165 grain or 180 grain

[justoutofglock]

I am very new to firearms and shooting, sorry for putting this question in this forum, but I have gotten great responses to questions in the past.

What is the difference between 165 grain and 180 grain ammunition for .40 cal Glock 22? The 165 grain seem to be a little bit more expensive and in some online retailers, are sold out compared to the cheaper 180 grain ammunition....why would a more expensive ammunition be sold out and the cheaper, still be in stock? Oh, by the way, I was looking at Winchester white box ammunition. Thanks!

[MontanaBighorn]

although its ideal to train with what you carry, for target practice i dont think it really matters. for defensive carry i recommend using the heaviest bullet that is commonly available. in my m&p .40 i carry corbon 165 grain jhp's, but if it were available in 180 grains i would carry that instead.

[mnglocker]

The lighter grain ammo will typically have a higher level of muzzle energy but less out at 25 yards than heavier ammo will. I carry 155 &165 grain loads because they have a greater level of kinetic energy at defensive ranges than 180 grain typically and I use what ever is cheap for practice.

[Armed Infidel]

My carry ammo is Cor-Bon 140gr DPX. Same thinking about SD ranges. :thumbsup:

[mnglocker]

Originally posted by Armed Infidel
My carry ammo is Cor-Bon 140gr DPX. Same thinking about SD ranges. :thumbsup:

Is that in .40? I may have to check that out. :supergrin:

[WolfiePacker]

right now im carrying 84gr MagSafe, 1800 fps over 600 ft-Ibs force.

[AJE]

I prefer 180gr all around. I purchased several boxes of 165 and 180 to test out and I think the 165gr loads tend to have a heavier recoil.

I purchase 180gr CCI Blazers for shooting and Winchester Ranger 180gr for carrying.

As a bonus, if you are into, or could be into supressors, the 180gr loads will stay subsonic (<1100fps).

[Gene$tarwind]

i carry a middle weight 165 grain hydra shok for my glock 23. im not sure just yet on whether i want a 165 or a 180.

although they say its outdated. ive shot corbon. golddot, hornady tap and a few others. I use the federals because i shoot most accuractly with them. Even if they are outdated i shoot them because i know that i will shoot where i need to shoot vs the better penetration/expansion.

[MrNord]

My G22 does not like 165g, nose dives about 40% of the time. I use WWB 180g JHPs for carry and Blazer brass 180g FMJs for practice. Both have been trouble free.

Carl

[Z71bill]

Originally posted by AJE
I prefer 180gr all around. I purchased several boxes of 165 and 180 to test out and I think the 165gr loads tend to have a heavier recoil.

I purchase 180gr CCI Blazers for shooting and Winchester Ranger 180gr for carrying.

As a bonus, if you are into, or could be into supressors, the 180gr loads will stay subsonic (<1100fps).

I always though a heavy bullet created more felt recoil?

What bullet weight is best - will always be a topic of debate. Mainly because there really is no ONE best answer.

If you compare a 165 and a 180 (same brand same bullet style) and shoot them side by side at normal SD range I doubt there would be much difference between the two.

[WolfiePacker]

There is a notable difference in 180gr vs 165gr CCI/Independence target ammo. The 165 is lesser in recoil than the 180 and much more pleasent to shoot. That said I shot some 155gr federal JHPs and they were far worse than either 180 or 165.

[GLOCKSTER2000]

I think 165 grain is much better. Just avoid medium velocity 165 grains.

[Vulcanese]

180.

This allows for the .161 sectional density that the cartridge was originally designed for. Also, this is the same SD for the 230gr 45acp bullet, for whatever that's worth.

So 180gr for both 40sw and 10mm. I think it's the perfect weight for a .400" bullet.

[mnglocker]

Originally posted by Z71bill
I always though a heavy bullet created more felt recoil?
**Who cares if it's "snappy" as long as it stops the threat asap.

Originally posted by Z71bill

If you compare a 165 and a 180 (same brand same bullet style) and shoot them side by side at normal SD range I doubt there would be much difference between the two.

At self defense ranges <25 yards let alone 25 feet, there is a difference.

These charts are right from Speer's and Federal's websites.

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/8525/golddotspecsoz2.jpg

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/1918/federaltacticalhstspecshq6.jpg

[Vincent7]

Cool info.

I find that the .40 is a slow bullet, so I prefer the lighter weight rounds. Most law enforcement and military lean towards the 165.

