g17 147 gr self defense ammo [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : g17 147 gr self defense ammo


biggaluka
04-18-2011, 16:49
:shocked:Hello everyone outhere:
Im new to this forum but not new to glock, Im been told that for smaller barrels like 3 in or less the faster the bullet like 115 maybe 124 are better but the 17 is 4,49 will this help the heavier 147gr bullet to develop enough punch power? The other issue that have call my concern is that on the glock web Sgt, Gunny mention that he does not understand why the Gov has gone for over 25 yrs with the 9mm he is a fanatic of the 1911, wich Iknow is a very honorable equipment but especially he mention that one torso shot of 45 is 100% guarantee to stop an assailant vs maybe 3 of 9mm what is this gentleman talking about? 75% of the world carry and use 9mm guns not only cse price,availability,weight,placement and last assortments of weight and bullets can anyone tell me should I trow away my 17,pps and mpc9mm, thanks a lot.

PaLEOjd
04-18-2011, 16:53
Maybe it's me but I don't undertand what you are saying......Where are you finding videos on the Glock webiste? Yes throw them away. PM me for disposal.

gommer
04-18-2011, 17:00
There is no such thing as a guaranteed one stop shot, that's just silly.

I don't know why any website would deliver such drivel.

Shot placement is key. You hit someone in the heart with a 9mm and you will see the same result had you used a .45.

I've seen a reference made several times to an article where an officer shot a suspect 5 times at point blank with a .357 only to have the suspect then return fire with a .22.

The Officer took a few steps and died, the suspect survived.

No, the Officer did not miss. The suspect managed to get a shot in that went under the Officers arm and penetrated a major artery.

I can't say that I've gone around testing the rounds on people - but I've certainly had my experiences with handgun rounds and wildlife.

I wouldn't trust a 9mm to take down a bear - but equally I would not expect a .44 to instantly stop a rabid dog. I've experienced that first hand - loading two rounds into a rabid dog that ended up biting me anyway. In a similar situation I unloaded a 357 into a dog that was already attacking me and it managed to keep biting me several times.

I carry a 9 for EDC - I wouldn't be tossing away my G17 because some guy on the internet said the .45 is a better SD round.

Is it a more powerful round? Well, yeah - but there is no degree of dead and either one can make a person very dead.

I don't know the answer the the former part of your question, but I'm sure some much more knowledgeable individual will chime in with ballistics charts and power points. :supergrin:

ergon
04-18-2011, 17:31
I've got one for you. Two to the chest and one to the head. He want care what caliber it was.

biggaluka
04-18-2011, 20:54
[QUOTE=gommer;17232709]There is no such thing as a guaranteed one stop shot, that's just silly.

I don't know why any website would deliver such drivel.

Shot placement is key. You hit someone in the heart with a 9mm and you will see the same result had you used a .45.

I've seen a reference made several times to an article where an officer shot a suspect 5 times at point blank with a .357 only to have the suspect then return fire with a .22.

The Officer took a few steps and died, the suspect survived.

No, the Officer did not miss. The suspect managed to get a shot in that went under the Officers arm and penetrated a major artery.

I can't say that I've gone around testing the rounds on people - but I've certainly had my experiences with handgun rounds and wildlife.

I wouldn't trust a 9mm to take down a bear - but equally I would not expect a .44 to instantly stop a rabid dog. I've experienced that first hand - loading two rounds into a rabid dog that ended up biting me anyway. In a similar situation I unloaded a 357 into a dog that was already attacking me and it managed to keep biting me several times.

I carry a 9 for EDC - I wouldn't be tossing away my G17 because some guy on the internet said the .45 is a better SD round.

Is it a more powerful round? Well, yeah - but there is no degree of dead and either one can make a person very dead.

I don't know the answer the the former part of your question, but I'm sure some much more knowledgeable individual will chime in with ballistics charts and power points. :supergrin:[/been shooting 9mm for over 35 yrs and will not change it for anything have tried 40 but
is not been used in any other country than here and box of 40 is about $5 more .lots of dpts have drop it and gone back to 9 or 45 for qualified personnel thanks for yre reply

WA Glocker
04-18-2011, 20:59
Like many said before in caliber threads, the only "one shot stop" is one that his a vital organ.

chimp
04-18-2011, 22:41
Like many said before in caliber threads, the only "one shot stop" is one that his a vital organ.

and the gold pp7 from goleneye :cool:

rick458
04-19-2011, 05:46
I carry 147 Speer Gold Dots in my G-17, 147 Ranger Ts are also very good performers in the tests.
There is no magical hand gun round, there was a female deputy the took a .357 to the heart point blank, and was able to draw and kill her attacker, she survived the encounter.

SouthernBoyVA
04-19-2011, 06:04
Those times that I carry my 3G G19 or my Kahr K9 Elite '03, I load them with Federal 147 gr +P HST most often. If it's the Kahr PM9 that leaves the house with me, I tend to use the 124gr +P HST most of the time (there are other, similar loads in my stable but you get the picture). Generally speaking, the lighter bullets do better in shorter barrels because there is not enough time and barrel length for the expanding gases to overcome the inertia of a heavier bullet in order to reach optimum velocities. Longer barrels give more of this luxury and increase your selection choice.

Where larger caliber bullets have an advantage is in penetration and the fact that due to their increased size if they expand as designed, they have a better chance to cut, tear, and disrupt tissues, vessels, and organs as they traverse the target. However, as previous members have pointed out, shot placement is first on the list.

biggaluka
04-19-2011, 09:39
thanks Rick for youre reply.

biggaluka
04-19-2011, 09:46
thank you southern boy, I have read reports on the fed, hst to be very efective but here in Miami is nowhere to be found and in the gunshow people want it crazy prices for the 50 rn box something like 38 or $40per box crazy crazy my main concern was for ballistic of 147 on the 4.45 barrel wich I think is long enough to develop speed and punching power I use 124+p gold dots on my pps and for range time either 115 any brand or 124 gecos,thanks you very much.

triggerjerk
04-19-2011, 10:05
http://www.kylesgunshop.com/store.php?seller=KylesGunshop&navt1=50216&pd=2241009

biggaluka
04-19-2011, 14:31
thanks a lot for the site great price, thanks.

DonGlock26
04-19-2011, 18:03
9mm Stopping power explained in 28 seconds

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

1:12-1:40

esminbritt
04-26-2011, 11:49
I have recently got a Gen 4 G17. I am now choosing SD ammo. I want to make a good initial choice since I want to shoot at least 200 rounds to ensure it feeds well. I cant afford to blow 500 bucks on ammo comparisons. I realize the comparison of slower heavy loads vs. lighter faster loads is very debatable. I have read quite a bit on the different schools of thought it seems to make more sense to go with the heavier load. I found a good deal on Remington Golden Saber 147 gr JHP. I want something heavier since 9mm rounds are on the smaller end of the spectrum as it is. And since I have a 4.49" barrel, I think I can run the heavier load. Expansion seems reliable on newer ammo. I am still open to running lighter loads, but I don't want to run hot loads. I do not want to put additional wear on the weapon from using +P or +P+ rounds. I definitely realize that shot placement is of paramount importance. Any thoughts?

beforeobamabans
04-27-2011, 16:48
I have recently got a Gen 4 G17. I am now choosing SD ammo. I want to make a good initial choice since I want to shoot at least 200 rounds to ensure it feeds well. I cant afford to blow 500 bucks on ammo comparisons. I realize the comparison of slower heavy loads vs. lighter faster loads is very debatable. I have read quite a bit on the different schools of thought it seems to make more sense to go with the heavier load. I found a good deal on Remington Golden Saber 147 gr JHP. I want something heavier since 9mm rounds are on the smaller end of the spectrum as it is. And since I have a 4.49" barrel, I think I can run the heavier load. Expansion seems reliable on newer ammo. I am still open to running lighter loads, but I don't want to run hot loads. I do not want to put additional wear on the weapon from using +P or +P+ rounds. I definitely realize that shot placement is of paramount importance. Any thoughts?
Buy the GS and forget about it. You'll be fine.

cowboy1964
04-27-2011, 18:00
Ballistic differences between the best 9mm JHPs are miminal. More important is how they feel/shoot. Surprisingly 124+P (and even Ranger 127 +P+) has really no more felt recoil than 147s. I prefer velocity over weight in smaller calibers. If I wanted subsonic I'd just go .45. But that's just a personal bias thing.

cole
04-27-2011, 23:37
I prefer heavy-for-caliber. 147gr Gold Dots run in all my 9mms. And, 9mm will get it done very well if you do you part. The heavier 230gr .45acp is better, but with tradeoffs. Can't get something for nothing. The 9mm offeres smaller size, higher capacity and greater control. A great package IMO.

M&P Shooter
04-28-2011, 04:32
he mention that one torso shot of 45 is 100% guarantee to stop an assailant vs maybe 3 of 9mm what is this gentleman talking about?
Gunny is talking Military ball ammo where the 45acp does have a nice edge but we can use jhp ammo where the playing field is level. Also Gunny is far from a ballistic expert and more of a old salesman that's still living back in Vietnam. The 45acp will not deliver 1 shot kills, there is people that survived hits in Vietnam and Iraq with AK's and even survived stepping on mines and getting blown threw the air. I don't like the 147gr ammo in 9mm, I prefer the 124gr +P loads:wavey:

esminbritt
04-28-2011, 13:17
Thanks y'all. I appreciate your input. I know this thread could go on forever-it probably will in one place or another-but I would like to get your feedback on another option. I found Fiocchi 147gr XTP Hollow Point rounds for a real good deal. Any thoughts on those. I read something about a recall on Fiocchi ammo but it wasn't caliber specific.

dkf
04-28-2011, 15:27
Double

dkf
04-28-2011, 15:27
Federal HST in 147 grain is a good round if you prefer heavier bullets. Pretty much any Federal HST round works well for that matter.

esminbritt
04-28-2011, 19:42
OK. bear with me here...this is my first handgun experience. Lots of rifle time but after putting a couple hundred rounds through my G17 tonight, i realize that pistols are a different beast. Obviously, I'm hooked like a junkie. I wish I had a range in my house. I put my first rounds through tonight. But I did have one FTF. It was a Golden Saber 147 gr. JHP. I shot 100 GS total. My FTF came early, after 30 or so rounds. I was probably limp wristing it. Or maybe it needed breaking in. Or maybe it was just a fluke...but it ain't the kind of fluke I like. Especially when I'm dropping decent money into selecting a good SD round. After the GS, I put 100 cheap 115 gr. FMJ rounds through and no problems. I am leaning toward changing to a different hollow point (lighter or just a different brand 147 gr.) I realize that the golden Saber is probably not to blame. I was most likely just holding the dang thing wrong, but I still can't help but question the load. On the plus side, I did shoot pretty tight groupings at 20 yards and loved every minute of it. All in all, had fun on my first time at a short range.

esminbritt
04-28-2011, 22:58
What do you think about Federal HST +p 147 gr. through my Glock 17? I couldn't find Federal HST 147 gr. in standard pressure. I have heard that +p loads put additional stress on the pistol. I would like to think that a Glock could take the stress but maybe not/

dkf
04-29-2011, 07:35
Your G17 can handle as much 147+P as you can afford to put through it. The extra velocity with the +p will not hurt with that heavy 147gr bullet.

esminbritt
04-29-2011, 11:00
does anyone know for sure if the HXT are bonded well enough to retain the jacket post expansion? I'm seriously thinking of a 500 rd. case of Federal HST 147 gr. +p JHP.

dkf
04-29-2011, 12:31
The HST is non bonded bullet however it holds its jacket extremely well, probably better than any other comaprable non bonded bullet. At the velocities you are going to see with a 147Gr. 9mm bullet I wouldn't worry about jacket separation. Below are some vids with 147 gr. into water. They are standard pressure however they are fired into water which usually causes more expansion that gel. I carry 125gr. HSTs in my .357sig and as you may know the sig cartridge produce some decent velocities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqcObTig1zc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9b1nWR4hKU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY_cJEDxxEI

esminbritt
04-29-2011, 19:18
Your G17 can handle as much 147+P as you can afford to put through it. The extra velocity with the +p will not hurt with that heavy 147gr bullet.

