speeder gold dots 115 vs 147gr [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : speeder gold dots 115 vs 147gr


skar
01-30-2005, 15:28
Have a glock g17 and kahr pm9. The man at the gun store said to use speeder gold dots. ? So i got a box of 115gr and 147gr.Which one should i use for a carry load FOR BOTH GUNS. I use winchester white box for target.

Dandapani
01-30-2005, 16:27
147. use search button for background.

T Earl
01-30-2005, 22:08
I go with speer 124 grain gold dots. I may be old school but I can't get over the old 147 grain anti-kill bullets. Yes I know they are better now then they used to be but it's all about confidence in the round, and I have none in the 147's.

drofnas
01-31-2005, 20:27
Originally posted by dmobrien2001
147. use search button for background.

What he said.

Michigun
02-01-2005, 12:30
Between the 2? I say the 147-grainers. ^c

pbass
02-01-2005, 16:22
115s rock. (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_3_48/ai_82551648) Of course, if anyone has a full set of street shooting data that conflicts with the Marshall-Sanow data set, the data collected from coroners and street cops, hell, let him publish it. Any takers? Didn't think so. Of course, detractors have only had 13 years to come up with their own set of street data. Maybe they just haven't had enough time, eh? Or maybe all they have is conjecture. Me, I'll take hard data. Any hard data beats any armchair theory any day. PS, Georgia Arms (http://www.georgia-arms.com/shear.htm) makes good Gold Dot +P and +P+ loads cheap. But I'll stick with Cor-Bon (http://www.corbon.com/) 115 +P JHP for both my G17 and PM9. That is, until I swap them for a G23 and a PM40.

crash700
02-25-2005, 11:36
I am sure that this will cause a stir, but I think that you should go with what is the most accurate out of your pistol. Shot placement is more important than bullet weight. A well placed shot with either round can have a devastating effect. IMHO, the 115 might be the way to go due to a short barrel and I want the highest velocity, provided that my pistol functions well and accurately with it. If not, I will go with whatever my gun likes the best (accuracy,feeding,reliability). If they function the same, go with what you feel comfortable with. My partner was involved in a shooting and was using hard ball ammo and put two in the chest (center mass) of the suspect and he died at the scene. I would never recommend hard ball ammo to anyone but my partner is apparently cheap and decided to use practice ammo from the range. Shot placement made a difference as I don't feel that it was the capability of the hard ball ammo that did in the suspect. There are many variables in a gunfight. Is the suspect on drugs? Mentally ill? I am not flaming anyone on their choice of ammo, each of us has to go with what we feel comfortable with. My duty pistol is just something to get me to a bigger gun, meaning rifle or shotgun! That is just my .02 . ;?

fredglock
02-25-2005, 23:25
Originally posted by pbass
... Me, I'll take hard data. ...

Kewl. So, does the hard data mean that the 125 gr. .357 is the number one stopper, or does it mean that cops carried the .357 more than anything else during the data collection period?

fred

Climb14er
02-25-2005, 23:29
I am sure that this will cause a stir, but I think that you should go with what is the most accurate out of your pistol. Shot placement is more important than bullet weight.

With that said, the 147gr. shoots better in my PM9 than the 124 and 115 grains.

crash700
02-26-2005, 00:43
If it is a noticeable difference, I would go with the 147 grain. Accuracy is important to me because you are responsible for that bullet once it leaves the barrel of your gun.

Orive 8
02-27-2005, 09:31
My wife is carrying 147gr Speer Gold Dots in her P9.

pbass
02-27-2005, 10:21
Originally posted by fredglock
Kewl. So, does the hard data mean that the 125 gr. .357 is the number one stopper, or does it mean that cops carried the .357 more than anything else during the data collection period?

I've got "Street Stoppers" (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=378&item=4516788914&rd=1&ssPageName=WD1V) here and it covers .40 S&W, .357 SIG, 10mm and other more modern rounds.

You can decide for yourself what merits greater consideration because each set of data explains how many shootings went into the percentage rating. For instance, in .40 S&W one of the authors carries 165 Golden Sabers even though the 135 CorBon has a higher percentage and you can see from the percentages that this is probably a good choice, since if the sample were greater, it would most probably match or exceed the CorBon figure.

There is an intriguing chapter on "Effects of Multiple Bullet Impacts" which shows that a second bullet usually improves the percentage of stops only marginally, however for .40 S&W in the 135 CorBon with an already awesome one-shot stop rate of 96% (23 out of 24 shootings), there were also 10 cases of 2 shots each that resulted in 10 stops. Not anywhere near the number of .357 cases studied, but personally, I would buy a .40 based on those 34 cases.

