G9 9mm External Hollow Point: Overpriced Snake Oil or Underrated Gem?

[ZurokSlayer7X9]

So recently I saw a Garand Thumb video of him testing the "stopping power" of common 5.7x28 types of ammo, however the thing that stood out to me was not that but a 9mm round they used as a comparison. They simply referred to it as "G9". Upon further research, I believe they are talking about the G9 Defense External Hollow Point. It is a solid copper 9mm bullet weighing 80gr that has an odd fillips screw driver looking tip. Allegedly this is supposed to be the best of both worlds with having superior barrier penetration, but also very hostile against soft tissue without too much overpenetration.

Link: https://g9defense.com/9mm-80-gr-external-hollow-point/

This round absolutely devastated the ballistics torso, pretty much severing the spine and causing significantly more visible damage than another common brand 9mm HP they used as another reference comparison (I believe it was an HST). I can't seem to find a single bad review about this, however I'm cautious about using lightweight ammo in self-defense situations, as I've been told these don't always perform too well. I'm curious if anyone here has any input on this. I'd be curious what our resident self-defense squirrel @BehindBlueI's two cents would be with this product.

Some ballistics gel tests for comparison:
Speer Gold Dot 124gr JHP

G9 Defense 80gr External Hollow Point

 

[BehindBlueI's]

On the road, so short version: pass. I'll stick with rounds I've previously recommended.

 

[Creedmoor]

Little ones as so to travel faster are nothing new, In the 80's when S&W were selling ammo they offered up a 90 grain jacketed lead round nose 38 Special as a new Wizz-Bang.

 

[Life Member]

Hard to argue with that wound channel

 

[2tonic]

Reminds me of the Barnes TAC-XPD solid copper hollowpoints.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Hard to argue with that wound channel

What does a larger temporary wound cavity at 6" or less gain you in a pistol round's ability to incapacitate?

 

[ZurokSlayer7X9]

What does a larger temporary wound cavity at 6" or less gain you in a pistol round's ability to incapacitate?

I don't say this in defense or against the round, but just to clarify both of those pics are permanent wound channels. From just that perspective, the G9 would appear to absolutely destroy out the Speer Gold Dots, however we know there is more than just putting holes in gel when it comes to "stopping power" against a meth head.

 

[Route 45]

These things look awesome for that rare occasion when you get attacked by a bowl of Jell-O.

 

[Creedmoor]

These things look awesome for that rare occasion when you get attacked by a bowl of Jell-O.

But,,,,But,,,,sir its Hydro Static Shock!!!!!

 

[ZurokSlayer7X9]

These things look awesome for that rare occasion when you get attacked by a bowl of Jell-O.

Man, have you seen the people at Wal-Mart? If some of those people decided to tango, you might as well be fighting a tub of Jell-O. The funny thing is I know a few people who probably have enough front facing blubber to re-create both of those wound channels.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I don't say this in defense or against the round, but just to clarify both of those pics are permanent wound channels. From just that perspective, the G9 would appear to absolutely destroy out the Speer Gold Dots, however we know there is more than just putting holes in gel when it comes to "stopping power" against a meth head.

Can't compare calibrated ballistic gel to clear gel. Or clear gel to other clear gel. No way to calibrate clear gel properly, even block to block. It's easier and cheaper, but it's not a proven test analogue.

Ballistic gel lacks the compressibility of human tissue. Imagine you poked your finger into that gel. Now poke your own chest with the same force. Would the result be the same? Baseball to the sternum vs to the face of the gel? Same? Your body can absorb energy in ways gel can't. Gel is an analogue, not a 100% replication. Aside from brain and liver, most of your tissues are very tear resistant from stretch and compression. Gel isn't. The dyed area is going to be largely irrelevant to most tissue hits because of these differences.

At sufficient velocity, the 'screw head' bullets can shove tissue fast enough to tear causing some remote wounding, and the solid coppers shouldn't fragment so penetration should be fine. Note there's no free lunch, energy used to shove tissue is less energy for penetration. *Typically* not an issue with these sorts of bullets as they penetrate enough regardless. Note hardcast flat nose bullets tend to penetrate more, especially with bone and intermediate bone strikes.

I guess my main question is, given this concept has been tested at least as far back as the '80s by groups like Naval Special Warfare and still hasn't made the big leagues like HPs, or even non-frangible ball,...what's that tell you, regardless of gel?

 

[Creedmoor]

Can't compare calibrated ballistic gel to clear gel. Or clear gel to other clear gel. No way to calibrate clear gel properly, even block to block. It's easier and cheaper, but it's not a proven test analogue.

Ballistic gel lacks the compressibility of human tissue. Imagine you poked your finger into that gel. Now poke your own chest with the same force. Would the result be the same? Baseball to the sternum vs to the face of the gel? Same? Your body can absorb energy in ways gel can't. Gel is an analogue, not a 100% replication. Aside from brain and liver, most of your tissues are very tear resistant from stretch and compression. Gel isn't. The dyed area is going to be largely irrelevant to most tissue hits because of these differences.

At sufficient velocity, the 'screw head' bullets can shove tissue fast enough to tear causing some remote wounding, and the solid coppers shouldn't fragment so penetration should be fine. Note there's no free lunch, energy used to shove tissue is less energy for penetration. *Typically* not an issue with these sorts of bullets as they penetrate enough regardless. Note hardcast flat nose bullets tend to penetrate more, especially with bone and intermediate bone strikes.

