WWB 147gr JHP?? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : WWB 147gr JHP??


.45Super-Man
01-21-2010, 16:15
Does anyone know which JHP bullet Winchester uses for their 147gr white box load? Anyone know the velocity and performance of this loading?? Picked up a 50 rnd box today at Wally world.

481
01-21-2010, 17:07
Does anyone know which JHP bullet Winchester uses for their 147gr white box load? Anyone know the velocity and performance of this loading?? Picked up a 50 rnd box today at Wally world.

It is rumored to be the same bullet that Winchester uses in the 147 gr. Silvertip JHP sans the silver plating on the exterior. I've examined quite a few of both pulled from cartridges and the dimensions are exactly the same.

Here's an article that illustrates the performance of this load in actual living human tissue obtained at autopsy:

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler_Articles/winchester_9mm.pdf

The load offers expansion to 1.5x caliber (0.541") and a little more than 13 inches of average penetration while retaining about 95% of its weight. Its pretty good performance for an "old" design.

CanyonMan
01-21-2010, 19:14
I am curious to know if WW has changed anything in the bullet/powder since this report. If not mistaken I think the report was 1991 (?).

I kinda like that bullet and always have. I like the 147gr in 9mm. In some very unscientific test I've seen (and do not really agree with btw), this bullet in recent years was getting more than 20" penetration, but again, that was in wet pack meadia, which I am not real thrilled about. It was interesting to see the difference in expansion on this link from the hog belly, to the hog muscle. Something I have seen before (not with this bullet), but others....


I'll try and find out if there have been any changes to this round. You have me curious now.


Thanks for posting the link. Good reading.


Stay safe


CanyonMan

481
01-21-2010, 19:59
I am curious to know if WW has changed anything in the bullet/powder since this report. If not mistaken I think the report was 1991 (?).

I kinda like that bullet and always have. I like the 147gr in 9mm. In some very unscientific test I've seen (and do not really agree with btw), this bullet in recent years was getting more than 20" penetration, but again, that was in wet pack meadia, which I am not real thrilled about. It was interesting to see the difference in expansion on this link from the hog belly, to the hog muscle. Something I have seen before (not with this bullet), but others....


I'll try and find out if there have been any changes to this round. You have me curious now.


Thanks for posting the link. Good reading.


Stay safe


CanyonMan

CM-

You are welcome; glad you enjoyed it. :)

You are correct. Wolberg's article appeared in the Winter/1991 IWBA journal.

The examples (several of each) of the Winchester USA 147 gr. JHP that I've pulled, cut up and measured were of fairly recent manufacture (last 5-7 years) and matched dimensionally the 147 gr. Silvertip JHPs that I pulled, cut up and measured from a lot made in mid- to late-2007.

All dimensions, (OAL, shank diameter, hollow point opening diameter and depth, length of ogival nose surface, external jacket skive length and spacing, bullet jacket thickness) matched to a one and my "guess" is that they are, other than the obvious difference in plating, one and the same. Short of a differently formulated lead alloy within the bullet, I cannot find anything to suggest that any change has occurred.

Statisical variances between the two designs respective dimensions were nominal.

While I couldn't truthfully swear to the two designs being duplicates of one another, I'd bet "long green" that they are, with high confidence that I'd collect on that bet.

I, too, like the round and all of the 9mm 147 gr. ("heavy for caliber") JHPs and the Win USA 147 JHP is no exception. I've set aside about 4K as a "back up" load to my preferred carry load, the Hornady 9mm 147 gr. XTP JHP.

I've also seen some of the "wetpack" tests. Interesting sure, but not exactly a scientifically repeatable medium.

I'd sure appreciate seeing what you find in the way of actual changes through the course of your research on the Win USA round.



:)

CanyonMan
01-21-2010, 21:04
CM-

You are welcome; glad you enjoyed it. :)

You are correct. Wolberg's article appeared in the Winter/1991 IWBA journal.

The examples (several of each) of the Winchester USA 147 gr. JHP that I've pulled, cut up and measured were of fairly recent manufacture (last 5-7 years) and matched dimensionally the 147 gr. Silvertip JHPs that I pulled, cut up and measured from a lot made in mid- to late-2007.

All dimensions, (OAL, shank diameter, hollow point opening diameter and depth, length of ogival nose surface, external jacket skive length and spacing, bullet jacket thickness) matched to a one and my "guess" is that they are, other than the obvious difference in plating, one and the same. Short of a differently formulated lead alloy within the bullet, I cannot find anything to suggest that any change has occurred.

Statisical variances between the two designs respective dimensions were nominal.

While I couldn't truthfully swear to the two designs being duplicates of one another, I'd bet "long green" that they are, with high confidence that I'd collect on that bet.

I, too, like the round and all of the 9mm 147 gr. ("heavy for caliber") JHPs and the Win USA 147 JHP is no exception. I've set aside about 4K as a "back up" load to my preferred carry load, the Hornady 9mm 147 gr. XTP JHP.

I've also seen some of the "wetpack" tests. Interesting sure, but not exactly a scientifically repeatable medium.

I'd sure appreciate seeing what you find in the way of actual changes through the course of your research on the Win USA round.



:)




Very interesting reply.... I have a few of the "latest ones" from wally world. I will also pull a couple of them and do some checking and cross referencing etc, with my very limted knowledge....

I have a friend at WW and will place a call to him tomorrow, and see what he has to say as well. I got a feeling your spot on about all this, but am interested to see what my friend says at WW. I will let ya know as I can get a hold of him..

Man I wish I had that many of these set aside as you do, you dog you. ha. ha.


I am "heavy for caliber" in everything a shoot/load for in hand guns as well. I really like 147gr for 9mm. Although I am known on GT for my stand with the 45acp, i did buy my wife a G19 9mil last weekend at the Dallas gun show we drove in to check out. I do love my big bores. But, Have had to use the 9mil in situations in the past, that have served me very well. (secret is out now) ha.

I will keep you in the loop as I find out from my bud at WW what is what with this round.

Thanks again for your info, and I really enjoy your post. I say in jest, some are waaaay over my mathmatical head, as a ranch hand country boy, haha but I say that in jest. I have a hard enough time figuring out how many cattle and horses we need to run on a given place at times and have to turn to the calculator for needed help..... ha.


Seriously. Thanks for the info, and the post. I will let ya know what i find out..


Stay safe Amigo..


CanyonMan

481
01-21-2010, 21:52
CM,

Sounds like we share common ground in our "heavy for caliber" preferences.

When it comes to the .45, I prefer the Hornady 230 gr. XTP JHP +P pushing its 230 gr. JHP at an honest 950 fps from my HK USP45.

Lookin' forward to hearin' what you find out from your friend inside WW, CM, and thanks for keeping me in the loop. I do appreciate it. :)

Merkavaboy
01-22-2010, 01:04
Does anyone know which JHP bullet Winchester uses for their 147gr white box load? Anyone know the velocity and performance of this loading?? Picked up a 50 rnd box today at Wally world.

The Win USA 147JHP uses the same bullet as it was loaded back in the late 80's and adopted by the FBI. Winchester's website shows this load has a MV of 990fps out of a vented test barrel. Actual velocity, depending on barrel length, is going to be less.

This 147JHP (designated the Olin Super Match Type-L) was initially developed for the SEALs to be used out of the suppressed MP-5SD sub-guns for long distance accuracy and was never designed to be a self-defense round to be fired out of pistols.

The article written by Eugene Wolberg (link provided previously) is flawed and cannot be taken at face value as he cherry-picked the bullets used in his study to match his hypothesis.

CanyonMan
01-22-2010, 08:42
CM,

Sounds like we share common ground in our "heavy for caliber" preferences.

When it comes to the .45, I prefer the Hornady 230 gr. XTP JHP +P pushing its 230 gr. JHP at an honest 950 fps from my HK USP45.

Lookin' forward to hearin' what you find out from your friend inside WW, CM, and thanks for keeping me in the loop. I do appreciate it. :)


Yep. I as well like the 230gr XTP in my 45's, and although I am a dying breed on GT I do like my 230 ball rounds best. I just don't learn new tricks well. ;)


Gotta right quick. I'll let ya know what i find out.


CanyonMan

481
01-22-2010, 11:22
The article written by Eugene Wolberg (link provided previously) is flawed and cannot be taken at face value as he cherry-picked the bullets used in his study to match his hypothesis.


M-

Simply your opinion.

Can you provide an actual source citation (another article, published academic paper, or professional journal) that supports your assertion as quoted above? I would really like to see an example of factual refutation of Wolberg's work since I see this claim made all the time and have yet to see any supporting documentary evidence.

Otherwise, no one can take this as anything other than your factually unsupported and uninformed opinion.

Please understand that I am not attempting disrespect towards you here. I am simply seeking an actual source citation for the claim you've made above.

:)

CanyonMan
01-22-2010, 16:15
Well, I got my hands plumb full here and irons in the fire every where, so here is the short version of what I got on the phone from my friend that works at the ammo dept. at WW

He said, and you 481 are correct (in part. I'll get to that), that the 'present day' WWB 147gr JHP is indeed the ST, but without the silver coating.. "Except for one difference." The "Segmented Scribing," or cuts, lines, running down the bullet from the pedals are "shorter than the ST bullet."

Therefore, as he said, 'and we already know'. That means more penetration that the ST in the same weight which is designed to open faster. This lines up real well with all those wet pack jug test and others as well, (that i am not fond of), but yet none the less, the WWB 147gr JHP in those test was passing through as many as 5 wet pack jugs, and kept on truckin. Same in other test I have seen. Penetration was almost like FMJ. Even though sub sonic as we all know, it still is a penetration dude. Hummmm (slow and heavy). Oh well, moving right along. My friend said he would 'not even' hesitate to carry that round, BUT, there is more...


I know that "Merkavaboy" said it was not originally desiged for a pistol, but that is incorret in part. My friend new abosolutely nothing about the Seals and the sub guns, (does not mean that's not correct, no one is saying that), just saying it was news to him. But, it was/is very much designed for a 9mil hand gun, I mean come on, it is a 9mil bullet ;) Thanks Merkavaboy for the info. Personally I like the sound of a bullet Seals used for long range sniper work being in my pistol mag. In fact, the ones I have fired (WWB 147gr), have been spot on POA/POI.
Out of the glocks. They shot great.

Next. This was interesting, 'to me at least.' He said "If you want a bullet that is a real penetrator, and bonded on top of that, go to the 147gr Bobnded PDX1." He said they are back logged on that round to the max for one reason it IS the chosen round in 9mil 147gr and 40s&w 180gr for the FBI boys and "heavy for caliber they went as well in both those calibers. "

I mentioned the Ranger NON BONDED 127gr +P+ T series. He siad " Hey, the Bonded PDX1 in the 147gr will get better penetrtion than the +P+ in 127gr. because the PDX round is bonded (and heavier), with controlled expansion, and will go deeper, although with just a tad less wound channel than the 127 Ranger +P+ T series which is designed to open faster with less penetraion.

He said.. Th ST in the 147gr is about 1010fps, and the WWB in the 147gr is 990fps. I for one am not worried about 20fps at a few feet away from the BG... Plus I do not care for a rapid expanding bullet. I want the penetration from a heavier weight. That's me..

Oh yeah, he also said of the WWB 147gr, that the changes, (I've mentioned one), I'll say it again, is the Segmented Scribes not as pronouned, thus better Penetration, the obvious missing silver coating, and just a tad change to the powder from the older rounds years ago, in that the powder is a bit more flash suppressant.


Well, there ya go boys and girls. We talked about all kinds of stuff, but i did manage to jot all that down for those who are interested.

Me, Mr. bigbore ha. But in the 9mil when thrown in the truck at times, I will continue to carry the WWB 147gr JHP's, and or the 147gr. bonded PDX1 sounds even better, and according to my bud, is a great penetrator, and bonded, and still does what it needs to do... bla bla. (let the reader understand) Then I won't have to give out details between me and him. ;)


That's it. Interesting morning.


Good shooting all




CanyonMan

481
01-22-2010, 17:39
Well, I got my hands plumb full here and irons in the fire every where, so here is the short version of what I got on the phone from my friend that works at the ammo dept. at WW

He said, and you 481 are correct (in part. I'll get to that), that the 'present day' WWB 147gr JHP is indeed the ST, but without the silver coating.. "Except for one difference." The "Segmented Scribing," or cuts, lines, running down the bullet from the pedals are "shorter than the ST bullet."

Therefore, as he said, 'and we already know'. That means more penetration that the ST in the same weight which is designed to open faster. This lines up real well with all those wet pack jug test and others as well, (that i am not fond of), but yet none the less, the WWB 147gr JHP in those test was passing through as many as 5 wet pack jugs, and kept on truckin. Same in other test I have seen. Penetration was almost like FMJ. Even though sub sonic as we all know, it still is a penetration dude. Hummmm (slow and heavy). Oh well, moving right along. My friend said he would 'not even' hesitate to carry that round, BUT, there is more...


