He's a rescue. Him and 2 of his siblings were abandoned on an empty stretch of highway that runs through the Daniel Boone National Forest. We are fostering him until his forever home can be found. We found homes for his brother and sister. He's the only one left. Not much is known about his background, obviously, but my wife and I have got him up to date on his shots and dewormer. Thanks for asking about the little guy.
In the first test you did everything right. You used the right gun the ammo was made for. You GOT the right velocity. The bullets seem to need to be going supersonic to function correctly and that isn't going to happen out of a pistol. If CCI wants to repair its reputation, they need to recall this stuff. It isn't plinking ammo, but expensive defense ammo that people are trusting their lives to.
I think it was Tools&targets that just made a video about these and he found that 1 inch of barrel made all the difference between expanding and non-expanding and they hit a thousand feet per second from a 4 inch barrel he also found that from a rifle barrel they tend to break apart
Defensive uses? Nothing better than the following so far: Federal Punch Aguila Interceptor 40gr, CCI Velocitor 40gr, or Winchester Super-X Hypervelocity 40gr, all rated above 1400 fps. CCI Stinger (so long as your firearm utilizes a standard "sporter" chamber).
Just so you know, Aguila super maximum can be had in a 30 grain solid, is faster and slightly heavier than Federal punch, and about 30% less money. Aguila Interceptor can also be had in a solid, and is even more powerful and heavier (40gr) than both of them (1130fps in my 4" Sig P322)
Scott, if you have a 16" rifle, Aguila interceptor 40gr (solid or HP) will clock in at 1400-1450fps, and has the same muzzle energy as a 380 auto from a 3.25" pistol. It is significantly hotter and deeper penetrating than Stinger in my tests.
So long as you're not running anything but a standard "sporter" chamber, the Stingers work fine. Tighten that up to Bentz or Match grade, not working anymore.
Bottom line - the Uppercut needs the higher Stinger speed to expand. Good to see you were using genuine FBI ballistic water for the tests, not that cheap clear jello everyone else uses. Thanks for another great video.
@@bower31 Yes, it was a mistake given its stated purpose and speed requirements for expansion. They should have tested the ammo before they released it for sale.
I believe the thick copper jacket requires more pressure to force into the lands and grooves and down the bore. So they hit the pressure limits of the little rimfire cartridge before they could get velocities to Stinger levels. Even though it's the same weight bullet, the Stinger only has a Copper wash coating so it is much softer and easier to push down the bore. Pressure is the limiting factor of the Uppercuts velocity.
@@buffalosoutdoors my suggestion would be to get rid of that jacketed bullet and use the Stinger bullet with a bigger hole for more consistent expansion.
Oh, you laugh. Well, this will wipe the smile off your face. The water that Buffalo was using wasn't FBI certified. It takes thousands of hours of research and analysis in government laboratories to ensure that FBI water is of a consistent quality and specific gravity. It costs about $1,000 per litre, and that's just the water that they put in the water cooler. That's your taxes at work. Smiling now?
You are absolutely right about CCI (6:04) not designing Uppercut ammo to be fired from a rifle. Here is a direct description of the Uppercut ammo from CCI themselves - "Uppercut’s jacketed hollow point bullet features nose skiving that initiates full and reliable expansion through semi-automatic handguns with 2.5- to 4-inch barrels, while retaining the weight needed to hit critical penetration depths." We see here that CCI states it's meant to be fired from a 2.5 to 4 inch barrel. Whatever results the rounds had out of the rifle still don't change the fact that these are fairly expensive .22lr rounds that are supposed to give you these rifle results out of a pistol. They are not doing it out of a pistol and they are not cheap. There are plenty of cheaper rounds that will give you the same, or better results out of a handgun.
CCI can remedy this by making the bullets a little more fragile, of they can do so without a ground-up redesign. You're a gentleman for adding to your last video.
Buckeye Ballistics tested it in the brown gel and the bullets opened up like flowers. The 2 gels are very different. So, the Uppercut does do what they are meant for. Buckeye Ballistics.
Thank you! I was one of those that asked for a test from a rifle. I appreciate your work. CCI needs to relable the uppercut as a pest control round. It looks like it would work well on farm pests.
I can't remember who all I replied to on that first video. If you was one of them I hope I didn't sound rude. I was just really done with this ammo. I didn't want to shoot it from a rifle. It was only after the comments kept coming in and I slept on it a night or two that I realized that you guys don't ask me for much and the least I could do was shoot those last rounds in that gel block from a rifle for you. Thank you all. I appreciate each and every one of you.
Question is however, does it work SO much better than their other offerings doing ANYTHING the other offerings have been doing for decades? Doubt it. Federal Punch on the other hand, compare it to any other 22LR of any other grade and speed, and it handily out-penetrates them all.. that's some innovation, unlike other stuff. If .22LR is going to be used in self defense (not a recommendation I would make, go with .32 S&W Long for low recoil), then penetration is the most important thing you could ask it to do, next would be hemorrhaging. If it doesn't reach where it needs to reach, it's worthless for this use. If it handily reaches where its supposed to reach, other aspects can be worked on. The penetration depth of the Uppercut fails in both, whether short or long barrel. It didn't meet ANY of the advertised benefits or attributes (expansion from short barrel, penetration and expansion quality, or enough penetration to be considered defensive). It's just an expensive, terribly marketed fail. Grab a box of Blazers if you want to plink cans.