[mnglocker]

I carry Speer GD's in 155gr and Federal TActical HST's in 165gr. Niether has had any problems running and or feeding in my G22 or G23. :thumbsup:

[Buffering]

180 vs. 165.

It's a huge difference, right? Not so.

Take your typical .22 LR slug. It weighs 40 grains.

Cut it into 3 pieces. That's the difference between the two cartridges. It's the size of a grain of rice.

Now find me some meaningful stats on the practical difference between them in terms of defensive shootings and we can talk some more.

[Z71bill]

mnglocker

I have studied all the charts comparing different cartridges and bullet weights - and spent a fair amount of time thinking / comparing / wondering about FPS and FT pounds of energy -

So I agree with you - there is a difference in these factors.

The difference (lack of really) I am talking about is the size hole / damage it will cause when you shoot something (or someone) - I have read that even a doctor with experience dealing with gunshot wounds can't tell the difference between a 9MM and a .45 until the bullet has been removed.

[tostada]

I think most people initially lean towards heavier bullets, because bigger bullet = better ... but after looking at ballistics and actual testing, people tend to lean towards lighter bullets.

If you look at the velocities, energy, penetration, expansion, etc. of different ammo, the best performing ones are usually on the light side for the caliber.

I always think of the 125-grain .357 Mag -- About 1400 FPS, 550 ftlbs, great penetration, great expansion. Not many people are going to tell you the .357 Mag is anything but a great stopper, but then they'll turn right around and go for bullets that are trying to mimic the performance of .45 ACP instead of .357 Mag.

From what I've seen, the best advice is that if you're using JHP, go for something that mimics the performance of .357 Mag. If you're stuck with ball ammo, go for something that mimics the performance of .45 ACP.

[Armed Infidel]

Originally posted by mnglocker
Is that in .40? I may have to check that out. :supergrin:

Yes sir... .40! Awesome round too!

[Joe Vandal]

Since going to the G22 in 1999 I've carried the 180 Gold Dot, the 155 Hyrda-Shock and Gold Dot, and now the 165 Gold Dot. All have been satisfactory, although I think the 165 is an attempt to meet in the middle of light/faster (155) and heavy/slower (180). I'm sure Rosie has a conpiracy theory to prove this, but she' been too busy to talk about it!

[leadfootdriver]

The heavier bullets carry velocity longer for more penetration.

If a train and a car are both going 20 mph towards a wall, the car will smash to a stop, and the train will smash through and keep going.

[tostada]

Originally posted by leadfootdriver
The heavier bullets carry velocity longer for more penetration.

If a train and a car are both going 20 mph towards a wall, the car will smash to a stop, and the train will smash through and keep going.

That analogy is asinine.

A 180 grain bullet vs. a 165 grain bullet is a 9% difference in mass.

The smallest modern GE locomotive is 25 tons by itself with no cars attached. That's 581% heavier than a Hummer.

From Federal's ballistics, a 180 grain .40 bullet will retain 81.0% of its muzzle energy at 100 yards. A 165 grain .40 bullet will retain 79.8% of its muzzle energy at 100 yards.

From Winchester's ballistics, a 180 grain .40 bullet will retain 80.8% of its muzzle energy at 100 yards. A 165 grain .40 bullet will retain 74.5% of its muzzle energy at 100 yards. The lighter bullet starts with more muzzle energy, and out at 100 yards it still has more muzzle energy (and is more accurate).

http://www.winchester.com/products/catalog/comparehandgun.aspx?multiadd=UzQwLTEtMitBRUEtUzQwMS0xLTI=&action=3&ctype=1&atype=2

A lighter, higher-energy cartridge is always going to be the way to go unless you can prove significantly better expansion from the heavier round. That it certainly not the case. To the contrary, the only .40 round in the FBI's test data which expanded to over .70" was the Speer Gold Dot 155 grain which expanded to .84".

Actually, that's not true. The only other round that beat .70" expansion was the 155 grain Talon at .71" clothed expansion. The 180-grain Talons were next best at .70" clothed expansion.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/40s&w.htm

[leadfootdriver]

Originally posted by tostada
That analogy is asinine.

A 180 grain bullet vs. a 165 grain bullet is a 9% difference in mass.

The smallest modern GE locomotive is 25 tons by itself with no cars attached. That's 581% heavier than a Hummer.

From Federal's ballistics, a 180 grain .40 bullet will retain 81.0% of its muzzle energy at 100 yards. A 165 grain .40 bullet will retain 79.8% of its muzzle energy at 100 yards.