Regarding .357, I'd love to see figures from the new Double Tap (http://www.doubletapammo.com) Gold Dot 125 at 1600 fps from a 4" barrel, but yeah, considering revolvers are yesterday's bubble gum, street data will be slow in dribbling in, if ever. Biggest bonus is they claim almost no muzzle flash!

I am actually considering switching to a .357 L-frame for armed security in dense movie crowds to add a little safety against a gun grab, since I am very happy with the K-frame with the Magna-Trigger Conversion from Rick Devoid (http://www.tarnhelm.com/magna-trigger/gun/safety/magna1.html) that I bought for my wife, and the conversion will work with the L-frame. If I do it, I'll go with the DT 125 even with no street data.

fredglock
02-27-2005, 21:22
Originally posted by pbass
I've got "Street Stoppers" (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=378&item=4516788914&rd=1&ssPageName=WD1V) here and it covers .40 S&W, .357 SIG, 10mm and other more modern rounds.

You can decide for yourself what merits greater consideration because each set of data explains how many shootings went into the percentage rating. ... big snip

I am familiar with the work of Marshall, Sanow, et.al., and my point was that this is an area where statistics tend to be confusing rather than useful. I decided long ago that the debate over handgun "stopping" power was meaningless. None of the modern researchers really have anything more definitive to say about it than did Hatcher two generations ago.

I'm not trying to disparage anyone's choice of calibers - everyone must decide for themselves what they are comfortable with. Personally, I'm happy with anything I can shoot effectively. After all, they're just handguns.

fred

patman
02-28-2005, 00:49
What crash700 said.A .22 round in the heart would do it.If you can't hit it,it doesn't matter what you try to hit it with.Go with the most accurate.

thatsfunny
02-28-2005, 07:14
Exactly correct, Patman. 'Worked in a slaughter house about 40 years ago and saw thousands of steers and cows dropped with one .22 to the head. I wouldn't want to use one for self defense but placement and training is everything.
Phil

WIG19
02-28-2005, 08:04
http://stevespages.com/page8f9mmluger.html

Barring some actual human terminal performance data, I'd personally go with the 124 or 147gr. Shooting things thru filled milk jugs isn't a big indicator of performance, but the Gold Dot (like the Ranger-T and the Golden Sabre and some HydraShok) is capable of penetrating layers of cloth and still providing good expansion, where other rounds tend to have the cavity plugged up and then act like a solid. If the 115's & 147's are all you can regularly get & you want Gold Dots, 147gr is my vote, 124gr would be my pref. The variety of quality defensive 9mm has never been better. ;j

pbass
02-28-2005, 12:59
Originally posted by fredglock
I am familiar with the work of Marshall, Sanow, et.al., and my point was that this is an area where statistics tend to be confusing rather than useful.

What they give that's better than statistics is data. To my understanding, statistics is the interpretation of data. For instance, in the 109 reports that they received involving shootings with one hit of Federal 115-gr +P+ JHP, there were 98 stops, or 90%, whereas in the 232 reports that they received involving shootings with one hit of Winchester 147-gr JHP, there were 172 stops, or 74%.

I guess you could really stretch things and call the arithmetical reduction of 98/109 to 90/100 statistics, but not me. That's such a common operation it even shows up on mom's grocery calculator.

However, when we talk about other theories, we're not even hooking things to reality, when things are based on penetration without ever showing any real world figures as to how penetration is relevant. That kind of thinking isn't even statistics, but pure conjecture.

Stopping power means something that stops, and that is not at all a rocket scientist concept. I like the Marshall-Sanow data because it collects data and stops right there. It doesn't explain why, and I don't care why. All I care is how well things work on the street.

As for proving a relationship between stopping power and penetration? Jeff Cooper pointed out (or something like it in something I read over 30 years ago), to most of us, a pro football lineman has 100% stopping power but 0% penetration, however the cosmic rays that pass through our bodies 24/7 have 100% penetration but 0% stopping power.

nksmfamjp
03-02-2005, 15:54
Originally posted by patman
What crash700 said.A .22 round in the heart would do it.If you can't hit it,it doesn't matter what you try to hit it with.Go with the most accurate.

Not when you are shooting someone on drugs. That too has been proved. A 45ACP or 3 to center of mass should stop most anything though.

pbass
03-02-2005, 16:52
Originally posted by nksmfamjp
Not when you are shooting someone on drugs. That too has been proved. A 45ACP or 3 to center of mass should stop most anything though.