I know that "Merkavaboy" said it was not originally desiged for a pistol, but that is incorret in part. My friend new abosolutely nothing about the Seals and the sub guns, (does not mean that's not correct, no one is saying that), just saying it was news to him. But, it was/is very much designed for a 9mil hand gun, I mean come on, it is a 9mil bullet ;) Thanks Merkavaboy for the info. Personally I like the sound of a bullet Seals used for long range sniper work being in my pistol mag. In fact, the ones I have fired (WWB 147gr), have been spot on POA/POI.
Out of the glocks. They shot great.

Next. This was interesting, 'to me at least.' He said "If you want a bullet that is a real penetrator, and bonded on top of that, go to the 147gr Bobnded PDX1." He said they are back logged on that round to the max for one reason it IS the chosen round in 9mil 147gr and 40s&w 180gr for the FBI boys and "heavy for caliber they went as well in both those calibers. "

I mentioned the Ranger NON BONDED 127gr +P+ T series. He siad " Hey, the Bonded PDX1 in the 147gr will get better penetrtion than the +P+ in 127gr. because the PDX round is bonded (and heavier), with controlled expansion, and will go deeper, although with just a tad less wound channel than the 127 Ranger +P+ T series which is designed to open faster with less penetraion.

He said.. Th ST in the 147gr is about 1010fps, and the WWB in the 147gr is 990fps. I for one am not worried about 20fps at a few feet away from the BG... Plus I do not care for a rapid expanding bullet. I want the penetration from a heavier weight. That's me..

Oh yeah, he also said of the WWB 147gr, that the changes, (I've mentioned one), I'll say it again, is the Segmented Scribes not as pronouned, thus better Penetration, the obvious missing silver coating, and just a tad change to the powder from the older rounds years ago, in that the powder is a bit more flash suppressant.


Well, there ya go boys and girls. We talked about all kinds of stuff, but i did manage to jot all that down for those who are interested.

Me, Mr. bigbore ha. But in the 9mil when thrown in the truck at times, I will continue to carry the WWB 147gr JHP's, and or the 147gr. bonded PDX1 sounds even better, and according to my bud, is a great penetrator, and bonded, and still does what it needs to do... bla bla. (let the reader understand) Then I won't have to give out details between me and him. ;)


That's it. Interesting morning.


Good shooting all




CanyonMan

Thanks for all the research, CM. Nice job and a very informative post.

Now for the question I hope was asked and answered: Does the current production WWB 147 gr. JHP ammunition use the same bullet that was used in the earlier production WWB 147 gr. JHP ammunition?

I also wonder, and perhaps Merkavaboy can "chime in" (if he ain't annoyed with me), with what he knows about the old WW LE "Restricted" Controlled Expansion 147 gr. JHP (catalog number Q4217) being the same (or another bullet entirely) as opposed to the OSM bullet used in current production Winchester USA 147 gr. JHPs.

I have a few hundred (~400) rounds of the 9mm 147 gr. PDX and like the bonded aspect that Winchester has incorporated into it.

Ran some of the 9mm 147 gr. PDX through the chrony last autumn and it performed well matching the factory advertised velocity out of my Glock 17:

Winchester PDX1 9mm 147 gr. JHP (S9MMPDB1)
Hi: 1013<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Lo: 970
Av: 990
Md: 991.50
ES: 43
SD: 9.364
n: 20<o:p></o:p>

I mentioned the Ranger NON BONDED 127gr +P+ T series. He siad " Hey, the Bonded PDX1 in the 147gr will get better penetrtion than the +P+ in 127gr. because the PDX round is bonded (and heavier), with controlled expansion, and will go deeper, although with just a tad less wound channel than the 127 Ranger +P+ T series which is designed to open faster with less penetraion.

This is very interesting to say the least.

Looks like I will be sticking with the 147 gr. PDX for a very long time. Nice to have options. :)


Thanks again for the outstanding info, CM.

CanyonMan
01-22-2010, 19:59
Thanks for all the research, CM. Nice job and a very informative post.

Now for the question I hope was asked and answered: Does the current production WWB 147 gr. JHP ammunition use the same bullet that was used in the earlier production WWB 147 gr. JHP ammunition?


I also wonder, and perhaps Merkavaboy can "chime in" (if he ain't annoyed with me), with what he knows about the old WW LE "Restricted" Controlled Expansion 147 gr. JHP (catalog number Q4217) being the same (or another bullet entirely) as opposed to the OSM bullet used in current production Winchester USA 147 gr. JHPs.

I have a few hundred (~400) rounds of the 9mm 147 gr. PDX and like the bonded aspect that Winchester has incorporated into it.

Ran some of the 9mm 147 gr. PDX through the chrony last autumn and it performed well matching the factory advertised velocity out of my Glock 17:

Winchester PDX1 9mm 147 gr. JHP (S9MMPDB1)
Hi: 1013<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Lo: 970
Av: 990
Md: 991.50
ES: 43
SD: 9.364
n: 20<o:p></o:p>



This is very interesting to say the least.

Looks like I will be sticking with the 147 gr. PDX for a very long time. Nice to have options. :)


Thanks again for the outstanding info, CM.





Well, as you ask in your post above.."Now for the question I hope was asked and answered: Does the current production WWB 147 gr. JHP ammunition use the same bullet that was used in the earlier production WWB 147 gr. JHP ammunition?

If I am answering you and reading you right.. Like I said in my post. My bud said the WWB 147gr current production is the same as the ST without the silver and has not got the "Segmented Scribing," or cuts, lines, running down the bullet from the pedals, they (serrations) are "shorter than the ST bullet." Giving it deeper penetration..

I think I just got the revealation of what your asking here... Sorry My brain is on half a tank tonight. The 'current' 147gr WWB, is different in all the ways I previously discribed, BUT, I do not know if it "stayed the same as it was back when," or if their were any mods to it... This is what I believe you are asking.

I mostly had that one question on my mind when I called him, and then we got off on a gab fest, so I never thought to ask that one amigo. Good question. I sure can find out though and let ya know in a day or two...


I tell ya I like that bullet, i really do. If I can find a case or three I'm buying in on it after what I have seen, and how well it responded to my own shooting out of a 17 and a 19. Also, yes, the PDX1 in 147gr for the 9mil according to my bud is really great in every way (not claiming 'magic bullet' here, no no), just that he could not say enough good about it. I will get some and give it a test run into some stuff when i can (this time with pics). Maybe I can get him to slip me a couple boxes. ;)


HTH's some.
I'll get back with ya...



CanyonMan

481
01-22-2010, 22:20
CM,


I think I just got the revealation of what your asking here... Sorry My brain is on half a tank tonight. The 'current' 147gr WWB, is different in all the ways I previously discribed, BUT, I do not know if it "stayed the same as it was back when," or if their were any mods to it... This is what I believe you are asking.


You are correct. This is indeed, the question that I was asking. As for being at "half tank", I feel you on that. Depending upon my schedule I am no stranger to that condition.

I mostly had that one question on my mind when I called him, and then we got off on a gab fest, so I never thought to ask that one amigo. Good question. I sure can find out though and let ya know in a day or two...


I appreciate you doing what you've been doing and providing the info. Thanks, man. :)

Hope you get a chance to tip a brew (or three :supergrin:) and relax. Life's too short to be burning it at both ends all of the time.

CanyonMan
01-22-2010, 23:23
CM,



You are correct. This is indeed, the question that I was asking. As for being at "half tank", I feel you on that. Depending upon my schedule I am no stranger to that condition.



I appreciate you doing what you've been doing and providing the info. Thanks, man. :)

Hope you get a chance to tip a brew (or three :supergrin:) and relax. Life's too short to be burning it at both ends all of the time.



I hear ya. It is 11:17 pm and I am just now done with dealing with some livestock for the night. A few hours sleep, and do it again. I must admit, no complaints cause i been doing this since I was a kid. But now at 58, I am trying to be more boss, and less hired hand. haha.


I will call my friend at WW monday, and see what I can find out. I am curious myself..

I think we are going to try some testing this summer in the beef hind quarters covered in intestines, hollow and solid organs, and topped off with a shirt and heavy jacket, with a number of factor fodder, and try to film it this time, along with pics. Now all this has neen done before and we never thought about the pics. Just the way it is here, but if we get the time will will try.

Anyway... good night amigo/s.
I will let you know what i find out monday or tuesday.....


God bless
stay safe



Canyonman

Merkavaboy
01-23-2010, 01:34
M-

Simply your opinion.

Can you provide an actual source citation (another article, published academic paper, or professional journal) that supports your assertion as quoted above? I would really like to see an example of factual refutation of Wolberg's work since I see this claim made all the time and have yet to see any supporting documentary evidence.

Otherwise, no one can take this as anything other than your factually unsupported and uninformed opinion.

Please understand that I am not attempting disrespect towards you here. I am simply seeking an actual source citation for the claim you've made above.

:)

Sorry for not getting back to this thread earlier. And no, I'm not annoyed with you :) . Anyway, I'll try and explain why I tend to frown upon Wolberg's article that pops up every now and then. It may be a little long so bear with me.

I'm not sure exactly when the Win 147JHP was officially adopted by the FBI, but my earliest sample round is dated '87. Also in my collection is one dated '88, one from an earily Win Super-X "Deep Penetration Subsonic" box and a fairly current ('08) USA brand load. All measurements are the same for all 4 loads; cavity depth, cavity diameter at the meplat and length of jacket cuts at the bullet tip. Esentially, they are all the same bullet. I even confirmed this with a friend who's a Winchester Rep in So.Cal. and he contacted his contact at Winchester who confirmed that the bullet used for their USA brand 147JHP load is the same bullet as the original OSM load.

Now, over the years, those in the shooting/training industry who have had access to shooting data involving the OSM bullet have reported this load as being an erratic performer in actual shootings, including underexpansion and overpenetration. In previous threads about this particular load, several GT members have noted, from actual experiences in investigating shootings, that the OSM is an erratic performer.

Now, having said that, I became aware of Wolberg's article about 5 years ago. After reading and re-reading it again and again, some questions came to mind that just doesn't jive with his findings, including:

If SDPD had been using the OSM load for roughly 4 years, why was only 28 bullets examined? I'm sure they had more shootings than that. It's very unlikely that they had only 28 shootings that ALL expanded as reported by Wolberg. No, I'm pretty sure that they had more shootings than 28 (though I have no personal proof of that), so what about any other shootings in which the bullets didn't expand or possibly even overpenetrated on torso shots? Where are they at? If you're going to evaluate a load, all shootings to the torso must be included; the good, the bad and the ugly. Not just the picture perfect rounds that meet your given criteria. With as many people who have seen or had actual hands on experience investigating shootings that have reported erratic performance from this round, it's highly improbable that SDPD never had such expansion/excessive penetration problems. But without access to all SDPD shootings, we will never really know just how effective or ineffective the load was for SDPD.

And the use of ballistic gel. There's no way that gel can recreate human tissue. The shooting of gel in a labratory at a given temperature at a given distance cannot recreate the distances and angles of actual shootings. Not realistic at all.

But what really caught my attention was the fact is that Wolberg's article didn't touch upon how really effective this load is/was. When the BGs were shot were they immediately incapacitated or did it take multiple shots to bring them down? It really doesn't mean much looking at expanded bullets dug out of corpses if it took multiple bullets to immediately stop someone. All Wolberg's report states is that the OSM bullet when shot into calibrated 10% ballistic gel mimics bullets removed from corpses.

But those are just my observations and musings regarding this load, Wolberg's article, and from the reported experiences of others who have first hand knowledge about this load and it's use.

But the thing that confirmed my suspicions I had years ago about Wolberg's article regarding cherry-picked bullets was when two people, who are both GT members, on another gun forum while in a heated discussion, one of them who knew Wolberg confirmed that the Coroner did in fact cherry-pick the bullets used in Wolberg's article.

I'd rather not toss that GT member under the bus for confirming my suspicion. So you can either take my word for it or you can dismiss it as bolony. But I think that those of you who have read my comments over the years should realize that I'm very straight-forward in my comments and I'm not out to pull the proverbial wool over peoples' eyes.

Merkavaboy
01-23-2010, 03:12
I know that "Merkavaboy" said it was not originally desiged for a pistol, but that is incorret in part. My friend new abosolutely nothing about the Seals and the sub guns, (does not mean that's not correct, no one is saying that), just saying it was news to him. But, it was/is very much designed for a 9mil hand gun, I mean come on, it is a 9mil bullet ;) Thanks Merkavaboy for the info. Personally I like the sound of a bullet Seals used for long range sniper work being in my pistol mag. In fact, the ones I have fired (WWB 147gr), have been spot on POA/POI.
Out of the glocks. They shot great.


It's not unusual for many people to not know the origin, design or purpose of specific rounds unless they do a lot of research or know someone who has the answers to said question. There are many extremely knowledgeable cartridge collectors that are very serious about their research and the accuracy of the info they obtain when documenting their specimens.

As an example, how many people realize that as late as 1969 Industrie Valcartier Inc. of Quebec, Canada, (IVI) was making 9mm 158FMJ loads (identified by a green tip) for the U.S.N.'s "Hush Puppy" suppressed pistol system?

