9mm: 124 vs 147 for SD? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : 9mm: 124 vs 147 for SD?


ViennaGambit
01-21-2012, 13:35
Need to order some more self defense ammo for my Glock 26 and just wondering which weight is more preferred:

124 or 147?

Is it just come down to personal preference on penetration vs. size of hole?

Maybe I should just give Buffalo Bore's 147 +P a try for best of both worlds...

Tried searching as I'm sure this comes up, but couldnt find a decent thread.

Thanks.

barth
01-21-2012, 13:39
Need to order some more self defense ammo for my Glock 26 and just wondering which weight is more preferred:

124 or 147?

Is it just come down to personal preference on penetration vs. size of hole?

Maybe I should just give Buffalo Bore's 147 +P a try for best of both worlds...

Tried searching as I'm sure this comes up, but couldnt find a decent thread.

Thanks.

Either will serve you well.
I believe 124/127 +P/+P+ is likely the most used.
Winchester Ranger T 127 +P+
Speer GDHP 124 +P
http://www.gunlistings.org/uploads/22353_20100525085430_1.jpg

ViennaGambit
01-21-2012, 13:44
Thank you - have been carrying the Speer 124 +P, but just trying to make the best decisions.

hotpig
01-21-2012, 14:05
Back in the 90's the +P and +P+ were popular in short barrel guns. Technology has changed that. Some still prefer throw backs like +P but it does not really help with performance. It is just a personal preference.

cowboy1964
01-21-2012, 14:21
I think you'll find most pros recommend a hotter load for shorter barrels. Though a G26 is not what I would consider truly short, like a 3".

Gold Dot 9mm Short Barrel is a 124+P, not a 115, 124, or 147. Of course the Short Barrel ammo has a special bullet designed to open at lower velocities yet Speer still makes it a +P. I think that's telling.

KS Trekker
01-21-2012, 14:29
I think you'll find most pros recommend a hotter load for shorter barrels. Though a G26 is not what I would consider truly short, like a 3".

Gold Dot 9mm Short Barrel is a 124+P, not a 115, 124, or 147. Of course the Short Barrel ammo has a special bullet designed to open at lower velocities yet Speer still makes it a +P. I think that's telling.

The Speer Gold Dot 124+p is my favorite in my G26.

hotpig
01-21-2012, 14:36
Speer was the last of the big three to offer lower velocity ammo. The T-Series was the first.

I still sell lots of +P ammo but there has been a steady decline in the demand. Some brands I stock the 147gr three to one on the lighter +P offerings.

The GD 124+P has always been a good selling round for me. I suspect it will remain so for a while.

Ranger45
01-21-2012, 15:50
I've used Speer GDHP in 124+P, but prefer Winchester Rangers or Federal HST in 147 gr.

unit1069
01-21-2012, 15:57
I believe 124/127 +P +P+ is likely the most used.

http://www.gunlistings.org/uploads/22353_20100525085430_1.jpg

I don't know if this round is "the most used" but according to those whose opinions I most respect it's the one they currently list highest for effectiveness. These same experts will caution that it's up to the individual to shoot enough of any CCW ammo to guarantee reliability with the chosen self-defense weapon.

The 124-grain Speer Gold Dot +P is a very close second choice and the 115-grain Federal +P+ 9BPLE (and other similar rounds) are a highly-regarded third choice. (Again, going by the experts' list of preferred 9mm JHP self-defense rounds.)

The experts' opinions are arrived at from investigating proven street cred documentation and not solely on the published reports from guys in white lab coats with bifocals and hand-held calculators.

Experience has taught police that what actually happens on the street is more important than what happens in the artificial environment of the laboratory. The 9mm round now acknowledged to work the best is a 124-grain to 127-grain high tech hollow point at a velocity of 1250 feet per second. NYPD, with some 30,000 officers carrying this type of ammo, the Speer Gold Dot +P 124-grain, is happy with the performance of its 9mm service pistols. Ditto the Orlando, Florida, Police Department, which uses the Winchester Ranger 127-grain +P+ in their standard issue 9mm SIGs.

unit1069
01-21-2012, 16:14
The GD 124+P has always been a good selling round for me. I suspect it will remain so for a while.

I would think so since the round you mention is the de facto standard for effective 9mm JHP ammo by which all other rounds are measured, from all I've heard and read.

In every caliber there are certain rounds that are promoted as "the best of the best" but in every case the standard measurement centers on Speer Gold Dot and its proven record of quality and effectiveness. That's why I consider it the de facto standard JHP self-defense ammo and why everybody could do themselves a service by starting out with Gold Dot and then expanding their search for a better round using this baseline standard.

I wish I'd had known this from the outset as I would have saved enough money spent on ammo/testing to purchase another fine firearm.

9mm +p+
01-21-2012, 16:33
Back in the 90's the +P and +P+ were popular in short barrel guns. Technology has changed that. Some still prefer throw backs like +P but it does not really help with performance. It is just a personal preference.

"Throwbacks"?? I'll keep my "throwback" 127+P+'s thanks, you can have those overhyped 147's all you want. You have several choices with the 9mm, standard pressure 115/124=38 special lighter bullet loads, 147's= the oh so effective 158 load for 38 special or you can go light 357 magnum with the sensible and often suggested "throwback" +p/+p+ 124/127. The choice is yours, I run 127 +p+'s and wouldn't consider a 147 for anything other than punching paper.

backcast88
01-21-2012, 17:47
I like 147 in 9mm. I find that 147 grain bullets shoot a little better in my 26. I have shot Gold Dot's and HST +p. I prefer the HST's and only have the +p version b/c when I bought them the standard pressure version was not available. When I find standard pressure 147 HST's I will buy them but until the 147+p will have to do.

You cant go wrong with 124/127 or 147 in any high quality manufacture, just a matter of what you want.

DocKWL
01-22-2012, 11:46
I don't know if this round is "the most used" but according to those whose opinions I most respect it's the one they currently list highest for effectiveness. These same experts will caution that it's up to the individual to shoot enough of any CCW ammo to guarantee reliability with the chosen self-defense weapon.

The 124-grain Speer Gold Dot +P is a very close second choice and the 115-grain Federal +P+ 9BPLE (and other similar rounds) are a highly-regarded third choice. (Again, going by the experts' list of preferred 9mm JHP self-defense rounds.)