@buffalosoutdoors Not rude at all. A bit angry with CCI perhaps, but I share that with you. I am happy for them to continue trying to innovate, but they need to be honest as well. If it needs to be shot out of a rifle to work, they should have said so.
@@exothermal.sprocketGood question, but for those that already have some of this stuff they now know how to make it work on varmints...in which case it looks quite capable for 1 shot eliminations.
Your description of tap water as "ballistic tap water "is right up there with Mr. P. Harrell's description of some of his commenters, the 'what if brigade" ,
What an exciting little round! Despite all the drama and poor marketing, this round worked really well out of my rifles too. Almost wish CCI had just put them out there as a general use round.
That’s what they are. They need to change the labels and packaging. I wouldn’t be nearly as hard on them if they weren’t making claims that this ammo is not capable of, at least not a large percentage of the time.
I love the honest content, and how CCI got their pictures without being honest making the consumer think it was from a hand gun barrel instead of a rifle length barrel to work as advertised. Thank You.
I can't find this stuff at any place! Glad to see they sent it out to the youtubers! It seems to expand as designed in gel blocks and water jugs. But, when it encounters a clothing barrier, it suddenly fails! (According to other tests I have seen on RUclips!)
I hope you're not insinuating that they sent this ammo it out to me for review. Don't confuse me with the sponsored guys. I can't get it to expand in ANYTHING from a pistol. Thanks for stopping by!
You're welcome. If you're one of the ones I replied to on the other video, understand I was just disappointed in this ammo and really wanted to be done with it. It took a night or two of sleeping on it to make me realize that you guys had a valid reason to want to see it from a rifle length barrel.
I think it was Tools&targets that just made a video about these and he found that 1 inch of barrel made all the difference between expanding and non-expanding and they hit a thousand feet per second from a 4 inch barrel he also found that from a rifle barrel they tend to break apart
So TnT saw them fragment and Buffalo saw them not fragment. There's no consistency among tests. One important aspect of the scientific method is that the results should be reproducible. In the case of Uppercuts it's all over the map. You might be OK with impugnimg 22plinkster's ethics but personal attacks are the last resort of people who have nothing relevant to say. Reality is not by consensus. If everyone says the sky is green it doesn't make the sky green. I'd like to know how many people publishing their results on YT have actually tried to contact CCI if their field testing and CCI's claims didn't match up and what the response was.
CCI Deserve an UPPERCUT for false advertisement. They clearly don't perform as advertised . Great work, Buffalo shows the other reviewers are not as honest as you.😊
Thank you. I just call it like I see it. I can't guarantee I just didn't get a bad lot of this ammunition; I just think that would be highly unlikely since this stuff hasn't been in production very long. I appreciate your comment!
Hi Buffalo, well round two of the test proves the FBI it using the wrong ballistic water in there testing! Thanks for the retest you did everything right in the first video. It's states for a four inch barrel. Thanks for all your hard work and time Sir.
Thanks for the comment. I did this one for the people in the comments. Plus I had those 7 rounds left that I had no use for so I got rid of them and made a video at the same time!
Thanks for showing what it takes to get them to work. I know you said no more suggestions, but just maybe someone with influence, or other ammo maker will try it. Put a ballistic "nosler" tip into the hollowpoint to improve ballistics and expansion.
Those results are about what I would expect - no expansion at all from a handgun and premium expansion when fired from a rifle. It's a pretty big ask to expect just about any handgun round to expand at around 800 fps - some will, most won't, in my experience. Add another 150-200 fps to that and they start to perform as designed. Nice video. Cheers.
Yo Buff, many many moons ago, I watched that AR7 video on whether it would float or not. It's been a fun ride watchin your channel grow. Good job sir! Stay safe and healthy
I can't believe you remember that video! If I recall that one didn't get many views. My review of that little rifle is one of my most popular videos still to this day though. Thanks for mentioning that classic!
I’m one of the “rifle request” commenters. LOL I totally get your reason for not doing so but totally appreciate that you DID! It’s awesome that you not only RESPOND to viewer comments but you actually listen and consider the requests!
The first test I saw on these was a good one. They expanded well. But all the rest of the test I have seen have been like the pistol test you had. I will not buy them to carry. Thanks for your hard work. 😀😀
This is similar to what happened with 9mm JHP in PCCs. The 9mm JHP designs are for a given velocity from a pistol. If you push them too fast they prematurely expand and it kills penetration. In this case the extra velocity from the rifle put it in the Goldilocks zone and it expanded. Unfortunately it killed penetration. 9" in clear gel is a non-starter. One thing I noticed is that for both the 9mm and .22 the extra barrel length of the rifle added about 200+ fps. That's a good illustration of how hard it is to design ammo. If 200 fps totally changes the behavior of the round I don't envy the guy who has to design it. I think RNFP needs a second look. It has mechanics similar to the expensive non-expanding stuff like Lehigh's defender and penetrators. The meplat shunts tissue and fluid radially to cut a bigger wound channel like the Lehigh bullets and they're much cheaper. Unfortunately no one seems to have any interest in doing a comparison. Federal makes a 130 gr 9mm for PCCs. It's the one with the total synthetic jacket, but it was designed for competition like 3-gun. I have some. It shoots fine from both a CX4 and a Sub 2000 but I can't find any gel testing. It's also not a JHP. It looks like a RNFP. Given the price point for the Federal TSJ and the heavy flat point bullet I'd love to see get testing. Maybe compare it to other designs like Lehigh's. If anyone knows of a channel that has this please let me know.