Or the fact that before the Navy settled on the 147 OSM load Winchester designed a 140JHP load designated the Type-B (my exemplar is dated 85). This load was delivered to the Crane Naval Weapons Station in Indiana for testing. That weight didn't quite work out, so they upped the weight to 145 grains. This loading didn't expand so Winchester went up two more grains and redesigned the HP in order to obtain some amount of expansion and still have the cycling reliability, accuracy and sound suppression that was desired. This final load was of course designated the Olin Super Match Type-L (L=subsonic).

So esentially, yes, the OSM load was initially designed for the HK MP5 suppressed subguns that was adopted by the SEALs, and not for using out of pistols.

beforeobamabans
01-23-2010, 11:11
VERY interesting discussion gentlemen. The background provided by all three of you tends to reinforce the rep of this round as "penetration first, expansion second". It brings to mind Gold Dot 147s.

481
01-23-2010, 12:47
Sorry for not getting back to this thread earlier. And no, I'm not annoyed with you. Anyway, I'll try and explain why I tend to frown upon Wolberg's article that pops up every now and then. It may be a little long so bear with me.

I'm not sure exactly when the Win 147JHP was officially adopted by the FBI, but my earliest sample round is dated '87. Also in my collection is one dated '88, one from an earily Win Super-X "Deep Penetration Subsonic" box and a fairly current ('08) USA brand load. All measurements are the same for all 4 loads; cavity depth, cavity diameter at the meplat and length of jacket cuts at the bullet tip. Esentially, they are all the same bullet. I even confirmed this with a friend who's a Winchester Rep in So.Cal. and he contacted his contact at Winchester who confirmed that the bullet used for their USA brand 147JHP load is the same bullet as the original OSM load.

Now, over the years, those in the shooting/training industry who have had access to shooting data involving the OSM bullet have reported this load as being an erratic performer in actual shootings, including underexpansion and overpenetration. In previous threads about this particular load, several GT members have noted, from actual experiences in investigating shootings, that the OSM is an erratic performer.

M-

Good info. Glad you are not annoyed with me. :)

Some have taken incorrectly my directness as insult, hubris or personal attack. I s'pose that a "let's just cut to the chase" attitude can be interpreted like that, but my primary motivation is to get the factual matter out there and be done with it. Guess 20+ years as a sworn LEO has made "Just the facts ma'am..." part of my argumentative repertoire. Thanks for the insightful perspective. It matches very closely much of what I've heard about the OSM round over the years.

Now, having said that, I became aware of Wolberg's article about 5 years ago. After reading and re-reading it again and again, some questions came to mind that just doesn't jive with his findings, including:

If SDPD had been using the OSM load for roughly 4 years, why was only 28 bullets examined? I'm sure they had more shootings than that. It's very unlikely that they had only 28 shootings that ALL expanded as reported by Wolberg. No, I'm pretty sure that they had more shootings than 28 (though I have no personal proof of that), so what about any other shootings in which the bullets didn't expand or possibly even overpenetrated on torso shots? Where are they at? If you're going to evaluate a load, all shootings to the torso must be included; the good, the bad and the ugly. Not just the picture perfect rounds that meet your given criteria. With as many people who have seen or had actual hands on experience investigating shootings that have reported erratic performance from this round, it's highly improbable that SDPD never had such expansion/excessive penetration problems. But without access to all SDPD shootings, we will never really know just how effective or ineffective the load was for SDPD.

And the use of ballistic gel. There's no way that gel can recreate human tissue. The shooting of gel in a labratory at a given temperature at a given distance cannot recreate the distances and angles of actual shootings. Not realistic at all.

But what really caught my attention was the fact is that Wolberg's article didn't touch upon how really effective this load is/was. When the BGs were shot were they immediately incapacitated or did it take multiple shots to bring them down? It really doesn't mean much looking at expanded bullets dug out of corpses if it took multiple bullets to immediately stop someone. All Wolberg's report states is that the OSM bullet when shot into calibrated 10% ballistic gel mimics bullets removed from corpses.

But those are just my observations and musings regarding this load, Wolberg's article, and from the reported experiences of others who have first hand knowledge about this load and it's use.

But the thing that confirmed my suspicions I had years ago about Wolberg's article regarding cherry-picked bullets was when two people, who are both GT members, on another gun forum while in a heated discussion, one of them who knew Wolberg confirmed that the Coroner did in fact cherry-pick the bullets used in Wolberg's article.

I'd rather not toss that GT member under the bus for confirming my suspicion. So you can either take my word for it or you can dismiss it as bolony. But I think that those of you who have read my comments over the years should realize that I'm very straight-forward in my comments and I'm not out to pull the proverbial wool over peoples' eyes.

I understand your stance on the article and agree in large part with what you've said. Like you, I have never seen, and therefore have no documentation, that would serve to refute Wolberg's article above.

Doubtless there were many more than 28 shootings that occurred during the period from which Wolberg's sample population (n) was obtained, but practicality becomes an issue in real world data collection. The likely possibility that Wolberg was unable collect each and every data point generated for numerous reasons (unrecovered bullets, incomplete documentation, criteria/parametric issues, etc.) is a confounding factor that makes any study less than perfect before it ever begins and Wolberg was not immune to this reality.

Nonetheless, the article does illustrate a very strong correlation between terminal ballistic performance in living human tissue and calibrated 10 %ordnance gelatin, which was the point of Wolberg's article in the first place and I see that you "get that", too. (highlighted above in red) :)

So, if I am to understand correctly what you have stated above, it is your understanding that the OSM (type-L) projectile is used in all of the following Winchester 9mm 147 gr. JHP ammunition:

1. Winchester "Super-X" Deep Penetration Subsonic 9mm Luger 147 gr. JHP

2. Winchester 9mm Luger Subsonic 147 gr. Jacketed "Controlled Expansion" (LE restricted ammo) (Q4217)

3. Early and current production Winchester USA 147 gr. JHP ammunition (PP) (USA9JHP2)

4. Early and current production Winchester "Super X" Silvertip 147 gr. JHP ammunition (X9MMST147) (the silver jacket plating process being an exception, of course)

Do I have a correct understanding of what you are communicating? :dunno:



As for the confusion demonstrated by many regarding the use of calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin as a test medium, I offer this brief perspective from another post that I wrote in another thread (I know, I know...now I'm arrogant for quoting myself. :supergrin:) here in "CC":


Calibrated ordnance gelatin (density is ~ 1.03 grams/cc) is meant to provide a homogenous test media analogue representative of human muscle tissue (density is 1.02 - 1.04 grams/cc). Under strictly controlled conditions, it provides a valid, repeatable test structure against which the terminal ballistic performance of different projectiles can be compared against one another in an "apples to apples" comparison.

Ordnance gelatin does not demonstrate what occurs in a human body since the human body is heterogenous in its composure and ordnance gelatin is homogenous. It is best viewed as a test media and nothing more.

Flatly stated, ordnance gelatin is not people and people are not ordnance gelatin.



:)

CanyonMan
01-23-2010, 13:04
It's not unusual for many people to not know the origin, design or purpose of specific rounds unless they do a lot of research or know someone who has the answers to said question. There are many extremely knowledgeable cartridge collectors that are very serious about their research and the accuracy of the info they obtain when documenting their specimens.

As an example, how many people realize that as late as 1969 Industrie Valcartier Inc. of Quebec, Canada, (IVI) was making 9mm 158FMJ loads (identified by a green tip) for the U.S.N.'s "Hush Puppy" suppressed pistol system?

Or the fact that before the Navy settled on the 147 OSM load Winchester designed a 140JHP load designated the Type-B (my exemplar is dated 85). This load was delivered to the Crane Naval Weapons Station in Indiana for testing. That weight didn't quite work out, so they upped the weight to 145 grains. This loading didn't expand so Winchester went up two more grains and redesigned the HP in order to obtain some amount of expansion and still have the cycling reliability, accuracy and sound suppression that was desired. This final load was of course designated the Olin Super Match Type-L (L=subsonic).

So esentially, yes, the OSM load was initially designed for the HK MP5 suppressed subguns that was adopted by the SEALs, and not for using out of pistols.



Very true....

I was not saying in your first post, that you were just flat wrong, as I believe I made that really clear. Man got NO issue with ya, not at all. Just reapeating what my WW bud told me, and again, that does not mean he knows everything. I agree. He did however give some very good wisdom and advice so I appreciate that, as I appreciate some of the info you have brought to the table as well,

Seem I got a cajillion post to respond to al of sudden so I am going to make thm all short. ;)

Thanks again for your input. I do think that 147gr. WWB is to my liking anyway. It is a good accuracte round through my 9's and gives extrememly good penetration which for me is key...

Well, Adios, and thanks again...



Canyonman

481
01-23-2010, 15:35
Very true....

I was not saying in your first post, that you were just flat wrong, as I believe I made that really clear. Man got NO issue with ya, not at all. Just reapeating what my WW bud told me, and again, that does not mean he knows everything. I agree. He did however give some very good wisdom and advice so I appreciate that, as I appreciate some of the info you have brought to the table as well,

Canyonman


CM,

Don't think that I've forgotten what you've been pursuing either.

I look forward to hearing what your friend at WW has to offer (re: "Does the current production WWB 147 gr. JHP ammunition use the same bullet that was used in the earlier production WWB 147 gr. JHP ammunition?") since it serves as confirmatory "icing on the cake" regarding this issue.

This has been an interesting thread to be sure and I've enjoyed learning what Merkavaboy has had to offer as well. Good stuff.

CanyonMan
01-23-2010, 15:42
CM,

Don't think that I've forgotten what you've been pursuing either.

I look forward to hearing what your friend at WW has to offer (re: "Does the current production WWB 147 gr. JHP ammunition use the same bullet that was used in the earlier production WWB 147 gr. JHP ammunition?") since it serves as confirmatory "icing on the cake" regarding this issue.

This has been an interesting thread to be sure and I've enjoyed learning what Merkavaboy has had to offer as well. Good stuff.



;)

I feel the same with you and Merkavaboy
I think this may be my shortest post ! :supergrin:


Gotta run eat suppers smeelin good !



Later




CanyonMan

.45Super-Man
01-24-2010, 00:54
Thanks for all the feedback! Looks like it's a very capable alternative carry load to say the least.

Merkavaboy
01-24-2010, 01:57
M-

Good info. Glad you are not annoyed with me. :)

Some have taken incorrectly my directness as insult, hubris or personal attack. I s'pose that a "let's just cut to the chase" attitude can be interpreted like that, but my primary motivation is to get the factual matter out there and be done with it. Guess 20+ years as a sworn LEO has made "Just the facts ma'am..." part of my argumentative repertoire. Thanks for the insightful perspective. It matches very closely much of what I've heard about the OSM round over the years.

Hey, no problem. We're good here. :thumbsup:

I understand your stance on the article and agree in large part with what you've said. Like you, I have never seen, and therefore have no documentation, that would serve to refute Wolberg's article above.

Doubtless there were many more than 28 shootings that occurred during the period from which Wolberg's sample population (n) was obtained, but practicality becomes an issue in real world data collection. The likely possibility that Wolberg was unable collect each and every data point generated for numerous reasons (unrecovered bullets, incomplete documentation, criteria/parametric issues, etc.) is a confounding factor that makes any study less than perfect before it ever begins and Wolberg was not immune to this reality.

Nonetheless, the article does illustrate a very strong correlation between terminal ballistic performance in living human tissue and calibrated 10 %ordnance gelatin, which was the point of Wolberg's article in the first place and I see that you "get that", too. (highlighted above in red) :)

This is why it is necessary to know if any shootings were left out. If there were even one bullet that did not expand and/or overpenetrated, that would throw a monkey in Wolberg's wrench, wouldn't it? That would prove that 10% gel did not validate his conclusion of gel replicating expansion and depth of penetration when compared to his 28 shooting results. And yet there are reports of the OSM under expanding and OP'ing. There are even reports of modern designed JHPs like the Gold Dot and Hydra-Shok not expanding in humans (one report of a LEO who shot a bare chested BG at close range with six 40SW 180 Hydra-Shoks with a couple rounds exiting on a torso shot and at least one that didn't even expand). And yet, we never see these rounds fail to expand in gel.

So, if I am to understand correctly what you have stated above, it is your understanding that the OSM (type-L) projectile is used in all of the following Winchester 9mm 147 gr. JHP ammunition:

1. Winchester "Super-X" Deep Penetration Subsonic 9mm Luger 147 gr. JHP

2. Winchester 9mm Luger Subsonic 147 gr. Jacketed "Controlled Expansion" (LE restricted ammo) (Q4217)

3. Early and current production Winchester USA 147 gr. JHP ammunition (PP) (USA9JHP2)

4. Early and current production Winchester "Super X" Silvertip 147 gr. JHP ammunition (X9MMST147) (the silver jacket plating process being an exception, of course)

Do I have a correct understanding of what you are communicating? :dunno:

I don't have an exemplar sample directly from the old LEO "Controlled Expansion" box, but it is extremely improbable that Winchester would redesign the OSM bullet just for their LEO line and keep the same OSM bullet for the Super-X line. My OSM load dated 87 came directly from the magazine of a CA DOJ agent that I was talking to at a gun shop in Sacramento, CA., so I have no idea of what box it came from, but at that time the OSM loads were only loaded in military cases stamped with both the two-digit date and "L" designating subsonic. I have no doubt that they are all the same bullet design in every box, with the exception of the 147STHP. As CanyonMan pointed out, the STHP does in fact have more aggressive jacket cuts at the tip of the bullet, which I'm sure has something to do with the nickel plated gilding metal jacket of the STHP. Visually the cuts on the STHP is much more distinguishable compared to the OSM bullet design.