The experts' opinions are arrived at from investigating proven street cred documentation and not solely on the published reports from guys in white lab coats with bifocals and hand-held calculators.

The quote in this post is disingenuous and (without trying to moderate) is in violation of forum rules for not including a link to the full text which would allow an interested reader to acknowledge the author and understand the context for which it was written.

unit1069
01-22-2012, 11:53
The quote in this post is disingenuous and (without trying to moderate) is in violation of forum rules for not including a link to the full text which would allow an interested reader to acknowledge the author and understand the context for which it was written.

I do apologize if my post hit a nerve, Mr. Doc. But eggheads have always been targets of caricature as long as I can remember. You know, the guys with the slide rule, Coke-bottle glasses, etc ...

I'm sorry it hit so close to home, my friend.

PS Going purely on your quoting the text I wrote.

LawScholar
01-22-2012, 12:33
Federal HST 147-grain

Speed Gold Dot 124-grain +p

Pick one and rest easy! :)

DocKWL
01-22-2012, 12:49
I would like to think that one day the line drawn in the sand will erode away.

This forum has a distinction for the runaway propagation of misinformation. This may come as a revelation for many but there has never (or at least for many years) been any such delineation as "slow versus heavy" or "guys in white lab coats with bifocals and hand-held calculators" versus "street cred". Such statements perpetuate from the misinformed, those which may have financial gain, or from those peddling their pet theory.

Example:

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887

"The following loads all demonstrate outstanding terminal performance and can be considered acceptable for duty/self-defense use:"

9 mm:
Barnes XPB 115 gr JHP (copper bullet)
Federal Tactical 124 gr JHP (LE9T1)
Federal HST 124 gr +P JHP (P9HST3)
Remington Golden Saber 124 gr +P JHP bonded (GSB9MMD)
Speer Gold Dot 124 gr +P JHP
Winchester Partition Gold 124 gr JHP (RA91P)
Winchester Ranger-T 124 gr +P JHP (RA9124TP)
Winchester Ranger-T 127 gr +P+ JHP (RA9TA)
Federal Tactical 135 gr +P JHP (LE9T5)
Federal HST 147 gr JHP (P9HST2)
Remington Golden Saber 147 gr JHP (GS9MMC)
Speer Gold Dot 147 gr JHP
Winchester Ranger-T 147 gr JHP (RA9T)
Winchester 147 gr bonded JHP (RA9B/Q4364)

.40 S&W:
Barnes XPB 155 gr JHP (copper bullet)
Speer Gold Dot 155 gr JHP
Federal Tactical 165 gr JHP (LE40T3)
Winchester Ranger-T 165 gr JHP (RA40TA)
Winchester Partition Gold 165 gr JHP (RA401P)
Federal HST 180 gr JHP (P40HST1)
Federal Tactical 180 gr JHP (LE40T1)
Remington Golden Saber 180 gr JHP (GS40SWB)
Speer Gold Dot 180 gr JHP
Winchester Ranger-T 180 gr JHP (RA40T)
Winchester 180 gr bonded JHP (RA40B/Q4355/S40SWPDB1)

.45 ACP:
Barnes XPB 185 gr JHP (copper bullet)
Federal HST 230 gr JHP (P45HST2)
Federal HST 230 gr +P JHP (P45HST1)
Federal Tactical 230 gr JHP (LE45T1)
Speer Gold Dot 230 gr JHP
Speer Gold Dot 230 gr +P JHP
Winchester Ranger-T 230 gr JHP (RA45T)
Winchester Ranger-T 230 gr +P JHP (RA45TP)

Can anyone distinguish where the heavy/slow and light/fast dividing line is?

Which loadings are the "Facklerites" and which loadings are the one's with the "street creds"?

The lab coats (or jello junkies) versus "street cred" is equally as silly. It has never been that way except for the ignorant who shun objectivity to promote their pet load or theory.

Example:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs31.htm

"Marshall, Sanow, Massad Ayoob and other "one-shot stop" advocates either ignorantly or intentionally mischaracterize and attempt to discredit the professional wound ballistics community as lab coat wearing nerds who never step foot outside the confines of a controlled laboratory setting. These uninformed or dishonest gunwriters attempt to portray wound ballistics professionals as incompetent dunces who are unwilling to consider "real world shooting results," lest the "real world laboratory of the street" contradict cherished "laboratory gelatin results" and "laboratory theories." One need only peruse a few issues of the IWBA journal, Wound Ballistics Review, to learn otherwise. Many of the articles are written by law enforcement officers or other professionals who work closely with law enforcement agencies."

and...

http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm#fbiwbs1993

"The Firearms Training Unit of the FBI held a Wound Ballistics Seminar from 19 through 22 January 1993 at the FBI Academy.


"Thirty-seven forensic pathologists, trauma surgeons, law enforcement trainers, firearms examiners, and ordnance engineers met to discuss handgun bullet effects and bullet testing. This group unanimously affirmed the principles set down by the FBI workshop of 1987: primarily among these was that a bullet must possess the capacity to penetrate deeply enough to reach and disrupt vital body structures if it is to stand any chance of performing reliably in the variety of circumstances a law enforcement officer might meet in a gunfight. Since the 1987 workshop, most law enforcement agencies have adopted the more deeply penetrating heavier bullets. At the 1993 symposium, trainers from five large departments (California Highway Patrol, Indianapolis PD, San Diego PD, Louisiana State Police, and Amarillo PD) reported data showing excellent performance from bullets chosen using the FBI penetration criterion. Several of these trainers had polled their counterparts in other departments and found that their highly favorable observations and impressions of the heavier bullets were widely shared."


Can anyone point out where the "us" versus "them" appears?

To expand on the "jello junkies" comments I often read here, I present this:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs23.htm

"Myth Number 1: Ordnance gelatin testing is used to predict bullet effectiveness.