My question is, should I even be trying to find a good 147 round, or should I just cave to the masses and go with a 124. I want to know, please, if you all had the perfect shot and were completely confident in your placement of a SINGLE SHOT in a home defense scenario, would you want a 124 or a 147. I am about to buy 500 rounds of something in a JHP (which I can barely afford). I don't want to make a bad purchase. Talk to me people. Please

beforeobamabans
04-30-2011, 03:01
Here's a 'real-life' example of the physics involved in the light/fast vs heavy/slow argument:

You are standing at the edge of a pond with two rocks. One is small and light, one is large and heavy. You take the large/heavy rock and slowly loft it underhand into the air. It plops into the water at a very slow speed but still makes a relatively big splash because its larger size displaces more water. The weight of it causes it to sink straight to the bottom quickly. It goes through any current or debris without deviation from its path because the weight of it gives lots of momentum even though you did not throw it hard.

Now you throw the small, light rock into the water with all the force you can develop with your arm. It makes a smaller splash in the water. Because it is lighter, the resistance of the water slows the light rock more than the heavy rock. Currents and debris knock it off course as it slowly sinks to the bottom.

Bullets of different weights follow these same principles of physics when fired out of guns at different speeds into living tissue filled with variable densities of matter (debris in its path). Both can work, but many prefer the heavier bullet for its momentum which is less effected by debris in its path (such as bones) and typically results in greater penetration. This is why muzzle energy is not the end-all, be-all ranking metric for bullet performance (it overemphasizes speed and cares not for momentum). So, if you tend to like 147, buy it, put it in your magazines and forget about it. But do also buy a case of 147 fmj to practice with. These are generally available on line for about $215/1000.

cole
04-30-2011, 04:55
Here's a 'real-life' example of the physics involved in the light/fast vs heavy/slow argument:

You are standing at the edge of a pond with two rocks. One is small and light, one is large and heavy. You take the large/heavy rock and slowly loft it underhand into the air. It plops into the water at a very slow speed but still makes a relatively big splash because its larger size displaces more water. The weight of it causes it to sink straight to the bottom quickly. It goes through any current or debris without deviation from its path because the weight of it gives lots of momentum even though you did not throw it hard.

Now you throw the small, light rock into the water with all the force you can develop with your arm. It makes a smaller splash in the water. Because it is lighter, the resistance of the water slows the light rock more than the heavy rock. Currents and debris knock it off course as it slowly sinks to the bottom.

Bullets of different weights follow these same principles of physics when fired out of guns at different speeds into living tissue filled with variable densities of matter (debris in its path). Both can work, but many prefer the heavier bullet for its momentum which is less effected by debris in its path (such as bones) and typically results in greater penetration. This is why muzzle energy is not the end-all, be-all ranking metric for bullet performance (it overemphasizes speed and cares not for momentum). So, if you tend to like 147, buy it, put it in your magazines and forget about it. But do also buy a case of 147 fmj to practice with. These are generally available on line for about $215/1000.

Very complicated analogy and explanation. More simply: There is a reason you don't see 124lb, 147lb, 165lb or 180lb linebackers in the NFL. If you have a clear path to the QB, sure, any player will do. But, if you have to break through the OL (i.e. "barriers") good luck being light and fast. IMO, same concepts here which is why I opt for heavy/slow, and also why I prefer 230gr objects.

beforeobamabans
04-30-2011, 09:54
Unless you're the Indianapolis Colts....:rofl:

dkf
04-30-2011, 15:10
My question is, should I even be trying to find a good 147 round, or should I just cave to the masses and go with a 124. I want to know, please, if you all had the perfect shot and were completely confident in your placement of a SINGLE SHOT in a home defense scenario, would you want a 124 or a 147. I am about to buy 500 rounds of something in a JHP (which I can barely afford). I don't want to make a bad purchase. Talk to me people. Please

It is personal preference between 124, 127 or 147 grain in standard, +P or +P+ pressures. Some guys like 147 standard pressure, some like 127 +P+ some like something else. Honestly I think they will both work. The 147 tends to yield more penetration.

It may be a good idea to order a few boxes of different ammo in different grains and pressures and go to range. See what feeds well in your gun and what ammo works well for you. Then go ahead and buy 500 rounds in what you like best.

CPD#125
04-30-2011, 18:11
When I worked for a major metro police department I have seen more than my share of people who were killed by gunshots. I have seen the .22 up to the. 45 used. I cannot recall one victim that died because of the caliber of the projectile. They died because of the bullet placement. The first homicide that I was sent to was done with a. 380 and it did a very nice job, performance wise that is. I have no loyality to any particular caliber. Having a firearm that you have faith in and can afford to practice with means more. Every caliber has horror stories of failing to perform when needed. There are many variables involved when a person is shot. Do not expect them to act like they do in the movies. Chose a weapon that you like and practice with it.

cowboy1964
04-30-2011, 20:15
I do have to chuckle a bit at the idea of calling a 147gr bullet "heavy". If you want heavy go .45.

I just don't feel right about a 9mm only going 950 fps. It ain't natural I tells ya.

cowboy1964
04-30-2011, 20:17
I cannot recall one victim that died because of the caliber of the projectile. They died because of the bullet placement.

Well said. This is why I have so much confidence in the 9mm. There's nothing easier to shoot, relative to the power delivered. Capacity, cost, availability, etc, etc, are all in the 9's favor too.

Caliber wars are getting old...

maestro pistolero
05-01-2011, 01:07
I have a lot of faith in HST in any caliber. I was shooting HST in .40 against steel last week and it held together, making very flat, half dollar sized flowers. Impressive. Those HST videos confirm for me how good this round is. I won't feel the least bit insecure about my switch from my Xd45 Compact to my new Glock models 19 or 35 with these rounds.

Glock Survival Kit
05-01-2011, 01:10
Got a deal going on today. If you buy one Glock survival kit for $11.25 we will ship you a Survival Tech (Mgrip) free of charge, its our own custom style grip which somewhat converts your glock into the rough texture frame...fits all models and usually cost $10.00 Just go to www.survivaltech.org (http://www.survivaltech.org/) to get the package today! thanks -ST

You can find us on facebook as well. Just search Glock Survival Kit.

cdog533
05-01-2011, 01:15
147's can have a tough time expanding at lower velocities, especially through clothing, in my opinion. I would think that in a short barrel, the 147's speed is even MORE limited.

I prefer a 115 grain +p or a 124 grain +p+, as I feel the higher velocity helps expansion and penetration, both key to dropping blood pressure, which is what takes a bad guy out of the fight.

glock20c10mm
05-07-2011, 14:52
:shocked:Hello everyone outhere:
Im new to this forum but not new to glock,
:welcome:

Im been told that for smaller barrels like 3 in or less the faster the bullet like 115 maybe 124 are better but the 17 is 4,49 will this help the heavier 147gr bullet to develop enough punch power?
Does that longer barrel somehow not also make the 115gr and 124gr better too? The more speed, the more reliable expansion becomes, always, no matter bullet weight, but assuming same bullet design parameters. Then of course there's always the 357SIG to consider which has quite a following behind it, just not in comparison to 9mm which only ranks as high as it does in terms of popularity because of LE (worldwide only, as I believe the 40S
&W has overshadowed it in the USA), military, and low cost to shoot, lest I forget to mention the movies and rap music.

The other issue that have call my concern is that on the glock web Sgt, Gunny mention that he does not understand why the Gov has gone for over 25 yrs with the 9mm he is a fanatic of the 1911, wich Iknow is a very honorable equipment but especially he mention that one torso shot of 45 is 100% guarantee to stop an assailant vs maybe 3 of 9mm what is this gentleman talking about?
Yeah, some dogs aren't capable of learning those new tricks. Then of course we all have our own opinions for different reasons including risk assessment for our own personal environments. Given the choice I would never choose 9mm as a SD round, and I'ld choose 9mm over 45 Auto. The 45 does some things really well (big holes), and by the same token it does some things really poorly (hard barrier penetration). The 9mm is better all around than the 45 in my opinion, but is still the weakest cartridge you can choose for SD based on FBI protocol, and therefore still falls by the wayside in my opinion. Hence more/less why the FBI washed their hands of it too.

75% of the world carry and use 9mm guns not only cse price,availability,weight,placement and last assortments of weight and bullets
Yes, all reasons except for cost that have little to nothing to do with general civilian carry.

can anyone tell me should I trow away my 17,pps and mpc9mm, thanks a lot.
Yeah, because more power usually works better at incapacitating adversaries if you know how to use it. If you're interest is simply the weakest round that still meets FBI protocol, while at the same time choosing 9mm for being the least expensive to shoot, than have at it. Other than that, your personal opinion is the only one that should matter to you assuming it's based on rational thought.

glock20c10mm
05-07-2011, 14:55
I prefer heavy-for-caliber. 147gr Gold Dots run in all my 9mms. And, 9mm will get it done very well if you do you part. The heavier 230gr .45acp is better, but with tradeoffs. Can't get something for nothing. The 9mm offeres smaller size, higher capacity and greater control. A great package IMO.
Not if "you do your part", but rather, if it's possible to "do your part". That's a gamble I'm not willing to take/make. If it works for you, more power to ya. Just throwing my opinion/thoughts out there too.:thumbsup:

glock20c10mm
05-07-2011, 15:01
My question is, should I even be trying to find a good 147 round, or should I just cave to the masses and go with a 124. I want to know, please, if you all had the perfect shot and were completely confident in your placement of a SINGLE SHOT in a home defense scenario, would you want a 124 or a 147. I am about to buy 500 rounds of something in a JHP (which I can barely afford). I don't want to make a bad purchase. Talk to me people. Please
If it were possible to know ahead of time that I could be completely confident in my shot placement with a single shot, and I was limited to the 9mm cartridge, then I'ld go 115gr +P+ every time, with a double tap on Sundays.:)

glock20c10mm
05-07-2011, 15:06
Here's a 'real-life' example of the physics involved in the light/fast vs heavy/slow argument:

You are standing at the edge of a pond with two rocks. One is small and light, one is large and heavy. You take the large/heavy rock and slowly loft it underhand into the air. It plops into the water at a very slow speed but still makes a relatively big splash because its larger size displaces more water. The weight of it causes it to sink straight to the bottom quickly. It goes through any current or debris without deviation from its path because the weight of it gives lots of momentum even though you did not throw it hard.