Someone somewhere wrote something to the effect that in the event the target is insensate, only mechanical damage will do, like breaking the hip.

Similarly, in ASP class we were told to whack the calf muscle (back of the calf) hard enough to make it spasm uncontrollably and the person will go down. It is something the muscle does, not the brain.

Glock9mmFan
03-02-2005, 17:49
Marshall and Sanow have been discredited and proven wrong more times than Jimmy Carter. I wouldn't trust any of the so-called "data" they spewed.

Anyway, in your G17, the 147grs perform better, but in the PM9 which has a smaller barrel, you want the faster, lighter bullet. The reason is the shorter barrel causes a loss of velocity which limits penetration. To maintain the 12"+ of penetration in a short barrelled gun needed to hit the critical, blood bearing organs from any direction you need the 115s.

If you would like to know why you should never believe a word of the Marshall/Sanow stopping power myth, see: http://www.firearmstactical.com/afte.htm

FreeMe
03-02-2005, 23:08
Originally posted by Glock9mmFan
Marshall and Sanow have been discredited and proven wrong more times than Jimmy Carter. I wouldn't trust any of the so-called "data" they spewed ...................................
If you would like to know why you should never believe a word of the Marshall/Sanow stopping power myth, see: http://www.firearmstactical.com/afte.htm

Plenty of spewing going on at FAT.com as well, Glock9mmfan.

Marshall & Sanow haven't been proven to be anything. Most folks who dispute their findings on the internet haven't even read their book. FAT has an agenda to support their theory, and opposing M&S is a requirement in that vein.

I suggest you read the book, if you haven't, and decide for yourself. M&S aren't claiming superiority for any particular loads - only reporting the results of a study with a controllable criteria. before you call "BS", know what it is you're actually calling it on.

If M&S had a PM9 that shot most reliably with 147gr loads, I believe that is likely what they would carry.

BTW - I haven't seen *any* data to support the theory of increased penetration with lighter loads, all else being equal. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Glock9mmFan
03-03-2005, 01:32
Here's the lighter bullet vs. heavier bullet data for smaller barrelled guns: http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs9.htm And sorry, but you're wrong, the M/S myth has been proven wrong many times. It's junk science.


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

It is unfortunate that the authors did not take the time to adequately research and document their material and that the book’s editors did not demand correction of the confusing mistakes in evidence throughout the book. As a result, this text has far too many errors, inconsistencies, and a blatant disregard for scientific truth to be recommended as a wound ballistics reference book. The reader is asked to believe, on faith alone, a field "data base" derived from unpublished "secret sources." No clear thinking person should fall prey to this nonsense, but some individuals with no background in science or those too indolent or busy to do their own thinking could be misled. This book is a bad joke, a joke which may get law enforcement officers killed.

-- Dr. Gary K. Roberts, US Navy



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

In view of the contradictions, credibility problems, "too good to be true" statistics, and clear indications that the authors of "Street Stoppers" fail to understand the most basic of scientific principles and discourse, nothing in this book can be relied upon. The authors appear to have painted themselves into the corner of the gun culture belonging to the intellectually challenged "true believers." No intelligent reader will tolerate a nonfiction book devoid of references: the astute reader checks references, knowing that even the valid scientific literature authors misinterpret their sources from time to time.

"Street Stoppers" is a compilation of fantasy: written in the arrogant, dead certain tone of the con man. Everything echoes "trust me." The reader is constantly preached to, with evangelistic fervor: and without equivocation implored to believe in nonsense with no basis in established fact. This book is the antitheses of honest, intelligent, scientific discourse in which the evidence is laid out, dispassionately, always with clear references so skeptical readers can check out the sources and raw data for themselves. In scientific discourse readers are not asked to believe, but to consider -- and to think for themselves.

-- Dr. Martin L. Fackler, MD, US Army



http://www.firearmstactical.com/sanow-strikes-out.htm

The reader may feel that writing this review was fun, but it wasn't. The good physician is embarrassed when another physician harms a patient through incompetence, the good law enforcement officer embarrassed when another law enforcement officer breaks the law, and the good engineer is embarrassed when another engineer produces unsound analysis by not adequately understanding what he is doing. The examples given illustrate flaws in Fuller's formula, but it is difficult to make a full exposition of just how simplistic and naïve this model is without getting into technical detail not readily comprehensible to non-technical readers (for technicians, flaws include variables and formulations with no physical significance, small differences of large numbers, and unrealistic numbers of significant digits). The bottom line is that this is just another pathetic chapter in a very pathetic story.