Merkavaboy
01-24-2010, 02:04
Very true....

I was not saying in your first post, that you were just flat wrong, as I believe I made that really clear. Man got NO issue with ya, not at all. Just reapeating what my WW bud told me, and again, that does not mean he knows everything. I agree. He did however give some very good wisdom and advice so I appreciate that, as I appreciate some of the info you have brought to the table as well,

Seem I got a cajillion post to respond to al of sudden so I am going to make thm all short. ;)

Thanks again for your input. I do think that 147gr. WWB is to my liking anyway. It is a good accuracte round through my 9's and gives extrememly good penetration which for me is key...

Well, Adios, and thanks again...



Canyonman

CanyonMan, as I told 481, we're good here. Always good to be able to exchange thoughts, ideas and experiences. :thumbsup:

481
01-24-2010, 11:51
This is why it is necessary to know if any shootings were left out. If there were even one bullet that did not expand and/or overpenetrated, that would throw a monkey in Wolberg's wrench, wouldn't it? That would prove that 10% gel did not validate his conclusion of gel replicating expansion and depth of penetration when compared to his 28 shooting results. And yet there are reports of the OSM under expanding and OP'ing. There are even reports of modern designed JHPs like the Gold Dot and Hydra-Shok not expanding in humans (one report of a LEO who shot a bare chested BG at close range with six 40SW 180 Hydra-Shoks with a couple rounds exiting on a torso shot and at least one that didn't even expand). And yet, we never see these rounds fail to expand in gel.

M-

Bearing in mind that the discipline of statistics involves the analysis a certain sample population (n) drawn from a (significantly larger) total population and using the data collected to form conclusions about the population as a whole, I don't find Wolberg's article to be flawed beyond use or validity since the point of his article was to establish a correlation between terminal bullet performance in living tissue and calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin. It is possible to lose perspective and evaluate the limited breadth of the article as a study of the "field performance" of the WinUSA 147 JHP, but since that was not the intention of the study, such a comparison is invalid and inappropriate in the clinical sense.

I get the sense from reading what you've written, that much like me, you tend view things in "black and white" and "absolutes". I think that when it comes to considering Wolberg's article it helps to remember that there are degrees of correlation and that Wolberg's article demonstrates a degree of correlation between the performance in the two media and in no way represents his findings as a perfect correlation.

In the larger scheme of reality there is no bullet design (or manufacturer) that can guarantee their bullet's expansion in either media (gelatin or tissue) since as you've pointed out, "There are even reports of modern designed JHPs like the Gold Dot and Hydra-Shok not expanding in humans...". To view reality in any other way is to return to the fallacy of "black and white" "absolutes".


I don't have an exemplar sample directly from the old LEO "Controlled Expansion" box, but it is extremely improbable that Winchester would redesign the OSM bullet just for their LEO line and keep the same OSM bullet for the Super-X line. My OSM load dated 87 came directly from the magazine of a CA DOJ agent that I was talking to at a gun shop in Sacramento, CA., so I have no idea of what box it came from, but at that time the OSM loads were only loaded in military cases stamped with both the two-digit date and "L" designating subsonic. I have no doubt that they are all the same bullet design in every box, with the exception of the 147STHP. As CanyonMan pointed out, the STHP does in fact have more aggressive jacket cuts at the tip of the bullet, which I'm sure has something to do with the nickel plated gilding metal jacket of the STHP. Visually the cuts on the STHP is much more distinguishable compared to the OSM bullet design.

I agree with all that you said here. Looks like the 147STHP is at least "very similar" to the OSM (minus the nickel plating), with the remainder of the loads being discussed above having the OSM in place. With what CM will have to offer us later this week after conversing with his friend @ WW, I think we've pretty much laid this one to rest, don't you?



:cool:

481
01-24-2010, 12:07
Thanks for all the feedback! Looks like it's a very capable alternative carry load to say the least.

Glad that you've enjoyed it. :)

There are better and worse choices than the Winchester USA 147 gr. JHP. The important thing is that you have confidence in the ammunition that you are carrying and realize that as long as you do your "job" (shot placement), the bullet will do its "job" (destroy tissue). It really is as simple as that.

I carry three different loads in my Glock 17 (and 19); the first two being either the Hornady 147 gr. XTP JHP or the Winchester USA 147 gr. JHP.

The third will most likely surprise, because it is the Federal 124 gr. FMJ.

These three loads "fit" my "environment" and their mention is in no way to be taken as a recomendation or instruction as to what anyone else should be carrying in their pistols.

CanyonMan
01-25-2010, 15:53
481 ask me this question....


"Does the current production WWB 147 gr. JHP ammunition use the same bullet that was used in the earlier production WWB 147 gr. JHP ammunition?") since it serves as confirmatory "icing on the cake" regarding this issue.


I taked to my friend at WW today and we went all over the ballistics world in another gab session. (more about this later) You 'ALL" would fair well to read it " I hope anyway... Humbly speaking.


481


My news for you 481 while runnin down the road in the truck when the phone rang, and it was Art at WW.... I ask the above question word for word, approched it again from a different angle and pushed the envelope with 'are you sure Art"?

He said...'YES' it is the same bullet NOW, as the earlier productions rounds...' I said as back in 80's 90's or before ? He said YES !

Got that one out of the way, and I am happy as well cause i love that penetrating devil..... ;)


There ya go Amigo..

HTH's



CanyonMan

481
01-25-2010, 16:11
481 ask me this question....


"Does the current production WWB 147 gr. JHP ammunition use the same bullet that was used in the earlier production WWB 147 gr. JHP ammunition?") since it serves as confirmatory "icing on the cake" regarding this issue.


I taked to my friend at WW today and we went all over the ballistics world in another gab session. (more about this later) You 'ALL" would fair well to read it " I hope anyway... Humbly speaking.


481


My news for you 481 while runnin down the road in the truck when the phone rang, and it was Art at WW.... I ask the above question word for word, approched it again from a different angle and pushed the envelope with 'are you sure Art"?

He said...'YES' it is the same bullet NOW, as the earlier productions rounds...' I said as back in 80's 90's or before ? He said YES !

Got that one out of the way, and I am happy as well cause i love that penetrating devil..... ;)


There ya go Amigo..

HTH's



CanyonMan

CM,

Thanks for all the effort and information.

Nice to know for sure (between you and Merkavaboy) what bullets are being used in our "pet" (well, kinda) load.

Be sure to extend my thanks to your buddy, Art, as well.

I've not forgotten and I'd also like to thank Merkavaboy for his contributions to this thread.

Picked up another 500 rounds that was sittin' all alone :sad: at the fun shop today just for the Hell of it.

Now it has "company". :supergrin:

Merkavaboy
01-25-2010, 16:28
Guys, :thumbsup:

CanyonMan
01-25-2010, 17:00
:cheers:

To both you old boys.. I have really enjoyed this one....


You guys take care and please stay safe !
Thanks for all I learned from y'alls input on here. ;)



CanyonMan

Bones13
01-29-2010, 14:22
I read this thread with great interest because of the question of exactly which bullet was used in the USAJHP 2 loads. For what it's worth I had a response by Dr. Gary Roberts who stated that Wolberg told him in 2000 that the rounds in the study were the Q4217 LE load. It certainly appears that the USAJHP2 is the same round. Why would Winchester develop new tooling for a "value" product?

Merkavaboy
01-29-2010, 15:11
I read this thread with great interest because of the question of exactly which bullet was used in the USAJHP 2 loads. For what it's worth I had a response by Dr. Gary Roberts who stated that Wolberg told him in 2000 that the rounds in the study were the Q4217 LE load. It certainly appears that the USAJHP2 is the same round. Why would Winchester develop new tooling for a "value" product?

Exactly. They wouldn't. Winchester is apparently still making this load for our military (Investigative units), so why not just package the same stuff in commercial boxes and sell it as "Personal Protection" ammo? Makes sense to me.

481
01-29-2010, 15:52
I read this thread with great interest because of the question of exactly which bullet was used in the USAJHP 2 loads. For what it's worth I had a response by Dr. Gary Roberts who stated that Wolberg told him in 2000 that the rounds in the study were the Q4217 LE load. It certainly appears that the USAJHP2 is the same round. Why would Winchester develop new tooling for a "value" product?

This thread just keeps gettin' better. I know its "second hand word of mouth" and all that, but I doubt any of the parties have reason to deceive.

We may never get 100% confirmation of this for sure, but I'd say we are >98% of the way there.

"Nother piece of the puzzle...

Thanks, Bones. :)

481
01-29-2010, 15:53
Exactly. They wouldn't. Winchester is apparently still making this load for our military (Investigative units), so why not just package the same stuff in commercial boxes and sell it as "Personal Protection" ammo? Makes sense to me.


M-

I very much agree. Our collective logic isn't undeniable, but it is sound.

Bones13
01-29-2010, 20:20
This thread just keeps gettin' better. I know its "second hand word of mouth" and all that, but I doubt any of the parties have reason to deceive.

We may never get 100% confirmation of this for sure, but I'd say we are >98% of the way there.

"Nother piece of the puzzle...

Thanks, Bones. :)

Hey, don't take my word for it; here's a link to the thread.
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=45616

Dr. Roberts said was that Wolberg collected data on about 150 shootings, approximately 1/3 of which involved the winchester 147 gr., or roughly 50 shootings.

Of these, slightly over half were suitable for the purpose of the study, which was to measure the degree of correlation between penetration in human soft tissue and that in ballistic gelatin.It was in no way intended to measure the effectiveness of the round in question.

I understand Merkavaboy's issue regarding "cherry picking" the data, however given the requirements of the study, ONLY those rounds which did not hit bone (or any other intermediate barrier besides clothing) could be used for the purposes of the study. In order to make the correlation the recovered bullets from both media would have to be as uniform as possible, hence fragmented or deformed bullets could not be included. Nor could bullets that completely penetrated be counted. These would not meet the criteria for the study.

Regardless, out of a total of about 50 shootings studied, half still met these fairly stringent criteria and exhibited excellent expansion and penetration. This strikes me as very relevant since the "discards" would include any bullet that hit bone, fragmented or passed completely through a small thickness of soft tissue - such as those that just "clipped a corner" and were not center of mass hits. The bullet's performance in these "discarded" shooting would not be indicative of the round's overall effectiveness.

The bottom line is that when this bullet hits sufficient soft tissue their performance seems virtually ideal.

Which brings me to the money question: at twenty bucks for a box of fifty, is the USAJHP2 the best buy going when it comes to self defense? Certainly there is the argument that "your life is worth the best money can buy", but you also want to train the way you fight and this stuff is cheap enough to shoot often. How many rounds on the market have been studied as thoroughly, or even at all?

CanyonMan
01-29-2010, 20:34
M-

I very much agree. Our collective logic isn't undeniable, but it is sound.



+1 here for me as well. Interesting info.


AS Bones13 said : "Why would Winchester develop new tooling for a "value" product?

I think this goes right along with what my bud at WW told me..



481 stop buying up all the ammo man ! ;)





CanyonMan

CanyonMan
01-29-2010, 20:57
Hey, don't take my word for it; here's a link to the thread.
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=45616

Dr. Roberts said was that Wolberg collected data on about 150 shootings, approximately 1/3 of which involved the winchester 147 gr., or roughly 50 shootings.

Of these, slightly over half were suitable for the purpose of the study, which was to measure the degree of correlation between penetration in human soft tissue and that in ballistic gelatin.It was in no way intended to measure the effectiveness of the round in question.

I understand Merkavaboy's issue regarding "cherry picking" the data, however given the requirements of the study, ONLY those rounds which did not hit bone (or any other intermediate barrier besides clothing) could be used for the purposes of the study. In order to make the correlation the recovered bullets from both media would have to be as uniform as possible, hence fragmented or deformed bullets could not be included. Nor could bullets that completely penetrated be counted. These would not meet the criteria for the study.

Regardless, out of a total of about 50 shootings studied, half still met these fairly stringent criteria and exhibited excellent expansion and penetration. This strikes me as very relevant since the "discards" would include any bullet that hit bone, fragmented or passed completely through a small thickness of soft tissue - such as those that just "clipped a corner" and were not center of mass hits. The bullet's performance in these "discarded" shooting would not be indicative of the round's overall effectiveness.

The bottom line is that when this bullet hits sufficient soft tissue their performance seems virtually ideal.

Which brings me to the money question: at twenty bucks for a box of fifty, is the USAJHP2 the best buy going when it comes to self defense? Certainly there is the argument that "your life is worth the best money can buy", but you also want to train the way you fight and this stuff is cheap enough to shoot often. How many rounds on the market have been studied as thoroughly, or even at all?