Now you throw the small, light rock into the water with all the force you can develop with your arm. It makes a smaller splash in the water. Because it is lighter, the resistance of the water slows the light rock more than the heavy rock. Currents and debris knock it off course as it slowly sinks to the bottom.

Bullets of different weights follow these same principles of physics when fired out of guns at different speeds into living tissue filled with variable densities of matter (debris in its path). Both can work, but many prefer the heavier bullet for its momentum which is less effected by debris in its path (such as bones) and typically results in greater penetration. This is why muzzle energy is not the end-all, be-all ranking metric for bullet performance (it overemphasizes speed and cares not for momentum). So, if you tend to like 147, buy it, put it in your magazines and forget about it. But do also buy a case of 147 fmj to practice with. These are generally available on line for about $215/1000.
That analogy may as well be comparing 25 Auto to a 50 BMG.

Now go through the same analogy and use one each of 124gr and 147gr 9mm bullets. Ok, do it again, as I couldn't tell which splash was bigger...you are throwing them by hand, right?...dang it, there was a white cap, do over...

glock20c10mm
05-07-2011, 15:08
Very complicated analogy and explanation. More simply: There is a reason you don't see 124lb, 147lb, 165lb or 180lb linebackers in the NFL. If you have a clear path to the QB, sure, any player will do. But, if you have to break through the OL (i.e. "barriers") good luck being light and fast. IMO, same concepts here which is why I opt for heavy/slow, and also why I prefer 230gr objects.
Does anyone actually have an analogy on a smaller scale? Like say an actual 9mm bullet compared to another actual 9mm bullet?:shocked:

cole
05-07-2011, 23:50
Does anyone actually have an analogy on a smaller scale? Like say an actual 9mm bullet compared to another actual 9mm bullet?:shocked:

I have no idea the clever insight the smiley icon conceals. However, analogies don't need to be of identical scale. I do welcome your insight into the analogy provided. The same analogy, relative to physics, can be applied applied to 115gr, 124gr and 147gr dbacks encountering the OL trying to get to the QB. In reading your past posts, I know you get the concept.

glock20c10mm
05-08-2011, 17:19
I have no idea the clever insight the smiley icon conceals. However, analogies don't need to be of identical scale. I do welcome your insight into the analogy provided. The same analogy, relative to physics, can be applied applied to 115gr, 124gr and 147gr dbacks encountering the OL trying to get to the QB. In reading your past posts, I know you get the concept.
True, I grasped the concept. I'm commenting for the lay person(s) that really has no clue, of say, penetration depth in comparing, let's say, a 124gr HST to a 147gr HST. Some here could go away thinking that a 147gr JHP could out penetrate a 124gr JHP by some amount of times over, as opposed to the fractional reality.

For example, in clothed gel, we're talking about the following penetration differences (all in 9mm):

Win T Series 127gr +P+ = 12.2"
Fed HST 124gr +P = 12.5"
Fed HST 124gr = 13.9"
Win T Series 124gr +P = 13.9"
Win Bonded 124gr +P = 18.7"

Fed HST 147gr = 14.4"
Win T Series 147gr = 14.5"
Speer Gold Dot 147gr = 15.25"
Win Bonded 147gr = 16.5"


I believe we could agree that bullet design/construction plays just as important a role in penetration depth as bullet weight itself when simply comparing one bullet weight to the next step up in bullet weight per caliber.

Neither you nor beforeobamabans spelled that out for the lay people, thus, when the discussion revolves around JHP in general, physics does not guarantee a 147gr will outpenetrate a 124gr. For FMJ, then yes, the heavier FMJ will most likely always outpenetrate the lighter FMJ, if they were traveling at the same velocity and had the same nose profile.

I believe some of us who favor heavy for caliber always (not me), would just as soon have others believe that the heavier bullet will always outpenetrate the lighter bullet simply to sell the lay person on their flavor of koolaid. Though some of us (not me) probably don't even realize all I explained above, or for that matter, how close penetration depths actually commonly are between different JHPs of similar construction.

For anyone who cares, it may also be worth mentioning that +P and/or +P+ don't guarantee more penetration either. Sometimes less. Also note that many times more speed is what gets a bullet through a hard barrier, when possible at all, even with a lighter weight bullet over a heavier one.

Bottomline, more bullet weight does not guarantee more penetration depth. Therefore you can stop throwing around the word "physics" as if it proves otherwise. Either that or be more specific in what you're conveying to the extent it would hold true as a rule.


Good Shooting,
Craig:wavey:


PS - what's your beef with smilies?:dunno: Am I the only one that didn't get the memo explaining how smilies are the epitomy of evil, or what?

beforeobamabans
05-08-2011, 17:37
True, I grasped the concept. I'm commenting for the lay person(s) that really has no clue, of say, penetration depth in comparing, let's say, a 124gr HST to a 147gr HST. Some here could go away thinking that a 147gr JHP could out penetrate a 124gr JHP by some amount of times over, as opposed to the fractional reality.

For example, in clothed gel, we're talking about the following penetration differences (all in 9mm):

Win T Series 127gr +P+ = 12.2"
Fed HST 124gr +P = 12.5"
Fed HST 124gr = 13.9"
Win T Series 124gr +P = 13.9"
Win Bonded 124gr +P = 18.7"

Fed HST 147gr = 14.4"
Win T Series 147gr = 14.5"
Speer Gold Dot 147gr = 15.25"
Win Bonded 147gr = 16.5"


I believe we could agree that bullet design/construction plays just as important a role in penetration depth as bullet weight itself when simply comparing one bullet weight to the next step up in bullet weight per caliber.

Neither you nor beforeobamabans spelled that out for the lay people, thus, when the discussion revolves around JHP in general, physics does not guarantee a 147gr will outpenetrate a 124gr. For FMJ, then yes, the heavier FMJ will most likely always outpenetrate the lighter FMJ, if they were traveling at the same velocity and had the same nose profile.

I believe some of us who favor heavy for caliber always (not me), would just as soon have others believe that the heavier bullet will always outpenetrate the lighter bullet simply to sell the lay person on their flavor of koolaid. Though some of us (not me) probably don't even realize all I explained above, or for that matter, how close penetration depths actually commonly are between different JHPs of similar construction.

For anyone who cares, it may also be worth mentioning that +P and/or +P+ don't guarantee more penetration either. Sometimes less. Also note that many times more speed is what gets a bullet through a hard barrier, when possible at all, even with a lighter weight bullet over a heavier one.

Bottomline, more bullet weight does not guarantee more penetration depth. Therefore you can stop throwing around the word "physics" as if it proves otherwise. Either that or be more specific in what you're conveying to the extent it would hold true as a rule.


Good Shooting,
Craig:wavey:


PS - what's your beef with smilies?:dunno: Am I the only one that didn't get the memo explaining how smilies are the epitomy of evil, or what?

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, only trying to share some conclusions I've reached after a great deal of attention and study to this issue. I note with satisfaction that, in general, the data you sight indicates greater penetration by the heavier/slower bullets. Obviously, you cannot compare bonded to non-bonded in evaluating weight vs. penetration. People get caught up in the total energy calcs which (IMHO) make speed appear to be more important to effectiveness than it really is. My analogy was a simple way to relate an everyday experience most of us have had to how a bullet might act entering a liquid or soft tissue medium. I think the physics relate. YMMV.

Merkavaboy
05-08-2011, 18:53
Just a few comments.

First, tossing rocks into water and talking about the weight of linebackers has absolutely nothing to do with the effectiveness of bullets shot into human beings in a SD situation.

Second, whether a bullet actually kills a person has very little to do with how effective a bullet is. People need to keep in mind that the objective of an effective SD bullet/load is to incapacitate your attacker as quickly as possible with few rounds as possible. If you shoot your attacker and he immediately stops trying to harm you, then the bullet(s) have done it's job. Likewise, if you shoot your attacker and is immediately incapacitated and then dies because of being shot, the bullet(s) have done it's job. If your bullet(s) fail to incapacitate your attacker and he injures/kills you or some other innocent and the attacker then dies a minute or a day later, your bullet has failed miserably in incapacitating the attacker.

Lastly, penetration in your attacker is not the be-all-end-all of bullet performance. If this were true then there would be no reason for JHP bullets and everybody would be using solid/FMJ bullets for LE and civilian SD. All one has to do is compare the effectiveness of the Federal and Winchester 115JHP+P+ loads vs the "great" FBI anointed Win 147JHP OSM TYPE-L subsonic load issued in 1987. The 115+P+ loads have racked up an enviable street record years before the 147 subsonic hit the streets. How can this happen when these loads fail to pass the FBI's ballistic gel test protocols? Humm?

With that said, I have seen two pictures of Federal's 9mm 147HST used by LE that were pulled out of two separate BGs, and they had picture-perfect expansion and both perp's were DRT. The HST appears to be an excellent design for all service calibers.

glock20c10mm
05-08-2011, 23:07
People get caught up in the total energy calcs which (IMHO) make speed appear to be more important to effectiveness than it really is.
Yes they do, which by itself is also wrong to do. It's about the whole picture. And as I EXPLAINED, you're analogy doesn't hole true across the board and is misleading. Did you miss that part?

Would you suggest energy and speed have nothing to do with anything? I expect not. If it were the case then 38 Special 158gr loads would be just as effective at cleaning dispatching deer as any 357 Magnum load using a bullet of at least 125gr weight.

Also, as Merkavaboy mentioned above; "...penetration in your attacker is not the be-all-end-all of bullet performance. If this were true then there would be no reason for JHP bullets and everybody would be using solid/FMJ bullets for LE and civilian SD."

Clearly, for anyone looking subjectively at what the best load for SD is, would have to take into account all of: FMJ vs JHP, speed, energy, bullet weight, bullet construction, penetration depth, expansion, reliability,...........and on top of all that and probably then some, any given individuals own risk assessments for his/her own walk of life could vary what's best over what's best for another.

NOT TO MENTION that some simply still have to live within their means which may very well limit them to less than the best load(s) available if they want to carry at all. Heck, some people choose FMJ because JHP would break the bank for them. Then you have those that insist FMJ is just as good as JHP because they were in the military and saw with their own eyes, or whatever. Blah blah blah.

Again, it's about the whole picture. Limit yourself to just half the ingredients (or less) and it ain't gonna taste good no matter how much you sugar coat it.


