.40 S&W 135 gr [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : .40 S&W 135 gr


TommyV
10-05-2010, 07:25
Since my other thread was closed and I am not sure why I though I would open another. Here is a test someone did of the Federal 135gr

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQyPZbHmOmE

I picked up two boxes of the exact same ammo. In the video it seems to perform pretty well. I was hoping to find the 155 gr but they did not have any.

cowboy1964
10-05-2010, 12:08
You have to take these water-only tests with a boulder of salt. You'll pretty much always get perfect expansion (no possibility of clogging) and there is no penetration measurement (which is the most important part of any ammo testing!)

Use Google.

fastbolt
10-05-2010, 12:23
Yeah, I'd not get too wrapped up around the axle about informal ammunition "testing".

The Federal 135gr load was apparently one of the "mid-range" (velocity) loads developed for one of the fed agencies who previously used 155gr loads. That agency's in-house testing and evaluation criteria made it appear to offer the same desirable 'performance' with a lighter, easier recoiling round.

It seems to have been available for about 5 years from one or another of the major manufacturers, and like the previous 155gr loads, it reached the point where some production overruns (or surplus) was sold off on the wholesale commercial market.

The funny thing is that some offices of that agency seem not to have seen that load during its brief availability, and may even be using some 180gr loads by now. BrokenArrow keeps tabs on this fed ammo stuff better than me (meaning he's more interested ;) ) and can probably give you some further info.

Bottom line? It's a lower velocity lightweight bullet load than the loads offered by some of the other manufacturers, who seem intent on hot-rodding the 135gr loads. As I recall, the specs for the load was something like 1200fps with a +/- 40fps variance allowed.

It would seem to make for affordable range/practice ammo if it could be bought inexpensively enough.

Just my thoughts. I'd rather spend more trigger time maintaining skills than looking for hard-to-find ammo.

Glockbuster
10-05-2010, 14:07
I wouldn't go below 155 gr. for .40"

ULVER
10-05-2010, 22:09
I wouldn't go below 155 gr. for .40"

Actually, testing we did ages ago, with both CorBon & Triton (Great stuff!) 135gr. JHP's @ 1,300FPS, duplicated the proven-stopper, of the 125gr. .357 Magnum JHP.

While I can't fault today's bonded-bullets; especially for law enforcement---anything that works like the old 125gr. .357 is NEVER a bad choice! For civy carry in .40 cal., I think it is actually the superior choice.

Glockbuster
10-05-2010, 22:17
I carried that load in Corbon (I believe a Nosler bullet ? or Sierra?). I found it to be a real blaster, difficult to control on follow up shots--at least for me. Then I saw reports of the bullet fragmenting violently (this is not necessarily bad for direct hits). But....in time I changed over to the 155 gr. load from Speer in the G22and later changed to the Speer 125 gr. load in 357 sig.

ULVER
10-05-2010, 23:13
I carried that load in Corbon (I believe a Nosler bullet ? or Sierra?). I found it to be a real blaster, difficult to control on follow up shots--at least for me. Then I saw reports of the bullet fragmenting violently (this is not necessarily bad for direct hits). But....in time I changed over to the 155 gr. load from Speer in the G22and later changed to the Speer 125 gr. load in 357 sig.

FYI-Nosler first, Sierra later. Yeah, they both were "blasters", then again, so were the 125gr. .357 Magnum loads. Both the .357's & the .40's would indeed tend to fragment, but it was seen at the time as a "good" thing. For "John Doe" on the street still is, IMO.

The 155gr. loads in .40, were just about all excellent. And I'm a big fan of the .357 Sig.

Just sayin' the 135gr. 40's duplicated the raw "stopping-power" (whatever that is! :supergrin:), to the much-respected .357 125gr. hollow-points.

Glockbuster
10-06-2010, 05:42
I agree with what you said. Do you have the same view for the 357 sig ? I don't think its as good but comes pretty close. Which would you rather carry the 135/.40 or 125/.357 ? what about shootablility of both ?

