First I've seen it; Sig's new "365" ammunition, specific to short barrels.

https://www.sigsauer.com/store...crown-365-jhp-1.html

282 ft-lbs seems anemic for 9X19; I think Gold Dot short barrel is much better. Muzzle energy isn't everything, but it's fairly low velocity and low power. Some of the V-crown ammunition isn't bad (the .357 sig does well), but this "365" doesn't strike me as a step in the right direction.

Hmm.

I'd expect to be able to put whatever ammo I want through it, short of +P+, with no ill effect.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it's just watered down carry loads to reduce recoil in the small 938's and 365's?

You can save money and just go with a bigger bullet. 147 grain standard pressure HST is a breeze to shoot through mine.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
First I've seen it; Sig's new "365" ammunition, specific to short barrels.

https://www.sigsauer.com/store...crown-365-jhp-1.html

282 ft-lbs seems anemic for 9X19; I think Gold Dot short barrel is much better. Muzzle energy isn't everything, but it's fairly low velocity and low power. Some of the V-crown ammunition isn't bad (the .357 sig does well), but this "365" doesn't strike me as a step in the right direction.

Anemic and low velocity as compared to other 9mm in general or other loads as specifically tested in a 3" barrel?

It does seem a little bit light, however, all that matters is penetration and expansion numbers. If it gets 12-18 through denim and expands, the lower velocity and energy becomes a lower recoil bonus, not a liability.

I’ve not shot a P365 although I handled one a week or two ago. It felt top heavy to me. Having said that, I shoot standard velocity 124 Gar in my P938 and it’s not at all uncomfortable. I can’t really understand a need for a watered down 9x19 round. Neither gun is going to have a suppressor attached, so why bother?

All my 9mm pistols get 124 NATO or American Eagle for range and 124+P HST or Gold Dot for carry.

https://www.luckygunner.com/9m...ac-xpd-hp-20#geltest

Here's an example why velocity and energy don't matter on their own. Outstanding performance and it is just a 115g at 1046 fps, same specs as the V crown in the OP.

Now, I don't see any test data on the V crown, but the weight and velocity doesn't mean it can't perform as shown above. It's all about the bullet design.

I think you guys are reading too much into this. It's mostly a marketing gimmick.

I haven't read anywhere that you couldn't shoot any SAMMI compliant ammo you wanted to through your 365.

I suspect the most significant aspect is a quick burning powder to reduce muzzle flash from a short barrel.

Hornady touts their Critical Defense line as being optimized for short barrels and Speer also makes a Short Barrel variant of some of their Gold Dot loads.

quote:

Originally posted by RichN:
I think you guys are reading too much into this. It's mostly a marketing gimmick.

I haven't read anywhere that you couldn't shoot any SAMMI compliant ammo you wanted to through your 365.

I suspect the most significant aspect is a quick burning powder to reduce muzzle flash from a short barrel.

Hornady touts their Critical Defense line as being optimized for short barrels and Speer also makes a Short Barrel variant of some of their Gold Dot loads.

This. The Gold Dot SB ammo also has a larger cavity to optimize expansion at the lower velocities common to shorter barrels. In their reloading manual, they caution against using those bullets in hot .357 mag loads.

quote:

Originally posted by JBP55:
All my 9mm pistols get 124 NATO or American Eagle for range and 124+P HST or Gold Dot for carry.

^ +1

I'd guess that it's like the Gold Dot and HST short barrel loads. Whether it's marketing mumbo jumbo or real engineering...well that's up to you to decide.

quote:

Originally posted by RichN:
I think you guys are reading too much into this. It's mostly a marketing gimmick.

I haven't read anywhere that you couldn't shoot any SAMMI compliant ammo you wanted to through your 365.

I don't think anyone suggested that the new "365" ammunition is the only ammunition for the P365. My original point, including references to Gold Dot short barrel, is that the new "365" is somewhat pointless.

Here’s the gist of what a couple of the guys in the LE department at Sig told me about a month ago on this subject.