Keeping it real,
Craig:)

glock20c10mm
05-08-2011, 23:46
Obviously, you cannot compare bonded to non-bonded in evaluating weight vs. penetration.
Actually, yes you can. It doesn't necessarily mean the lighter bonded bullet that may outpenetrate a heavier non bonded bullet is actually better, as that alone doesn't tell a complete story, but yes, you can. Unquestionably it is something to take into consideration along with many other pros and cons that exist making one bullet design at some speed more effective than another at incapacitating whatever needs to be incapacitated.

esminbritt
05-09-2011, 10:19
Wow, there are a lot of good points being made here. This debate seems to provoke very strong opinion sharing, which is good. I am still undecided. I guess the universal point I'm getting is that placement is paramount. I bought 500 Federal HST Tactical 147 gr. +P (9mm) and 500 American Eagle 147 gr. FMJ. First, I am going to have a pro show me how to hold the weapon properly due to the fact that I think improper grip was the reason for my FTF. Remember, that FTF was only the 30th round to ever go through the gun, and maybe only the 40th round I've ever fired from a handgun. Second, I am going to finish off the 250 115 gr. FMJ rounds I have left. That should break the gun in, in case the FTF was due to extra sensitivity on the gun's part due to it being new. Then I am going to shoot 250 FMJ and 250 HST and if I get another FTF, I will probably jump ship and go to a lighter bullet. At this point, I just want to make sure that by going with 147 gr., I am not feeding my Gen 4 G17 something it doesn't like. My FTF was a Remington Golden Saber 147 gr. BJHP.

cole
05-09-2011, 12:14
Preamble (before the ramble): This is all talk of the concepts. Nothing is guaranteed. Nothing absolute. None of this banter takes skill (i.e. POI) and/or target resolve (e.g. adrenaline) into account. So, to move on...

...

I believe we could agree that bullet design/construction plays just as important a role in penetration depth as bullet weight itself when simply comparing one bullet weight to the next step up in bullet weight per caliber.

Agreed. I presume we are comparing modern loads. And, bonded to non-bonded. Best vs. best. Of course, this is not what many do, hence the oft-used term "cherry-picking.

...
Neither you nor beforeobamabans spelled that out for the lay people, thus, when the discussion revolves around JHP in general, physics does not guarantee a 147gr will outpenetrate a 124gr. For FMJ, then yes, the heavier FMJ will most likely always outpenetrate the lighter FMJ, if they were traveling at the same velocity and had the same nose profile.

Guarantee? No. More likely? Yes, it does actually, relative to penetration. This assumes you are comparing apples-to-apples. More on that above and below.

...
I believe some of us who favor heavy for caliber always (not me), would just as soon have others believe that the heavier bullet will always outpenetrate the lighter bullet simply to sell the lay person on their flavor of koolaid. Though some of us (not me) probably don't even realize all I explained above, or for that matter, how close penetration depths actually commonly are between different JHPs of similar construction.


Again, you talk in absolutes then introduce the koolaid talk as a diversion. I talk in probabilities absent koolaid. The heavier object will penetrate deeper when surface area is taken into account. And, does on average and by aggregate outcomes.

And, you compare the numbers, not percentages, for comparison. And, do not include surface area (or diameter) at all. It's surfacea area that provides resistance to slow the object. So, sure, a lighter .55" object may penentrate deeper than a .65" heavier object (difference is surface area is about 30%). But, it's not correct to think a .55" light object will penetrate deeper than a .55" heavier object. Or, that the (faster) light object, of the same size, will penetrate deeper after hitting a hard barrier. Nothing in physics supports this. And, that's not koolaid. More "useless physics" data below.


...
Bottomline, more bullet weight does not guarantee more penetration depth. Therefore you can stop throwing around the word "physics" as if it proves otherwise. Either that or be more specific in what you're conveying to the extent it would hold true as a rule.


Again, guarantee? No. More likely? Yes. To repeat, I look at aggregate and averages. And, physics does in fact support my position when you remove the inconsistencies I've noted above (e.g. expansion differences). You can make a 147gr 9mm that expands to .55" only and it will penetrate deeper than any .55" 115gr and 124gr 9mm. If you have physics to support otherwise, I'd like to hear that, as would NASA.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, only trying to share some conclusions I've reached after a great deal of attention and study to this issue. I note with satisfaction that, in general, the data you sight indicates greater penetration by the heavier/slower bullets. Obviously, you cannot compare bonded to non-bonded in evaluating weight vs. penetration. People get caught up in the total energy calcs which (IMHO) make speed appear to be more important to effectiveness than it really is. My analogy was a simple way to relate an everyday experience most of us have had to how a bullet might act entering a liquid or soft tissue medium. I think the physics relate. YMMV.

Correct. And, correct. Science teachers nationwide would consider themselves failures if we'd not learned all this in highschool.


...
First, tossing rocks into water and talking about the weight of linebackers has absolutely nothing to do with the effectiveness of bullets shot into human beings in a SD situation.

My analogy was about overcoming hard barriers. In my analogy it was a linebacker breaking through the OL to get to the QB. So, yes, the analogy applies. Again, as I stated, with a clear line to QB and it does not matter. Heavier objects overcome most typical hard obstacles better, on average, and retain more momentum for use later on. That's why linebackers are not 115lb, 124lb, 165lb or 180lb. In the analogy, overcoming a barrier (e.g. the OL) and retaining adequate energy (for the QB) relates. That's simple physics. And, that's applicable IMO. Perfectly? No. Conceptually? Yes. (See preamble)


Lastly, penetration in your attacker is not the be-all-end-all of bullet performance. ...

This we agree on. Given a choice in modern HP, I'll take the one that penetrates deeper vs. the one that expands more. If I can have both, great!

-------------------------

As promised, some of that "useless physics" data:
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_4xrAuaGHkLI/TaiWCHmEY0I/AAAAAAAAEkM/LPUr7BCryCU/compare%209-40-45neg.jpg

unit1069
05-09-2011, 15:22
Wow, there are a lot of good points being made here. This debate seems to provoke very strong opinion sharing, which is good. I am still undecided.

What 9mm pistol are you planning on shooting 147-grain ammo through, esminbritt? That information might elicit more comments and suggestions.

I own two 9mm pistols and I've never shot any 147-grain ammo through either, as I believe as others have written that sufficient velocity is necessary to ensure reliable expansion.

I know there are newer bullet designs alleged to solve this particular problem but since the 9mm caliber was originally designed for a 123/124-grain bullet my thinking is why not just stick to what works.

I will admit to being curious about the heavy-for-caliber argument but there's a voice within that whispers, "Instead of trying to mimic .45ACP why not just buy a 1911 .45ACP?"

For the record I plan on picking up some standard pressure 147-grain HST and Gold Dot ammo but I will also say that unless these rounds impress to a great degree I'm likely to stick with the 115-grain (9mm 3" barrel) and 124-grain (9mm 4" barrel) ammo I currently carry. I almost certainly won't consider carrying the 147-grain ammo in the smaller pistol due to the velocity issue.

I think your 147-grain HST +P could very well be an excellent round but in a pistol not designed for +P ammo or one with a short barrel there could be better choices.

glock20c10mm
05-10-2011, 00:46
Agreed. I presume we are comparing modern loads. And, bonded to non-bonded. Best vs. best. Of course, this is not what many do, hence the oft-used term "cherry-picking.
That depends on our definitions of "modern loads". I'ld still consider HydraShoks and SilverTips relatively modern, just not a top notch choice IMO. Do you? Some people think the SilverTips in one load or another are "great" overall.

As for "cherry-picking", I'm not sure I follow you here. I don't mean that in a way of being trollish, just not sure where you're coming from with it.

For example, in my mind, ultimately most of us end up "cherry-picking" one or two loads that we think will work best for our own way of thinking and risk assessments. How can we choose a favorite without "cherry-picking" it?

We look at all that's available and eventually cherry-pick from the group what suits our interests best, right? I mean, I'ld say myself and many others do. You don't?, or what?

I can see where cherry-picking can also be a bad thing, but not in the context we're talking. What am I missing in your meaning of "cherry-picking"?
Again, you talk in absolutes then introduce the koolaid talk as a diversion. I talk in probabilities absent koolaid. The heavier object will penetrate deeper when surface area is taken into account. And, does on average and by aggregate outcomes.
Hmmmm. My whole preface is/was that there aren't any absolutes with penetration depth between 124gr and 147gr 9mm JHP projectiles because of different bullet constuctions, launch velocities... How is that talking in absolutes?

As for your preference to see things by way of probability, how can you intelligently pick what may or may not be a best load that way? So you simply ARBITRARILY pick any 147gr load for sale and assume they all penetrate about the same???

Well heck, on that note there are some 124gr JHPs that penetrate about the same as some 147gr JHPs. But since your interpetation of physics doesn't tell you that, you then blindly ignore the FACT???

I look at what each bullet does on average. You look at what a certain weight bullet does on average. How do you argue that your way is better, with your way leaving so much relevant data out of the "equation"???

If absolutes are going to be brought up anywhere, then I absolutely fail to see how there's any fair method to your way of thinking. Am I wrong, or am I taking what you said a way other than you meant it?
And, you compare the numbers, not percentages, for comparison. And, do not include surface area (or diameter) at all. It's surfacea area that provides resistance to slow the object. So, sure, a lighter .55" object may penentrate deeper than a .65" heavier object (difference is surface area is about 30%). But, it's not correct to think a .55" light object will penetrate deeper than a .55" heavier object. Or, that the (faster) light object, of the same size, will penetrate deeper after hitting a hard barrier. Nothing in physics supports this. And, that's not koolaid. More "useless physics" data below.
I certainly do take surphase area into account. For me it generally goes hand in hand with bullet design/construction. And right along with surphase area it still depends on how quickly or not a JHP opens to max surphase area compared to another.

Let's look at some loads in your favorite 9mm bullet weight (all shot into clothed gel from a 4" barrel):

Fed HST 147gr, 1000fps, expansion = .66", penetration depth = 14.4"
Win T-Series 147gr, 990fps, expansion = .66", penetration depth = 14.5"
Speer GD 147gr, 990fps, expansion = .58", penetration depth = 15.25"

Pretty simple concept that I am well aware of. Velocities all practically equal, 3 different bullets by 3 different manufacturers, 2 different surphase areas, and therefore 2 different penetration depths. Not sure why you'ld even attempt calling me out on that as if I was lost or something.
My analogy was about overcoming hard barriers. In my analogy it was a linebacker breaking through the OL to get to the QB. So, yes, the analogy applies. Again, as I stated, with a clear line to QB and it does not matter. Heavier objects overcome most typical hard obstacles better, on average, and retain more momentum for use later on. That's why linebackers are not 115lb, 124lb, 165lb or 180lb. In the analogy, overcoming a barrier (e.g. the OL) and retaining adequate energy (for the QB) relates. That's simple physics. And, that's applicable IMO. Perfectly? No. Conceptually? Yes. (See preamble)
I'm sorry, but your whole comparison is way off base IMO. We're just going to have to agree to disagree here. We'ld simply be arguing semantics, till like, forever.:fred:

glock20c10mm
05-10-2011, 00:52
...likely to stick with the 115-grain (9mm 3" barrel) and 124-grain (9mm 4" barrel) ammo I currently carry.
Do you have an opinion on Winchester Ranger T Series 127gr +P+? Have you ever toyed with them at all? They appear to offer the highest BPW this side of a 115gr +P/+P+.