TommyV
10-06-2010, 12:47
It would seem to make for affordable range/practice ammo if it could be bought inexpensively enough.

Just my thoughts. I'd rather spend more trigger time maintaining skills than looking for hard-to-find ammo.

It is not hard to find ammo for me. They have tons of boxes at two of my local walmarts. $22 per box of 50 so it is pretty cheap for JHP but more expensive than FMJ. I bought two boxes just to have. I was going to do some testing once I get a bunch of different hollow points.

The also have the Winchester USA40JPH 180 gr for the same price. I have not been able to find any reviews on this one.

I agree with what you said. Do you have the same view for the 357 sig ? I don't think its as good but comes pretty close. Which would you rather carry the 135/.40 or 125/.357 ? what about shootablility of both ?

I brought this up in another thread and people were saying the sectional density of the 125 gr .357 sig makes it better.

fastbolt
10-06-2010, 14:07
The Ranger RS40180HP is the original 180gr load developed for the early .40 S&W cartridge by Winchester. It uses the old style JHP bullet. It was the load used by the CHP for so many years which made them consider their .40's to be superior weapons to their older .38's (110gr +P+) and .357's.

Granted, we were told of shipments that were rejected once in a while due to velocities falling below the stated specifications, and it was simply a budget/bulk LE-type load, but overall it seemed to do the job.

The T-Series became their premium flagship LE load for those folks willing to pay the premium prices.

Then, when Winchester decided they wanted a piece of the pie for one of the Gov agencies, they developed their 155gr JHP load which used an old-style JHP bullet.

I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a lot of the older LE/Gov bulk ammo floating around in the wholesale pipeline. The big retailers that buy trainloads of ammo can probably pick it up pretty cheaply.

TommyV
10-06-2010, 15:31
The USA40JHP 180 gr just comes in a white Winchester box that says "Personal Protection". It is not in the Ranger box. I'm not sure if that is the same as what you are referring to.

fastbolt
10-06-2010, 17:53
The USA40JHP 180gr load uses the same bullet as the RA40180HP load, last I heard, although the last time I looked in the LE catalog the RA40180HP load was listed as having a very slightly higher velocity. We're talking 1020fps for the Ranger load vs. 1010fps for the USA load. I have no idea why, unless the stated slightly higher velocity of the Ranger load is somehow linked to meeting some slightly higher velocity spec somewhere or other for contract bids. Dunno.

The USA40JHP load is also listed in the Subsonic Centerfire Duty Handgun section, FWIW.

I've seen the Subsonic & USA Personal Protection loads come through as contract ammo, too.

ULVER
10-06-2010, 22:55
I agree with what you said. Do you have the same view for the 357 sig ? I don't think its as good but comes pretty close. Which would you rather carry the 135/.40 or 125/.357 ? what about shootablility of both ?

I would be happy with either, for personal carry. However, since it is doubtful a citizen will need to be shooting through auto glass, or car bodies, I think I would take the 135/40.

Shootability of both is tolerable to me. The 125gr. .357 Magnum loads, were all worse out of the revolvers, in terms "shootability." Even with the revolvers being heavier.

If I were arming a state police agency, I would take the 357 Sig over the .40 or .45acp. With bonded bullets, it's a great caliber for "open highway" law enforcement.

Personally, my everyday carry, remains an ancient Glock 17 with +P 124gr. Gold Dots. I think overall, it's about the best at covering all the bases. Still, I have a great respect for the +P+ conventional hollow-points, that gave the 9mm the rep, as a legit fighting caliber.

I sincerely believe, what I state in my signature, to be the truth.:wavey:

BOGE
10-06-2010, 23:25
I would be happy with either, for personal carry. However, since it is doubtful a citizen will need to be shooting through auto glass, or car bodies, I think I would take the 135/40.

Shootability of both is tolerable to me. The 125gr. .357 Magnum loads, were all worse out of the revolvers, in terms "shootability." Even with the revolvers being heavier.

If I were arming a state police agency, I would take the 357 Sig over the .40 or .45acp. With bonded bullets, it's a great caliber for "open highway" law enforcement.