From Winchester's ballistics, a 180 grain .40 bullet will retain 80.8% of its muzzle energy at 100 yards. A 165 grain .40 bullet will retain 74.5% of its muzzle energy at 100 yards. The lighter bullet starts with more muzzle energy, and out at 100 yards it still has more muzzle energy (and is more accurate).

http://www.winchester.com/products/catalog/comparehandgun.aspx?multiadd=UzQwLTEtMitBRUEtUzQwMS0xLTI=&action=3&ctype=1&atype=2

A lighter, higher-energy cartridge is always going to be the way to go unless you can prove significantly better expansion from the heavier round. That it certainly not the case. To the contrary, the only .40 round in the FBI's test data which expanded to over .70" was the Speer Gold Dot 155 grain which expanded to .84".

Actually, that's not true. The only other round that beat .70" expansion was the 155 grain Talon at .71" clothed expansion. The 180-grain Talons were next best at .70" clothed expansion.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/40s&w.htm

It wasn't meant to be a direct comparison. I was only trying to present the fact that more mass holds velocity longer you ***** dork. Lighten up... :upeyes:

[SouthernBoyVA]

The .40S&W seems to come into its own in bullets weights from 135 to 155 grains. The 135gr JHP Cor-Bon has an excellent track record and is very highly recommended by Boston T. Party ("Boston's Gun Bible"). The Federal Classic JHP and their Hydra-Shok 155 grainers rate quite high as well and both have returned commendable results. Then there is the Federal Tactical (LE) HST round in 155gr. This is a "Police" round and exits the barrel with a bit of authority. There are a bunch more fine choices in this caliber.

The .40S&W has created a wealth of really superb defensive loads and if you stay with the proven performers, you will not go wrong. This caliber is one of the best you can carry in a semi-auto pistol.

[tostada]

Originally posted by leadfootdriver
It wasn't meant to be a direct comparison. I was only trying to present the fact that more mass holds velocity longer you ***** dork. Lighten up... :upeyes:

And I was trying to present the fact that you're incorrect.

Have you thought about your statement? Is that really what you meant to say? A shoebox has more mass than a paper airplane. Which one is going to hold velocity longer?

Weight just isn't that big a factor. A 150 grain 30-06 has pretty good penetration. If you want the best penetration you're going to go with something like a super-light Cor-Bon load.

Larger bullets of the same caliber have higher sectional density, so all other things being equal they will give better penetration.

But all other things are not equal, and in handguns lighter bullets usually have more velocity and energy to begin with and therefore will have more velocity and energy to retain. The diminished ability of the lighter bullet to retain velocity still doesn't make it perform worse than the heavier bullet until you get out in high-powered scope range.


Originally posted by SouthernBoyVA
The .40S&W seems to come into its own in bullets weights from 135 to 155 grains. The 135gr JHP Cor-Bon has an excellent track record and is very highly recommended by Boston T. Party ("Boston's Gun Bible").

Yeah, that 135 grain Cor-Bon looks good on paper with its 1325FPS/526FTLBS, but if you shot leadfootdriver with it, he'd laugh at the insignificant mass.
:rofl:

[Z71bill]

IMO - if you stay in a "normal" range - somewhere between 155 and 180 Gr they will all do a good job of stopping a fight - if you hit you target that is.

I have always wondered why manufacturers even publish ballistic info for handgun cartridges out to 100 yards or more.

I can't hit much of anything past 95 yards unless I use a bench rest :tongueout:

[HKB]

I have been using WWB 165 gr. ammo, also have tried UMC 180 gr.(only 50 rds.).
I can`t really tell the difference...yet. I just put holes in cardboard, I`m getting ready to shoot some IDPA matches. Do you think the 165 gr. WWB is a good selection?

[Panzerfaust]

Originally posted by AJE
I prefer 180gr all around. I purchased several boxes of 165 and 180 to test out and I think the 165gr loads tend to have a heavier recoil.

I purchase 180gr CCI Blazers for shooting and Winchester Ranger 180gr for carrying.

As a bonus, if you are into, or could be into supressors, the 180gr loads will stay subsonic (<1100fps).

Well, this guy just stole my thunder.

Good call, though....

[Mr. BJL]

I like the LEO Winchester Ranget-T's @ 165 gr.in my G23. Don't need to be an LEO to buy them either.

[mnglocker]

Originally posted by Z71bill
mnglocker

I have studied all the charts comparing different cartridges and bullet weights - and spent a fair amount of time thinking / comparing / wondering about FPS and FT pounds of energy -

So I agree with you - there is a difference in these factors.