And, what 115gr have you settled on, or, are you using till you do settle?

esminbritt
05-10-2011, 16:27
What 9mm pistol are you planning on shooting 147-grain ammo through, esminbritt? That information might elicit more comments and suggestions.

I own two 9mm pistols and I've never shot any 147-grain ammo through either, as I believe as others have written that sufficient velocity is necessary to ensure reliable expansion.

I know there are newer bullet designs alleged to solve this particular problem but since the 9mm caliber was originally designed for a 123/124-grain bullet my thinking is why not just stick to what works.

I will admit to being curious about the heavy-for-caliber argument but there's a voice within that whispers, "Instead of trying to mimic .45ACP why not just buy a 1911 .45ACP?"

For the record I plan on picking up some standard pressure 147-grain HST and Gold Dot ammo but I will also say that unless these rounds impress to a great degree I'm likely to stick with the 115-grain (9mm 3" barrel) and 124-grain (9mm 4" barrel) ammo I currently carry. I almost certainly won't consider carrying the 147-grain ammo in the smaller pistol due to the velocity issue.

I think your 147-grain HST +P could very well be an excellent round but in a pistol not designed for +P ammo or one with a short barrel there could be better choices.

I am using a Glock Gen 4 G17. 4.49" barrel. Glock says +P ammo is fine, but they said not to use +P+ loads. I was tempted to buy a larger caliber pistol. I chose the 9mm due to the availability and affordability of the ammo. Also I think that the most important thing I learned from you all is that shot placement is of paramount importance. This is my first pistol. I need to practice...a LOT. I have a 1 year old daughter and I cant afford to buy .45 ACP rounds in enough quantity to allow for skill development.

Merkavaboy
05-10-2011, 17:43
I am using a Glock Gen 4 G17. 4.49" barrel. Glock says +P ammo is fine, but they said not to use +P+ loads. I was tempted to buy a larger caliber pistol. I chose the 9mm due to the availability and affordability of the ammo. Also I think that the most important thing I learned from you all is that shot placement is of paramount importance. This is my first pistol. I need to practice...a LOT. I have a 1 year old daughter and I cant afford to buy .45 ACP rounds in enough quantity to allow for skill development.

Unless if Glock is making their new pistols out of zinc and pot-metal, the G17 can shoot ANY factory ammo including NATO and +P+ pressure loads.

glock20c10mm
05-10-2011, 18:21
I think that the most important thing I learned from you all is that shot placement is of paramount importance.
Yeah, but doesn't that go without saying? I mean, I pretty sure even those that don't know the first thing about guns or ammo realize that if you miss the adversary, be it dog or human or whatever, that neither the gun nor ammo will do us much good, and a flesh wound won't help either, at least to a determined attacker.

So of course shot placement is paramount once you've got something to fire at the adversary. Beyond that, it is very important to understand the pros and cons of what we end up choosing to use for ammunition. Precisely why most rounds from 25 Auto through 380 Auto are generally considered a bad choice overall.

9mm is the first round, where when the proper bullet is used, it has a fair chance of doing the job of stopping or incapacitating an adversary, according to FBI protocol. And yes, there are definately bullets to stay away from in any common self defense round. For example, steer way clear of the Glaser products as penetration depth is not adequate. In 9mm specifically, steer clear of any bullet weight below 115gr because then also, penetration depth will not be adequate.

So yeah, you need to hit the perp! And beyond that, there are still VERY IMPORTANT decisions to be made. Like that there's a reason we choose hollow points over full metal jacketed bullets. May seem trivial, but on top of that, not all JHPs are created equal. Some are more reliable at expanding in the first place. Some are more suseptable to the hollow point being clogged by clothing, either hindering or stopping any expansion capabilities at all.

Bottomline, it isn't just about shot placement.


Stay Safe,
Craig:thumbsup:

cole
05-10-2011, 20:47
That depends on our definitions of "modern loads". I'ld still consider HydraShoks and SilverTips relatively modern, just not a top notch choice IMO. Do you? Some people think the SilverTips in one load or another are "great" overall.

As for "cherry-picking", I'm not sure I follow you here. I don't mean that in a way of being trollish, just not sure where you're coming from with it.

For example, in my mind, ultimately most of us end up "cherry-picking" one or two loads that we think will work best for our own way of thinking and risk assessments. How can we choose a favorite without "cherry-picking" it?

We look at all that's available and eventually cherry-pick from the group what suits our interests best, right? I mean, I'ld say myself and many others do. You don't?, or what?

I can see where cherry-picking can also be a bad thing, but not in the context we're talking. What am I missing in your meaning of "cherry-picking"?

Hmmmm. My whole preface is/was that there aren't any absolutes with penetration depth between 124gr and 147gr 9mm JHP projectiles because of different bullet constuctions, launch velocities... How is that talking in absolutes?

As for your preference to see things by way of probability, how can you intelligently pick what may or may not be a best load that way? So you simply ARBITRARILY pick any 147gr load for sale and assume they all penetrate about the same???

Well heck, on that note there are some 124gr JHPs that penetrate about the same as some 147gr JHPs. But since your interpetation of physics doesn't tell you that, you then blindly ignore the FACT???

I look at what each bullet does on average. You look at what a certain weight bullet does on average. How do you argue that your way is better, with your way leaving so much relevant data out of the "equation"???

If absolutes are going to be brought up anywhere, then I absolutely fail to see how there's any fair method to your way of thinking. Am I wrong, or am I taking what you said a way other than you meant it?

I certainly do take surphase area into account. For me it generally goes hand in hand with bullet design/construction. And right along with surphase area it still depends on how quickly or not a JHP opens to max surphase area compared to another.

Let's look at some loads in your favorite 9mm bullet weight (all shot into clothed gel from a 4" barrel):

Fed HST 147gr, 1000fps, expansion = .66", penetration depth = 14.4"
Win T-Series 147gr, 990fps, expansion = .66", penetration depth = 14.5"
Speer GD 147gr, 990fps, expansion = .58", penetration depth = 15.25"

Pretty simple concept that I am well aware of. Velocities all practically equal, 3 different bullets by 3 different manufacturers, 2 different surphase areas, and therefore 2 different penetration depths. Not sure why you'ld even attempt calling me out on that as if I was lost or something.

I'm sorry, but your whole comparison is way off base IMO. We're just going to have to agree to disagree here. We'ld simply be arguing semantics, till like, forever.:fred:


First, we are talking 9mm because that's what the G17 fires. And, we are talking service loads in service guns, not handloads in something else. That said, I'll move on.

What I find, in our exchanges on this topic over the years, is we are two smart people, that have researched an issue, and come to two different conclusions. Basically, we represent two academic camps:
> You: Energy (light and fast)
> Me: Momentum (heavy and slow)
We can resist such categorization, even if just because we don't like to be placed in a box, but, that's pretty much our camps.

Energy camp:
Favors velocity which favors energy. BPW considered.

Momentum camp:
Favors mass which favors momentum. BPW not considered.

Reminder: We are talking 9mm

I believe for rifles enery is key and meaningful BPW applies. But, for service loads in service handguns it's much more about momentum; that is retaining the energy. And, I believe meaningful BPW, if it occurs at all, is a bonus not worth serious consideration for service loads. The key word IMO is "meaningful", not whether BPW occurs because of course it does given the body is mostly water. However, I believe the initial energy levels are just so close in service loads, and too low overall, to make a meaningful difference. Mass on the other hand retains momentum and offers a more dense object. That, I feel, is far more important and is meaningful in service loads.

Reminder: We are talking 9mm

Quoting your post was a platform for a direct response, and a general reponse as well. You know people cherry-pick. And you surely know, given our exchanges, that when I say cherry-pick it means not to compare best vs. best. Skimming the top to compare the best is not cherry-picking because this is comparing the best vs. best (e.g. best 115 vs. best 124 vs. best 147). Comparing a bonded vs. non-bonded is an example of cherry-picking. Comparing a so-so load vs. a top load is cherry-picking. Comparing a single unique outcome to many common outcomes is cherry-picking. As is comparing penetration of a .55" light object to a .65" heavy object and saying, look, the .55" object went deeper. Honestly, it seems odd the need to clarify what seems pretty obvious.

Reminder: We are talking 9mm

We all agree, I hope, that a 147gr FMJ will penetrate further than a 115gr and 124gr FMJ. What suprises me is that people question this fact when considering HP because the obvious reason for any change would be surface area (i.e. diameter, expansion, etc.). This generates my comment about how we dismiss basic physics when it suits us, or when we fail to understand it. This relates to the football (LB, OL and QB) analogy. Light objects lose velocity and energy/momentum more rapidly. So, while they start faster they slow quickly (start faster, "end" slower). And, if you add a hard obstacle the loss is more rapid still. (Some use the term "energy dump".) However, heavy objects retain momentum better (start slower, "end" faster). Heavier objects are also less effected by hard obstacles (because their greater mass helps retain more momentum - i.e. to avoid an "energy dump"). So, putting all this together in a conceptual visual, to the left of the "x" (i.e. where the lines cross) favors light/fast and to the right of the "x" favors heavy/slow. So, light/fast is favored early, heavy/slow later. The assumption(s) made is where the "x" occurs AND where along that line you encounter something important AND the needed retained energy (i.e. momentum) you need to destroy it.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_4xrAuaGHkLI/TcoDvaH3h0I/AAAAAAAAEoo/FbwwhoHS-yo/s800/Momentum%20Graph%20-%20CONCEPTUAL2.jpg
Again, this is physics. If anyone has credible data that refutes this I'd love to hear it, and as noted, so would NASA.

By modern, I mean a current optimal load. And, Hydra-Shok is not it. Again, seems obvious.

Reminder: We are talking 9mm

For a conceptual of surface area relative to resistance (which slows an object), see LEFT image above (i.e. "Unobstructed") and replace "heavy/slow" with .55" and "light/fast" with .65". So, as for "absolutes", given we're talking 9mm service loads and the velocities they travel, if you have reliable, substantiated data that supports a .55" lighter 9mm penetrates deeper than a .65" heavier 9mm I'd like to see that. Or, even that a .65" lighter 9mm penetrates, on average (i.e. overall, aggregate, consistently, etc.), equally to a .65" heavier 9mm. Again, consistently. Nothing in physics support this. And, I first look to the physics and question limited data to the contrary until it's proven by extensive independent data. I've yet to see any.

Probability relates to the likelihood of an outcome. It looks at averages and aggregate outcomes, not a single and/or limited-case outcome. It's hardly "arbitrary". And, this seems pretty obvious so I cannot imagine a need to explain that further as it relates to this discussion.