Thanks for doing the follow up or second video on the CCI uppercut. Based on what I saw. I don’t think I’ll be buying any for my CCW P17. Thanks again for the video.
Well done! After seeing the lack of expansion from the pistol, I had a feeling that they'd expand after being fired from a longer barrel. I don't know that I can recall seeing .22lr expand well at all from a pistol - even though they say that's what this was made to do.
Thank you for going the extra mile, Buffalo. Your original video did what you set out to do, prove or (in this case) disprove the claim by CCI that the Uppercut is a defensive round. Obviously they failed miserably at that goal, but you succeeded with empirical proof. I would like to see CCI remarket these rounds as small game loads for use in carbines and rifles. Those final five looked exactly the way an expanding hunting hollowpoint should function.
You da man Mr. Buffalo, thanks for this info. CCI might want to rein in their marketing department a bit... And thanks for the reminder at the end, glad you always do that sir
No one said that CCI didn't test these out in one of those Heritage Rough Rider revolvers with the 16" barrel. Glad to see that you went back and blasted some ballistic water and put them through a barrel length that would cause expansion. And these should probably be tested in whatever semi auto rifle you may decide to shoot them out of to make sure they cycle. I would play it safe and use a lever action, pump, or bolt action.
Nice to see a new video from you. I don't get notifications for your videos, usually. As far as 22's go, I don't really see the point in hollowpoints, even if they're jacketed. The spread isn't enough to justify the loss in penetration. I like 22's for the midrange accuracy and speed. I have some really old boxes of CCI Stingers and I recently found them. I took them out to shoot, and the bullets came apart from the casings very easily. Sometimes when I charged the rifle it would separate the bullet and casing. I got a few bullets stuck in the chamber, back-to-back, so I had to stop. They had a bit of white powder on them, which is probably some kind of oxidation.
I enjoyed the video. I think that the air viscosity in the South must be different than in New England. Thicker air makes southeners talk slower. The air in new Boston and New York is less viscous and allows people to talk faster. If you did the same test there, then the bullet would fly faster in the low viscosity air and would be able to expand. Thanks for your videos. I enjoy your content. Thanks to your wife too. I am sure she plays a big part that we don't see.
Thank you for doing the rifle test. I've been curious about these as a good round for home defense in a semi-auto rifle in lieu of an AR platform for the same. Now the only question is whether/what it will cycle reliably in. I've got a (mostly) Kidd 10/22 with the ultralight (non-match, 16") barrel, and one stock(ish) 10/22 set up for hunting (std Ruger pencil barrel) that I may test in once I find some of these rounds locally or at one of the few online shops that ship to my location. Kidd makes no mention on their site as to whether I can/should fire Stinger-type rounds through it - I guess I'll find out the hard way, provided it cycles okay in the hunting rifle. Thanks again! This round continues to fascinate me for some reason. It looks like CCI at the very least may be a bit off in its purpose of use.
Your previous test, plus the others I mentioned in my comments, had convinced me not to bother with these Uppercuts. I'm still of that persuasion. That said, I did watch this video, just because it was you doing the testing.
The word on the street is that CCI is coming out with the "Cross", the "Jab" and a secret round called the "Kidney Punch". They don't know if the Kidney Punch will be legal so keep that under your hat. Lol. Hey Buffalo, thanks for coming out in the cold for some .22 rounds. It was probably the boys that live in a warm climate that kept requesting the video. It's like football players that want to practice more, they're usually quarterbacks and kickers..... Years ago, "self defense" and .22LR used in the same sentence was considered an Oxymoron. Just kidding don't want to "offend" anyone. Don't be wasting that Ballistic Tap Water Buffalo, lol. You are absolutely right about CCI (6:04) not designing Uppercut ammo to be fired from a rifle. Here is a direct description of the Uppercut amp from CCI themselves - "Uppercut’s jacketed hollow point bullet features nose skiving that initiates full and reliable expansion through semi-automatic handguns with 2.5- to 4-inch barrels, while retaining the weight needed to hit critical penetration depths." We see here that CCI states it's meant to be fired from a 2.5 to 4 inch barrel.
Appreciate your candid testing videos. Hard to imagine CCI released this ammo without proper proving. I see no advantage over Punch, Stinger, or MiniMags.
Thank you for the retest Buffalo. Actually I thought they'd be faster than out of that little rifle, but they did what they were supposed to do. Like I said I think the puncher rated like 14 or 1600 our rifle I think
Wow, I'm super surprised they did not expand in the water because water makes EVERYTHING expand. Generally I would say if it won't expand in water, then it won't expand in anything. However, I shot these into Knox gelatin today and achieved some expansion. I'm @ing you and a couple other channels when it posts a little later this week. Had to throw my hat into the ring lol, but if you recall our previous conversation I agree that they should still be required expand in clear gel because other loads manage to do so...