Personally, my everyday carry, remains an ancient Glock 17 with +P 124gr. Gold Dots. I think overall, it's about the best at covering all the bases. Still, I have a great respect for the +P+ conventional hollow-points, that gave the 9mm the rep, as a legit fighting caliber.

I sincerely believe, what I state in my signature, to be the truth.:wavey:

Good post.

Glockbuster
10-07-2010, 08:49
I would be happy with either, for personal carry. However, since it is doubtful a citizen will need to be shooting through auto glass, or car bodies, I think I would take the 135/40.

Shootability of both is tolerable to me. The 125gr. .357 Magnum loads, were all worse out of the revolvers, in terms "shootability." Even with the revolvers being heavier.

If I were arming a state police agency, I would take the 357 Sig over the .40 or .45acp. With bonded bullets, it's a great caliber for "open highway" law enforcement.

Personally, my everyday carry, remains an ancient Glock 17 with +P 124gr. Gold Dots. I think overall, it's about the best at covering all the bases. Still, I have a great respect for the +P+ conventional hollow-points, that gave the 9mm the rep, as a legit fighting caliber.

I sincerely believe, what I state in my signature, to be the truth.:wavey:


ABSOLUTELY, +1, only I carry a 357 Sig. I consider myself at risk of having to shoot through my own glass in an ambush. God forbid though.

gatorboy
10-07-2010, 10:05
If you prefer lighter bullets I think the 155 GD is the way to go. It's loaded to 1200, easy to find, reasonably priced in 50 rd. boxes and it's bonded. The HP is wide and shallow, it (almost) always opens and (almost) never plugs.

TommyV
10-09-2010, 08:54
You have to take these water-only tests with a boulder of salt. You'll pretty much always get perfect expansion (no possibility of clogging) and there is no penetration measurement (which is the most important part of any ammo testing!)

Use Google.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HALCn1czp4s

fredj338
10-09-2010, 13:20
The 135gr/40 has the same SecDen as the 110gr/357, not such a good track record in performance. The 155gr/40, loaded to it's upper limit, performs more like the "vaunted" 125gr/357mag. At least they have the same potential for penetration. It would not be a bad choice for apt or mobile home dwellers, where thin walls are the norm, but for general SD or HD, my 40 is loaded w/ 165gr loads.

cowboy1964
10-09-2010, 13:45
I wouldn't go below 155 gr. for .40"

That's my feeling as well. Sectional density gets too low. If you want those kind of 135gr speeds get a .357 Sig and keep the sectional density reasonable.

cowboy1964
10-09-2010, 13:49
Personally, my everyday carry, remains an ancient Glock 17 with +P 124gr. Gold Dots.

4.5" barrel + 124+P Gold Dots = A bad day for the bad guy

fastbolt
10-09-2010, 13:52
When one of our folks starts asking about how "good" the ammunition is we're giving them, and they want to know why we can't get "better" rounds, I quite often suggest we consider the results of their shooting skills and performance and give some careful consideration to where they might better focus their attention ... :whistling:

WiskyT
10-09-2010, 16:23
I see some merit to these medium velocity 135's. Pretty much anyone shoots a 9mm better than a 40, whether they want to admit it or not, and the 135 at 1200fps might be more in line with the 9mm's better manners. I mean for blasting a bad guy at 20 feet in a parking lot, for a decent shooter, the 40 with regualr loads is fine, but for people who just don;t like muzzle blast, these might be the way to go. I'm going to go out on a sexist limb here, but 90% of the women I've shot with don't like blast. The 40 is a blasty round.

I haven't shot these 135's, and I probably never will, but for some people they might be easier to shoot. Sectional density is only part of the penetration puzzle, bullet construction and velocity are a big part too. A fragile 135 at 1350fps might break up, but a well constructed 135 at 1200 might go deep enough.