A common misconception about ordnance gelatin testing is that it can be used to predict the effectiveness of personal defense ammunition. It cannot. Testing bullets using standard ordnance gelatin as a soft tissue simulant provides useful information about a bullet's terminal ballistic mechanical performance and wounding effect. Thatís all. These two attributes are directly linked to the bulletís design, construction and velocity. They are defined as follows: Terminal ballistic mechanical performance is a measure of bullet penetration, expansion, fragmentation and yaw at a given velocity.
Wounding effect is the disruption produced by a bulletís terminal performance characteristics.
To be "effective" a bullet must inflict an injury that produces dysfunction of the central nervous system. This is accomplished by one of two mechanisms: 1) direct physical damage to a central nervous system structure (the bullet must penetrate the brain or cervical spinal cord), or 2) blood loss in quantity to rapidly deprive the brain of the oxygenated blood it needs to remain conscious (the bullet must penetrate a major cardiovascular structure).
Consequently, wound effectiveness is a function of what tissues (vital or non-vital) are disrupted by the wounding effects of the bullet. Wound effectiveness is dependent upon where the bulletís wounding effects are located in the body and what tissues are involved.
Therefore, when a bullet is shot into ordnance gelatin, the only traits that can be quantified are the bulletís terminal ballistic mechanical performance characteristics and wounding effects. Gelatin does not reveal "how effective" a bullet is, because "effectiveness" is a result that cannot be measured in a test medium.
Wound effectiveness is a consequence of shot-placement (the bulletís path through the body) and penetration."

Anyone who claims that gelatin can predict "total wound volume" or other predictors of bullet performance are uninformed or ignorant of the subject. The previous statement applies to all on either side of the line.

I would also suggest reading "Myths 2 and 3" by following the link provided.


To the OP:


Why limit yourself to the 124 or 147 grain bullets when others are available?


From the list provided above, choose the one that you have access to, functions flawlessly in your weapon, and the one that you are most accurate, seek quality training, and practice until your weapon, mind, and body are one.

ViennaGambit
01-22-2012, 13:43
I would like to think that one day the line drawn in the sand will erode away.

This forum has a distinction for the runaway propagation of misinformation. This may come as a revelation for many but there has never (or at least for many years) been any such delineation as "slow versus heavy" or "guys in white lab coats with bifocals and hand-held calculators" versus "street cred". Such statements perpetuate from the misinformed, those which may have financial gain, or from those peddling their pet theory.

Example:

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887

"The following loads all demonstrate outstanding terminal performance and can be considered acceptable for duty/self-defense use:"

9 mm:
Barnes XPB 115 gr JHP (copper bullet)
Federal Tactical 124 gr JHP (LE9T1)
Federal HST 124 gr +P JHP (P9HST3)
Remington Golden Saber 124 gr +P JHP bonded (GSB9MMD)
Speer Gold Dot 124 gr +P JHP
Winchester Partition Gold 124 gr JHP (RA91P)
Winchester Ranger-T 124 gr +P JHP (RA9124TP)
Winchester Ranger-T 127 gr +P+ JHP (RA9TA)
Federal Tactical 135 gr +P JHP (LE9T5)
Federal HST 147 gr JHP (P9HST2)
Remington Golden Saber 147 gr JHP (GS9MMC)
Speer Gold Dot 147 gr JHP
Winchester Ranger-T 147 gr JHP (RA9T)
Winchester 147 gr bonded JHP (RA9B/Q4364)

.40 S&W:
Barnes XPB 155 gr JHP (copper bullet)
Speer Gold Dot 155 gr JHP
Federal Tactical 165 gr JHP (LE40T3)
Winchester Ranger-T 165 gr JHP (RA40TA)
Winchester Partition Gold 165 gr JHP (RA401P)
Federal HST 180 gr JHP (P40HST1)
Federal Tactical 180 gr JHP (LE40T1)
Remington Golden Saber 180 gr JHP (GS40SWB)
Speer Gold Dot 180 gr JHP
Winchester Ranger-T 180 gr JHP (RA40T)
Winchester 180 gr bonded JHP (RA40B/Q4355/S40SWPDB1)

.45 ACP:
Barnes XPB 185 gr JHP (copper bullet)
Federal HST 230 gr JHP (P45HST2)
Federal HST 230 gr +P JHP (P45HST1)
Federal Tactical 230 gr JHP (LE45T1)
Speer Gold Dot 230 gr JHP
Speer Gold Dot 230 gr +P JHP
Winchester Ranger-T 230 gr JHP (RA45T)
Winchester Ranger-T 230 gr +P JHP (RA45TP)

Can anyone distinguish where the heavy/slow and light/fast dividing line is?

Which loadings are the "Facklerites" and which loadings are the one's with the "street creds"?

The lab coats (or jello junkies) versus "street cred" is equally as silly. It has never been that way except for the ignorant who shun objectivity to promote their pet load or theory.

Example:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs31.htm

"Marshall, Sanow, Massad Ayoob and other "one-shot stop" advocates either ignorantly or intentionally mischaracterize and attempt to discredit the professional wound ballistics community as lab coat wearing nerds who never step foot outside the confines of a controlled laboratory setting. These uninformed or dishonest gunwriters attempt to portray wound ballistics professionals as incompetent dunces who are unwilling to consider "real world shooting results," lest the "real world laboratory of the street" contradict cherished "laboratory gelatin results" and "laboratory theories." One need only peruse a few issues of the IWBA journal, Wound Ballistics Review, to learn otherwise. Many of the articles are written by law enforcement officers or other professionals who work closely with law enforcement agencies."

and...

http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm#fbiwbs1993

"The Firearms Training Unit of the FBI held a Wound Ballistics Seminar from 19 through 22 January 1993 at the FBI Academy.


"Thirty-seven forensic pathologists, trauma surgeons, law enforcement trainers, firearms examiners, and ordnance engineers met to discuss handgun bullet effects and bullet testing. This group unanimously affirmed the principles set down by the FBI workshop of 1987: primarily among these was that a bullet must possess the capacity to penetrate deeply enough to reach and disrupt vital body structures if it is to stand any chance of performing reliably in the variety of circumstances a law enforcement officer might meet in a gunfight. Since the 1987 workshop, most law enforcement agencies have adopted the more deeply penetrating heavier bullets. At the 1993 symposium, trainers from five large departments (California Highway Patrol, Indianapolis PD, San Diego PD, Louisiana State Police, and Amarillo PD) reported data showing excellent performance from bullets chosen using the FBI penetration criterion. Several of these trainers had polled their counterparts in other departments and found that their highly favorable observations and impressions of the heavier bullets were widely shared."


Can anyone point out where the "us" versus "them" appears?

To expand on the "jello junkies" comments I often read here, I present this:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs23.htm

"Myth Number 1: Ordnance gelatin testing is used to predict bullet effectiveness.