As an author and consultant in the field of penetration mechanics, I'd like to offer you just a little constructive input, Buffalo Outdoors, in the hope that it will help you understand why you are seeing less expansion (in Clear Ballistics Gel) than you were expecting to see. There are only two factors that produce the dynamic pressure that initiates and drives projectile expansion in a terminal ballistic test medium. They are 1.) projectile velocity and 2.) density of the test medium. If the density of the test medium is not close to that of human soft tissues (1.040 ± 0.020 g/cc), then there is no way that the test medium can accurately reproduce the expansion and resultant penetration depth of a test bullet. The density of human skeletal muscle tissue is 1.045 g/cc. The density of human adipose tissue (aka: 'fat') is 0.945 g/cc The density of properly prepared and calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin at 39°F is 1.037 - 1.043 g/cc. The density of water is 0.9982 g/cc at STP. The density of Clear Ballistics Gel is 0.824 g/cc. The Clear Ballistics Gel product is between 13% and 21% less dense than human soft tissues. That's a significant difference and it is why Clear Ballistics Gel produces less dynamic pressure to initiate and drive projectile expansion. Clear Ballistics Gel produces less expansion and greater penetration than what occurs in human soft tissues or either of the two valid accepted soft tissue simulants: 10% ordnance gelatin and water. Due to these facts, Clear Ballistics Gel is incapable of producing test data that is representative of any human soft tissue or either of the two accepted human soft tissue test mediums. I hope that you find this information to be of value to you in any of your future testing.
So tell us about the new puppy!
He's a rescue. Him and 2 of his siblings were abandoned on an empty stretch of highway that runs through the Daniel Boone National Forest. We are fostering him until his forever home can be found. We found homes for his brother and sister. He's the only one left. Not much is known about his background, obviously, but my wife and I have got him up to date on his shots and dewormer. Thanks for asking about the little guy.
@@buffalosoutdoors 👍👍
In the first test you did everything right. You used the right gun the ammo was made for. You GOT the right velocity. The bullets seem to need to be going supersonic to function correctly and that isn't going to happen out of a pistol. If CCI wants to repair its reputation, they need to recall this stuff. It isn't plinking ammo, but expensive defense ammo that people are trusting their lives to.
40gr aguila interceptor hits 1130fps from my 4" Sig P322. Better option.
And hello from a long time subscriber and fellow gun tuber. :)
I can not agree any more, CCI should be ashamed
I think it was Tools&targets that just made a video about these and he found that 1 inch of barrel made all the difference between expanding and non-expanding and they hit a thousand feet per second from a 4 inch barrel he also found that from a rifle barrel they tend to break apart
Agree
One caveat
Continue production, change label to small game load?
Great for rifle , not great for original intended use.
Did someone load this in a Shot Shell? ...LOL Taofluugermister J/K Bud🤣
You are an honest down to earth patriotic man Buffalo. Would love to have you as a country neighbor.
And the truth will set you free. You just saved me a bunch of money.
It has a way of doing that doesn't it! Thanks Johnny!
When it failed in the pistol it peaked my curiosity about a rifle.
Defensive uses? Nothing better than the following so far:
Federal Punch
Aguila Interceptor 40gr, CCI Velocitor 40gr, or Winchester Super-X Hypervelocity 40gr, all rated above 1400 fps.
CCI Stinger (so long as your firearm utilizes a standard "sporter" chamber).
I'll Stick with CCI Stingers for my rifle, and Punch for my pistol. Thanks for all you do.
Stingers and Punch are my go to as well. What Pistol are you using? I'm Using The TX22 Compact.
Just so you know, Aguila super maximum can be had in a 30 grain solid, is faster and slightly heavier than Federal punch, and about 30% less money.
Aguila Interceptor can also be had in a solid, and is even more powerful and heavier (40gr) than both of them (1130fps in my 4" Sig P322)
Scott, if you have a 16" rifle, Aguila interceptor 40gr (solid or HP) will clock in at 1400-1450fps, and has the same muzzle energy as a 380 auto from a 3.25" pistol. It is significantly hotter and deeper penetrating than Stinger in my tests.
I concur , been useing stingers for hunting for years , mini mags for plinking etc . CCI exclusive !
So long as you're not running anything but a standard "sporter" chamber, the Stingers work fine. Tighten that up to Bentz or Match grade, not working anymore.
It is nice to know that there are still some good honest people in this country. Buffalo is the real deal.
Thank you for that. I just call it like I see it. I might get it wrong sometimes, but I won't mislead anyone intentionally!
Bottom line - the Uppercut needs the higher Stinger speed to expand. Good to see you were using genuine FBI ballistic water for the tests, not that cheap clear jello everyone else uses. Thanks for another great video.
I genuinely do not understand why they so drastically underloaded it
@@bower31 Yes, it was a mistake given its stated purpose and speed requirements for expansion. They should have tested the ammo before they released it for sale.
I believe the thick copper jacket requires more pressure to force into the lands and grooves and down the bore. So they hit the pressure limits of the little rimfire cartridge before they could get velocities to Stinger levels. Even though it's the same weight bullet, the Stinger only has a Copper wash coating so it is much softer and easier to push down the bore. Pressure is the limiting factor of the Uppercuts velocity.
