165 or 180?

[emann]

Alright I keep reading conflicting things. I was at the local gun shop the other day and asked what grain Gold Dots they had in stock. I was told 165 and 180. I asked which had less recoil and was told 165. Now I read some people saying that 180 kicks less. Can someone who REALLY knows tell me the truth? And to take it a step further where would the 155 fit in?

[Glock: For Hire]

Here's been my experience when shooting .40's through Glock pistols over the last 8 years. With my grip and stance, usually an agressive Isoceles with a high grip that envelops the gun, normally loaded 180's in the 950 fps - 1050 fps range feel as if they have less recoil.

Fully loaded 165's in the 1100 - 1170 range feel as if they generate more felt recoil. Ironically I feel that these loads shoot flatter than the 180's I generally use and in some ways feel more accurate.

The down loaded 165's in the 950 - 1000 fps range seem to shoot as light as their heavier 180 grain counterparts, with the same degree of accuracy as the latter. All thing being equal I'd rather push the larger bullet.

The 155's I tend to like. They are going at 1140 - 1200 fps depending upon the manufacturer. They seem to perform very similarly to the flatter shooting fully loaded 165's, except according to the ballistic tables, if you believe such things, the 155's are delivering more energy than their heavier counterparts. I feel that recovery from recoil is a little more difficult but not impossible.

My bullet of choice 90% of the time is something in a 180 grain flavor, usually Gold Dots( my present load of choice ), but I have run SXT's and Golden Sabres before as well. I also like to experiment with the 165's and 155's occassionally but invariably come back to the 180's which I tend to shoot a little better. All this said YMMV.

Hope this helps.

Best,

Dave

[Steve Koski]

I haven't bought enough factory ammo in the last decade to know, but I'll bet the two loadings are close enough that it becomes a personal preference deal. You'd have to buy both and shoot some to see what you like best.

[Timjo1955]

I find that 180 grain GD or GS produce less snap than their 165 grain ammo, but maybe that's not a perception shared by all. I feel the difference, but it's not enormous- just there.
There is some relatively soft shooting 165 grain target ammo- WWB and American Eagle come to mind.
I agree with Glock: For Hire. The most accurate ammo I've shot is the 180 grain Rem GS. However, I am currently stocked up on 155 grain Rem Express that I bought on sale($11.00-13.00/50) over the past few years. Could not pass it up.

[duncan]

Originally posted by Timjo1955
I find that 180 grain GD or GS produce less snap than their 165 grain ammo, but maybe that's not a perception shared by all. I feel the difference, but it's not enormous- just there.


That gun shop employee was full of crap!

The heavier bullets in 40SW produce less recoil. I have reloaded 40SW from 135-200 and the 180s are my favorite weight.

Well known phenomena.

Get the 180 grainers for better ballistics and shootability.

[fowler]

180gr. of course .I allways go the weight over speed. 180gr. best over all performance with less recoil. And of course the preferred load of the Fed. boys and homeland.

[bakupolo]

I mostly disregard ballistics and use whatever I can shoot best, for a defense gun. The 180 is, to me, the easiest to control. I think the .40/180 is easier to handle than a 9 mil in a similar gun.

[DonGlock26]

I find that heavier bullets cause more recoil for me. I like the 165gr rounds and they are more accurate for me.

I think that recoil can be perceived in two different ways- the speed and force that the slide is forced back(speed) and the muzzle flip and torque in the hand(weight). The speed of the slide doesn't bother me as much as the torque and muzzle rise, so I perceive the lighter, faster bullets to recoil less.

[J.P.]

Generally speaking,I find the 180gr in almost every brand to have less perceived recoil.

[texas 48]

I agree that 180 grain has less recoil and flip. I prefer 155 gr DT GDHP for carry. It has take a few hundered rounds to feel totally comfortable with this round becasue of considerable flip. I like the ballistics of this round for my G27. 1200ftps 494ftlbs energy and .76 expansion. 12.75 inches penitration. Best all around of DT loadings for me.

[rfd339]

i practice with 165gr wwb or umc , carry 155gr hornady TAP. i need to try out some 165gr remington golden sabers.

[SurefireG21]

To me the 180 grain loads in general produce a pushier recoil, more like a .45 ACP. However, overall recoil to me feels heavier with the 180s.

The lighter bullet weights to me feel very snappy.

All .40 loads for me are easy to shoot though.