A common misconception about ordnance gelatin testing is that it can be used to predict the effectiveness of personal defense ammunition. It cannot. Testing bullets using standard ordnance gelatin as a soft tissue simulant provides useful information about a bullet's terminal ballistic mechanical performance and wounding effect. Thatís all. These two attributes are directly linked to the bulletís design, construction and velocity. They are defined as follows: Terminal ballistic mechanical performance is a measure of bullet penetration, expansion, fragmentation and yaw at a given velocity.
Wounding effect is the disruption produced by a bulletís terminal performance characteristics.
To be "effective" a bullet must inflict an injury that produces dysfunction of the central nervous system. This is accomplished by one of two mechanisms: 1) direct physical damage to a central nervous system structure (the bullet must penetrate the brain or cervical spinal cord), or 2) blood loss in quantity to rapidly deprive the brain of the oxygenated blood it needs to remain conscious (the bullet must penetrate a major cardiovascular structure).
Consequently, wound effectiveness is a function of what tissues (vital or non-vital) are disrupted by the wounding effects of the bullet. Wound effectiveness is dependent upon where the bulletís wounding effects are located in the body and what tissues are involved.
Therefore, when a bullet is shot into ordnance gelatin, the only traits that can be quantified are the bulletís terminal ballistic mechanical performance characteristics and wounding effects. Gelatin does not reveal "how effective" a bullet is, because "effectiveness" is a result that cannot be measured in a test medium.
Wound effectiveness is a consequence of shot-placement (the bulletís path through the body) and penetration."

Anyone who claims that gelatin can predict "total wound volume" or other predictors of bullet performance are uninformed or ignorant of the subject. The previous statement applies to all on either side of the line.

I would also suggest reading "Myths 2 and 3" by following the link provided.


To the OP:


Why limit yourself to the 124 or 147 grain bullets when others are available?


From the list provided above, choose the one that you have access to, functions flawlessly in your weapon, and the one that you are most accurate, seek quality training, and practice until your weapon, mind, and body are one.


Doc, thank you very very much for posting this info - I have been reading through your work on the M4Carbine forums and it is a wealth of information for someone who is especially new to the handgun world, but eager to learn. This is turning into a fascinating hobby that has overtaken most, if not all, of my others. Thank you.

@ the others - I also appreciate your insight and advice as well.

I am going to order a host of different weights and brands and see what my Glock likes and what I can shoot best.

DocKWL
01-22-2012, 14:07
Doc, thank you very very much for posting this info - I have been reading through your work on the M4Carbine forums and it is a wealth of information for someone who is especially new to the handgun world, but eager to learn. This is turning into a fascinating hobby that has overtaken most, if not all, of my others. Thank you.

@ the others - I also appreciate your insight and advice as well.

I am going to order a host of different weights and brands and see what my Glock likes and what I can shoot best.

I am not Dr. Roberts.

See this...

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?p=1143129#post1143129

...for pictures of Dr. Roberts, a "lab coat" who could:

A. Out shoot

and/or

B. Physically kick the snot out of some of the more mouthy and overly-opinionated members in this forum.

pisc1024
01-22-2012, 14:39
I am not Dr. Roberts.

See this...

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?p=1143129#post1143129

...for pictures of Dr. Roberts, a "lab coat" who could:

A. Out shoot

and/or

B. Physically kick the snot out of some of the more mouthy and overly-opinionated members in this forum.

:rofl:

hotpig
01-22-2012, 15:14
I am not Dr. Roberts.

See this...

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?p=1143129#post1143129

...for pictures of Dr. Roberts, a "lab coat" who could:

A. Out shoot

and/or

B. Physically kick the snot out of some of the more mouthy and overly-opinionated members in this forum.

I'm not affraid of Dr. Roberts. GPS will not get him to my house.:tongueout:

unit1069
01-22-2012, 16:26
Doc

First, is firearmstactical.com your web site, or the web site of an associate(s)?

Second, a quote from firearmstactical.com you cited:

Gelatin does not reveal "how effective" a bullet is, because "effectiveness" is a result that cannot be measured in a test medium.

This is precisely why I give credence to documented anecdotal evidence researchers glean from after-action LEO reports above the lab tests performed by the Coke-bottle eyeglasses-wearing white coat guys holding tightly onto their HP micro calculators.

I rest my case!

unit1069
01-22-2012, 16:41
The Fermi Lab outside Chicago accelerated both the Winchester 127-grain +P+ bullet and Federal 147-grain HST bullet to each bullet's cosmic velocity/sectional density optimum and then smashed the two bullets into each other.

After months of studying the results Fermi scientists recently announced that the 147-grain bullet completely disappeared although the same scientists believe some "background" radiation residue of the HST remains. Further study is required to confirm this and Fermi Lab warns it might take decades to deliver an authoritative report.

The 127-grain +P+ bullet remained intact and all particles have been accounted for, according to the Fermi report.

ViennaGambit
01-22-2012, 16:58
I am not Dr. Roberts.

See this...

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?p=1143129#post1143129

...for pictures of Dr. Roberts, a "lab coat" who could:

A. Out shoot

and/or

B. Physically kick the snot out of some of the more mouthy and overly-opinionated members in this forum.

hahaha - well thank you for the clarification :supergrin:

Still great info!

pisc1024
01-22-2012, 17:51
The Fermi Lab outside Chicago accelerated both the Winchester 127-grain +P+ bullet and Federal 147-grain HST bullet to each bullet's cosmic velocity/sectional density optimum and then smashed the two bullets into each other.

After months of studying the results Fermi scientists recently announced that the 147-grain bullet completely disappeared although the same scientists believe some "background" radiation residue of the HST remains. Further study is required to confirm this and Fermi Lab warns it might take decades to deliver an authoritative report.

The 127-grain +P+ bullet remained intact and all particles have been accounted for, according to the Fermi report.

W.T.F.?:dunno:

cole
01-22-2012, 21:41
I prefer bonded and 147gr as I'll take a bit more penetration over a bit more expansion. Plus, they shoot softer for me.

stevewonderful
01-24-2012, 23:26
DocKWL, were you referring to the now defunct IWBA? That particular group of lab-coats were prone to turn on each other when anything remotely resembling "debate" occurred...which, sadly, was a huge factor in their organization going belly-up. I say "sadly" because they did some really excellent research as far as lab work went...you just had to skip over the blue-nosed "peer-reviews" to find it.