TommyV
10-10-2010, 01:08
When one of our folks starts asking about how "good" the ammunition is we're giving them, and they want to know why we can't get "better" rounds, I quite often suggest we consider the results of their shooting skills and performance and give some careful consideration to where they might better focus their attention ... :whistling:

That is good you encourage people to improve their skills but what does this have to do with .40 135gr?

fastbolt
10-10-2010, 02:15
That is good you encourage people to improve their skills but what does this have to do with .40 135gr?

Nothing.

I'd already made the comments I felt like making in the thread about the surplus 135gr load.

I still, however, feel that over-emphasis on specific loads often distracts from skillset development and that more folks might be better served by better developing their skill & mindsets than worrying about splitting hairs on different ammunition.

If someone wants to pick up the somewhat lower velocity 135gr .40 load developed for that fed contract, it's not really any concern of mine.

TommyV
10-10-2010, 09:44
That is great but I think that is the point of the section of the forum. Discussing different ammo.

fastbolt
10-10-2010, 09:58
Ok ....

M&P Shooter
10-10-2010, 20:00
The .40cal from all testing I have found doing research on the .40cal over the years shows the 155gr - 165gr being the best ballistic performers from 4" barrels or longer:wavey:

TommyV
10-10-2010, 22:07
I agree but I was intrigued by the performance of these Federal HST 135 gr so I bought a few boxes. I have yet to test them though. I also have a .40 Beretta CX4 16" barrel but I figure 180 gr is the best for that.

P.K.
10-11-2010, 08:40
The 40 is a blasty round.

That's not entirely true. It depends on the bullet and manufacturer. I can shoot the Winchester 180 gr JHP from walmart with fast follow up shots and good accuracy. It feels like shooting a 9mm. Then when I shoot stuff like the 155 gr-165 gr practice loads it gets to be a bit snappy, but still controllable. Range time with your weapon plays a big role as well. Since more people are getting smaller guns for conceal carry I think the 135 gr light load would be beneficial for anyone.

Glockbuster
10-11-2010, 09:10
I agree but I was intrigued by the performance of these Federal HST 135 gr so I bought a few boxes. I have yet to test them though. I also have a .40 Beretta CX4 16" barrel but I figure 180 gr is the best for that.

Im intrigued by this also. In 9 mm., the HST seems to perform best in the 147 gr. specimen, I wonder why the light bullet for .40" ?

TommyV
10-11-2010, 11:12
Im intrigued by this also. In 9 mm., the HST seems to perform best in the 147 gr. specimen, I wonder why the light bullet for .40" ?

I was under the impression that the 9mm 124 gr +p was a better projectile.

Glockbuster
10-11-2010, 11:55
Check this out

http://frag.110mb.com/

TommyV
10-11-2010, 14:30
Well shooting into water jugs makes it easy for hollow points to expand. I would prefer to see the results of using denim and wet newspaper jugs. Either way the 124 gr +P and 147 gr are more a matter of preference. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5aGOjyV6CU&feature=related

WiskyT
10-11-2010, 15:54
That's not entirely true. It depends on the bullet and manufacturer. I can shoot the Winchester 180 gr JHP from walmart with fast follow up shots and good accuracy. It feels like shooting a 9mm. Then when I shoot stuff like the 155 gr-165 gr practice loads it gets to be a bit snappy, but still controllable. Range time with your weapon plays a big role as well. Since more people are getting smaller guns for conceal carry I think the 135 gr light load would be beneficial for anyone.

Yes, ammo matters. But, run a plate rack with a G17 and a G22 and see which one is faster with less misses. I could run 4.6-4.8 and never miss with a G17. With a G22, I could never get below 5.2 and if I tried harder I'd end up with a miss which really blows things.

I agree, a 180 at 950fps is easier to shoot in terms of blast than a 155 at 1200. But a 155 at 1000 will still run the slide and is easier than both. A 135 at 1200 might be an easy shooter, or it might be like a 125 357 mag loaded with Blue Dot. Somebody would have to try them to see. I've got enough Rangers for carry, and I handload the ammo I actually shoot on the range, so it won't be me in all likely hood.

gatorboy
10-12-2010, 08:38
I was under the impression that the 9mm 124 gr +p was a better projectile.