@@buffalosoutdoors my suggestion would be to get rid of that jacketed bullet and use the Stinger bullet with a bigger hole for more consistent expansion.
Love your honesty, integrity and passion for open transparency Buffalo!
THank you!
Shouldn't be anymore questions. Thanks for the follow-up 👍🏻
"The same water the FBI uses." 😂🤣😂🤣😂
Good thing he did not use Walmart water like some of the other channels who go el cheapo.
If the FBI uses this water, it would be dirty and always go to the left.
The FBI probably uses "diet" water.
Should have used vegan water.@@tacocin
Oh, you laugh. Well, this will wipe the smile off your face. The water that Buffalo was using wasn't FBI certified. It takes thousands of hours of research and analysis in government laboratories to ensure that FBI water is of a consistent quality and specific gravity. It costs about $1,000 per litre, and that's just the water that they put in the water cooler.
That's your taxes at work. Smiling now?
You are absolutely right about CCI (6:04) not designing Uppercut ammo to be fired from a rifle. Here is a direct description of the Uppercut ammo from CCI themselves - "Uppercut’s jacketed hollow point bullet features nose skiving that initiates full and reliable expansion through
semi-automatic handguns with 2.5- to 4-inch barrels, while retaining the weight needed to hit critical penetration depths."
We see here that CCI states it's meant to be fired from a 2.5 to 4 inch barrel.
Whatever results the rounds had out of the rifle still don't change the fact that these are fairly expensive .22lr rounds that are supposed to give you these rifle results out of a pistol. They are not doing it out of a pistol and they are not cheap. There are plenty of cheaper rounds that will give you the same, or better results out of a handgun.
100%
Correct
CCI isn’t sending you a Christmas card this year lol 😂
Even if they did it would probably arrive late and wouldn’t open up.
@@buffalosoutdoors hahaha that’s hilarious
@@buffalosoutdoorsthis has no business being that funny 🤣😭
@@buffalosoutdoorsI was already digging the video, but you just earned a subscription with that comment.
Well played.
@@buffalosoutdoors LMAO.... now THAT is hillarious.... and most likely true!
"Ballistic Tap Water" - you got my upvote lol. Already subscribed. :)
You are right sir, you are the second tester i've seen that got the same results. Good results from a rifle. No results from a handgun.
Apparently unless it was TnT's rifle. Then they fragment.
CCI can remedy this by making the bullets a little more fragile, of they can do so without a ground-up redesign. You're a gentleman for adding to your last video.
Thanks Captain Obvious
Buckeye Ballistics tested it in the brown gel and the bullets opened up like flowers. The 2 gels are very different. So, the Uppercut does do what they are meant for.
Buckeye Ballistics.
I appreciate honesty much more than someone who is influenced by sponsors. Another great video!
You went above and beyond brother. Thanks for the content
Thank you! I was one of those that asked for a test from a rifle. I appreciate your work. CCI needs to relable the uppercut as a pest control round. It looks like it would work well on farm pests.
I can't remember who all I replied to on that first video. If you was one of them I hope I didn't sound rude. I was just really done with this ammo. I didn't want to shoot it from a rifle. It was only after the comments kept coming in and I slept on it a night or two that I realized that you guys don't ask me for much and the least I could do was shoot those last rounds in that gel block from a rifle for you. Thank you all. I appreciate each and every one of you.
Question is however, does it work SO much better than their other offerings doing ANYTHING the other offerings have been doing for decades? Doubt it.
Federal Punch on the other hand, compare it to any other 22LR of any other grade and speed, and it handily out-penetrates them all.. that's some innovation, unlike other stuff. If .22LR is going to be used in self defense (not a recommendation I would make, go with .32 S&W Long for low recoil), then penetration is the most important thing you could ask it to do, next would be hemorrhaging. If it doesn't reach where it needs to reach, it's worthless for this use. If it handily reaches where its supposed to reach, other aspects can be worked on. The penetration depth of the Uppercut fails in both, whether short or long barrel. It didn't meet ANY of the advertised benefits or attributes (expansion from short barrel, penetration and expansion quality, or enough penetration to be considered defensive). It's just an expensive, terribly marketed fail. Grab a box of Blazers if you want to plink cans.
@buffalosoutdoors Not rude at all. A bit angry with CCI perhaps, but I share that with you. I am happy for them to continue trying to innovate, but they need to be honest as well. If it needs to be shot out of a rifle to work, they should have said so.
@@exothermal.sprocketGood question, but for those that already have some of this stuff they now know how to make it work on varmints...in which case it looks quite capable for 1 shot eliminations.
@@Bush63Master Certainly. If your requirements aren't 12-16" of ballistics gel with good expansion, it'll work for critters just fine.
Great tests and that's why i watch your channel, i know I'm getting an honest review. Keep it up buffalo.
I'll always be honest with you'ins and call it like I see it. I might be wrong sometimes!! But it will not be intentional!
Your description of tap water as "ballistic tap water "is right up there with Mr. P. Harrell's description of some of his commenters, the 'what if brigade"
,
What an exciting little round! Despite all the drama and poor marketing, this round worked really well out of my rifles too. Almost wish CCI had just put them out there as a general use round.