IIRC, the 180 grain loads in .40 are typically slightly underloaded (relative to the other bullet weights) to avoid bullet setback and increased pressure spike or something like that. Is this true?

My favorite loads in .40 are 180 grain bullets, because I enjoy the feel of the recoil (more push) more than the other weights (more snap). Just IMO, YMMV

[DHart]

I believe in "heavy-for-caliber" bullet weights. In forty, I think 180 is perfect! Very comfortable (NOT snappy) to shoot in my Glock 23. 180's are all I shoot in my forties.

[cole]

I find that 180 grain GD or GS produce less snap than their 165 grain ammo ... The most accurate ammo I've shot is the 180 grain Rem GS.

Ditto this in recoil and accuracy from the 180 GS.

I shot the 165gr GS for years. Then, I got a $9/box deal on 180gr GS and switched over. I prefer shooting the 180gr GS over the 165gr GS. The 180gr does have noticeably less recoil, more a push than a snap like the 165gr. Also, the 180gr GS gives tighter groups in my G23. Very pleased with the switch and I'd not go back.

The lighter the buller and higher the velocity, the more snappy the recoil will be in the factory loaded .40sw.

[BrokenArrow]

In the Speer GDs, the recoil of the 155/165 are pretty close, the 180 is less. Depends on the lots of ammo. On a particular day I shot all three from G23, and at the listed velocities recoil was (from less to most) the 180, 155, and then 165:

180/985 fps
155/1165 fps
165/1110 fps

The DOJ (FBI/DEA/USMS/BATF) has used mostly 165s. FBI contract ammo was med velocity Fed 165 HS in 97, med velocity Speer 165 GD in 2002, and the newest is a Win 180 enhanced Ranger Bonded.

The DHS (CBP/ICE/USCG) has used 155s, mostly from Remington and Federal, since 1994. Since 2004 they contracted for some reduced velocity (1220 fps) Fed 135 HSTs for use in compact pistols, along w some Win Ranger 155s and Federal 155 HSTs.

FWIW, the DOJ 165/180 duty ammo usually penetrates at least 12 inches or more in bare gel, the DHS 135/155 duty ammo less than 10 inches in bare gel (according to tests done by the FBI for the DOJ, and by ICE for the DHS).

[GeorgiaGlocker]

I use Speer Gold Dots 165 gr. I shot a box of 180gr once and really could tell that much of a difference.

[happyguy]

I can load a magazine with various weights and when I'm done shooting them I realize they all felt the same.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

[Steve Koski]

That may be more of an indication of the level of your experience, not the ammunition.

[cole]

I can load a magazine with various weights and when I'm done shooting them I realize they all felt the same.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

It will be most notable in single hand shooting. Shoot with one hand (dominant and non-dominant) and it's definately noticable. From a strong two-hand stance less so, but still noticeable as I commented above.

[Z71bill]

Not an expert on the subject -

I think it is logical that - IF the cartridges both have the same powder charge -

A lighter bullet will have less recoil - think about it - if the bullet is 0 gr (like a blank it will have almost no recoil - if the bullet was 1 POUND it would have a TON of recoil -

So logically the lighter bullet MUST have less recoil. Just a fact.

But - people feel what the feel - the perceived recoil of a 180 may be less than the perceived recoil of the 165 gr bullet.

This could be true because - the time span of the recoil is most likely shorter when shooting a lighter bullet - it gets out of the barrel faster - so you feel a smaller amount of total recoil but it is crammed into a shorter time frame so it FEELS like more.

Dumb example maybe - but would you rather get shocked with 120 volts for 1 second or 65 volts for 2 seconds?

[Steve Koski]

bill,

They don't use the same powder charges, so your entire analogy is false. They are loaded to (about) the same peak pressure.

Koski

[Z71bill]

bill,

They don't use the same powder charges, so your entire analogy is false. They are loaded to (about) the same peak pressure.

Koski

OK - but it seems the same to me anyway - reason I was saying use the same amount of powder is because I figured that would give the same amount of power - or PSI -

The theory is - actual recoil is less with lighter bullet - but you can still feel less recoil (perceived) with a heavier bullet - due to the time frame being longer - it spreads out the impact.

I am open to some better explanation -

Give me a reason / explanation why a heavy bullet with the same peak PSI as a light bullet will have less recoil. Other than - it just does.

[Steve Koski]

Oh, I see. You're kind of new to things. I'm too tired to go through it again. Ask the boys in the Caliber Corner.