-- Duncan MacPherson



http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm

The simple analysis procedure I have used show a clear basis for claims of unreasonable characteristics in the Marshall & Sanow "data base" in earlier reviews.5-8 However, I believe that demonstrating the misrepresentations by the simple arithmetic method I have used adds an element that was missing in the previous reviews. This simple proof can be followed completely and understood by every reader, including myself and others who lack a strong technical background.

I believe the Marshall & Sanow "data base" is completely discredited by the impossible conditions shown to exist in it.

-- Maarten van Maanen



http://www.firearmstactical.com/undeniable-evidence.htm

In my view, van Maanen's findings of impossible "more than 100%" bullet effectiveness, and impossible fewer-shootings-at-a-later-date numbers in the Marshall - Sanow statistics removes any doubt that their "data" can be anything but fabricated and fraudulent. Even more revealing than the existence of these impossible results is this cluster in that small part of the statistics where Marshall & Sanow have a compelling reason to add increased variation -- to try to avoid a recurrence of the "Too Good to be True" suspicions generated at that point in the past. This indisputable fact increases immensely the strength of van Maanen's evidence.

-- Dr. Martin L. Fackler, MD, US Army



http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-statistical-analysis.htm

The analysis given herein is completely unconnected to previous statistical analyses of the Marshall & Sanow "data base" because it approaches a completely different aspect of this "data base" and deals with the totality of this "data base". However, the conclusion is the same: the probability that the Marshall & Sanow "data base" is an assembly of valid information from uncorrupted sources is so low that this "data base" cannot reasonably be believed.

The shameless popular gun press will probably continue to provide a forum for the Marshall & Sanow nonsense in the interests of selling magazines. One can reasonably hope that the target audience for this material will henceforth be only the kind of eccentrics that become involved with the all too common irrational cults so prevalent in our society.

-- Duncan MacPherson

pbass
03-03-2005, 13:31
FAT and others have had over a decade to compile their own database of real shootings. Why haven't they, unless the data doesn't refute the data (and why should it)?

Glock9mmFan
03-03-2005, 14:35
If you read the articles I linked to, you will realize why; no good, consistent data sources exist for such a thing that a proper statistical conclusion can be derived from. And again, M/S has been refuted and is bad data, it is not even consistent within itself, see the above statistical analysis. You are making a tremendous mistake if you consider any of the M/s data valid.

pbass
03-03-2005, 16:43
Originally posted by Glock9mmFan
If you read the articles I linked to, you will realize why;

I read every last page of them a while back.

On the one hand, we have figures reflecting years of street results as reported in police and coroner files.

On the other, we have gelatin blocks.

If the gelatin folks come up with their own set of street data, which they've had forever to do, I'll be first in line to read it.

'Til then, no offense, I'll take the street results over the gelatin.

I'm not inflexible. I'll always go with whoever offers the most empirical data, and I'll switch at the drop of a hat. Just show me who's got the real world data, that's all I ask.

At first the only info I had was word of mouth. One gunner said a .22 was "enough" without elaboration; another that the .32 auto was "a proven man-killer," another that the .357 was best. I couldn't make sense of this.

Then I got hold of the 1974 "Cooper on Handguns," the first rational, systematic thinking I'd found on the subject (though the data was largely anecdotal, at least it was data); I went with that, and my first handgun was a LWC.

Then came Sanow & Marshall's magazine articles based on contemporary street reports. There was lots of data there that didn't at all fit neatly into any theory, but that was fine with me.

Since, I've been awaiting others to conduct their own studies based on street data. And I've been getting really impatient. I mean, the shootings are out there. They're going on every day. And if any other group of scientists, which ballistic theorists claim to be, were presented with a study of the magnitude of Sanow & Marshall, they'd be out there running the same study, gathering as much street data as possible, to see if the results are replicable. But nobody's doing it.

To me, that means one of three things: either the opposing theorists are no scientists at all, or they've got a good guess that their results would be the same as Sanow and Marshall, or they're just plain lazy.

Glock9mmFan
03-03-2005, 16:53
While we'd all love street data, the fact that the M/S data doesn't even add up right in and of itself should show you that something's vaguely wrong with it, no? According to their data some rounds are above a 100% one shot stop. How's that work?