And tell me, this Esteemed Dr. Roberts, what is his degree in? Come on, you can say it. Don't be shy. Okay, I'll say it for you. He has a degree in....... wait for it.......Dentistry.

So if you can pull teeth and fill cavities, that makes you a ballistic expert.....

AWESOMO 4000
01-25-2012, 01:16
I'm more apt to take the advice and experiences of those who have actually had to apply the software versus those who theorize about what may or may not happen when punching holes in non-homicidal gelatin.

MinnesnowtaWild
01-25-2012, 02:57
Here in Minnesota, it gets very cold in winter and I like to carry a 147g bullet (either HST or PDX1). In the summer, I will carry Speer Gold Dot 124g +P or Federal 115g +P+.

Calhoun123
01-25-2012, 16:48
DocKWL, were you referring to the now defunct IWBA? That particular group of lab-coats were prone to turn on each other when anything remotely resembling "debate" occurred...which, sadly, was a huge factor in their organization going belly-up. I say "sadly" because they did some really excellent research as far as lab work went...you just had to skip over the blue-nosed "peer-reviews" to find it.

And tell me, this Esteemed Dr. Roberts, what is his degree in? Come on, you can say it. Don't be shy. Okay, I'll say it for you. He has a degree in....... wait for it.......Dentistry.

So if you can pull teeth and fill cavities, that makes you a ballistic expert.....


SO, what does make you an "expert"? I wouldn't call a SEAL an expert in the field because he shot some bad guys. How about a chemist who helps to develop powders for reloading - - well maybe closer, but still not what we are looking for. The bottom line is that you can't go get a Ph.D. in wound ballistics. I don't know Dr. Roberts, but if he is a Dentist he is at least trained at the doctoral level. That is a GREAT jumping off point into other fields such as this one. Trauma surgeon would be better, but apparently we don't have to many of them who want to moonlight in this field. I just happened to wander into this thread, but I think you are taking a cheap shot at a guy who has done some good work and shared it with the shooting community for free.

pisc1024
01-25-2012, 16:53
so, what does make you an "expert"? I wouldn't call a seal an expert in the field because he shot some bad guys. How about a chemist who helps to develop powders for reloading - - well maybe closer, but still not what we are looking for. The bottom line is that you can't go get a ph.d. In wound ballistics. I don't know dr. Roberts, but if he is a dentist he is at least trained at the doctoral level. That is a great jumping off point into other fields such as this one. Trauma surgeon would be better, but apparently we don't have to many of them who want to moonlight in this field. I just happened to wander into this thread, but i think you are taking a cheap shot at a guy who has done some good work and shared it with the shooting community for free.

this^^^^^^

cowboy1964
01-25-2012, 17:52
There is going to be no appreciable difference in "size of the hole" between 124 and 147.

I prefer 124+P simply because I see no reason to give up 200 fps for gaining 23 grains (or in the case of Ranger 127+P+, almost 250 fps for only 20 grains). Recoil differences could be a factor for some people but I really don't mind the +Ps.

It's all a theoretical exercise though more than a practical one. Until the doc or coroner extracts the bullet I seriously doubt they would be able to guess which it is, and even then only if they weighed it.

DocKWL
01-25-2012, 18:16
DocKWL, were you referring to the now defunct IWBA? That particular group of lab-coats were prone to turn on each other when anything remotely resembling "debate" occurred...which, sadly, was a huge factor in their organization going belly-up. I say "sadly" because they did some really excellent research as far as lab work went...you just had to skip over the blue-nosed "peer-reviews" to find it.

And tell me, this Esteemed Dr. Roberts, what is his degree in? Come on, you can say it. Don't be shy. Okay, I'll say it for you. He has a degree in....... wait for it.......Dentistry.

So if you can pull teeth and fill cavities, that makes you a ballistic expert.....

Your post is nothing more than ignorance in action.

It would have been best if your post count remained at four.

windplex
01-25-2012, 19:47
lab testing needs to be consistent and repeatable so it means something to those using it year over year, and product versus product. ive seen tests for various products and they frequently dont replicate how the product is used by an end user. the method tests some essential qualities/performance the same way each time, but far from measuring all qualities.

there needs to be a consistent test protocal for comparison purposes. and field findings are also critical, imo, to validate the test findings. there are always going to be variables that the "test" cannot and does not account for. and if the end user is experiencing unexpected results then its reasonable to question the test method and improve it if necessary. if you know the test method it is possible to design a product that performs its best in that test method while it might not be the best in real world applications.

i like to see both.

now back to this thread -- the listing of "acceptable defensive rounds" iirc are tested using 4" barrels in most cases. im guessing that not all are appropriate for the short barreled glocks.

the thing im most interested in learning from this thread is which HP cartridges work as designed in a short barreled glock.

stevewonderful
01-25-2012, 21:42
SO, what does make you an "expert"? I wouldn't call a SEAL an expert in the field because he shot some bad guys. How about a chemist who helps to develop powders for reloading - - well maybe closer, but still not what we are looking for. The bottom line is that you can't go get a Ph.D. in wound ballistics. I don't know Dr. Roberts, but if he is a Dentist he is at least trained at the doctoral level. That is a GREAT jumping off point into other fields such as this one. Trauma surgeon would be better, but apparently we don't have to many of them who want to moonlight in this field. I just happened to wander into this thread, but I think you are taking a cheap shot at a guy who has done some good work and shared it with the shooting community for free.

Show me where I claimed to be an expert. You can't! Also, I wasn't the one throwing out information about so called experts including Doc R. in particular and them being the end all and be all when it comes to ballistics. Were all suppose to genuflect at the mere mention of these peoples names. And when they decree from on high, were suppose to take their OPINION as gospel.

All I claim to be is one who studies and reads all I can on the subject from many different OPINIONS and make my choices according to my beliefs.YMMV.

It's nice to know you think the more posts you have, the smarter you are. I don't aspire to be a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

stevewonderful
01-25-2012, 21:43
i'm more apt to take the advice and experiences of those who have actually had to apply the software versus those who theorize about what may or may not happen when punching holes in non-homicidal gelatin.