Honestly, as this point I think I'll just stop. I find now I'm really waiting for the "shot placement is all that matters" and/or "all handguns suck" (and so on) comments. It's hard to tell if your replies are serious given our past dicussions. Particularly, in how befuddled you seem at my meanings and how simple you appear to make my discussion seem (e.g. the comments around what's "cherry-picking", what's a "modern load", what are "absolutes", what's "arbitrary", etc.), and the failure to directly address my real inquiries. :wavey:

glock20c10mm
05-10-2011, 22:21
First, we are talking 9mm because that's what the G17 fires. And, we are talking service loads in service guns, not handloads in something else. That said, I'll move on.

What I find, in our exchanges on this topic over the years, is we are two smart people, that have researched an issue, and come to two different conclusions. Basically, we represent two camps:
> You: Energy (light and fast)
> Me: Momentum (heavy and slow)
We can argue the finer points of each, even if just because we don't like to be placed in an box, but, that's pretty much our camps.

Energy camp:
Favors velocity which favors energy which favors BPW.

Momentum camp:
Favors mass which favors momentum. BPW not considered.

Reminder: We are talking 9mm

I believe for rifles enery is key and meaningful BPW applies. But, for service loads it's much more about momentum; that is retaining the energy. And, I believe meaningful BPW, if it occurs at all, is a bonus not worth serious consideration for service loads. The key word IMO is "meaningful", not whether BPW occurs because of course it does given the body is mostly water. However, I believe the initial energy levels are just so close in service loads, and too low overall, to make a meaningful difference. Mass on the other hand retains momentum and offers a more dense object. That, I feel, is far more important and is meaningful in service loads.

Reminder: We are talking 9mm

Quoting your post was a platform for a direct response, and a general reponse as well. You know people cherry-pick. And you surely know, given our exchanges, that when I say cherry-pick it means not to compare best vs. best. Skimming the top to compare the best is not cherry-picking because this is comparing the best vs. best (e.g. best 115 vs. best 124 vs. best 147). Comparing a bonded vs. non-bonded is an example of cherry-picking. Comparing a so-so load vs. a top load is cherry-picking. Comparing a single unique outcome to many common outcomes is cherry-picking. As is comparing penetration of a .55" light object to a .65" heavy object and saying, look, the .55" object went deeper. Honestly, it seems odd the need to clarify what seems pretty obvious.

Reminder: We are talking 9mm

We all agree, I hope, that a 147gr FMJ will penetrate further than a 115gr and 124gr FMJ. What suprises me is that people question this fact when considering HP because the obvious reason for any change would be surface area (i.e. diameter, expansion, etc.). This generates my comment about how we dismiss basic physics when it suits us, or when we fail to understand it. This relates to the football (LB, OL and QB) analogy.

By modern, I mean a current optimal load. And, Hydra-Shok is not it. Again, seems obvious.

Reminder: We are talking 9mm

As for "absolutes", given we're talking 9mm service loads and the velocities they travel, if you have reliable, substantiated data that supports a .55" lighter 9mm penetrates deeper than a .65" heavier 9mm I'd like to see that. Or, even that a .65" lighter 9mm penetrates, on average (i.e. overall, aggregate, consistently, etc.), equally to a .65" heavier 9mm. Again, consistently. Nothing in physics support this. And, I first look to the physics and question limited data to the contrary until it's proven by extensive independent data. I've yet to see any.

Probability relates to the likelihood of an outcome. It looks at averages and aggregate outcomes, not a single and/or limited-case outcome. It's hardly "arbitrary". And, this seems pretty obvious so I cannot imagine a need to explain that further as it relates to this discussion.

Honestly, as this point I think I'll just stop. I find now I'm really waiting for the "shot placement is all that matters" comment. It's hard to tell if your replies are serious given our past dicussions. Particularly, in how befuddled you seem at my meanings and how simple you appear to make my discussion seem (e.g. the comments around what's "cherry-picking", what's a "modern load", what are "absolutes", what's "arbitrary", etc.), and the failure to directly address my real inquiries. :wavey:
In my last post to you there were some things I didn't address because I felt we were more/less on the same page with what you said. Maybe that's why you feel I didn't address your real inquiries?

Otherwise, I like what you had to say in this post. Yeah, we think from different lines of thought, but I understand the rational reasoning you have for not being on my side of the fence. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

As for cherry-picking, it can be bad (maybe dishonest is a better word), but it can also just as easily be completely innocent and proper. When you first brought it up I just couldn't figure where you were coming from with it, and depending on which way and why could have changed the whole meaning of what you were trying to convey. I didn't want that and don't like to assume, so I asked, that's all.

You know, when two different people debate based individually on 2 completely different ways of looking at something, it's not always that easy to get where the other is going with something. So I don't assume, I ask. That's all, no big deal. I was being 110% serious.

Anyway, I think this was one of the best debates I've had with anyone in quite a while. I also think many have had a chance to learn a lot beyond the ordinary with what we all brought up, along with explaining why we individually think the way we do.

One last thing I want to bring up so you don't think I'm copping out or dodging you; Let me go straight to how we both look at cherry-picking differently. And please, don't fight me on this, it just is the way it is, and IMO, I don't see either one of our views being wrong, just two different ways a looking at the whole picture.

And yes, this whole time I'm sticking to 9mm only, even though the following would apply to most common SD cartridges and the bullets available.

When I look at all the bullets available, I group nonbonded and bonded together. I KNOW, YOU DON'T, and why. Just bear with me as I'm simply explaining my own outlook. Yes, bonded bullets will practically always outpenetrate a nonbonded design. But to me, who cares. Bonded or not, I look at expansion and penetration characteristics (and peak ballistic pressure wave, but that's kind of beside the point here) and make a choice.

Whether you separate them or not, to me, who cares. Because to me, by separating them, you're simply adding another step toward making a choice. To me that is unneccesary. That isn't cherry-picking to me, the way you were bringing it up, as I wasn't cherry-picking to skew any outcome (even though it would be to you as you separate bonded and nonbonded).

With that said alone, I expect it helps you understand how I came up with questions you could not imagine I should be having.

So of course, some nonbonded 147gr bullets won't penetrate as far as some bonded 124gr bullets, and that to you, it's an unfair way to judge because of mixing different designs/constuctions together. But if we wouldn't have talked it out the way we did, then I think there's a good possiblity that some following this thread would have walked away with an incorrect understanding of where we were individually coming from.

I could be more detailed in spelling it out, but I'm thinking I rambled enough already.


Good Shooting,
Craig:phew:

unit1069
05-11-2011, 03:52
Do you have an opinion on Winchester Ranger T Series 127gr +P+? Have you ever toyed with them at all? They appear to offer the highest BPW this side of a 115gr +P/+P+.

I have no opinion on the Winchester 127-grain +P+ because I've never seen any, much less bought any. I know there are a lot of folks who carry that particular round. I currently have Remington 124-grain Golden Saber +P in the Steyr M9-A1 because to date that particular round provides the best overall shooting characteristics of any ammo I've tried. I recently picked up some Federal 135-grain Tactical Bonded +P but haven't had the chance to try that out.

Although I strongly lean towards the BPW theory the priorities I give to ballistics are: shot placement, penetration, expansion, reliability, and total overall shooting characteristics of the particular pistol/ammo combination. The Courtneys themselves have written that BPW is not a factor that replaces any of these criteria as primary considerations when it comes to ammo selection. In other threads where BPW is discussed I'm always amazed at those who repeatedly and erroneously claim that BPW adherents advocate ammo selection based upon upon that criterion alone, regardless of the times the relevant sections of the Courtney research is posted.

And, what 115gr have you settled on, or, are you using till you do settle?

I have the Fiocchi 115-grain Extrema XTP for the Kel-Tec PF-9 as it's far and away the most accurate round I've shot in that pistol. I read that the XTP was an accurate bullet and I must say it's proven true so far, at least in that weight bullet in that particular pistol. I tried some 124-grain Extrema XTP in the Steyr but wasn't so impressed with that pistol/ammo combination. I'm starting to appreciate the observations of some members who keep a keen eye out for the performance they get from each box of carry ammo they buy, even with multible boxes of the exact same ammo. I have begun seeing some of the various 115-grain +P+ ammos available online and I will probably pick up a couple of boxes the next time I order, although I won't be shooting that ammo in the Kel-Tec.

unit1069
05-11-2011, 04:04
I am using a Glock Gen 4 G17. 4.49" barrel. Glock says +P ammo is fine, but they said not to use +P+ loads. I was tempted to buy a larger caliber pistol. I chose the 9mm due to the availability and affordability of the ammo. Also I think that the most important thing I learned from you all is that shot placement is of paramount importance. This is my first pistol. I need to practice...a LOT. I have a 1 year old daughter and I cant afford to buy .45 ACP rounds in enough quantity to allow for skill development.

You bought a very fine pistol; can you tell me your impression of the different backstraps as I was just about to purchase another Generation 3 model until I remembered the new Generation 4 backstrap options. I know it's something I'll have to feel for myself but owners' input is always welcome.

I agree with shot placement but disagree on avoiding +P+ ammo in your Glock. As Merkavaboy already answered, you can shoot that pressure ammo without worries, although for someone on a budget I doubt you will. From what research I've read there really isn't a whole lot of performance difference between standard pressure and +P/+P+ ammo, all things being equal. ATK's excellent online videos and statistics comparing their various brands of LEO ammo supports my observation. The larger differences seem to be between bonded and non-bonded ammo and each has its own advantages, which is why I like having one mag loaded with bonded and the other with non-bonded as long as both types fulfill the performance requirements I listed in my previous post.

esminbritt
05-11-2011, 11:55
You bought a very fine pistol; can you tell me your impression of the different backstraps as I was just about to purchase another Generation 3 model until I remembered the new Generation 4 backstrap options. I know it's something I'll have to feel for myself but owners' input is always welcome.

I agree with shot placement but disagree on avoiding +P+ ammo in your Glock. As Merkavaboy already answered, you can shoot that pressure ammo without worries, although for someone on a budget I doubt you will. From what research I've read there really isn't a whole lot of performance difference between standard pressure and +P/+P+ ammo, all things being equal. ATK's excellent online videos and statistics comparing their various brands of LEO ammo supports my observation. The larger differences seem to be between bonded and non-bonded ammo and each has its own advantages, which is why I like having one mag loaded with bonded and the other with non-bonded as long as both types fulfill the performance requirements I listed in my previous post.

As for backstraps, I chose to install the largest one that came from Glock. I have big old hand with big sausage fingers. The big grip felt better in my hand, although I will continue to experiment with the standard grip and the medium grip.