OK, thanks for the info above. But I have a question here. If. "The bottom line is that when this bullet hits sufficient soft tissue their performance seems virtually ideal As was stated above. Then what about when bone was hit. Since I would not be taking gut shots, what about COM strikes, or other angles where bone is encounterd..

I am just trying to understand this completely. Seriously. I really like this bullet. The WWB 147gr JHP, and I am not even a 9mil fan. I carry a 45acp 1911, BUT I do carry these rounds in the 9mil when it is tossed in the truck.

I guess i am just saying what about bone stirkes in humans from this round?
Why was this ruled out in the above observations?



Thanks



CanyonMan

481
01-29-2010, 21:16
Hey, don't take my word for it; here's a link to the thread.

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=45616

Dr. Roberts said was that Wolberg collected data on about 150 shootings, approximately 1/3 of which involved the winchester 147 gr., or roughly 50 shootings.

Of these, slightly over half were suitable for the purpose of the study, which was to measure the degree of correlation between penetration in human soft tissue and that in ballistic gelatin.It was in no way intended to measure the effectiveness of the round in question.

I understand Merkavaboy's issue regarding "cherry picking" the data, however given the requirements of the study, ONLY those rounds which did not hit bone (or any other intermediate barrier besides clothing) could be used for the purposes of the study. In order to make the correlation the recovered bullets from both media would have to be as uniform as possible, hence fragmented or deformed bullets could not be included. Nor could bullets that completely penetrated be counted. These would not meet the criteria for the study.

Regardless, out of a total of about 50 shootings studied, half still met these fairly stringent criteria and exhibited excellent expansion and penetration. This strikes me as very relevant since the "discards" would include any bullet that hit bone, fragmented or passed completely through a small thickness of soft tissue - such as those that just "clipped a corner" and were not center of mass hits. The bullet's performance in these "discarded" shooting would not be indicative of the round's overall effectiveness.

The bottom line is that when this bullet hits sufficient soft tissue their performance seems virtually ideal.

Which brings me to the money question: at twenty bucks for a box of fifty, is the USAJHP2 the best buy going when it comes to self defense? Certainly there is the argument that "your life is worth the best money can buy", but you also want to train the way you fight and this stuff is cheap enough to shoot often. How many rounds on the market have been studied as thoroughly, or even at all?



Bones,

That seals it for me. A fourth point of confirmation, and from Dr. Roberts having spoken to Wolberg, no less. Done.

Thanks for the link.

I consider the autopsy results to be a small "wealth" of data. Where else can you find such info (expanded bullets recovered from living tissue, documented and all in one convenient place) on any other round? While I'd like to see similar data for the other more recent bullet designs, I am not holding my breath.

You state eloquently (and much better than I) what I was trying to state earlier in this thread in response to M's thoughts when you say:


Regardless, out of a total of about 50 shootings studied, half still met these fairly stringent criteria and exhibited excellent expansion and penetration. This strikes me as very relevant since the "discards" would include any bullet that hit bone, fragmented or passed completely through a small thickness of soft tissue - such as those that just "clipped a corner" and were not center of mass hits. The bullet's performance in these "discarded" shooting would not be indicative of the round's overall effectiveness.

The bottom line is that when this bullet hits sufficient soft tissue their performance seems virtually ideal.


Well done.

As for CM and his plea for mercy with regards to my ammo purchasing habits, I s'pose that I could hold off on that second mortgage that I was arranging to buy out all of Winchesters's North American production run of WinUSA 147 gr. JHP ammo. :tongueout:

Hope you find some soon, CM. Nothing sucks quite like not being able to find the ammo that you want no matter how hard you look.


This has gotta be the most productive thread I've seen on GT in a very long time.

CanyonMan
01-29-2010, 22:07
Bones,

That seals it for me. A fourth point of confirmation, and from Dr. Roberts having spoken to Wolberg, no less. Done.
Thanks for the link.

I consider the autopsy results to be a small "wealth" of data. Where else can you find such info (expanded bullets recovered from living tissue, documented and all in one convenient place) on any other round? While I'd like to see similar data for the other more recent bullet designs, I am not holding my breath.

You state eloquently (and much better than I) what I was trying to state earlier in this thread in response to M's thoughts when you say:



Well done.

As for CM and his plea for mercy with regards to my ammo purchasing habits, I s'pose that I could hold off on that second mortgage that I was arranging to buy out all of Winchesters's North American production run of WinUSA 147 gr. JHP ammo. :tongueout:

Hope you find some soon, CM. Nothing sucks quite like not being able to find the ammo that you want no matter how hard you look.

This has gotta be the most productive thread I've seen on GT in a very long time.


Again, I agree..... I'm sold.


Yep, I would appreciate you holding off on that second mortgage and give me time to sell a quarter horse so I can buy a boxcar load of this stuff. Surely one of the less expencive cuttin horses at 15 to $18,000 would buy a few cases ya reckon ? I don't think I could get away with that one.. ;)


Although I love the ranch, and would not trade this life style for anything, what "sucks" is bein a cajillion miles from any place to even buy ammo.. That is not my only reason to realod, but it sure is one of them. LOL
Maybe Abiliene will have some.

I was already sold on the 147gr WWB, but interested to better understand the article above that Bones13 presented about soft tissue, and dismissing bone hits in the mentioned findings... I guess i don't get it...

BTW Bones13, I do 'very much appreciate' your post. Don't take me wrong. But I am stuck in the mire of why discounting bone strikes in that report, and just wonderd if you could help me get this sorted out.... ;)


Guys, I agree, this has been a really good thread. Sure gotta buy old Art at WW a steak supper for his wisdom, as it sure seems to line up with all else we've heard here.


You old boys stay safe !




CanyonMan

Ak.Hiker
01-30-2010, 01:10
Glad that you've enjoyed it. :)

There are better and worse choices than the Winchester USA 147 gr. JHP. The important thing is that you have confidence in the ammunition that you are carrying and realize that as long as you do your "job" (shot placement), the bullet will do its "job" (destroy tissue). It really is as simple as that.

I carry three different loads in my Glock 17 (and 19); the first two being either the Hornady 147 gr. XTP JHP or the Winchester USA 147 gr. JHP.

The third will most likely surprise, because it is the Federal 124 gr. FMJ.

These three loads "fit" my "environment" and their mention is in no way to be taken as a recomendation or instruction as to what anyone else should be carrying in their pistols.
I understand your two JHP choices but the 124 grain Federal FMJ has me confused. I would have figured you would have gone with a 147 grain FMJ as the 3rd load.

Ak.Hiker
01-30-2010, 01:13
CanyonMan packing a 9mm. Boy I am really confused now. :crying:

Merkavaboy
01-30-2010, 03:03
Hey, don't take my word for it; here's a link to the thread.
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=45616

Dr. Roberts said was that Wolberg collected data on about 150 shootings, approximately 1/3 of which involved the winchester 147 gr., or roughly 50 shootings.

Of these, slightly over half were suitable for the purpose of the study, which was to measure the degree of correlation between penetration in human soft tissue and that in ballistic gelatin.It was in no way intended to measure the effectiveness of the round in question.

I understand Merkavaboy's issue regarding "cherry picking" the data, however given the requirements of the study, ONLY those rounds which did not hit bone (or any other intermediate barrier besides clothing) could be used for the purposes of the study. In order to make the correlation the recovered bullets from both media would have to be as uniform as possible, hence fragmented or deformed bullets could not be included. Nor could bullets that completely penetrated be counted. These would not meet the criteria for the study.

And therein lies the big problem. Suppose a handful of bullets were excluded from the study; bullets that didn't strike any bones but yet only slightly expanded or didn't expand at all. Or even those that OP'ed, all on torso shots. Inclusion of any of those bullets into the study would definately invalidate his conclusions, wouldn't it?

That is why I believe that it is important that we know exactly what shootings were excluded from his study. But unfortunately we will never be privy to that information.

CanyonMan
01-30-2010, 03:54
CanyonMan packing a 9mm. Boy I am really confused now. :crying:



Whoa there amigo. I said 'the 9mil I have tossed in the pick up truck'. The beater gun. It is more for the jack rabbit coyote/bobcat sprayer !
45LC on hip on the ranch, and 45acp when go to town. Calling me a traitor is liable to break the hearts of all my decent living 45's. :supergrin:

Well, time to get up and get out and after it.... Just dropped in for a second.



Be careful my friend ;)
good shooting.




CanyonMan

Bones13
01-30-2010, 10:01
Ok, guys, the answer is really simple: they didn't include bone hits because jello has no bones. This is not a joke; It's a question of research design. This study actually has an extremely narrow scope and any information we can glean about the performance of the ammo is irrelevant to the purpose of the study. The purpose of the study was to measure the degree of correlation between gelatin and human soft tissue, not to measure the effectiveness of the round. In terms of research design, Wolberg met his goal in spades - it's an extremely well done, elegant study for the stated purpose. The study was never meant to measure the effectiveness of the round in any way.

The information that we DO have, i.e. that the round performed extremely well in the 50% of cases where it hit sufficient soft tissue, is tantalizingly incomplete. The question of what happens when this particular round hits bone or other obstructions is extremely important when evaluating it's effectiveness for self defense. It's unfortunate in the extreme that we don't have the rest of the data from that study.

If we want to engage in some "enlightened conjecture" (ok, wild assed guesswork) there's a couple of things to consider. First is simple physics. First law - a body in motion stays in motion. A heavier bullet is less likely to be deflected by a barrier than a light bullet. Second is sectional density. For a quick brush up here's a link to a very nice write up explaining why sectional density is important with regard to penetration. Scroll down to the second section:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume4/number1/toc.htm

It's interesting to note that 9mm 147 grain has the 3rd highest sectional density of common rounds which helps to explain why this particular weight bullet seems to penetrate well.

Since we already know the bullet performs well under ideal circumstances, the third thing would have to be about the bullet's tendency to fragment or shed it's jacket. Since this results in smaller projectiles with less mass, penetration and overall performance suffers severely in this event.

Frankly I have no idea where to find information about this for either Q4217 or USAJHP2 or any other round using the same bullet. I think it would be extremely interesting if someone shot up a rack of ribs backed up by either water jugs or gelatin - or better yet a bag of guts as a soft tissue backstop, then looked to see what happened to the ones that hit bone. If they generally stay together or only shed a small amount of weight I think it would be safe to say we are onto something significant.

We're discussing a cheap jhp of elderly design and although HST's or Ranger T's might be superior, there may be no real reason to use anything more expensive than USAJHP2, given that common pistol rounds generally are not outstanding stoppers regardless.

We know that shot placement is king, that guaranteed one shot stops require a solid CNS hit and that adequate penetration is the primary characteristic of any round if it is to result in a stop. (secondary of course to reliability).

I'd really like to AVOID caliber comparisons since that's a deep hole (pun intended) and not really the issue. To me this issue is this: does this round perform well enough that additional expense in SD rounds is irrelevant?

I'll also say this: I buy boxes of this stuff any time I see it. :)

Ak.Hiker
01-30-2010, 10:02
Whoa there amigo. I said 'the 9mil I have tossed in the pick up truck'. The beater gun. It is more for the jack rabbit coyote/bobcat sprayer !
45LC on hip on the ranch, and 45acp when go to town. Calling me a traitor is liable to break the hearts of all my decent living 45's. :supergrin:

Well, time to get up and get out and after it.... Just dropped in for a second.



Be careful my friend ;)
good shooting.




CanyonMan

I feel much better now.:supergrin:

CanyonMan
01-30-2010, 10:56
Ok, guys, the answer is really simple: they didn't include bone hits because jello has no bones. This is not a joke; It's a question of research design. This study actually has an extremely narrow scope and any information we can glean about the performance of the ammo is irrelevant to the purpose of the study. The purpose of the study was to measure the degree of correlation between gelatin and human soft tissue, not to measure the effectiveness of the round. In terms of research design, Wolberg met his goal in spades - it's an extremely well done, elegant study for the stated purpose. The study was never meant to measure the effectiveness of the round in any way.

The information that we DO have, i.e. that the round performed extremely well in the 50% of cases where it hit sufficient soft tissue, is tantalizingly incomplete. The question of what happens when this particular round hits bone or other obstructions is extremely important when evaluating it's effectiveness for self defense. It's unfortunate in the extreme that we don't have the rest of the data from that study.

If we want to engage in some "enlightened conjecture" (ok, wild assed guesswork) there's a couple of things to consider. First is simple physics. First law - a body in motion stays in motion. A heavier bullet is less likely to be deflected by a barrier than a light bullet. Second is sectional density. For a quick brush up here's a link to a very nice write up explaining why sectional density is important with regard to penetration. Scroll down to the second section:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume4/number1/toc.htm

It's interesting to note that 9mm 147 grain has the 3rd highest sectional density of common rounds which helps to explain why this particular weight bullet seems to penetrate well.

Since we already know the bullet performs well under ideal circumstances, the third thing would have to be about the bullet's tendency to fragment or shed it's jacket. Since this results in smaller projectiles with less mass, penetration and overall performance suffers severely in this event.