The difference (lack of really) I am talking about is the size hole / damage it will cause when you shoot something (or someone) - I have read that even a doctor with experience dealing with gunshot wounds can't tell the difference between a 9MM and a .45 until the bullet has been removed.

Bigger holes always help. Considering that, bullets traveling at higher velocities tend to open up better, making a larger wound channel.

[Wordsmith]

Originally posted by mnglocker
Bigger holes always help. Considering that, bullets traveling at higher velocities tend to open up better, making a larger wound channel.

And thereby penetrating less.

Really, it comes down to what's more important to you: penetration or expansion?

If your answer is expansion, then maybe you should be carrying a .45 ACP in the first place.

[Z71bill]

I can't believe I am about to post this - because it bugs me when I hear some talking head say it -

When comparing the 165 and 180 gr at SD ranges (fired from the same gun - same brand - type bla bla) it is a

Difference without a distinction :puking:

[tostada]

Originally posted by Wordsmith
And thereby penetrating less.

Really, it comes down to what's more important to you: penetration or expansion?

If your answer is expansion, then maybe you should be carrying a .45 ACP in the first place.

Well, certainly people like AJE and Panzerfaust who say they like 180 grain because it's got less recoil and is slower would probably be better off with .45. At least then you get a bigger hole with your lower recoil slower round.

Higher velocity usually translates to better expansion, which is why lower weight higher velocity rounds have about the same expansion as their heavier counterparts within a given caliber. If a bullet fails to expand, it will generally penetrate more, but there is plenty ammo out there that both expands well and penetrates well. And then you've got ammo like DPX which can go through a car door and not expand well, but expand very well and still get a ton of penetration when it's not going through steel.

Obviously expansion at the expense of penetration is usually the way to go. That's why 99.9% of people would rather shoot JHP than ball ammo.

[tostada]

Originally posted by Z71bill
I can't believe I am about to post this - because it bugs me when I hear some talking head say it -

When comparing the 165 and 180 gr at SD ranges (fired from the same gun - same brand - type bla bla) it is a

Difference without a distinction :puking:

You could say that about almost anything which gets discussed in an online forum. In reality, many times a .380 is going to get the same job done that a .45 does.

If everybody just said, "Well, it doesn't really make much difference so forget about it," there wouldn't be much to talk about.

[Wordsmith]

Originally posted by tostada
Well, certainly people like AJE and Panzerfaust who say they like 180 grain because it's got less recoil and is slower would probably be better off with .45. At least then you get a bigger hole with your lower recoil slower round.

Higher velocity usually translates to better expansion, which is why lower weight higher velocity rounds have about the same expansion as their heavier counterparts within a given caliber. If a bullet fails to expand, it will generally penetrate more, but there is plenty ammo out there that both expands well and penetrates well. And then you've got ammo like DPX which can go through a car door and not expand well, but expand very well and still get a ton of penetration when it's not going through steel.

Obviously expansion at the expense of penetration is usually the way to go. That's why 99.9% of people would rather shoot JHP than ball ammo.

Good post. You make plenty of sense.

[Z71bill]

Originally posted by tostada
You could say that about almost anything which gets discussed in an online forum. In reality, many times a .380 is going to get the same job done that a .45 does.

If everybody just said, "Well, it doesn't really make much difference so forget about it," there wouldn't be much to talk about.

Not sure I would go that far - but I do see what you mean - I am sure many BG have "ran for the hills" at the sight of a 22. So many times a 22 would be as good as a 50 caliber.

Like I said before - I have studied all the charts of handgun ammunuition - first when I was trying to figure out which caliber to buy - then to figure out which cartiridge was "best" - I was also looking for a unicorn - never found that either. :rofl:

I won't go so far as to say FPS and foot pounds mean nothing - but they sure don't mean everything.

380 VS 45 - a 90 gr bullet @ 950 FPS with 200 FT pounds

VS a 230 gr bullet @ 900 FPS with 400 FT pounds (@ the muzzle)

40 S&W - 165 VS 180 - 165 gr bullet @ 1140 with 470 FP

180 gr bullet @ 1030 with 430 FP

The part that is interesting is the 40 BEATS the 45 in every one of these - think the 40 is a better stopper than the 45? I know a few people who do - and even though I have a 40 (not a 45)- I still think a 45 would have a slight edge. IMO the 40 comes out a winner only because of capacity - my M&P 40 holds 16 rounds, M&P 45 capacity is "only" 11.