That’s what they are. They need to change the labels and packaging. I wouldn’t be nearly as hard on them if they weren’t making claims that this ammo is not capable of, at least not a large percentage of the time.
You're in that cold, snow, to show me cci uppercuts are good from a rifle, don't expand from pistol. Fantastic, thank you.
Honestly if advertising was honest. It’s Rifle ammunition!
As always we trust the buffalo and video tells the story.
I love the honest content, and how CCI got their pictures without being honest making the consumer think it was from a hand gun barrel instead of a rifle length barrel to work as advertised. Thank You.
I can't find this stuff at any place! Glad to see they sent it out to the youtubers! It seems to expand as designed in gel blocks and water jugs. But, when it encounters a clothing barrier, it suddenly fails! (According to other tests I have seen on RUclips!)
I hope you're not insinuating that they sent this ammo it out to me for review. Don't confuse me with the sponsored guys. I can't get it to expand in ANYTHING from a pistol. Thanks for stopping by!
Wrong
Did you even try to watch this whole video?
Great follow up video. Thanks for doing it.
Thanks Buffalo!! I really wanted to see this round shot from longer barrels into gel. Appreciate you doing that for us.
You're welcome. If you're one of the ones I replied to on the other video, understand I was just disappointed in this ammo and really wanted to be done with it. It took a night or two of sleeping on it to make me realize that you guys had a valid reason to want to see it from a rifle length barrel.
I think it was Tools&targets that just made a video about these and he found that 1 inch of barrel made all the difference between expanding and non-expanding and they hit a thousand feet per second from a 4 inch barrel he also found that from a rifle barrel they tend to break apart
So TnT saw them fragment and Buffalo saw them not fragment.
There's no consistency among tests.
One important aspect of the scientific method is that the results should be reproducible.
In the case of Uppercuts it's all over the map.
You might be OK with impugnimg 22plinkster's ethics but personal attacks are the last resort of people who have nothing relevant to say.
Reality is not by consensus. If everyone says the sky is green it doesn't make the sky green.
I'd like to know how many people publishing their results on YT have actually tried to contact CCI if their field testing and CCI's claims didn't match up and what the response was.
Thank you for doing this your first video on this was accurate and true. I will not buy this product unless they fix it
Thanks for going above and beyond the call of duty!!!
CCI Deserve an UPPERCUT for false advertisement. They clearly don't perform as advertised . Great work, Buffalo shows the other reviewers are not as honest as you.😊
Thank you. I just call it like I see it. I can't guarantee I just didn't get a bad lot of this ammunition; I just think that would be highly unlikely since this stuff hasn't been in production very long. I appreciate your comment!
Thank you. What an underwhelming round. God Bless, stay safe and warm.
You're welcome. God Bless!
Hi Buffalo, well round two of the test proves the FBI it using the wrong ballistic water in there testing! Thanks for the retest you did everything right in the first video. It's states for a four inch barrel. Thanks for all your hard work and time Sir.
Thanks for the comment. I did this one for the people in the comments. Plus I had those 7 rounds left that I had no use for so I got rid of them and made a video at the same time!
Thanks Buffalo. It seems that 22 lr has capacity enough that CCI could load these to useful levels.
*has enough capacity
Thanks for showing what it takes to get them to work. I know you said no more suggestions, but just maybe someone with influence, or other ammo maker will try it. Put a ballistic "nosler" tip into the hollowpoint to improve ballistics and expansion.
Those results are about what I would expect - no expansion at all from a handgun and premium expansion when fired from a rifle. It's a pretty big ask to expect just about any handgun round to expand at around 800 fps - some will, most won't, in my experience. Add another 150-200 fps to that and they start to perform as designed. Nice video. Cheers.
👍😊 thank you for your time.
You've given it every chance. Also, here's an algorithm offering
Thank you!
Thank you that was cool and your point is well taken I’ll stick to what I’ve been using
And thank you for the comment!
Yo Buff, many many moons ago, I watched that AR7 video on whether it would float or not. It's been a fun ride watchin your channel grow. Good job sir! Stay safe and healthy
I can't believe you remember that video! If I recall that one didn't get many views. My review of that little rifle is one of my most popular videos still to this day though. Thanks for mentioning that classic!
I’m one of the “rifle request” commenters. LOL I totally get your reason for not doing so but totally appreciate that you DID!
It’s awesome that you not only RESPOND to viewer comments but you actually listen and consider the requests!
Thanks for going out in that yucky weather. We feel special!
Thanks for the update!
You're welcome!
Can't argue with that. Well done Sir.
Thanks Buffalo! Very much appreciate you doing these tests.
Thanks for keeping it honest!
The first test I saw on these was a good one. They expanded well. But all the rest of the test I have seen have been like the pistol test you had. I will not buy them to carry. Thanks for your hard work. 😀😀
Another great video. Love your humble, honest approach. It resonates well here in Southern Indiana.
This is similar to what happened with 9mm JHP in PCCs. The 9mm JHP designs are for a given velocity from a pistol. If you push them too fast they prematurely expand and it kills penetration.
In this case the extra velocity from the rifle put it in the Goldilocks zone and it expanded. Unfortunately it killed penetration. 9" in clear gel is a non-starter.