Frankly I have no idea where to find information about this for either Q4217 or USAJHP2 or any other round using the same bullet. I think it would be extremely interesting if someone shot up a rack of ribs backed up by either water jugs or gelatin - or better yet a bag of guts as a soft tissue backstop, then looked to see what happened to the ones that hit bone. If they generally stay together or only shed a small amount of weight I think it would be safe to say we are onto something significant.

We're discussing a cheap jhp of elderly design and although HST's or Ranger T's might be superior, there may be no real reason to use anything more expensive than USAJHP2, given that common pistol rounds generally are not outstanding stoppers regardless.

We know that shot placement is king, that guaranteed one shot stops require a solid CNS hit and that adequate penetration is the primary characteristic of any round if it is to result in a stop. (secondary of course to reliability).

I'd really like to AVOID caliber comparisons since that's a deep hole (pun intended) and not really the issue. To me this issue is this: does this round perform well enough that additional expense in SD rounds is irrelevant?

I'll also say this: I buy boxes of this stuff any time I see it. :)




As you pointed out above..."The purpose of the study was to measure the degree of correlation between gelatin and human soft tissue, not to measure the effectiveness of the round.

This was the purpose of their study. Dumb as it was "on their part" not getting the complete knowledge of the full potential of the round IMO caused them to full short. Kinda like taking my F150 V8 Triton for a test drive off the lot before buying it, but never honkin down on it to see what she would really do, or buyin a cuttin horse and trying him out in the round pen, "with out a calf." ;)

Enough sage illustrations. :whistling: I know you had nothing to do with this amigo. Your merely reporting to us what you discovered, and thanks. But it is just ridiculous for folks to run partial test on anything... Therefore, there cannot be a true conclusion to the matter.

I can tell you and all who need to here it. It does break bones in animals and still keeps truckin. From rabbits to yotes and bobcats. Personally. Stickly IMO, I have NO problem trusting this round to COM shots in the two legged variety. There is at times a small bit of jacket seperation, but with this not being a bonded bullet, it's reputation and performance IMO are plenty good enough for me not to fear using them for SD purpose. If that means anything to anyone here then there ya go. ;)


This summer. I will do my best to take the beef hind quarter and the guts and organs and some hide and a shirt and coat and try these WWB 147 gr JHP's in this media. No promises as I hold no crystal ball as to my time, or events or a cajillion other things that can happen around here. But I will try. I have several others folks are wanting me to try any way with some other brands of ammo. In the past this has always shown us the same thing time and again. JHP's from a hand gun clog, and lose Vel, and thus lose penetration. Some do better than others, the XTP being the best so far, The GS, and GD are close. Bonded works the best in every case, but they still tend to look not to awful different than when they were fired. "deformed" not "opened." and none made the penetration level as the FMJ cousins.

I will also add that "heavy for caliber" always gave the best results as well.
NO, as I have already answered in another thread, we did not take pics. Never relly crossed our mind to do it. We aren't to high tech out here. Ya get a idea in your noggin and go do it. Next time there will be pics !


Like you said Bones13. "I buy boxes of this stuff any time I see it.." +1


Thanks for your elaboration.

Stay safe.



CanyonMan

481
01-30-2010, 15:22
I understand your two JHP choices but the 124 grain Federal FMJ has me confused. I would have figured you would have gone with a 147 grain FMJ as the 3rd load.

Hiker,

The Federal 124 gr. FMJ is simply a high penetration, "last ditch" option and nothing more.

The (Federal) 124 gr. FMJ (AE9AP) @ 1150 fps offers plenty of penetration capability (about 26-28 inches) against soft tissue (it's good against light cover, too) assuring that target presentation and orientation isn't an issue. (or at least less of an issue)

While a 147 gr. FMJ @ 990fps certainly offers more soft tissue penetration by way of its greater sectional density (30-34 inches) against soft tissue (also good against light cover), the 124 gr. FMJ is sufficient for my particular needs since I anticipate needing nothing more than what is offered by the Federal 124 gr. FMJ.

Availabilty is a secondary concern, as the Federal 124 gr. FMJ is much easier to acquire than the heavier load.

Bones13
01-30-2010, 15:36
CanyonMan, I trust your observations from hunting as much as any data - after all one of the big problems is you generally can't line up and shoot people for the purposes of testing ammunition. Wolberg probably didn't realize the wealth of data he was throwing away and that's a shame. If these old bullets go deep, expand and generally don't fragment or shed jackets that's good enough for me. Probably any bullet is likely to deform or fragment from a bone hit and there's nothing you can do about that anyway.

I know two guys that tested this round in water jugs and both got good penetration, expansion and no jacket shedding which you would expect to happen in water. Of course water is water and only tells you so much.

If you ever find time to wreck a rack of ribs I'd be extremely interested in seeing the results. Heck, if you use a pistol to hunt or finish of a wounded animal that would be interesting to see as well.

Take care and stay out of trouble!

481
01-30-2010, 15:37
Ok, guys, the answer is really simple: they didn't include bone hits because jello has no bones. This is not a joke; It's a question of research design. This study actually has an extremely narrow scope and any information we can glean about the performance of the ammo is irrelevant to the purpose of the study. The purpose of the study was to measure the degree of correlation between gelatin and human soft tissue, not to measure the effectiveness of the round. In terms of research design, Wolberg met his goal in spades - it's an extremely well done, elegant study for the stated purpose. The study was never meant to measure the effectiveness of the round in any way.


Damn it! You did it again! :supergrin: You write very effectively, better than I.

This is an excellent description of the importance of parametric design and the dangers of mis-assignation of conclusion outside of evaluative constraint. To conclude that Wolberg's study is in any way an examination of the design's "effectiveness" is inappropriate and assigns to the study an aspect that it was never designed to address.

The sole objective of this study was to establish a correlation between expansion in flesh and expansion in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin, nothing more and you've done an excellent job communicating that.

Nice! :)

481
01-30-2010, 16:04
This summer. I will do my best to take the beef hind quarter and the guts and organs and some hide and a shirt and coat and try these WWB 147 gr JHP's in this media.


CanyonMan

Oh, yeah.........this has the potential for generatin' some real pretty mental images. Now we've got CM promising to play "dress up" with livestock for the purpose of target practice this summer coming. :animlol:

You be sure and take lotsa pictures of you dressing them cows up in their Sundays' Finest and post 'em here where we can all appreciate 'em for their artistic value. :supergrin:

In all seriousness..... I look forward to these tests. Oughtta be quite interesting. Thanks for doing them, CM. Mucho appreciado! :)

CanyonMan
01-30-2010, 16:21
CanyonMan, I trust your observations from hunting as much as any data - after all one of the big problems is you generally can't line up and shoot people for the purposes of testing ammunition. Wolberg probably didn't realize the wealth of data he was throwing away and that's a shame. If these old bullets go deep, expand and generally don't fragment or shed jackets that's good enough for me. Probably any bullet is likely to deform or fragment from a bone hit and there's nothing you can do about that anyway.

I know two guys that tested this round in water jugs and both got good penetration, expansion and no jacket shedding which you would expect to happen in water. Of course water is water and only tells you so much.

If you ever find time to wreck a rack of ribs I'd be extremely interested in seeing the results. Heck, if you use a pistol to hunt or finish of a wounded animal that would be interesting to see as well.

Take care and stay out of trouble!



Popped in for a second here...


We'll see what we can do this summer. As mentioned, using a steer hind quarter, or a side of ribsand it stuffed with the organs from the steer, and coverd with a t-shirt and flanel shirt, and some type of jaket or coat, is what we've done in the past. I feel this gives me as close to real world possibilities as we can provide.

Hunting with 9mil ? Naw. Just off the porch, or down one of the many roads on the ranch and pop a coyote or a cat or such. The pics below are my everyday go to work gear. ;)

when I do handgun hunt, it is always with a 44mag/44special, 45LC 98%of the time.

I'll see what we can do when the dust settles around here. Got a lot of irons in the fire...

Thanks again for all your time and input.



CanyonMan

Merkavaboy
01-30-2010, 19:14
Beautiful country there CanyonMan. :thumbsup:

Snowman92D
01-30-2010, 19:33
The sole objective of this study was to establish a correlation between expansion in flesh and expansion in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin, nothing more and you've done an excellent job communicating that.


Precisely...that's why everyone but the gell-o sniffers takes it with a grain of salt. Wolberg's mission was to prove that the now-defunct IWBA's 10% ballistic gell-o theory was supported by "fact". To that end, he tossed out any of San Diego PD's shootings that failed to support the theory.

As soon as San Diego's kool-aid drinking chief left the agency, the new chief dumped the hallowed WWB jhp and allowed his agency to acquire more effective ammo.

Oh...IBL :supergrin:

ssilvestro
01-30-2010, 19:41
Damn it! You did it again! :supergrin: You write very effectively, better than I.

This is an excellent description of the importance of parametric design and the dangers of mis-assignation of conclusion outside of evaluative constraint. To conclude that Wolberg's study is in any way an examination of the design's "effectiveness" is inappropriate and assigns to the study an aspect that it was never designed to address.

The sole objective of this study was to establish a correlation between expansion in flesh and expansion in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin, nothing more and you've done an excellent job communicating that.

Nice! :)

So you felt the need to make a post to say everything he just said again, but using a bunch of $10 words (like "mis-assignation," LOL)?? :supergrin:

CanyonMan
01-30-2010, 19:44
Beautiful country there CanyonMan. :thumbsup:


Thanks... You and 481 will have to come see us some time and will shoot till our hands drop off... ;)

We'll take ya on tour horse or mule style. Plenty to see, and plenty things to shoot at from rattlers to cats. The rest we just soak it up and enjoy till hunting season.

Anytime guys.


Good shooting



CanyonMan

Merkavaboy
01-30-2010, 20:26
Thanks... You and 481 will have to come see us some time and will shoot till our hands drop off... ;)

We'll take ya on tour horse or mule style. Plenty to see, and plenty things to shoot at from rattlers to cats. The rest we just soak it up and enjoy till hunting season.

Anytime guys.


Good shooting



CanyonMan

You saw City Slickers right?

Well, that'll be me!

Bones13
01-30-2010, 21:17
CM, Beautiful Pics, I envy your ability to hunt locally with a 45LC. Using a 9 to hunt just wouldn't fit in country like that. The only thing we could hunt around here is liberals.

481 and MerkavaBoy; it's a real pleasure to pursue a serious topic without having it devolve into yet another internet pissing contest.

481
01-30-2010, 21:51
So you felt the need to make a post to say everything he just said again, but using a bunch of $10 words (like "mis-assignation," LOL)?? :supergrin:

Nope.

You missed the point of my post.

I felt the need to compliment Bones' excellent communicative ability and his clear perspective. Just wanted to express my appreciation for his well written post.

481
01-30-2010, 22:00
Precisely...that's why everyone but the gell-o sniffers takes it with a grain of salt. Wolberg's mission was to prove that the now-defunct IWBA's 10% ballistic gell-o theory was supported by "fact". To that end, he tossed out any of San Diego PD's shootings that failed to support the theory.

As soon as San Diego's kool-aid drinking chief left the agency, the new chief dumped the hallowed WWB jhp and allowed his agency to acquire more effective ammo.

Oh...IBL :supergrin:


Is bitterness and insult all you have?

481
01-30-2010, 22:08
Thanks... You and 481 will have to come see us some time and will shoot till our hands drop off... ;)

We'll take ya on tour horse or mule style. Plenty to see, and plenty things to shoot at from rattlers to cats. The rest we just soak it up and enjoy till hunting season.

Anytime guys.


Good shooting



CanyonMan

CM,

Thanks.

Ever I find myself out thataway, I'll certainly look you up. "Consults" often take me out West, as does the occasional hunt. I'll keep you in mind. Count on it.

If you get around to the testing that's great. Don't kill yourself just for our sake. Thanks for all that you've contributed here. It was appreciated.


Bones,

Equally my pleasure. You writing is lucid and concise. I look forward to hearing more of the same in the future. :)

CanyonMan
01-31-2010, 00:08
Just a big thanks and adios to all of you guys.. ;)

Always welcome..

I enjoyed the ride here.


Adios for me.




CanyonMan

CanyonMan
01-31-2010, 21:31
You saw City Slickers right?

Well, that'll be me!


Sorry to be so long answearing.


we get some slow internet out here and have a huge radar dish for tv, I have seen city slickers. very funny. come on out here. we will only laugh in a friendly way. NO ONE gets treated like a jackass, unless they act lick one ;)

Any way, any time to you all..


Stay safe


CanyonMan

CanyonMan
01-31-2010, 22:09
Oh, yeah.........this has the potential for generatin' some real pretty mental images. Now we've got CM promising to play "dress up" with livestock for the purpose of target practice this summer coming. :animlol:

You be sure and take lotsa pictures of you dressing them cows up in their Sundays' Finest and post 'em here where we can all appreciate 'em for their artistic value. :supergrin:

In all seriousness..... I look forward to these tests. Oughtta be quite interesting. Thanks for doing them, CM. Mucho appreciado! :)



I will "try" to find the time this summer. 'No promises as I said'. Ha. to run those test and with pics /video.