[cole]

OK - but it seems the same to me anyway - reason I was saying use the same amount of powder is because I figured that would give the same amount of power - or PSI -

The theory is - actual recoil is less with lighter bullet - but you can still feel less recoil (perceived) with a heavier bullet - due to the time frame being longer - it spreads out the impact.

I am open to some better explanation -

Give me a reason / explanation why a heavy bullet with the same peak PSI as a light bullet will have less recoil. Other than - it just does.


It's not about the weight of the projectile. They do not have the same VELOCITY.

The energy formula is:
e = mc2 (Energy = Mass x the SQUARE of Accelleration (i.e. velocity)

So, the formular HEAVILY favors velocity as a determination of energy. Energy forward in moving the projectile will relate to energy back in recoil.

180gr @ 950 = 162450000
165gr @ 1050 = 181912500

[Z71bill]

Acceleration and velocity are not the same thing -

Acceleration is a velocity change over a time -

Only one way to solve this -

I need to go to the range with some 165 and 180 gr cartridges!

[cole]

Acceleration and velocity are not the same thing -

Acceleration is a velocity change over a time -

Only one way to solve this -

I need to go to the range with some 165 and 180 gr cartridges!


Darnit, you are right, I checked the dictionary and they are different words. It appears this:
Can someone who REALLY knows tell me the truth?
is really not possible because you are a person that needs to find out for yourself through experience. If Albert Einstein isn't credible enough for you, I doubt anyone on GlockTalk will be.

They are different words, with different definitions, yes. Regardless, the rate of movement, whatever you want to call it, is always squared, whereas, the weight/mass (or whatever you want to call it) is not. So, for this application, illustratively, the effect is the same: the faster projectile will have greater muzzle energy, meaning, as energy attempts to travel equally in all directions until it meets resistance, and in a barrel that has not exploded this is directed forward out the muzzle and back against the slide breech, there's more energy pushing back (recoil) as well.

And, "c" in the equation is actually the speed of light in a vaccum (of space), but all that gets way too complicated in detail beyond the conceptual application. But, of course first-hand experience, which you seem to favor over the math, speaks for itself so fire away and report back. In application, you then encounter "perceived" recoil, which is different than the math.

If you prefer, the muzzle energy equation uses specifically velocity, and here again, velocity is squared: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy. But, alas, once more, it's just more math, not the real world application in your own hands that you appear to be really looking for.

[BrokenArrow]

You can definitely load a lighter bullet so it recoils more than a heavier bullet.

Loaded the way most companies load their ammo, the heavier 180s generate less recoil energy/recoil velocity/recoil impulse than the 155s and 165s.

Recoil energy from S&W 4006

Fed 155/40 HS 4.7 ft lbs
Fed 180/40 HS 4.4 ft lbs

The Speer 180 GD is loaded about 40 fps faster than the HS, but the Speer 155 GD about 60 fps faster than the 155 HS, and the Speer 165 GD about 10 fps faster than the 155 HS so you get the same relationship as above. The Speer 155/165 GDs generate more recoil energy than the 180 GD.

Power factor (weight x velocity) is a quick and close enough way to guestimate recoil: the higher the power factor, the more recoil.

Speer GD Specs:
180x1025=184500
155x1200=186000
165x1150=189750

From my G23:
180/985 fps/177300
155/1165 fps/180575
165/1110 fps/183150

[cole]

Power factor (weight x velocity) is a quick and close enough way to guestimate recoil: the higher the power factor, the more recoil.

Speer GD Specs:
180x1025=184500
155x1200=186000
165x1150=189750

From my G23:
180/985 fps/177300
155/1165 fps/180575
165/1110 fps/183150

Ahh..... SO much simpler, and the relative comparison close enough, than dealing with that pesky squaring of the rate of motion math junk. But, even power factor is math-based so may not fit the bill of "truth" for those that need personal (subjective?) hands-on data.

[Steve Koski]

It's not about the weight of the projectile. They do not have the same VELOCITY.

The energy formula is:
e = mc2 (Energy = Mass x the SQUARE of Accelleration (i.e. velocity)

So, the formular HEAVILY favors velocity as a determination of energy. Energy forward in moving the projectile will relate to energy back in recoil.

180gr @ 950 = 162450000
165gr @ 1050 = 181912500
While this is correct, bullet energy does not directly correlate with recoil. Bullet momentum (or power factor) is a fairly accurate indicator of recoil as BA's post indicated.