As for the +P vs. +P+, I chose the +P because a Glock Manufacturer rep. told me that +P+ would increase the wear on my gun significantly. I figure, I'ma decent shot, and I will improve. If I cant hit hit a well placed shot in a BG within 17 rounds, +P+ is not the answer. I am comfortable putting everything on the line and trusting myself to hit something important with a comparatively heavy (147 gr. for 9mm) bullet that will expand well and big. And the extra 50 FPS I get from the HST +P cant hurt.

dkf
05-11-2011, 12:57
9mm 147gr Standard Pressure from Kahr CW9 shot into bare gel. (Not my pics)

http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm285/SDV10/9mm147grfromCW9Kahr1.jpg
http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm285/SDV10/9mm147grfromCW9Kahr2.jpg

glock20c10mm
05-11-2011, 21:02
I have no opinion on the Winchester 127-grain +P+ because I've never seen any, much less bought any. I know there are a lot of folks who carry that particular round. I currently have Remington 124-grain Golden Saber +P in the Steyr M9-A1 because to date that particular round provides the best overall shooting characteristics of any ammo I've tried. I recently picked up some Federal 135-grain Tactical Bonded +P but haven't had the chance to try that out.

Although I strongly lean towards the BPW theory the priorities I give to ballistics are: shot placement, penetration, expansion, reliability, and total overall shooting characteristics of the particular pistol/ammo combination. The Courtneys themselves have written that BPW is not a factor that replaces any of these criteria as primary considerations when it comes to ammo selection. In other threads where BPW is discussed I'm always amazed at those who repeatedly and erroneously claim that BPW adherents advocate ammo selection based upon upon that criterion alone, regardless of the times the relevant sections of the Courtney research is posted.

I have the Fiocchi 115-grain Extrema XTP for the Kel-Tec PF-9 as it's far and away the most accurate round I've shot in that pistol. I read that the XTP was an accurate bullet and I must say it's proven true so far, at least in that weight bullet in that particular pistol. I tried some 124-grain Extrema XTP in the Steyr but wasn't so impressed with that pistol/ammo combination. I'm starting to appreciate the observations of some members who keep a keen eye out for the performance they get from each box of carry ammo they buy, even with multible boxes of the exact same ammo. I have begun seeing some of the various 115-grain +P+ ammos available online and I will probably pick up a couple of boxes the next time I order, although I won't be shooting that ammo in the Kel-Tec.
If you've measured, what do the Remington 124-grain Golden Saber +P expand to in your experience?

I like full house loads with Golden Sabers in 10mm. In my experience, they act very similar to XTPs (comparing 180gr to 180gr) except that they expand a hair more (.79" compared to .85")and penetrate a hair less (maybe 1.5" difference), which I liked from what I saw, as 180s in general penetrate plenty far enough for my tastes anyway. Though I still prefer 155gr in 10mm, the 180s were just something I tested for comparison some years ago.

Also, what are the barrel lengths of your Steyr and Kel-Tec?

Edited to add;

I forgot, about you mentioning; "In other threads where BPW is discussed I'm always amazed at those who repeatedly and erroneously claim that BPW adherents advocate ammo selection based upon upon that criterion alone, regardless of the times the relevant sections of the Courtney research is posted."

For me, that's like the understatement of the decade!!! Just got done clearing that up AGAIN in a different thread.:faint::phew: Even though joking to some extent I assume, it was brought up about shooting someone in the big toe in relation to why he partly wasn't buying into BPW. Then he brought up how bad of an idea it would be to choose rounds that don't penetrate to the vitals. He said it different, but that was the jist of it.:shakehead:

glock20c10mm
05-11-2011, 21:10
9mm 147gr Standard Pressure from Kahr CW9 shot into bare gel. (Not my pics)

http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm285/SDV10/9mm147grfromCW9Kahr1.jpg
http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm285/SDV10/9mm147grfromCW9Kahr2.jpg
What specific bullet is in that load? Any idea how far it penetrated?

unit1069
05-12-2011, 05:02
If you've measured, what do the Remington 124-grain Golden Saber +P expand to in your experience?

I don't have the equipment for measurements, but with the Remington 124-grain Golden Saber +P the first advantage is accuracy. I'm not a great marksman but for me the round is as accurate --- or more accurate --- than other comparable rounds I've tried so far. Secondly, when firing the recoil imparts a quick "snap" without much movement of the pistol, allowing quick follow-up. Other rounds in comparison produce more muzzle flip. I have no idea about expansion other from the tests I've seen posted here, which all indicate good performance.

Also, what are the barrel lengths of your Steyr and Kel-Tec?

The Steyr is a 4" barrel; the PF-9 is a 3" barrel.


For me, that's like the understatement of the decade!!! Just got done clearing that up AGAIN in a different thread.:faint::phew: Even though joking to some extent I assume, it was brought up about shooting someone in the big toe in relation to why he partly wasn't buying into BPW. Then he brought up how bad of an idea it would be to choose rounds that don't penetrate to the vitals. He said it different, but that was the jist of it.:shakehead:

Don't worry; the very next time in some other thread where BPW is mentioned you'll see one or more people insist that BPW adherents only look to that factor when considering ammo selection. Even after you or others have carefully presented the facts!

dkf
05-12-2011, 06:32
What specific bullet is in that load? Any idea how far it penetrated?

Its an HST bullet from Federal, factory ammo. Penetrated 16". When I went back to the thread I found the bullet was not shot into bare gel, went through a few layers of denim then into the gel.

esminbritt
05-12-2011, 08:53
Yeah, but doesn't that go without saying? I mean, I pretty sure even those that don't know the first thing about guns or ammo realize that if you miss the adversary, be it dog or human or whatever, that neither the gun nor ammo will do us much good, and a flesh wound won't help either, at least to a determined attacker.

So of course shot placement is paramount once you've got something to fire at the adversary. Beyond that, it is very important to understand the pros and cons of what we end up choosing to use for ammunition. Precisely why most rounds from 25 Auto through 380 Auto are generally considered a bad choice overall.

9mm is the first round, where when the proper bullet is used, it has a fair chance of doing the job of stopping or incapacitating an adversary, according to FBI protocol. And yes, there are definately bullets to stay away from in any common self defense round. For example, steer way clear of the Glaser products as penetration depth is not adequate. In 9mm specifically, steer clear of any bullet weight below 115gr because then also, penetration depth will not be adequate.

So yeah, you need to hit the perp! And beyond that, there are still VERY IMPORTANT decisions to be made. Like that there's a reason we choose hollow points over full metal jacketed bullets. May seem trivial, but on top of that, not all JHPs are created equal. Some are more reliable at expanding in the first place. Some are more suseptable to the hollow point being clogged by clothing, either hindering or stopping any expansion capabilities at all.

Bottomline, it isn't just about shot placement.


Stay Safe,
Craig:thumbsup:

I wasn't saying that placement is the only important factor. I just see it as more important that the other arguably minor differences between other high quality round. I used the word paramount not to rule out other important factors, merely to state the obvious, which is that shot placement is crucial.

esminbritt
05-12-2011, 08:55
You bought a very fine pistol; can you tell me your impression of the different backstraps as I was just about to purchase another Generation 3 model until I remembered the new Generation 4 backstrap options. I know it's something I'll have to feel for myself but owners' input is always welcome.

I agree with shot placement but disagree on avoiding +P+ ammo in your Glock. As Merkavaboy already answered, you can shoot that pressure ammo without worries, although for someone on a budget I doubt you will. From what research I've read there really isn't a whole lot of performance difference between standard pressure and +P/+P+ ammo, all things being equal. ATK's excellent online videos and statistics comparing their various brands of LEO ammo supports my observation. The larger differences seem to be between bonded and non-bonded ammo and each has its own advantages, which is why I like having one mag loaded with bonded and the other with non-bonded as long as both types fulfill the performance requirements I listed in my previous post.

The Glock rep. told me that +P+ would fire , but that it would put lots more wear on the gun over shooting standard pressure or +P loads/

Glolt20-91
05-12-2011, 15:25
First, we are talking 9mm because that's what the G17 fires. And, we are talking service loads in service guns, not handloads in something else. That said, I'll move on.

What I find, in our exchanges on this topic over the years, is we are two smart people, that have researched an issue, and come to two different conclusions. Basically, we represent two academic camps:
> You: Energy (light and fast)
> Me: Momentum (heavy and slow)
We can resist such categorization, even if just because we don't like to be placed in a box, but, that's pretty much our camps.

Energy camp:
Favors velocity which favors energy. BPW considered.

Momentum camp:
Favors mass which favors momentum. BPW not considered.

Reminder: We are talking 9mm

I believe for rifles enery is key and meaningful BPW applies. But, for service loads in service handguns it's much more about momentum; that is retaining the energy. And, I believe meaningful BPW, if it occurs at all, is a bonus not worth serious consideration for service loads. The key word IMO is "meaningful", not whether BPW occurs because of course it does given the body is mostly water. However, I believe the initial energy levels are just so close in service loads, and too low overall, to make a meaningful difference. Mass on the other hand retains momentum and offers a more dense object. That, I feel, is far more important and is meaningful in service loads.

Reminder: We are talking 9mm

Quoting your post was a platform for a direct response, and a general reponse as well. You know people cherry-pick. And you surely know, given our exchanges, that when I say cherry-pick it means not to compare best vs. best. Skimming the top to compare the best is not cherry-picking because this is comparing the best vs. best (e.g. best 115 vs. best 124 vs. best 147). Comparing a bonded vs. non-bonded is an example of cherry-picking. Comparing a so-so load vs. a top load is cherry-picking. Comparing a single unique outcome to many common outcomes is cherry-picking. As is comparing penetration of a .55" light object to a .65" heavy object and saying, look, the .55" object went deeper. Honestly, it seems odd the need to clarify what seems pretty obvious.

Reminder: We are talking 9mm

We all agree, I hope, that a 147gr FMJ will penetrate further than a 115gr and 124gr FMJ. What suprises me is that people question this fact when considering HP because the obvious reason for any change would be surface area (i.e. diameter, expansion, etc.). This generates my comment about how we dismiss basic physics when it suits us, or when we fail to understand it. This relates to the football (LB, OL and QB) analogy. Light objects lose velocity and energy/momentum more rapidly. So, while they start faster they slow quickly (start faster, "end" slower). And, if you add a hard obstacle the loss is more rapid still. (Some use the term "energy dump".) However, heavy objects retain momentum better (start slower, "end" faster). Heavier objects are also less effected by hard obstacles (because their greater mass helps retain more momentum - i.e. to avoid an "energy dump"). So, putting all this together in a conceptual visual, to the left of the "x" (i.e. where the lines cross) favors light/fast and to the right of the "x" favors heavy/slow. So, light/fast is favored early, heavy/slow later. The assumption(s) made is where the "x" occurs AND where along that line you encounter something important AND the needed retained energy (i.e. momentum) you need to destroy it.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_4xrAuaGHkLI/TcoDvaH3h0I/AAAAAAAAEoo/FbwwhoHS-yo/s800/Momentum%20Graph%20-%20CONCEPTUAL2.jpg
Again, this is physics. If anyone has credible data that refutes this I'd love to hear it, and as noted, so would NASA.

By modern, I mean a current optimal load. And, Hydra-Shok is not it. Again, seems obvious.