I think they made a bunch for an agency and made too much, loaded them too hot or too slow or the agency did'nt want them for some reason. I heard that somewhere so it's not a definate fact. I do know they are the only weight sold at WM and they don't come in the 50 rd. boxes like the other three weights do AFAIK. I'm not sure they are even called HST but they obviously have the same material and construction. They are'nt listed on the website.

I'm pretty sure the 135, 155 and 165 are all pretty close in velocity so the only full power weights are the 165 and 180. Maybe they don't need to go any faster to expand so the lower weight loads could be a good, low recoil choice? The 180's have consistently expanded larger than the 165's I've tested.

http://le.atk.com/general/federalproducts/pistol/tacticalhst.aspx

happyguy
10-12-2010, 09:56
I shot some of this stuff in my S&W M&P .40 and it felt like I was shooting a 9mm with WWWB 115 grain FMJ.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

glock20c10mm
10-18-2010, 12:03
Since my other thread was closed and I am not sure why I though I would open another. Here is a test someone did of the Federal 135gr

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQyPZbHmOmE

I picked up two boxes of the exact same ammo. In the video it seems to perform pretty well. I was hoping to find the 155 gr but they did not have any.
I think the 135gr bullet weight in 40S&W is an excellent choice overall. They offer what I prefer in a SD load. Enough penetration depth with fragmention. I even like the 135gr bullet weight in 10mm, obviously with even higher velocity. I wouldn't recommend them in bear country, but aside from that...


Good Shooting,
Craig:thumbsup:

Glolt20-91
10-18-2010, 12:43
FYI-Nosler first, Sierra later. Yeah, they both were "blasters", then again, so were the 125gr. .357 Magnum loads. Both the .357's & the .40's would indeed tend to fragment, but it was seen at the time as a "good" thing. For "John Doe" on the street still is, IMO.

The 155gr. loads in .40, were just about all excellent. And I'm a big fan of the .357 Sig.

Just sayin' the 135gr. 40's duplicated the raw "stopping-power" (whatever that is! :supergrin:), to the much-respected .357 125gr. hollow-points.

First, I want to thank you for your service. :thumbsup:

Is there enough OIS data comparing the .40/135gr to the .357mag/125gr and .357mag/158gr JHPs?

Bob :cowboy:

TommyV
10-18-2010, 18:34
I think they made a bunch for an agency and made too much, loaded them too hot or too slow or the agency did'nt want them for some reason. I heard that somewhere so it's not a definate fact. I do know they are the only weight sold at WM and they don't come in the 50 rd. boxes like the other three weights do AFAIK. I'm not sure they are even called HST but they obviously have the same material and construction. They are'nt listed on the website.

I'm pretty sure the 135, 155 and 165 are all pretty close in velocity so the only full power weights are the 165 and 180. Maybe they don't need to go any faster to expand so the lower weight loads could be a good, low recoil choice? The 180's have consistently expanded larger than the 165's I've tested.

http://le.atk.com/general/federalproducts/pistol/tacticalhst.aspx

I assume you are referring to the 40/135 gr HST in the OP and not the 9mm you quoted me talking about.

The 40/135gr HST that are sold at Walmart DO come in 50 rd boxes, I bought two. A few months ago they also had a ton of 40/155gr in the same packaging but those seemed to fly off the shelf.

At 1200 fps the HST 40/135 is def moving faster than the 180 but apparantly slow enough not to be frangible like the hot Cor Bon 40/135 the goes over 1300 fps.

thegriz18
10-18-2010, 20:48
I've shot some of the 135/40 HST stuff and I really didn't notice much difference in recoil between that, 165, and 180 stuff. DJ Niner did some chrono work on this stuff and it averaged 1242fps from a G22. Some of the faster rounds were 1270+ and nothing was slower than 1220fps. At 1220fps this round is marginally better than a 9mm 124+P. I'm still on the fence about it. I don't care if it only penetrates 9/10 inches but I would be more inclined to carry it if the avg velocity was in the 1270fps range. Again, that is probably splitting hairs since all handguns suck anyways.