+1000

pisc1024
01-25-2012, 21:49
Show me where I claimed to be an expert. You can't! Also, I wasn't the one throwing out information about so called experts including Doc R. in particular and them being the end all and be all when it comes to ballistics. Were all suppose to genuflect at the mere mention of these peoples names. And when they decree from on high, were suppose to take their OPINION as gospel.

All I claim to be is one who studies and reads all I can on the subject from many different OPINIONS and make my choices according to my beliefs.YMMV.



There are a ton of LE agencies who would beg to differ with you. The LE/ personal defense bullet industry has gained much from their work, but I guess you didn't learn that in your studies.

stevewonderful
01-25-2012, 22:02
There are a ton of LE agencies who would beg to differ with you. The LE/ personal defense bullet industry has gained much from their work, but I guess you didn't learn that in your studies.

And I could find just as many that would disagree with you.

But allow me to bow before your great all knowing and all seeing intellect. You clearly know all there is to know about firearms, tactics and ballistics. I feel
blessed to be allowed to read your every word. I await with baited breath your next wisdom....

LawScholar
01-25-2012, 22:30
What hope does the Second Amendment community have if we get this snippy over a minor bullet weight difference? I like 147, some like 124 +p, some like 115 +p+. It's really ok to just think differently! No need to prove anything to anybody.

pisc1024
01-25-2012, 22:39
And I could find just as many that would disagree with you.

But allow me to bow before your great all knowing and all seeing intellect. You clearly know all there is to know about firearms, tactics and ballistics. I feel
blessed to be allowed to read your every word. I await with baited breath your next wisdom....

Well, now that we have that strait, we can get on with the discussion.:supergrin:

Seriously, I'm sure you could find more than a few LE agencies that have never heard of Dr. Robers, I would bet though, they are using rounds that he recommends. One thing you can't deny is that LE is trending more to the heavy for caliber bullets, and they are doing this for better barrier defeat, and penetration. Facts are facts, sorry to ruin you day.

stevewonderful
01-26-2012, 00:01
I would agree that many are trending toward heavier bullets and just as many
are trending to mid weight bonded bullets. What ever works, which is most.
More important is where the rounds hit.

Ruin my day, hardly. I didn't give you nor do I give anyone that power.:wavey:

dsa1115
01-26-2012, 00:56
I think you all are splitting hairs. 124 grains or 147 grains? A well placed shot and it's not going to matter. As they say it's not the arrow, it's the indian. I wouldn't feel under armed with either.

MinnesnowtaWild
01-26-2012, 02:08
I think you all are splitting hairs. 124 grains or 147 grains? A well placed shot and it's not going to matter. As they say it's not the arrow, it's the indian. I wouldn't feel under armed with either.

Well said. The only reason I switch between the two is because in the winter when people are bundled up I want any added penetration I can get and in a bonded bullet. Any other time of the year I don't really care what weight the bullet is, but anything in the HST line or Speer GDHP works fine for me.

Tiro Fijo
01-26-2012, 07:58
...One thing you can't deny is that LE is trending more to the heavy for caliber bullets, and they are doing this for better barrier defeat, and penetration. Facts are facts, sorry to ruin you day.


That's not entirely true. LE has had to "dumb" down the ammo as well in order to make sure that the Affirmative Action recruits & the new "non- gun" people can hit the target. Heavier bullets such as the 180 gr. S&W recoil less than the 135 gr. to 165 gr. The Border Patrol loved the 155 gr. Rem. HP but the recoil was too much for the aforementioned. Those are the "facts."

LawScholar
01-26-2012, 08:26
That's not entirely true. LE has had to "dumb" down the ammo as well in order to make sure that the Affirmative Action recruits & the new "non- gun" people can hit the target. Heavier bullets such as the 180 gr. S&W recoil less than the 135 gr. to 165 gr. The Border Patrol loved the 155 gr. Rem. HP but the recoil was too much for the aforementioned. Those are the "facts."

Lol.

I've been shooting since I was 5 and I like the reduced recoil impulse as well, and in .40 the 180 is king of the penetrators. I'm hardly an "Affirmative Action" recruit. Heck, I don't even think the LCP is unpleasant to shoot.

pisc1024
01-26-2012, 10:51
That's not entirely true. LE has had to "dumb" down the ammo as well in order to make sure that the Affirmative Action recruits & the new "non- gun" people can hit the target. Heavier bullets such as the 180 gr. S&W recoil less than the 135 gr. to 165 gr. The Border Patrol loved the 155 gr. Rem. HP but the recoil was too much for the aforementioned. Those are the "facts."

Dumbing down is a poor way of describing what is happening in the LE ammunition world. Yes 180 gr will recoil a little less than the 155's, however that helps all involved, from the most petite officer to the largest, most capable officer. This allows every officer faster follow up shots, and this can't be argued by anyone. So if you have a round that recoils less than another, and performs equally as well, if not better, then what is wrong with this logic? BTW I think you are over estimating the pull of the non gun people in LE ammo choice. There are only a few places where they run the show, I can think of one off the top of my head; Chicago. Those guys are stuck with the EFMJ. Even in PC places like NYC the police are running JHP's.

kmrcstintn
01-26-2012, 18:30
1) find a brand & bullet style you like and stock some of each weight (the best of both worlds)

2) Federal HydraShok 135gr reduced recoil (something in between)

unit1069
01-26-2012, 20:02
Dumbing down is a poor way of describing what is happening in the LE ammunition world. Yes 180 gr will recoil a little less than the 155's, however that helps all involved, from the most petite officer to the largest, most capable officer. This allows every officer faster follow up shots, and this can't be argued by anyone.

Well if true there's no argument.

So if you have a round that recoils less than another, and performs equally as well, if not better, then what is wrong with this logic? BTW I think you are over estimating the pull of the non gun people in LE ammo choice. There are only a few places where they run the show, I can think of one off the top of my head; Chicago. Those guys are stuck with the EFMJ. Even in PC places like NYC the police are running JHP's.

Here's the nub of the question and the point I believe Tiro is trying to make.

To satisfy the "affirmative action" zealots' insistence on equal protection hiring most fire departments averaged the strength of males and females then combined those figures and made that hybrid strength standard the norm. During congressional deliberations one of America's dimmer bulb elected officials (from California, naturally) --- in response to a question about rescue --- answered that a female firefighter could grab an unconscious victim by the ankles and drag him/her down stairwells if she wasn't able to carry the victim. The elected official was none too happy when someone asked a follow-up question about the injuries that could very well occur by the victim's head banging down the stairs during that action.