The gelatin tests aren't perfect, but give a good indication of a round's performance in a controlled scientific setting. You are right that they aren't everything, but they are one of the few pieces of valid data we have for making these decisions.

pbass
03-03-2005, 17:19
Originally posted by Glock9mmFan
While we'd all love street data, the fact that the M/S data doesn't even add up right in and of itself should show you that something's vaguely wrong with it, no? According to their data some rounds are above a 100% one shot stop. How's that work?

The gelatin tests aren't perfect, but give a good indication of a round's performance in a controlled scientific setting. You are right that they aren't everything, but they are one of the few pieces of valid data we have for making these decisions.

I've got "Street Stoppers" right here, just give me the page number and let me see if your observation has substantial merit. Otherwise I could care less about an arithmetic mistake where we can figure out what the problem was, I make them daily.

As for gelatin, I never met a man made of gelatin. Look, I don't go for goat shooting either. Or beef carcasses. I'm an equal opportunity skeptic. Forget experiments, forget theories, just tell me what works on people.

Glock9mmFan
03-03-2005, 22:42
Appearently you didn't read my links. It's there. I've already done enough copy and paste you didn't read, so I fail to see why I should do more so you can ignore that as well.

pbass
03-04-2005, 11:12
Originally posted by Glock9mmFan
Appearently you didn't read my links. It's there. I've already done enough copy and paste you didn't read, so I fail to see why I should do more so you can ignore that as well.

Yeah, it's there: a steaming pile of invective, that's what's there.

What's not there is street data, how many folks got shot once with what and of those, how many quit being aggressive.

Look, again, I don't care WHY one shot of the best .357 Mag loads stop people more often than one shot of the best .44 Mag loads.

So what if the best .357 is lighter and faster and smaller and the .44 is slower and heavier and bigger? If reality had shown the opposite, I'd go the other way in a heartbeat.

I see you list G17 in your sig line. I have one too. Yeah I have my preferences. I'd rather be a big guy who can easily hide a 686+. I'd rather have eyes good enough that I wouldn't need that huge white Glock rear sight outline to hit things. I'd rather have the option of a crisp single action trigger for precise distance shots. And I wish I had a better budget so I could practice with a more expensive and effective caliber like .40 S&W (I average 300 rounds per range session and let me tell you I need the practice).

But I'm OK with the 17. I know out of the 32 times a guy was shot once with Cor-Bon 115 JHP +P, he quit aggressing 29 times, but with the best 147 JHP, only 8 out of 10 times. Without this info, I wouldn't have a complete picture.

It all wraps up like this: 1) it goes bang every time I squeeze the trigger, 2) I hit better with it than anything else I've tried, 3) it's proven that a tad better than 9 out of 10 folks on the receiving end have stopped doing bad things. That's what I need to know.

cowboy1964
05-08-2010, 14:22
But I'm OK with the 17. I know out of the 32 times a guy was shot once with Cor-Bon 115 JHP +P, he quit aggressing 29 times, but with the best 147 JHP, only 8 out of 10 times.

And who thinks a sample size of 10 is sufficient to draw any meaningful conclusions??

GlockFish
05-08-2010, 16:23
Have a glock g17 and kahr pm9. The man at the gun store said to use speeder gold dots. ? So i got a box of 115gr and 147gr.Which one should i use for a carry load FOR BOTH GUNS. I use winchester white box for target.

For 9mm, the guys over at Speer recommend the 147 or 124 depending on barrel length.

"If your handgun has a barrel length of 4 inches or longer, consider either the standard 124 grain Gold Dot JHP or the 147 grain Gold Dot JHP.

If your handgun has a barrel length less than 4 inches, consider the 147 grain Gold Dot JHP or the 124 grain +P JHP."

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs9.htm

Caver 60
05-11-2010, 20:17
Probably not valid since it was about 10 years ago and not against a human.

But I shot a little high with my rifle and broke the back of an 8 point buck. He dropped, but was thrashing. I decided to finish him with my MK9 loaded with 147 grain Hydra Shocks. I tried a neck shot since I didn't want to mess up the rack.

The shot hit the spine from the side, but he kept thrashing. Took a couple more to make him be quite. Afterward I tried to fire a few more through the lower neck without hitting the spine just to see how they penetrated. None of them made it out the other side.

Since then I've stuck with the 115 or 124 grain HP's for 9mm. Just personal prejudice.

ArtificialGrape
05-23-2010, 01:18
Picking up ammo at the store when you get a gun is fine if it's your first pistol in that caliber, and you want to immediately have SD/HD capability, but...

I wouldn't limit my choices to what my gun shop carries.

Personally I carry Speer Gold Dot 124+p in my PM9, G19 and G26.

-ArtificialGrape