defense | .40 Smith & Wesson | 125.06 | 165 | 165 | 0.176 | 16.6 | 0.351 | 0.600 | 0.400 | 0.075 | 1075 | 423 | 0.212 | 16 | 15 | 0.437 | 6773 |
| Winchester 147 gr PDX-1 | 9mm Luger | 124.93 | 147 | 147 | 0.176 | 20.6 | 0.361 | 0.540 | 0.355 | 0.075 | 945 | 291 | 0.146 | 18 | 17 | 0.491 | 5246 |
| Federal 135 gr Hydra Shok | 9mm Luger | 124.93 | 135 | 135 | 0.176 | 18.1 | 0.357 | 0.450 | 0.355 | 0.052 | 1074 | 346 | 0.173 | 18 | 17 | 0.491 | 6223 |
| Sig Sauer 124 gr V-Crown | 9mm Luger | 124.87 | 124 | 124 | 0.176 | 17.3 | 0.353 | 0.520 | 0.355 | 0.069 | 1072 | 316 | 0.158 | 18 | 17 | 0.491 | 5694 |
Calculator Beta Test
Below I have developed a web-based version of the OHREF Standard Score Calculator. This is very much in Alpha and was developed over less than 48 hours, so bugs may still be present. However, as of right now it is able to take the loaded and fired weights, penetration depth, expansion, muzzle velocity, and magazine capacity figures for your ammunition and handgun choice and give you a score. Development on a more robust version with more features and options is in the pipeline but I’m publishing this version to get feedback from users.
When using the calculator please note that the test data you use should ideally be to the same standards as the FBI clothing test and use a barrel of the same length as the gun that you wish to load it in or shorter. This is important as the change in velocity from a longer or shorter barrel will impact muzzle velocity, muzzle energy, and expansion.
Also data should be, ideally, averaged from a five shot group, not a single round being fired, but this may not always be possible for the load that you are looking at.
If you lack data for the weight after being fired, you may use the same weight in both loaded and fired weight fields, unless the testing that you are looking at shows large amounts of fragmentation from the round.
For those that want to tinker under the hood, you can grab the raw alpha excel file used to create this here or the version that includes all of the Lucky Gunner test data as well.
Ballistics Performance Calculator
Tuning Variables & Complete OHREF Standards
Standards
- Minimum Penetration Accepted
- 13.5″ Inches
- OHREF Standard for Minimum Penetration
- Minimum Penetration to Score
- 12″ Inches
- FBI Ballistics Testing Minimum Penetration, anything below this is graded at a zero
- Maximum Penetration
- 24″ Inches
- Maximum Penetration allowed in the OHREF Standard, anything beyond this is graded at a zero
- Ideal Penetration Range Minimum
- 14″ Inches
- Ideal Penetration Range Maximum
- 19″ Inches
- Minimum Expansion Accepted Multiplier
- 1.2x
- Minimum Expansion over the starting diameter allowed in the OHREF Standard
- Minimum Accepted Retained Weight after firing
- 85% of original weight
- Failure to Pass Penalty Score Reduction
- 75% of score
- Ideal Expansion Diameter
- 0.5325″ Inches
- 1.5x a 9mm bullet diameter
- Idea Magazine Capacity
- 15 Rounds
- Equivalent to the standard capacity of a Glock G19 Pistol or similar.
Variables
These are the tuning variables used to control the influence of each element of the score so that no one element is over or under represented.
- Muzzle energy Tuning Variable
- 0.10
- Penetration Tuning Variable
- 0.4
- Expansion Tuning Variable
- 0.15
- Ammunition in Extra Magazines Penalty
- 0.25
- Extra Rounds Carried Tuning Variable
- 0.1
- Magazine Capacity Tuning Variable
- 0.4
- Weight Retention Tuning Variable
- 0.15