I'm not unsympathetic to equal protection issues, but firefighters deal in immediate, life-threatening situations --- to themselves as well as the victims. Previously it was the standard for a firefighter to carry an unconscious victim out of a burning building, but now it seems the new physical strength standard doesn't require that. Without verifiable statistics I don't know if lives have been lost to political correctness.

LEO agents face essentially the same issues that firefighters do. The onus is on the one asserting the point about heavier ammo being "equally as well, if not better" to prove it scientifically. Law enforcement agencies should select the best fight-stopping ammunition for the issue firearm --- relying on the best, unbiased scientific evidence (including after-action debriefings) --- regardless of politically-correct standards, in my opinion. Then it should be up to the officers of both genders to qualify.

pisc1024
01-26-2012, 20:33
Here's the nub of the question and the point I believe Tiro is trying to make.

To satisfy the "affirmative action" zealots' insistence on equal protection hiring most fire departments averaged the strength of males and females then combined those figures and made that hybrid strength standard the norm. During congressional deliberations one of America's dimmer bulb elected officials (from California, naturally) --- in response to a question about rescue --- answered that a female firefighter could grab an unconscious victim by the ankles and drag him/her down stairwells if she wasn't able to carry the victim. The elected official was none too happy when someone asked a follow-up question about the injuries that could very well occur by the victim's head banging down the stairs during that action.



I could only imagine who the congressĒpersonĒ was. LOL... That story was funny and sad all at the same time!



LEO agents face essentially the same issues that firefighters do. The onus is on the one asserting the point about heavier ammo being "equally as well, if not better" to prove it scientifically. Law enforcement agencies should select the best fight-stopping ammunition for the issue firearm --- relying on the best, unbiased scientific evidence (including after-action debriefings) --- regardless of politically-correct standards, in my opinion. Then it should be up to the officers of both genders to qualify.


I understand what LEO's are up against, as I was one about 5 years ago. Yes things have changed, and for the worse in a lot of cases, but I still don't think that the PC's have fully taken control of all things police. As I said in my last post there are always the departments who have odd rules. Chicago PD is a perfect example, they are issued EFMJ's as far as I know. But, the vast majority of police departments in America still strive to give their officers the best equipment they can, including ammo. After all San Francisco issues JHP's and they are perhaps the worst PC city that I can think of. It is my personal experience that the PC argument doesnít hold water. If that were the case than all PD's would simply go to 9mm, and that would be it. Reality, as we know it, is very different though, 40 S&W seems to still be round of choice for the majority of the nations PD's. As for proving one rounds effectiveness over the other, I have shown what, in my opinion, is conclusive proof that medium to heavy for caliber tend to do better especially for LE. It sounds to me like you guys are looking for a Marshal and Sanow type study as more proof; that I just cannot give to you. Your burden of proof is simply higher than mine, and your personal experiences are different from mine.

Snowman92D
01-26-2012, 20:52
...BTW I think you are over estimating the pull of the non gun people in LE ammo choice. There are only a few places where they run the show, I can think of one off the top of my head; Chicago. Those guys are stuck with the EFMJ. Even in PC places like NYC the police are running JHP's.

Sage advice. It's always wise to not over-estimate the input of non-gun people in LE, or our fighting military services. Being non-academic types, they have no idea what they're talking about. Much the same as ballistic groupies who populate internet gunboards.

BTW, the Chicago PD has issued 9mm 124-grain +P Gold Dot ammo for several years now, not EFMJ. They issued 147-grain Gold Dot ammo prior to that, as well as other 147-grain jhp loads, before finally getting out from under the yoke of choosing ammo based only on gell-o testing.

packinaglock
01-27-2012, 19:24
That's not entirely true. LE has had to "dumb" down the ammo as well in order to make sure that the Affirmative Action recruits & the new "non- gun" people can hit the target. Heavier bullets such as the 180 gr. S&W recoil less than the 135 gr. to 165 gr. The Border Patrol loved the 155 gr. Rem. HP but the recoil was too much for the aforementioned. Those are the "facts."

My son is on the same football team as a Federal Marshal's son and we sit and talk at practice, he says the same thing.

sciolist
01-27-2012, 21:15
If you can't hit a defensive target with a 124, you're not going to be able to hit it with a 147. +P, +P+... whatever. Just get a reputable product and make sure it functions properly in your guns.

MinnesnowtaWild
01-28-2012, 03:16
I tested some different defensive loads at the range today with my Gen4 Glock 26. I started with standard pressure 124g HST's. The recoil is very manageable and not much different than regular target ammo. Then I tried a new box of Speer Gold Dot 124g +P rounds and in my opinion, the recoil was much more. I don't know yet if I like the recoil. I also tried some Federal 9BPLE 115g +P+ and the recoil felt about the same as the GDHP 124g +P.

What I learned is that I would maybe rather use standard pressure rounds in 147g or 124g than the +P or +P+ loads.

AWESOMO 4000
01-28-2012, 15:21
I hardly think you'd notice the difference if it was for real. My money is on the +P ammunition. A little extra horsepower doesn't hurt with a 9mm, or in an auto particularly.

tobias boon
01-28-2012, 18:00
I'm sure a good heart, lung or brain shot won't know the difference in any of the top whatever ten types of bullets we all think is the best. Shoot me in the arm with those ten or a bullet from 1982 and I will still be doing whatever I am doing while I scream profanity. I collect them all while I still can.

cole
01-28-2012, 20:06
I tested some different defensive loads at the range today with my Gen4 Glock 26. I started with standard pressure 124g HST's. The recoil is very manageable and not much different than regular target ammo. Then I tried a new box of Speer Gold Dot 124g +P rounds and in my opinion, the recoil was much more. I don't know yet if I like the recoil. I also tried some Federal 9BPLE 115g +P+ and the recoil felt about the same as the GDHP 124g +P.

What I learned is that I would maybe rather use standard pressure rounds in 147g or 124g than the +P or +P+ loads.