I guess my main question is, given this concept has been tested at least as far back as the '80s by groups like Naval Special Warfare and still hasn't made the big leagues like HPs, or even non-frangible ball,...what's that tell you, regardless of gel?

I know that Aberdeen Test Center and other buildings on Aberdeen Proving Grounds have been doing bullet tests since WW 1. I installed a few elevators in buildings on that base and Edgewood Arsonal in the early 90's and loads of pictures were in the hallways of those buildings. I do believe that NIH has always been involved in the wound and pendulum tests in Bethesda and the Proving Grounds.

 

[ZurokSlayer7X9]

Can't compare calibrated ballistic gel to clear gel. Or clear gel to other clear gel. No way to calibrate clear gel properly, even block to block. It's easier and cheaper, but it's not a proven test analogue.

Ballistic gel lacks the compressibility of human tissue. Imagine you poked your finger into that gel. Now poke your own chest with the same force. Would the result be the same? Baseball to the sternum vs to the face of the gel? Same? Your body can absorb energy in ways gel can't. Gel is an analogue, not a 100% replication. Aside from brain and liver, most of your tissues are very tear resistant from stretch and compression. Gel isn't. The dyed area is going to be largely irrelevant to most tissue hits because of these differences.

At sufficient velocity, the 'screw head' bullets can shove tissue fast enough to tear causing some remote wounding, and the solid coppers shouldn't fragment so penetration should be fine. Note there's no free lunch, energy used to shove tissue is less energy for penetration. *Typically* not an issue with these sorts of bullets as they penetrate enough regardless. Note hardcast flat nose bullets tend to penetrate more, especially with bone and intermediate bone strikes.

I guess my main question is, given this concept has been tested at least as far back as the '80s by groups like Naval Special Warfare and still hasn't made the big leagues like HPs, or even non-frangible ball,...what's that tell you, regardless of gel?

Roger that. Thank you for you perspective.

 

[NHT3]

Looks very similar to the Ruger ARX ammo. Personally I would also be concerned the POI of an 80 GR bullet compared to a 124 GR bullet would be significant. I would imagine the G3s are a little expensive to practice with.

 

[patience0830]

I still prefer .223/5.56 with 55 gr varmint style bullets for home defense.







Howzat for a tangent to lead us astray?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I still prefer .223/5.56 with 55 gr varmint style bullets for home defense.

If you want an example of a bullet capable of remote wounding, assuming sufficient barrel length to keep the velocity up, this is a good one. As long as the bullet upsets, the permanent wound cavity is much larger than the bullet itself *and* the major expansion is a bit deeper in the target. Bonus for home defense: once they hit intermediate barriers like dry wall the tumble/fragmenting that occurs rapidly reduces their risk, making misses less dangerous.

 

[ZurokSlayer7X9]

I still prefer .223/5.56 with 55 gr varmint style bullets for home defense.







Howzat for a tangent to lead us astray?

Man, .223 varmint rounds are a very underrated round for defense. Garandthumb (I'm not a Garandthumb fanboy, it's just his practical test videos have things that strike out at me) had a video where he shot 6 mock walls of drywall (two layers 1/2" GWB, 2x4 Wood Stud) spaced several feet apart with various types of rounds. The only two rounds that didn't go all the way through if were .22 LR and the .223 varmint round. 9mm, buckshot, they all went through, while the third wall defeated the .223 varmint.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Man, .223 varmint rounds are a very underrated round for defense. Garandthumb (I'm not a Garandthumb fanboy, it's just his practical test videos have things that strike out at me) had a video where he shot 6 mock walls of drywall (two layers 1/2" GWB, 2x4 Wood Stud) spaced several feet apart with various types of rounds. The only two rounds that didn't go all the way through if were .22 LR and the .223 varmint round. 9mm, buckshot, they all went through, while the third wall defeated the .223 varmint.

Real world penetration tends to be somewhat less then the mockups when dealing with multiple barriers. Lightweight bullets that are tumbling and/or fragmenting will slow down more (and fragments spread out more, if applicable) with real room widths vs the 'box of truth' sort of setups.

Perhaps more of an a differentiator, mockups always get shot square, maximizing penetration. Real events are almost never square, and the angling through the barrier both slows the bullet down more (more distance inside the barrier, more drag, more deformation). Also more likely to hit a stud or the like as well, but that's near random so nothing you can count on.

The more a bullet deforms and upsets, the more pronounced the reduction will be. 55 gr remains an excellent choice in this context, again, as long as you drive it fast enough to do what it needs to do.

 

[DadSmith]

I still prefer .223/5.56 with 55 gr varmint style bullets for home defense.







Howzat for a tangent to lead us astray?

55gr Vmax has good accuracy also. I want to try the 60gr Vmax sometime.

 

[two70]

I can't seem to find a single bad review about this, however I'm cautious about using lightweight ammo in self-defense situations, as I've been told these don't always perform too well.

The typical concern with lightweight ammo is a lack of penetration and a solid copper bullet with no ability to expand will certainly penetrate. The point of impact will definitely be different from traditional ammo loaded with heavier bullets. IMO, the best use for this type of ammo would be for weaker cartridges or short barrels where traditional bullets are unlikely to produce both reliable expansion and penetration.