[Bert.40]

It may be my imagination; but in my model 22 180 grain doesn't like tightgroup. 155 grain likes Titegroup, I can load it hot or light loads and accuracy doen't suffer. Recoil doesn't bother me. Work on building up your forearm muscles. All it takes is squeezing a tennis ball. You'll control muzzle jump.

[cole]

While this is correct, bullet energy does not directly correlate with recoil. Bullet momentum (or power factor) is a fairly accurate indicator of recoil as BA's post indicated.


I was not making any direct "corellation" statement, it was a conceptual/illustrative statement as noted in my post. Power factor is the same formula in principle but just does not square the rate of motion. The concept is the same... er... conceptually, in that the heavier bullet at reduced velocity will have less predicted recoil whatever formula is used. Either formula favors velocity in the calculation as it's a larger number and the difference between bullet velocity is often greater that that of bullet weight. That was my one and only point. And, Power Factor is easier math to grasp for most.

[cole]

While this is correct, bullet energy does not directly correlate with recoil. Bullet momentum (or power factor) is a fairly accurate indicator of recoil as BA's post indicated.


I was not making any direct "corellation" statement, it was a conceptual/illustrative statement. Power factor is the same formula in principle but just does not square the rate of motion. The concept is the same... er... conceptually, in that the heavier bullet at reduced velocity will have less predicted recoil whatever formula is used. Either formula favors velocity in the calculation as it's a larger number and the difference between bullet velocity is often greater that that of bullet weight. That was my one and only point. And, Power Factor is easier math to grasp for most.

[Steve Koski]

Cole.

Quit while you're ahead. Your discussion of bullet energy is profoundly unhelpful when the topic of discussion is felt recoil.

[cole]

Cole.

Quit while you're ahead. Your discussion of bullet energy is profoundly unhelpful when the topic of discussion is felt recoil.

Seems I've quit too late. Felt recoil is subjective, measured recoil is not. Momentum is energy. Recoil is energy. Forward energy on the bullet and rearward energy on the slide relate. Anyway, I digress. Unsubcribed. :wavey:

[Steve Koski]

Wrong. Momentum is not energy.

[cole]

Wrong. Momentum is not energy.

Just had to check back after unsubscribing because I just knew the momentum is energy comment would get a reply. Going from generalized concept (light fast bullets will have more energy/force (forward and back) compared to heavy slow bullets) to complex physics statements of momentum, energy, force, etc. differ on strict technical grounds in that each are indeed different principles in physics with different equations.

Energy performs work. Energy is not created or destroyed. Everything is energy of some sort. Kenetic energy, potential energy, atomic energy, force, etc. all are underlined by energy. Momentum, the QUANTITY OF MOTION AN OBJECT HAS, is another quantification of stored energy (e.g. the object's resistance to being slowed) determined by mass x velocity. It's vernacular in many respects as energy underlies it all. Energy comes in many forms, but ALL motion is the result of energy and, relative to an object's mass and velocity, there is energy stored by the object in motion to perform work.

All the math is very similar in that (given 165gr vs. 180gr) loads (keeping in mind this is what the post is all about) the greater velocity will more determine the final product than the mass/weight (# x # = product).

However, YOU ARE VERY RIGHT THAT APPLYING COMPLEX PRINCIPLES OF PHYSICS (even ones oversimplified to the point of making them technically inaccurate by strict definition) IS RATHER SILLY ON MY PART in this discussion. My fault. Wrong forum. Back to GeeksThatTweakOnPhysics.com I go.

Again, as I noted my subjective exerience agrees with what the math would predict: the 180gr loads generate less felt recoil. The math is always anececdotal to subjective experience.

A detailed brush up on physics: http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/momentum.html for those that care.
Fun one with lots of cute pictures: http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/physics17/chapter3/chapter3.html
One more: http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/momentum/momtoc.html

[Steve Koski]

Which principle applies best/is most useful when working with recoill:

Which principle is almost impossible to use with when working with recoil:


A) Conservation of momentum

B) Conservation of energy

[fastbolt]

165 or 180?

Sure. One or the other ...

Given my druthers, I choose the 180gr loads nowadays.

[Bert.40]

It's all about physics. But felt recoil is in the mind. Try Zen!:therapy:

[BrokenArrow]

Yep, _felt_ recoil is very subjective.

Some can't feel any difference between 9mm +P/357SIG/40S&W/45ACP+P... let alone 155/165/180 40s. ;)