While 9mm recoil is slight compared to .40sw and .45acp, I prefer the recoil of 147gr defensive loads. I believe the (bonded) 147gr offers an edge in overall/aggregate penetration (which I prefer) with less recoil (which I prefer) making the 9mm even more controllalbe (which I prefer), especially in the small subcompacts (which I have). IMO, a win-win. Opinions vary of course, and some prefer the added (potential) overall/aggregate expansion of +p loads.

Scoob
01-29-2012, 01:54
I like both the 147 grain HST and the 124 grain gold dots. I have used both of these and have equal confidence in them. I'm an oddball in that I choose standard pressure in 124 grain. The 9mm has such a nice easy control and I hate to lose any of that advantage but that is just me. If I had to pick one I'd probably go with the HST just because I can get it cheaper.

MinnesnowtaWild
01-29-2012, 02:33
While 9mm recoil is slight compared to .40sw and .45acp, I prefer the recoil of 147gr defensive loads. I believe the (bonded) 147gr offers an edge in overall/aggregate penetration (which I prefer) with less recoil (which I prefer) making the 9mm even more controllalbe (which I prefer), especially in the small subcompacts (which I have). IMO, a win-win. Opinions vary of course, and some prefer the added (potential) overall/aggregate expansion of +p loads.

I like both the 147 grain HST and the 124 grain gold dots. I have used both of these and have equal confidence in them. I'm an oddball in that I choose standard pressure in 124 grain. The 9mm has such a nice easy control and I hate to lose any of that advantage but that is just me. If I had to pick one I'd probably go with the HST just because I can get it cheaper.

I agree with both of you guys. The advantage of a 9mm is diminished when using extra high pressure self defense ammo. I keep my Glock 26 versus trading for a Glock 27 because of the fact that follow up shots are so fast with 9mm. When I use +P or +P+ rounds that I own, follow up shots suffer greatly. I will probably carry these Gold Dot 124g +P's for a while until the local police supply gets HST in stock again (I have been on a wait list for months). I think the 147g HST round is as close to perfect as one can get.

NM Mountainman
01-31-2012, 20:40
Since most SD pistols don't have adjustable sights, another consideration when choosing your ammo could be which ammo has a point of impact that is very close to where you are aiming when your sights are properly aligned with the target.

AWESOMO 4000
02-01-2012, 20:26
The solution is pretty easy -- practice with regular old White Box/American Eagle, UMC, Remington, Fiocchi, Magtech, PMC, etc.....run a mag through with the hot stuff to see where it impacts. The difference between standard pressure and +P is perceptible if you are looking for a difference during a range session. If you're in it for real, you aren't going to notice the difference. You're attention will be focused on other things at that time.

NM Mountainman
02-02-2012, 15:04
Quote from Awesomo 4000: "If you're in it for real, you aren't going to notice the difference. You're attention will be focused on other things at that time. "

I was referring to the question of 124 gr vs 147 gr carry ammo for SD. The best examples of each bullet weight perform pretty well, so one factor to consider when selecting bullet weight could be "How close to point of aim does this ammo shoot?"

For example, consider 3 Gold Dot HP loads for the 9mm: 124 gr, 124 gr +p, and 147 gr. According to gelatin test results published by Speer, all 3 loads give about the same penetration in bare gelatin (about 12") and gelatin covered by heavy clothing (14" to 15"). The 124 gr +P load yields a larger expansion diameter than the other two loads, but the difference is fairly small. So which would you choose? I chose the 124 gr +P load for my M&P, and it shoots to the point of aim at 10 yds. But my friend has a Glock 19 which shoots to within 1" of the point of aim at 10 yds with the 147 gr load, while the 124 gr +P load shoots about 3" from the point of aim. He carries the 147 gr load in his Glock 19.

I understand the difference between "combat accuracy" and "target accuracy" at the practice range. But some pistols with nonadjustable sights shoot some types of ammo, bullet styles, or bullet weights to a point of impact which is several inches from the point of aim at 7 or 10 yards. If your training emphasizes using the sights when you shoot, why wouldn't you want to give yourself the advantage of using a bullet weight which shoots close to the point of aim at close range? (Or, you could shoot whatever load you prefer and change the height of the front sight to get it to shoot to the aiming point.)

unit1069
02-02-2012, 20:41
For example, consider 3 Gold Dot HP loads for the 9mm: 124 gr, 124 gr +p, and 147 gr. According to gelatin test results published by Speer, all 3 loads give about the same penetration in bare gelatin (about 12") and gelatin covered by heavy clothing (14" to 15"). The 124 gr +P load yields a larger expansion diameter than the other two loads, but the difference is fairly small. So which would you choose? I chose the 124 gr +P load for my M&P, and it shoots to the point of aim at 10 yds. But my friend has a Glock 19 which shoots to within 1" of the point of aim at 10 yds with the 147 gr load, while the 124 gr +P load shoots about 3" from the point of aim. He carries the 147 gr load in his Glock 19.

This is the conundrum for self-defense, in my opinion. There's not a lot of difference between the lab tests of the various rounds but then each gun/ammo has its own characteristics to evaluate. It's up to the individual to determine for him/herself the best combo.

The one thing experienced shooters have mentioned is that +P ammo lends reliability to cycling of the slide. And then there's the amount of anecdotal and documented LEO shootings with both types of ammo that favor no clear advantage to any particular weight/pressure ammo.

I just try to stick to reputable premium JHP ammo in either standard, +P, or +P+ pressure that shoots reliably in whatever pistol I have. I just hope --- God forbid --- if a time ever comes when I ever have to defend myself I'm concentrating on acquiring a sight picture instead of falling into pray and spray panic. If I've done my best to insure gun/ammo reliability beforehand I'm 99.5% confident that combo will do its job.

Southswede
02-08-2012, 01:31
Need to order some more self defense ammo for my Glock 26 and just wondering which weight is more preferred:

124 or 147?

Is it just come down to personal preference on penetration vs. size of hole?

Maybe I should just give Buffalo Bore's 147 +P a try for best of both worlds...

Tried searching as I'm sure this comes up, but couldnt find a decent thread.

Thanks.

I only have one 9mm: Glock 26. I use this one: Winchester Ranger-T 147 gr JHP (RA9T)

LawScholar
02-08-2012, 20:37
I only have one 9mm: Glock 26. I use this one: Winchester Ranger-T 147 gr JHP (RA9T)

Man, I'm a Gold Dot guy but the street reputation of the RA9T is practically legendary. Great round.