Their basic answer is that there are real good arguments that using the hotter Winchester 124-grain Ranger or Hornady 115-grain Critical Defense rounds don’t give appreciably better results than the new Sig P365 ammo in shorter-barreled pistols at shorter distances (15 yards or less). Sig’s lower energy and bullet speed coefficients are balanced for best performance vs. recoil with a 3.1-inch barrel.

Sig’s V-Crown nose supposedly expands more inside 15 yards than Hornady’s FTX Flex-Tip. The people I talked to said at that distance, their result of “slightly less penetration but better expansion” is as good as or a little better than Hornady’s “more penetration but a little less expansion.”

They also stressed that the 3.1-inch barreled Sig P365, Glock 43, and S&W M&P Shield weren’t designed to be primary weapons for taking out a shopping mall shooter at 25-50 yards; that job is better suited for guns like the 4-inch barreled P226/229/320 where terminal ballistics are indeed better with the Ranger and Critical Defense at those distances.

The people I spoke with basically said that ammo intended for bigger guns doesn’t do much (if any) better in small guns at short distances and just causes more recoil and accelerated pistol wear.

Speer makes the Gold Dot short barrel, but with more energy.

I'd take penetration over expansion.

Perhaps someone can report back the velocities they're getting from their P365.

The "365" ammunition in 9mm is more like .38 spl.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:I don't think anyone suggested that the new "365" ammunition is the only ammunition for the P365.

Actually, ArcWelder did on the first reply to the original post. Or more precisely implied that SIG was trying to say that this was the only ammo suitable for shooting in the P365.

I’m more interested in picking up some new Hydra-Shock Deep.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:


The "365" ammunition in 9mm is more like .38 spl.

Did you look at the link I posted? Where a 115g bullet at the exact same velocity as this ammo penetrates over 13" and expands to .7" through 4 layers of denim? That is .40 S&W performance, hardly .38 SPL. Why is everyone so hung up on velocity and "energy" when there are loads proving it doesn't matter?

Is this ammo any good? Who knows, but if it sucks, it is due to bullet design, not lacking energy, velocity or "power" whatever that means.

I’ll stick with Federal HST and Speer GDHP loads for my carry weapons, regardless of what I’m using.

Years of past performance making quality ammunition, coupled with great individual terminal ballistics.

quote:

Originally posted by Strambo:

Did you look at the link I posted?

Of course I did. Post one showing tests with this ammunition. Not another ammunition. You might as well post a review of a Buick in order to sell a Ford, simply because they're the same weight and traveling the same speed. They're not the same ammunition, nor using the same bullet, not necessarily the same powder, burn rate, ballistic coefficient, etc. Additionally, you're comparing manufacturers advertised velocities against independent observations. Not even apples and oranges, but something less.

quote:

Originally posted by Strambo:
Where a 115g bullet at the exact same velocity as this ammo penetrates over 13" and expands to .7" through 4 layers of denim?

Different ammunition. Different bullet.

It's not even the same metal; you posted a link for a copper bullet.

Therefore IRRELEVANT.

quote:

Originally posted by Strambo:
Why is everyone so hung up on velocity and "energy" when there are loads proving it doesn't matter?

Because energy does matter. Velocity matters.

quote:

Originally posted by Strambo:
That is .40 S&W performance, hardly .38 SPL.

No, .40 is typically 350-450 ft/lbs of energy for a 3" bbl, while the latest Sig offering is less than 300, as advertised.

Most 9mm is in the 350 ft/lb range in a 3" bbl.

.38 spl in a 3" bbl is typically about 250 ft lbs, just a hair below the numbers given the new 9X19 "365" ammunition. The "365" ammunition isn't much different than what's produced with 38 special.

A lot is made of "bullet design," often bantied about like a magic wand that trumps physics. It doesn't.

If we are talking about terminal performance, only the size of the permanent wound cavity matters. Energy is only a part of the means to get a bigger or deeper wound channel.

Whatever, I'll bow out so you can go back to judging things based on ft-lbs of "energy."