One thing I noticed is that for both the 9mm and .22 the extra barrel length of the rifle added about 200+ fps. That's a good illustration of how hard it is to design ammo. If 200 fps totally changes the behavior of the round I don't envy the guy who has to design it.
I think RNFP needs a second look. It has mechanics similar to the expensive non-expanding stuff like Lehigh's defender and penetrators. The meplat shunts tissue and fluid radially to cut a bigger wound channel like the Lehigh bullets and they're much cheaper.
Unfortunately no one seems to have any interest in doing a comparison. Federal makes a 130 gr 9mm for PCCs. It's the one with the total synthetic jacket, but it was designed for competition like 3-gun. I have some. It shoots fine from both a CX4 and a Sub 2000 but I can't find any gel testing. It's also not a JHP. It looks like a RNFP.
Given the price point for the Federal TSJ and the heavy flat point bullet I'd love to see get testing. Maybe compare it to other designs like Lehigh's.
If anyone knows of a channel that has this please let me know.
Addendum: Punch is a RNFP. I think these videos show how less finicky the RNFP can be.
👍👍Thanks Buffalo, appreciate the test but on the water test I think you’re supposed to use filtered ballistic water.😊😊
Like the FBI uses, from Lake Quantico.
Kudos for answering your watchers questions/ critiques.
When CCI did their testing I can only assume they used hard water to get expansion 😂
I remember the old ballistic beer table you used to use. Made me cry like a thirsty little girl every time.
Thanks for doing the follow up or second video on the CCI uppercut. Based on what I saw. I don’t think I’ll be buying any for my CCW P17. Thanks again for the video.
Thanks for sharing your unbiased reviews.
Buffalo's the best man, my favorite guntuber
Thank you for the extra effort.
Takes high velocity to run those Henry survivals. My friends does the same. Gave him some 1300 fps and it works now.
Well done! After seeing the lack of expansion from the pistol, I had a feeling that they'd expand after being fired from a longer barrel. I don't know that I can recall seeing .22lr expand well at all from a pistol - even though they say that's what this was made to do.
Thank you for going the extra mile, Buffalo. Your original video did what you set out to do, prove or (in this case) disprove the claim by CCI that the Uppercut is a defensive round. Obviously they failed miserably at that goal, but you succeeded with empirical proof. I would like to see CCI remarket these rounds as small game loads for use in carbines and rifles. Those final five looked exactly the way an expanding hunting hollowpoint should function.
You da man Mr. Buffalo, thanks for this info. CCI might want to rein in their marketing department a bit... And thanks for the reminder at the end, glad you always do that sir
Thanks for testing these again. Good info for those of use interested in self defense rounds. Stay safe out there, Buffalo! 🤘😎
Thanks OG! Brother I appreciate all you do!
Ballistic tap water...that's fantastic 👏
Thank you! Cheers!
Ballistic tap water, heck yeah! Those expanded really nice through the rifle.
Good honest review, thank you Mr Buffalo!
You're welcome!
..I've been seriously impressed with your doube action shooting skills....
No one said that CCI didn't test these out in one of those Heritage Rough Rider revolvers with the 16" barrel. Glad to see that you went back and blasted some ballistic water and put them through a barrel length that would cause expansion. And these should probably be tested in whatever semi auto rifle you may decide to shoot them out of to make sure they cycle. I would play it safe and use a lever action, pump, or bolt action.
Sad thing is, my Heritage 16" RR shoots bullets at the same speed as my 6" RRs.
Wat
I was going to say the same thing. The pistol they mean is one with a 6 to 10" barrel like a Ruger charger .
👍🐿👍thank you for the video.
Glad you enjoyed it! 🐿️
I look forward to all your videos. Thanks for excellent content.
I appreciate that!
Excellent video. Thanks.
0:44 snow covered trees and field with a red barn in the background. I miss those days in Ohio.
Nice to see a new video from you. I don't get notifications for your videos, usually.
As far as 22's go, I don't really see the point in hollowpoints, even if they're jacketed. The spread isn't enough to justify the loss in penetration. I like 22's for the midrange accuracy and speed. I have some really old boxes of CCI Stingers and I recently found them. I took them out to shoot, and the bullets came apart from the casings very easily. Sometimes when I charged the rifle it would separate the bullet and casing. I got a few bullets stuck in the chamber, back-to-back, so I had to stop. They had a bit of white powder on them, which is probably some kind of oxidation.
I see there wasn't much expansion, though. Reminds me of the Buffalo Bore 380's.
An idea for a series... Buffalo tests Buffalo Bore. Lots of jello opportunities there.
Send him some
Just when I thought I was out...
THEY PULL ME BACK IN!!!❤❤😂
Your new expensive squirrel round! Thanks for going the extra mile!
Guide job, thanks for telling it Luke it is. You build trust with your viewers. Keep up the good work.
Thank you for that!
Spell check is free
Dino Nucci, you're a troll!
@@edwardkawecki8101 *your
Federal punch for the win! Thank God that this stuff was sold out everywhere or I would have bought some
I enjoyed the video. I think that the air viscosity in the South must be different than in New England. Thicker air makes southeners talk slower. The air in new Boston and New York is less viscous and allows people to talk faster.