I tried to share some wisdom on the 380 auto thread here, and the cockroaches came out of their darkness (ignorance) and swarmed me. I got tired of all the mis quotes, and lying, and twisted words, and taking me out of context by a pile of ignorant condo dwellers who are nothing but moron armchair idiots, so i decided to stay off here a while before i got pissed off to much. besides who needs to answer a fool. ;) Plus I got plenty going on out here....


I am backing off here a while to get my work done, and not get nasty. ha



God bless y'all
your always welcome out here. give me a shout...


CanyonMan

CanyonMan
01-31-2010, 22:27
CM, Beautiful Pics, I envy your ability to hunt locally with a 45LC. Using a 9 to hunt just wouldn't fit in country like that. The only thing we could hunt around here is liberals.
481 and MerkavaBoy; it's a real pleasure to pursue a serious topic without having it devolve into yet another internet pissing contest.

LOL, well that 9mil will take out plenty of liberals... LOL

An extented welcome to you as well as the others to the rancho anytime. Plenty of bunk house space, and lots of shootin to be done. (although I may make you boys work a day or two). haha, Seriously. we will see you have the time of your life here....

From hunting tons of Javelina, to taking out some cougars that will run upwards of 200#'s and exploring some comanche caves and artifacts, we will keep you in the fun zone... ;)

As I said the the others, anytime amigo. This is part of what we do out here...


Stay safe.


CanyonMan

481
01-31-2010, 22:58
AS I told Merkavaboy, sorry it took so long to respond. We have had a mare giving birth to a potential 15 to $25,000 fold last couple nights. It was breached and I had to pull it myself. Nothing new around here, from cattle to horses, but the horses do bring far more $$$$$ ( if I've trained them right) LOL.

I will "try" to find the time this summer. 'No promises as I said'. Ha. to run those test aain with pics /video. Some land and such is fixin to change hands in the family, and some livestock, and etc etc; and all kinds of huge family situations are fixin to transpire, I am on the 'very bottom' of the totem poll, and may end up back on the ranch in Oklahoma (fine with me) it is home.

But, if i can find the time etc to do some of this testing and lay to rest, or bring to the table at least some wisdom, i will do 'er.

I tried to share some wisdom on the 380 auto thread here, and the cockroaches came out of their darkness (ignorance) and swarmed me. I got tired of all the mis quotes, and lying, and twisted words, and taking me out of context by a pile of ignorant condo dwellers who are nothing but moron armchair idiots, so i decided to stay off here a while before i got pissed off to much. besides who needs to answer a fool. ;) Plus I got plenty going on out here....


I am backing off here a while to get my work done, and not get nasty. ha


Anyway, sorry i was slow in getting back to some of you guys, man I am hardly getting sleep, plus driving back and forth to the Dallas area to help out my elderly mom who needs help. I am meeting myself going and coming...


God bless y'all
your always welcome out here. give me a shout...


CanyonMan

Takin' a break is well advised hereabouts. Too much GT will get to anyone after a bit. Even on the good days, gotta get out an' live life afterall.

Please extend my warmest regards to your Ma. I hope she's doin' well.

G'night, CM. :)

I'm "out" for the night.

fastbolt
02-01-2010, 01:40
So, this thread came up near the top of the page and I realized I'd apparently skipped right by it during its earlier activity.

This question about the older style 147gr JHP bullet W-W uses has surfaced at least every couple of years. The answer usually surfaces from someone that yes, according to Winchester, its the same bullet they've used for many years.

Aside from the interesting trivia related to its development for some limited Naval small arms usage (already outlined elsewhere), it pretty much ended up being in the right place at the right time as far as being adopted in some LE circles. Better 147gr bullets were subsequently forthcoming, from Winchester and others.

The current advantage of the USA9JHP2 load (in its Subsonic Centerfire Duty Handgun, USA and Q-load equivalent) is the lower cost. It makes for pretty inexpensive training/practice ammunition, especially if its available as contract/bid ammunition.

Nowadays we can choose from other more modern bullet designs from among the different manufacturers which arguably offer some more desirable advantages than this aging JHP. Things that can sometimes include nose cavities designed to allow expansion at lower velocities (meaning fired from shorter barrels like those found in the more popular compact/subcompact pistols favored by LE); more sensitive primers, better finished cases (think QC), lower flash signatures, primer & case mouth sealant ... and, hollowpoint cavities more resistant to plugging ... to name some things off the top of my head.

I've fired tens of thousands of rounds of this venerable old-style Winchester 9mm 147gr JHP over the years, but mostly because it's usually been the lowest cost/bid ammunition available and I had access to an agency ammunition inventory where it was usually available for training/practice and sometimes even as duty ammunition.

Interestingly enough, it wasn't on the previous state contract out here as somehow Remington managed to get their 124gr +P Golden Sabre on the last CA state contract. I'm guessing they simply decided to offer their premium line at budget prices to get the business. The newest contract, however, features the Winchester 124gr +P T-Series load, and for an incredible bargain price. I guess Winchester decided to get serious about increasing their already rapidly growing share of the LE/Gov market. ;) The RA9124TP load is listed on the state contract for $95.30/case for agency order/purchase.

Anyway, the USA9JHP2 is a budget load, able to be sold for less because it costs them less to make. There are reasons it costs them less.

There are other 147gr loads which use newer bullet designs which offer more desirable features and performance in some respects. Just depends what you want and expect, I suppose.

Bones13
02-01-2010, 11:07
Fastbolt, thanks for the info. No doubt there are newer, better designs. The main thing that interests me about that old bullet is that it seems to perform "good enough". Are you aware of any tendency for them to plug up with denim, fragment, bad primers, etc.? I haven't really heard anything to that effect - they appear to perform well enough that if it's the only one you can get it's "good enough".

fastbolt
02-02-2010, 00:15
Fastbolt, thanks for the info. No doubt there are newer, better designs. The main thing that interests me about that old bullet is that it seems to perform "good enough". Are you aware of any tendency for them to plug up with denim, fragment, bad primers, etc.? I haven't really heard anything to that effect - they appear to perform well enough that if it's the only one you can get it's "good enough".

I wouldn't necessarily phrase it as a tendency for them to become plugged when fired into the more difficult Heavy Clothing and 4- Layer Denim testing scenarios, but more along the lines that they perhaps aren't known for being able to consistently resist becoming plugged as well as some of the newer hollowpoint designs.

They tend to do okay in Bare Gel testing.

Bones13
02-02-2010, 07:22
I wouldn't necessarily phrase it as a tendency for them to become plugged when fired into the more difficult Heavy Clothing and 4- Layer Denim testing scenarios, but more along the lines that they perhaps aren't known for being able to consistently resist becoming plugged as well as some of the newer hollowpoint designs.

They tend to do okay in Bare Gel testing.

That's what I was getting at. Despite it's rather elderly design the round does not seem to have garnered a reputation for failure as some others have.

481
02-02-2010, 12:50
That's what I was getting at. Despite it's rather elderly design the round does not seem to have garnered a reputation for failure as some others have.

Bones,

Yours is the understanding that I had regarding the 147 gr. OSM bullet, also.

Generally, it appears to be a much more appropriate choice for SD/CCW than FMJ and will do its job, but there are more current and capable designs that improve the situation.

fastbolt
02-02-2010, 13:03
Another issue that has occurred in the past with this load is that velocities have sometimes been reported to be a bit less than what was published for the factory specs (which can happen in other lines, too). I remember when I was carrying the old OSM load and learned of some chrono testing reportedly done by some agency on some random samples of their ammunition. It revealed some velocities down in the 700's upon occasion. This didn't seem to exactly be an isolated instance.

When you buy budget ammo, you get budget ammo.

If budget ammo costs less because it uses less expensive components, then you get budget ammo made using less expensive components. Mostly this has ended up being different degrees of discolored cases, but it's also included the occasional mangled bullet/case mouth and a hard or inert primer. This can even happen with the more expensive lines, of course (and it has), but it's less surprising when it happens with the budget ammo.

Only you can decide where you may desire to draw the line when it comes to accepting further compromises in a situation already involving inherent compromise (meaning a handgun caliber/ammunition).

Although I've carried one or another of the old-style 147gr JHP loads from some of the major companies at various times, including the USA9JHP2 load, my preference for a 'heavy' 9mm load would be for one of the newer style JHP's which offer more consistent and robust expansion in the difficult 4-layer denim testing.

Then again, since the 9mm loads which have been available at my former agency in the last several years has been the RA9TA 127gr +P+ T-Series and the Remington GS9MMD 124gr +P Golden Sabre, that's what I've used in my own off-duty (and retirement) 9mm's more often than not.

I think I've also still got some boxes of 147gr loads from among the Speer Gold Dot, Ranger T-Series and the Rem Golden Sabre lines, too.

481
02-02-2010, 13:43
Another issue that has occurred in the past with this load is that velocities have sometimes been reported to be a bit less than what was published for the factory specs (which can happen in other lines, too). I remember when I was carrying the old OSM load and learned of some chrono testing reportedly done by some agency on some random samples of their ammunition. It revealed some velocities down in the 700's upon occasion. This didn't seem to exactly be an isolated instance.

When you buy budget ammo, you get budget ammo.

If budget ammo costs less because it uses less expensive components, then you get budget ammo made using less expensive components. Mostly this has ended up being different degrees of discolored cases, but it's also included the occasional mangled bullet/case mouth and a hard or inert primer. This can even happen with the more expensive lines, of course (and it has), but it's less surprising when it happens with the budget ammo.

Only you can decide where you may desire to draw the line when it comes to accepting further compromises in a situation already involving inherent compromise (meaning a handgun caliber/ammunition).

Although I've carried one or another of the old-style 147gr JHP loads from some of the major companies at various times, including the USA9JHP2 load, my preference for a 'heavy' 9mm load would be for one of the newer style JHP's which offer more consistent and robust expansion in the difficult 4-layer denim testing.

Then again, since the 9mm loads which have been available at my former agency in the last several years has been the RA9TA 127gr +P+ T-Series and the Remington GS9MMD 124gr +P Golden Sabre, that's what I've used in my own off-duty (and retirement) 9mm's more often than not.

I think I've also still got some boxes of 147gr loads from among the Speer Gold Dot, Ranger T-Series and the Rem Golden Sabre lines, too.

fastbolt-

Good point.

"QC" can approach "second rate" in economy ammunition and even with "premium" ammo, I err on the side of "just slightly less than full blown paranoia" and all ammo destined for serious business gets an inspection prior to being loaded into the magazine.

I've run a good bit of the WinchesterUSA across the chronograph as I've acquired it, taking a random sample "here and there" as I amassed it.

The last session (this last autumn) saw these results from my Gen. III Glock 17 of recent (11/2007) manufacture:

Winchester USA 9mm 147 gr. JHP (USA9JHP2)
Hi: 1007<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Lo: 958.80
Av: 981.94<o:p></o:p>
Md: 982.90
ES: 48.20
SD: 9.612
n: 25<o:p></o:p>

Advertised muzzle velocity is 990 fps/ 320 fpe so while the Av of 981.84 fps is just a bit low, it is not terribly so and it helps to bear in mind that the ammo manufacturers load to pressure, not velocity.

Strangely, that same gun produced the following results on that very same day with a brand new lot of Winchester Ranger RA9T 147 gr. JHP:


Winchester Ranger 9mm 147 gr. JHP (RA9T)<o:p></o:p>
Hi: 981.20<o:p></o:p>
Lo: 872.20
Av: 914.19<o:p></o:p>
Md: 926.70
ES: 109
SD: 31.414<o:p></o:p>
n: 25

My preferred carry load, the Hornady TAP "CQ" XTP 9mm 147 gr. JHP gave me the following results during that session:

Hornady TAP "CQ" XTP 9mm 147 gr. JHP (90285)<o:p></o:p>
Hi: 1019<o:p></o:p>
Lo: 965
Av: 1002.8
Md: 992
ES: 54
SD: 15.473
n: 25<o:p></o:p>

Its advertised velocity is 975 fps and it ran a little bit faster from my gun than I'd expected it to.

Eh, I s'pose that it'll do. :)

Curious as to how long ago those low (700s) test velocities were obtained if you recollect?

fastbolt
02-02-2010, 14:21
Curious as to how long ago those low (700s) test velocities were obtained if you recollect?

That was back in the early 90's.

Of course, it's not like some lower velocities aren't sometimes experienced in other lines/loads, right?

I remember in the early 2000's when we were experiencing some feeding issues with a popular (albeit budget) .40 S&W load, the Ranger RA40180HP. We learned of another agency experiencing the same issues using the same contract ammunition and even the same pistols. We were later told by a factory rep from the gun maker that subsequent testing of a provided batch of the ammunition revealed some variation in not only the case rim tolerance, but some velocities reaching down into the 700's at times.

Interestingly enough, I also later learned that apparently one major LE agency had started doing some random chrono testing of their shipments, checking for observed velocities which were outside the required specifications submitted for the state contract, and that they had apparently returned some shipments for replacement due to low velocities below stated specifications.

