Ballistic Testing American-Made G9 Defense Ammo

In this video we explain and use our PAC-T test protocol to test American-made G9 Defense 80 gr. 9mm Luger ammo. Let's see how it stacks up against this test!
Timeline:
00:00 - Intro
01:10 - Terminal ballistic testing
07:57 - Bullets to be tested
11:20 - Testing G9 Defense
14:00 - Ballistic gel test
15:10 - Recap and results
Links:Understanding Ballistic Testing: • Everything you need to...

[@davidgreer9567]

Thanks for changing your process. I never liked how you scored a bullet score even though It was not sighted in. It would be interesting to see how some of the other bullets would score based on the new process. Thanks for another fun video

[@sdkweber]

You are welcome David. Trying to make these better each year.

[@funwithballistics1016]

Another great test! Glad to see you have Civil Defense. I really like how you give results on recoil compared to a target round and i like the closeups on the wound channel as well. Great additions! Itd be great to see a PAC-T test on Simx Defensecore as well.

[@sdkweber]

Thanks much. I just took at look at Simx Defensecore online. Interesting stuff. I see they have some new bullets coming out also with a ceramic core. Very interesting and thanks for the idea.

[@funwithballistics1016]

@@sdkweber your welcome. Can't wait for your next test!

[@sdkweber]

@@funwithballistics1016 Our next PAC-T test video comes out next week... right on the 4th of July.

[@funwithballistics1016]

@@sdkweber sounds good! Can't wait!

[@Youtubewatche]

Looking forward to more pac-t test!

[@sdkweber]

More to come on nearly a weekly basis. Thanks for watching and posting.

[@aaronneumeyer5572]

Now we know what happened to your old Carhartt! I really like the changes and additions you're making to the PAC-T test and you've certainly selected a great group of bullets. It's easy to almost want to give the HST and the Critical Duty/Defense loads a pass because of their reputation but your testing will certainly make a difference in future buying decisions. I think where the G9 and similar bullets like the Lehigh Defense XP would shine is in a one for one exchange over standard ball ammo when trying to penetrate heavy winter clothing like down parkas or, God forbid you had nothing else, thick skinned animals like a bear. I'm curious, do you watch the KZbin channel The Ballistic Machinist? He manufactures and sells his own ammunition and the results from the 9mm are compelling. If you have a few bucks left in your pocket and think his tests merit the higher standards of the PAC-T, it may be worth trying a box. Cheers!

[@sdkweber]

Hey Aaron. Yep, waste not want not! I figured I may as well put my old jacket to good use plus I think it makes for a more interesting/realistic test. I have not watched the Ballistic Machinist but will check it out later today. Thanks for the note.

[@stephen6720]

Fluted solid monolithic bullets are designed to produce exceptional wound channels and I do not think the G9 performed that poorly. However, its penetration was totally unacceptable. I have seen tests of the Underwood 90gr Xtreme Defender, with a similar fluted monolithic bullet (made by Lehigh), perform much better overall.

[@sdkweber]

Thanks for watching. I have tested the Underwood ammo 105 gr. but not the 90 gr. Here is a link to that bullet's test if you are interested kzbin.info/www/bejne/jYjGiWeNaZulr9ksi=RWFBV8seMdss1ZfO

[@karimmanassa9634]

G9 is barrier blind ammunition that maintains its POA/POI while penetrating difficult real world barriers such as windshields and bone. This capability opens up a range of possibilities including being able to penetrate the skull outside of the traditional ocular cavity. While your PAC-T methodology may be fine with hollow point technology, your results would be much more comprehensive and meaningful if you expanded your PAC-T protocol to include challenging barriers that are faced in the real world and applied this standard to all types of ammo. Doing so would position G9 in the broader context. I mean, who cares if brand XYZ has better penetration or temporary wound cavitation in your test if the bullet is stopped or deviated by a barrier?

[@sdkweber]

Interesting note. I think the test we did with a jacket and leather barrier emulates a real world situation quite well. Realistically, most of us are not going to be shooting bad guys through car doors or glass windshields but much more likely confronting a bad guy at close range with nothing between us but clothing. Do you see what I mean?

[@karimmanassa9634]

@@sdkweber If we are talking about an ATM robbery or carjacking or even home invasion, perhaps you are right (although I live in South Florida where most people don't wear leather or jackets). I am thinking more of active shooters, body armor, store robberies, gas station encounters . . . situations where you may have barriers between you and the center of mass that need to be breached or adjust the firing solution for head shots. Regardless, I think not taking into account one of the key benefits and purposes of barrier-blind ammo like this, and then comparing it to conventional HP technology is shortchanging the viewer both in terms of analyzing the results as well as considering self defense scenarios.

[@sdkweber]

@@karimmanassa9634 Those are indeed more extreme scenarios, still I wonder if most people will ever be in such situations. As a civilian would it be best to just leave the area (if possible) instead of trying to shoot? There are a myriad of variables and trying to cover each would take a lifetime. BTW, One of my favorites (favorite only because it did so well in my testsl) is the Corbon DPX. A very good barrier blind bullet in all tests thus far. We have videos these bullets also. You got me thinking about some additional tests now. Thanks.

[@karimmanassa9634]

@@sdkweber Thank you. I will check out the Corbon.

[@Airassault7thid]

Get a roast or pork shoulder and soak over night...then test carbon and G9...you'll see the difference.

[@Airassault7thid]

10mm ehp?

[@sdkweber]

I would really like to test that one. Thanks for the idea and thanks for watching.

[@user-fm7gn6wz4c]

Good video WAY TOO MUCH TALKING WAY TOO LONG just trying to help