Reminder: We are talking 9mm

For a conceptual of surface area relative to resistance (which slows an object), see LEFT image above (i.e. "Unobstructed") and replace "heavy/slow" with .55" and "light/fast" with .65". So, as for "absolutes", given we're talking 9mm service loads and the velocities they travel, if you have reliable, substantiated data that supports a .55" lighter 9mm penetrates deeper than a .65" heavier 9mm I'd like to see that. Or, even that a .65" lighter 9mm penetrates, on average (i.e. overall, aggregate, consistently, etc.), equally to a .65" heavier 9mm. Again, consistently. Nothing in physics support this. And, I first look to the physics and question limited data to the contrary until it's proven by extensive independent data. I've yet to see any.

Probability relates to the likelihood of an outcome. It looks at averages and aggregate outcomes, not a single and/or limited-case outcome. It's hardly "arbitrary". And, this seems pretty obvious so I cannot imagine a need to explain that further as it relates to this discussion.

Honestly, as this point I think I'll just stop. I find now I'm really waiting for the "shot placement is all that matters" and/or "all handguns suck" (and so on) comments. It's hard to tell if your replies are serious given our past dicussions. Particularly, in how befuddled you seem at my meanings and how simple you appear to make my discussion seem (e.g. the comments around what's "cherry-picking", what's a "modern load", what are "absolutes", what's "arbitrary", etc.), and the failure to directly address my real inquiries. :wavey:

Nice articulate post. :thumbsup:

Bob :cowboy:

glock20c10mm
05-12-2011, 19:22
Its an HST bullet from Federal, factory ammo. Penetrated 16". When I went back to the thread I found the bullet was not shot into bare gel, went through a few layers of denim then into the gel.
Dang! That's a lot of penetration depth for an HST! I wonder what the expanded diameter was. It looked pretty good, but it's hard to really tell without someone measuring it. Anyway, it looks like a short barrel in combination with at least that weight HST will give as much penetration as most would care to have.

glock20c10mm
05-12-2011, 19:26
I the Glock rep. told me that +P+ would be found, but that it would put lots more wear on the gun over shooting standard pressure or +P loads/
My question to that would be; Just how many rounds of +P/+P+ would it actually take to start showing the accelerated wear? I bet a whole lot! There are G17s out there with over 100,000 rounds through them. Even if they were all standard pressure, it still makes me think a Glock, especially the G17, would have to digest a WHOLE LOT of +P/+P+ loads to matter.

glock20c10mm
05-12-2011, 19:28
I don't have the equipment for measurements, but with the Remington 124-grain Golden Saber +P the first advantage is accuracy. I'm not a great marksman but for me the round is as accurate --- or more accurate --- than other comparable rounds I've tried so far. Secondly, when firing the recoil imparts a quick "snap" without much movement of the pistol, allowing quick follow-up. Other rounds in comparison produce more muzzle flip. I have no idea about expansion other from the tests I've seen posted here, which all indicate good performance.

The Steyr is a 4" barrel; the PF-9 is a 3" barrel.

Don't worry; the very next time in some other thread where BPW is mentioned you'll see one or more people insist that BPW adherents only look to that factor when considering ammo selection. Even after you or others have carefully presented the facts!
Thanks for the info. Always interesting to know the "why" behind the what.

esminbritt
05-13-2011, 05:57
My question to that would be; Just how many rounds of +P/+P+ would it actually take to start showing the accelerated wear? I bet a whole lot! There are G17s out there with over 100,000 rounds through them. Even if they were all standard pressure, it still makes me think a Glock, especially the G17, would have to digest a WHOLE LOT of +P/+P+ loads to matter.

Thats a good question. I haven't able to get much feedback from Glock, but they just suggested I not shoot +P+. Maybe it only hurts the gen 4 G17's? I dunno.

glock20c10mm
05-13-2011, 14:07
Thats a good question. I haven't able to get much feedback from Glock, but they just suggested I not shoot +P+. Maybe it only hurts the gen 4 G17's? I dunno.
That's a good question in reguard to Generation 4 specifically. Over in General Glocking you may just get an answer to that.

Glolt20-91
05-13-2011, 15:05
Thats a good question. I haven't able to get much feedback from Glock, but they just suggested I not shoot +P+. Maybe it only hurts the gen 4 G17's? I dunno.

I have Win 115gr/127gr +P+ and Speer 115gr +P+, I don't have thousands of rounds of this ammo through my gen 3 G17 . . . so I can't say from experience. Both Speer and Winchester (40,000cup) have +P+ headstamps in addition to regular and +P 9mm headstamps.

With a number of upper end handloads, within published guidelines, my first G20 has a noticable loosening slide/frame fit. In contrast, my Steyr M40-A1, that is built more like a G20 than G23, is still tight at 2500+ rounds, more upper end handloads downrange than the G20, plus it's a lot more pleasant to shoot during extended range sessions.

For the handloader, by manipulating powders, one can ballpark 9mm +P+ velocities from published data w/o exceeding 34,075psi, vis `a vis VihtaVuori.

This 147gr Win bonded (RA9B) expanded to 0.611" and is good for ~12" soft tissue penetration;

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/9mm147RA9B995fps4layerdenim004.jpg

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/9mm147RA9B995fps4layerdenim002.jpg

This Win 127gr +P+ expanded to 0.605" and is good for ~ 11" of penetration;

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/9mm127PWinRanger1250fps1150grs0605004.jpg

Sectional density w/i tissue rapidly changes and is ongoing as can be seen between the two bullet weights; the bonded 147gr bullet retains a higher SD, it's momentum yields deeper penetration than the faster 127gr.

An interesting comparison to the above pics is what happens when a bullet exceeds its velocity design window;

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/10mm155GD1420fps007.jpg

10mm/155gr Gold Dot at 1420fps/694fpe, 85.7% retained (bonded) bullet weight, penetration ~8.5".

Substantial energy increases don't always yield better performance.

Bob :cowboy:

Pred8tory
05-13-2011, 19:59
These results for the 147 grain Golden Saber are through a Rohrbaugh with a 2.9" barrel. It evenbetter through something like a Glock 26:

http://www.brassfetcher.com/index_files/Page2449.htm

dkf
05-14-2011, 08:03
Dang! That's a lot of penetration depth for an HST! I wonder what the expanded diameter was. It looked pretty good, but it's hard to really tell without someone measuring it. Anyway, it looks like a short barrel in combination with at least that weight HST will give as much penetration as most would care to have.

The amount of penetration surprised me also. I suspect the bullet didn't start expanding until it was well within the gel due the fairly low velocity.

glock20c10mm
05-14-2011, 21:19
The amount of penetration surprised me also. I suspect the bullet didn't start expanding until it was well within the gel due the fairly low velocity.
And maybe the expansion is only .55" or so, therefore allowing it to penetrate to that depth anyway. What I really like to see is that even at about the lowest velocity that bullet will ever be propelled at, it still expanded uniformly.

dkf
05-15-2011, 08:43
And maybe the expansion is only .55" or so, therefore allowing it to penetrate to that depth anyway. What I really like to see is that even at about the lowest velocity that bullet will ever be propelled at, it still expanded uniformly.

Yeah probably around the .550" mark. That is what I have been seeing with the HST bullet, they love to expand even when you throw denim in the mix. I wish the HST bullet only was offered to the reloader.

A6Gator
05-15-2011, 09:01
You guys are really on a roll here. My Frau and I decided on the 147 HST for her G19 because after trying 10 different kinds of defensive ammo (from 115 +p/+p+, to various 124/127gr loads to the 147grs) the HST, for her, had the least snap and muzzle flash. It was a load that she had confidence she could shoot well. YMMV

Deputydave
05-17-2011, 20:57
one torso shot of 45 is 100% guarantee to stop an assailant vs maybe 3 of 9mm

At about this point is when you tune out this individual. It took Sgt. Hathcock 7 rounds from a Winchester model 70 to stop a small framed VC. If one rifle round to the chest from one of the best snipers in the world isn't a guarentee...don't bet the farm on one round of anything in a handgun.

In answer to your 9mm question, a 147 is fine in your 9mm as long as the round in question functions without a problem. All of the major (and all the minor) ammo makers produce fine 147's such as Ranger, Gold Dot etc. Pick one, practice with it and you'll be fine.

glock20c10mm
05-19-2011, 20:46
It took Sgt. Hathcock 7 rounds from a Winchester model 70 to stop a small framed VC. If one rifle round to the chest from one of the best snipers in the world isn't a guarentee...don't bet the farm on one round of anything in a handgun.
Yes, but many VC were high on opium when they went out to do battle. That could have been the case in that story. Also, it doesn't make the bullets more effective whether or not a sniper was one of the best or not if shot placement was where we would have wanted it to be in the first place, which I don't think we know if it was or not. Besides the fact that if the VC was sniped from some distance away, along with the bullets probably being FMJ, the bullets could have been passing through the VC leaving little more than "pin holes", same as we see in long range hunting some of the time depending on the bullet being used.

Of course I agree on the "not betting the farm" part!!!

Deputydave
05-19-2011, 21:03
Yes, but many VC were high on opium when they went out to do battle. That could have been the case in that story. Also, it doesn't make the bullets more effective whether or not a sniper was one of the best or not if shot placement was where we would have wanted it to be in the first place, which I don't think we know if it was or not. Besides the fact that if the VC was sniped from some distance away, along with the bullets probably being FMJ, the bullets could have been passing through the VC leaving little more than "pin holes", same as we see in long range hunting some of the time depending on the bullet being used.

Of course I agree on the "not betting the farm" part!!!

I believe the VC was intoxicated on jungle juice. And it actually took 7 shots to kill him, the last being a head shot at about 25 yards if I remember the account correctly. From reading the account, Hathcock stated he saw his rounds taking out chunks of the VC's chest.

The point that I was making is that there are no guarentees in handgunning. The best shot placement, in exactly the right spot, at exactly the right time, with exactly the right round....may still fail. Humans are pretty tough, some more than others.

DEADEYEGUY
05-21-2011, 10:41
The .45 being the "hand of god" b.s. is really old. All the major service rounds have great failures and great success. The mid-weight +p or +P+ rounds in 9mm have excellent real world experience stops. The 147's such as the 147gr. +P HST is excellent also. Pick a good JHP. Make sure it feed well in your gun. Then stop worrying about it and put your time in training and getting good instructions. That's what carries the day.

esminbritt
05-21-2011, 17:44
The .45 being the "hand of god" b.s. is really old. All the major service rounds have great failures and great success. The mid-weight +p or +P+ rounds in 9mm have excellent real world experience stops. The 147's such as the 147gr. +P HST is excellent also. Pick a good JHP. Make sure it feed well in your gun. Then stop worrying about it and put your time in training and getting good instructions. That's what carries the day.

This makes sense to me as a newbie. I bought a case of Federal 147 +P HST 9mm rounds and they fed flawlessly through my g17. I still have 250 rounds, which is probably enough for anything short of a war, in which case I won't be relying solely on my pistol. I might buy another case just to satisfy my inner nut-job. I am shooting Federal 147 FMJ flat points as target ammo. It's hard to find, but it's almost as cheap as bulk 115's and as I understand it, it's helpful tp shoot the same weight round as I plan to carry.