Then there was a time a bit later when I was doing some training with this load and came across two rounds which wouldn't fully chamber in my pistol, keeping the slide just out of battery. (These rounds wouldn't chamber in another make/model of .40 pistol, either.) While they appeared fine to the naked eye just looking at them in the box and the hand, careful comparison at the bench revealed the cases had apparently been trimmer just a bit too long.

I've fired tens of thousands of rounds that load over the years without issue, but sometimes things can happen.

To be fair, I can think of examples of two 'premium' loads made by a couple of the other makers where a small number of improperly trimmed cases occurred (we got one) and some short-loaded (low power) loads were discovered, as well, so it's not like it can't happen over the long haul when you're seeing a hundred thousand or more rounds of ammo being fired in the course of a year, give or take.

It's just that I'm less surprised when I come across such things in the lower cost product lines.

Bones13
02-02-2010, 14:48
I was lucky enough to find a box of 147gr bonded golden sabers at a local range that does a lot of police training. At nearly $40 for a box of 50 I shot exactly 5 to make sure they cycled. The rest are reserved for carry. The nice thing about the WWB load is that you can practice with a round that has very similar ballistics and not break the bank. Certainly the WWB is a fine load for anyone's long term SHTF stash. It would always be a second tier choice, but adequate enough.

481
02-02-2010, 14:58
That was back in the early 90's.

Of course, it's not like some lower velocities aren't sometimes experienced in other lines/loads, right?

Thanks.

Yep, no such thing as perfect. Even with premium ammo.


Then there was a time a bit later when I was doing some training with this load and came across two rounds which wouldn't fully chamber in my pistol, keeping the slide just out of battery. (These rounds wouldn't chamber in another make/model of .40 pistol, either.) While they appeared fine to the naked eye just looking at them in the box and the hand, careful comparison at the bench revealed the cases had apparently been trimmer just a bit too long.

Ran into an almost indentical problem with the Winchester 115 gr. FMJ practice load three weeks ago at the range. Same thing as you: Two rounds wouldn't chamber in either my Glock 17 or my Glock 17L both of which are well proven guns. At home, they wouldn't fit in a third Glock 17 either, tore 'em down and the brass measured way over spec. With the way ammo companies have been crankin' out ammo over that last year thanks to Oscamma, I am not surprised when a few bad ones sneak through...

To be fair, I can think of examples of two 'premium' loads made by a couple of the other makers where a small number of improperly trimmed cases occurred (we got one) and some short-loaded (low power) loads were discovered, as well, so it's not like it can't happen over the long haul when you're seeing a hundred thousand or more rounds of ammo being fired in the course of a year, give or take.

It's just that I'm less surprised when I come across such things in the lower cost product lines.

Yeah, the results with the RA9T really threw me for a loop. I have plenty more and will test again when weather permits. Until then the pistols stay loaded with the Hornady "TAP CQ" stuff.

481
02-02-2010, 15:00
I was lucky enough to find a box of 147gr bonded golden sabers at a local range that does a lot of police training. At nearly $40 for a box of 50 I shot exactly 5 to make sure they cycled. The rest are reserved for carry. The nice thing about the WWB load is that you can practice with a round that has very similar ballistics and not break the bank. Certainly the WWB is a fine load for anyone's long term SHTF stash. It would always be a second tier choice, but adequate enough.

Zombie Load! :supergrin:


:animlol:

CanyonMan
02-02-2010, 15:38
Turned on the PC and find you boys are still at it over here !? I think we quit about 3 times dintn't we? :rofl:

Good readin.

Now 481 you aren't going to start pullin back off the WWB 147's are ya? after all this man ! :tongueout: Just when I thought it was safe to go back in the water.



Gotta run right quick


Y'all have fun !



CanyonMan

481
02-02-2010, 21:21
Turned on the PC and find you boys are still at it over here !? I think we quit about 3 times dintn't we? :rofl:

Good readin.

Now 481 you aren't going to start pullin back off the WWB 147's are ya? after all this man ! :tongueout: Just when I thought it was safe to go back in the water.

CanyonMan

Not a chance, CM.

Just being realistic about it. It's an "economy" load and I make nothing of it that it ain't.

Still like it, plan on keepin' my stash and any visions that you might of had of large amounts of it flooding the market as I sell of my stockpile are likely bein' dashed as you read this. :winkie: Sorry, brother!

Jeager106
02-02-2010, 22:58
I have notihing against the 9mm.
I have at least three floating around the house, three .40's one .357 Sig, and 5 in .45 a.cp.
I CCW a .40 or .45 a.c.p.
Until recently.
Our Wally just got in a small batch of WWB 147 grain 9mm.
I tested in 1 gallon milk jugs, got 28 inches penetration, (water you see) it's much more accurate than any of my other 9mm ammo, recovered bullets average .551, lost 5 grains weght.
So I now feel I can carry the 9mm with this load and feel confident the load will perform if I will.
By the way. Anyone ever try WWB in .45 230 h.p. from Wally?
Absolutely devestating expansion and penetration.
Since I shoot so many .45 pistols (yes that includes an HK USP full size and a Kimber, I stocked up about 700 rounds of the 230 h.p. from wally before the world went nuts over ammo.

CanyonMan
02-03-2010, 00:24
Not a chance, CM.

Just being realistic about it. It's an "economy" load and I make nothing of it that it ain't.

Still like it, plan on keepin' my stash and any visions that you might of had of large amounts of it flooding the market as I sell of my stockpile are likely bein' dashed as you read this. :winkie: Sorry, brother!


Just yankin your chain Amigo. Hope ya know that. There is more out there than the WWB 147. ;)

I am fixin to take that "rest" that you keep telling me I need... Man do I need it. :faint:


Please stay safe man....




CanyonMan

481
02-03-2010, 22:26
Just yankin your chain Amigo. Hope ya know that. There is more out there than the WWB 147. ;)

I am fixin to take that "rest" that you keep telling me I need... Man do I need it. :faint:


Please stay safe man....




CanyonMan

Yeah, no worries. I know kiddin' when I see it and I've been called worse. :supergrin:

As for the availabilty of WWB 147JHPs, we've been doin' it all wrong here, extolling its virtues and all.

How about...

Its horrible, unreliable junk that is way over priced so don't buy any of it. Let CM take it off the market and save us from the horror that is the WWB 147 JHP...


See?


Get some rest, CM. I am sure that it is well deserved. :)

mikegun
02-03-2010, 23:58
Yep. I as well like the 230gr XTP in my 45's, and although I am a dying breed on GT I do like my 230 ball rounds best. I just don't learn new tricks well. ;)


Gotta right quick. I'll let ya know what i find out.


CanyonMan

I agree with canyon man as a 30yr ret cop ive seen the results of dozens of 45 ball shootings, its a devestating round, IMHO the only ca iber i would shoot ball ammo in is .45. its a bone crusher/breaker..

Ak.Hiker
02-04-2010, 12:01
I agree with canyon man as a 30yr ret cop ive seen the results of dozens of 45 ball shootings, its a devestating round, IMHO the only ca iber i would shoot ball ammo in is .45. its a bone crusher/breaker..

Interesting comment on the ability of 45 acp 230 grain ball to crush bones. Several years ago I ran across the remains of a wolf killed moose when out on my snow shoes. I was able to test out several different handgun loads on leg bones. The 45 acp ball was very impressive. It busted through like a hot knife through butter. Much better than JHP loads and gave 240 grain 44 Magnum JSP loads a run for their money. I had to go to hardcast LBT type bullets in the 44 Magnum and 45 Colt to out penetrate the 45 acp ball. Another thing I found interesting was that hot 200 grain 10mm FMJ loads will always out penetrate 230 45 acp ball in wood but not always in fresh bones.

BrokenArrow
07-19-2010, 01:44
Interesting... going way back (I was in the service then, and working w folks who were on JSSAP), I remember hearing other stories about how the 147 originated. The Navy was looking for something that would work in suppressed smgs. Wanting heavier bullets due to the lower velocities, they initially tried swaging and loading the 145g .357 Mag Silvertip in 9mm cases too. That was close and gave Winchester a place to start. True? Beats me.

Some of the initial 147s were loaded to be well under 1100 fps from the longer smg bbls, so some were under 800fps when fired from 4 inch pistol bbls. Over the yrs some lots have been slow due to QC problems.

About 2000 I had some USA 147 JHPs that avgd just under 900 fps, and some USA 115 JHPs that avgd just under 1100 fps when fired from a SIG P228 for example.

The FBI switched from the Win 147 to the Fed Hydra Shok because in their test series by their criteria and scoring, the HS was the "better" load: it penetrated deeper and expanded more reliably. From 1989, avgs for the entire 8 event/40 shot test series - avg pen/exp/success rate (at least 12 inches):

Win 147 JHP 14/.46/62.5% (avg vel 902 fps/P226)
Fed 147 HS 17.2/51/82.5% (avg vel 941 fps/P226)
Win 115 ST 11.4/.54/35% (avg vel 1091 fps/P226)

Slow lots of ammo, or a slow/worn bbl in the pistol? Beats me.

Just for grins, how some JHP loads do in bare gel when slowed by the integral suppressor on an HK MP5 SD:

115 Fed +P+ 1013 fps 8.75/.61
115 Win +P+ 1092 fps 9.25/.64*
147 Fed HS 779 fps 14.25/.48
124 Fed +P+ HS 965 fps 26+/.37

* The FBI got 10/.63 in bare gel from the 115 ST at about the same velocity, which should be no surprise, since they are virtually the same bullet.

Merkavaboy
07-19-2010, 02:09
Hey BrokenArrow, haven't heard from you in a 'coons age. Welcome back! :wavey:

481
07-19-2010, 09:28
Interesting... going way back (I was in the service then, and working w folks who were on JSSAP), I remember hearing other stories about how the 147 originated. The Navy was looking for something that would work in suppressed smgs. Wanting heavier bullets due to the lower velocities, they initially tried swaging and loading the 145g .357 Mag Silvertip in 9mm cases too. That was close and gave Winchester a place to start. True? Beats me.

Some of the initial 147s were loaded to be well under 1100 fps from the longer smg bbls, so some were under 800fps when fired from 4 inch pistol bbls. Over the yrs some lots have been slow due to QC problems.

About 2000 I had some USA 147 JHPs that avgd just under 900 fps, and some USA 115 JHPs that avgd just under 1100 fps when fired from a SIG P228 for example.

The FBI switched from the Win 147 to the Fed Hydra Shok because in their test series by their criteria and scoring, the HS was the "better" load: it penetrated deeper and expanded more reliably. From 1989, avgs for the entire 8 event/40 shot test series - avg pen/exp/success rate (at least 12 inches):

Win 147 JHP 14/.46/62.5% (avg vel 902 fps/P226)
Fed 147 HS 17.2/51/82.5% (avg vel 941 fps/P226)
Win 115 ST 11.4/.54/35% (avg vel 1091 fps/P226)

Slow lots of ammo, or a slow/worn bbl in the pistol? Beats me.

Just for grins, how some JHP loads do in bare gel when slowed by the integral suppressor on an HK MP5 SD:

115 Fed +P+ 1013 fps 8.75/.61
115 Win +P+ 1092 fps 9.25/.64*
147 Fed HS 779 fps 14.25/.48
124 Fed +P+ HS 965 fps 26+/.37

* The FBI got 10/.63 in bare gel from the 115 ST at about the same velocity, which should be no surprise, since they are virtually the same bullet.

BrokenArrow,

Haven't seen much in the way of such data (the supressor stuff you provided above) and it is an aspect of testing that I never considered. Quite interesting. Kinda expected to see the presence of "suppressor boost", but that design (HK's) must not behave like that.

My last employer began issuing the Federal 9mm 147 gr. Hydra Shok in 1991 and had satisfactory performance with it until they changed caliber (to .40) in late 2005 for purely economic reasons. (as discussed in the MacPherson thread)

Alot of folks discount it simply for being "old", but it is actually a pretty decent piece of technology and can be had for much less than the newer designs. I still maintain a sizeable quantity of it and load it in my CCW when I get to feeling 'nostalgic' about the job in these, my retired days. :cool:

BrokenArrow
07-19-2010, 10:06
That MP5 SD info is from 1994; don't know about current models. I used it to show the 115 Ranger/USA bullet and the 115 ST perform about the same at the same velocity.

I agree, Fed HS is old, but far from the worst or even bad.

5 round FBI spec heavy cloth avg:

Fed 180/40 HS 19.8/.59 (1990)
Win 180/40 Bonded 19/.59 (2006)

We've come a long way baby? ;)

481
07-19-2010, 10:25
We've come a long way baby? ;)

Somedays, I wonder. :animlol:

Ak.Hiker
07-19-2010, 15:14
That MP5 SD info is from 1994; don't know about current models. I used it to show the 115 Ranger/USA bullet and the 115 ST perform about the same at the same velocity.

I agree, Fed HS is old, but far from the worst or even bad.

5 round FBI spec heavy cloth avg:

Fed 180/40 HS 19.8/.59 (1990)
Win 180/40 Bonded 19/.59 (2006)

We've come a long way baby? ;)

The Federal 180 HS was my carry load for years in my Glock 23. Not a bad choice at all.