[Jason607]

What sucks is that your attacker doesn't give you notice about his specs. You don't know if it's going to be a 89lbs crackhead running around in his underwear or a 400lbs chewbacha looking thug in a thick leather jacket. That glasser will be perfect for shaking up and blowing apart the crackhead, but chewbacha is going to get real PO's and chances are that 135grain might not get there deep enough to stop him quick. Then again, a 180grain will probally pop through the crackhead and hardly have any time to expand and he will be found dead hours later under a bridge with your silverware.

I have been carrying the Georgia-arms 155gr Gold Dot in .40S&W +P+, rated at 1300fps and it's a strong load (although I doubt it's getting 1300 in the G27 barrell) and the GD bullet is tried and proven to expand well and hold togeather great. I like the 155's,but I have been wanting to try some of the Corbon's in the 135-140gr range. In the middle ranges, you get good velosity along with the penatration.

[tostada]

Originally posted by Z71bill
I won't go so far as to say FPS and foot pounds mean nothing - but they sure don't mean everything.

380 VS 45 - a 90 gr bullet @ 950 FPS with 200 FT pounds

VS a 230 gr bullet @ 900 FPS with 400 FT pounds (@ the muzzle)

40 S&W - 165 VS 180 - 165 gr bullet @ 1140 with 470 FP

180 gr bullet @ 1030 with 430 FP

The part that is interesting is the 40 BEATS the 45 in every one of these - think the 40 is a better stopper than the 45? I know a few people who do - and even though I have a 40 (not a 45)- I still think a 45 would have a slight edge. IMO the 40 comes out a winner only because of capacity - my M&P 40 holds 16 rounds, M&P 45 capacity is "only" 11.

Well, if you compare the meaner loads:

Cor-Bon .45 +P 165 grain = 1250FPS/573FTLBS
Cor-Bon .40 165 grain = 1150FPS/485FTLBS
Cor-Bon .40 135 grain = 1325FPS/526FTLBS

That's not a fair comparison, because their .45 test barrel was 5". But like you I would still give the slight edge to the .45.

With .40 you're essentially forcing yourself to always shoot +P. In a way that's nice, because you're forcing yourself to practice with the same ammo you'd actually carry, but if you're going to compare it to .45 or 9mm, you should probably be comparing it to +P.

[BOM]

I carry 165 GoldDots at 1400 fps.



















In my 10mm's of course.

I love Double Tap:supergrin:

[10mm4ever]

I've come to prefer the better 165's. Although slightly lighter, they more than make up for this with all out impact energy.

[Jason607]

Thanks for reminding us what S&W stands for Mr. 10MM. ;)

[10mm4ever]

Originally posted by Jason607
Thanks for reminding us what S&W stands for Mr. 10MM. ;) Uh....sure thing, Mr. Jason. :upeyes:

[SDGlock23]

Originally posted by tostada

Cor-Bon .45 +P 165 grain = 1250FPS/573FTLBS
Cor-Bon .40 165 grain = 1150FPS/485FTLBS
Cor-Bon .40 135 grain = 1325FPS/526FTLBS


Beautiful thing about reloading is that you can effectively add 200 fps to each of the .40 offerings listed above. But I understand not everyone reloads or feels comfy in carrying handloads.

[Judgemax]

*

[tostada]

Judgemax:

The grain weight is for the bullet only. The weight difference could be negated by overall cartridge weight. In the case of DPX, 140 grain Cor-Bon is hopefully using thicker brass and a bigger charge than your average 180 grain ammo. I don't know. I'm just saying you'd need to know the actual overall weight to make that comparison.

1160 grain translates to 2.65 oz, which is about the weight of a tiny 2.5" pocket knife. If you are in fact saving 2.65 oz. by using 140 grain ammo, you could argue either way about the significance of that weight, but it probably shouldn't be a deciding factor in ammo choice.

I personally think there are very good reasons to choose DPX, I just don't know if saving weight is a valid one.

[Judgemax]

.

[Jeff82]

Here's the real deal:

Which ammo allows you to put the most rounds the quickest, where you want them, with at least a 350ft/lb of energy with an expanding bullet?

I propose a new way to catagorize SD ammo:
Best gun/ammo combination that has:
most hits in 5" circle at 15 yards in a certain time frame like 3 seconds, 350ft/lb minimum energy level, expanding bullet. Measured by total number of ft/lbs into the target.

Yes, this is shooter dependent. You may be able to handle a different combination than the next guy.

Once we establish some base lines we may be able to then recommend combinations based on skill level (cross reference to match scores of some kind.)

whadya thunk?