If you did the same test there, then the bullet would fly faster in the low viscosity air and would be able to expand.
Thanks for your videos. I enjoy your content. Thanks to your wife too. I am sure she plays a big part that we don't see.
Thanks for the honest review. Do you have a permit to use FBI water? Agents will be at your door rhis afternoon, LOL.
Thank you for trying it in a rifle, very informative.
Great Follow-up!
Thank you for doing the rifle test. I've been curious about these as a good round for home defense in a semi-auto rifle in lieu of an AR platform for the same. Now the only question is whether/what it will cycle reliably in. I've got a (mostly) Kidd 10/22 with the ultralight (non-match, 16") barrel, and one stock(ish) 10/22 set up for hunting (std Ruger pencil barrel) that I may test in once I find some of these rounds locally or at one of the few online shops that ship to my location. Kidd makes no mention on their site as to whether I can/should fire Stinger-type rounds through it - I guess I'll find out the hard way, provided it cycles okay in the hunting rifle. Thanks again!
This round continues to fascinate me for some reason. It looks like CCI at the very least may be a bit off in its purpose of use.
Great channel, keep up the honest content. You have a very trusting way about you.
Dang, should call it the the CCI Upsetter
😂
Your previous test, plus the others I mentioned in my comments, had convinced me not to bother with these Uppercuts. I'm still of that persuasion. That said, I did watch this video, just because it was you doing the testing.
Thank you. I was done. Now I am OFFICIALLY done.... LOL
The word on the street is that CCI is coming out with the "Cross", the "Jab" and a secret round called the "Kidney Punch". They don't know if the Kidney Punch will be legal so keep that under your hat. Lol. Hey Buffalo, thanks for coming out in the cold for some .22 rounds. It was probably the boys that live in a warm climate that kept requesting the video. It's like football players that want to practice more, they're usually quarterbacks and kickers..... Years ago, "self defense" and .22LR used in the same sentence was considered an Oxymoron. Just kidding don't want to "offend" anyone. Don't be wasting that Ballistic Tap Water Buffalo, lol.
You are absolutely right about CCI (6:04) not designing Uppercut ammo to be fired from a rifle. Here is a direct description of the Uppercut amp from CCI themselves - "Uppercut’s jacketed hollow point bullet features nose skiving that initiates full and reliable expansion through semi-automatic handguns with 2.5- to 4-inch barrels, while retaining the weight needed to hit critical penetration depths."
We see here that CCI states it's meant to be fired from a 2.5 to 4 inch barrel.
Buffalo, keep on keeping on my friend. 👍
Thank you!
Appreciate your candid testing videos. Hard to imagine CCI released this ammo without proper proving. I see no advantage over Punch, Stinger, or MiniMags.
Indeed!!! It is what it is!
Great video as always!!👏👏👏👏
Great job! This is exactly what I wanted to see with these!
you saved me a lot of money,hype is all it is.
CCI dropped the ball on this one. Have they not heard of social media? Good Lord.
RIGHT
👍 Excellent Back to the drawing board CCI
Thank you for the retest Buffalo. Actually I thought they'd be faster than out of that little rifle, but they did what they were supposed to do. Like I said I think the puncher rated like 14 or 1600 our rifle I think
Wow, I'm super surprised they did not expand in the water because water makes EVERYTHING expand. Generally I would say if it won't expand in water, then it won't expand in anything. However, I shot these into Knox gelatin today and achieved some expansion. I'm @ing you and a couple other channels when it posts a little later this week. Had to throw my hat into the ring lol, but if you recall our previous conversation I agree that they should still be required expand in clear gel because other loads manage to do so...
As an author and consultant in the field of penetration mechanics, I'd like to offer you just a little constructive input, Buffalo Outdoors, in the hope that it will help you understand why you are seeing less expansion (in Clear Ballistics Gel) than you were expecting to see.
There are only two factors that produce the dynamic pressure that initiates and drives projectile expansion in a terminal ballistic test medium. They are 1.) projectile velocity and 2.) density of the test medium. If the density of the test medium is not close to that of human soft tissues (1.040 ± 0.020 g/cc), then there is no way that the test medium can accurately reproduce the expansion and resultant penetration depth of a test bullet.
The density of human skeletal muscle tissue is 1.045 g/cc.
The density of human adipose tissue (aka: 'fat') is 0.945 g/cc
The density of properly prepared and calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin at 39°F is 1.037 - 1.043 g/cc.
The density of water is 0.9982 g/cc at STP.
The density of Clear Ballistics Gel is 0.824 g/cc.
The Clear Ballistics Gel product is between 13% and 21% less dense than human soft tissues. That's a significant difference and it is why Clear Ballistics Gel produces less dynamic pressure to initiate and drive projectile expansion. Clear Ballistics Gel produces less expansion and greater penetration than what occurs in human soft tissues or either of the two valid accepted soft tissue simulants: 10% ordnance gelatin and water. Due to these facts, Clear Ballistics Gel is incapable of producing test data that is representative of any human soft tissue or either of the two accepted human soft tissue test mediums.
I hope that you find this information to be of value to you in any of your future testing.
Well that's that, if it won't expand in water, it won't expand at all. Thanks for the test.
good vidio