Dave, I don't know if the fears are unfounded. Even before I read your last post, I had planned on adding to my "Don't...!" warning. I didn't blow up my Glock 17, but I didn't shoot over 50 rounds of that load through it. It was intense, and I suspect that pressures were way over +P+ levels. I backed off the attempt because it was evident that I was skating too close to the edge and the gun was taking a serious pounding. Some years later, when I briefly ran a Glock 22 as my Limited Class gun, I noticed that the recoil from 180gr. bullets at 1000fps. or so was not nearly as heavy as it had been with the Major 9 loads. There were some Glock 17s blown up by others running Major 9, using both AA#7 and Viht 3N37, which is why USPSA banned it for a long time. Your 940 can handle more pressure safely, I'd wager. Hell, Dane Burns has converted some 940s to 9x23, and factory 9x23s hit pressures in the range of 42KPsi. Dane told me that as far as he knows, the guns have held up well.

As for the Buffalo Bore 158s being super-soft, yes and no. It depends on the lot. I have some of their +P 158gr. LSWCHPs that are extremely hard and will not expand at all. I don't know how one tells the difference without trying a bullet nose with a thumbnail.

dbc-

I would say your safe with 124gn Speer HP for carry

and for paper punching anything cheap.

Safearm, I agree with you when you stated that the adoption of the 40 S&W was coincidence. It doesn't make sense that one particular 9mm load would be the movitvation to change calibers AND all the guns in the department. Other factors had to have been present.

I keep seeing Ayoob's comments from 2000 being used against the 147 grain 9mm loads. Those comments are 10 years old. Too much has happened with bullet design in that decade of time for me to believe those opinions to still be accurate. I can't speak for Mr. Ayoob - maybe he will chime in for himself. I do know that many departments are using the latest 147 grain HP 9mm loads with very good results.

Out West,
While the change from the 9mm to the .40 was not due solely to the failure of the 147 grain round, I don't see many departments changing back from the .40/.45 to the 9mm unless there is a very compelling reason, i.e., the documented, continued problems with the Glock 22. Admittedly, the 147 grain round has advanced over the last ten years, but I don't see an agency going to the 9mm from a larger caliber just for an improved bullet design.

I prefer the "premium" 147 grain loads because I believe a handgun projectile, especially a relatively small diameter handgun projectile, should have as much mass as possible to offset the possibility that it will not expand properly. Besides, a bullet that size moving at roughly 1,000 fps is nothing to sneeze at.

I doubt that the "transition" from 9mm to .40 had as much to do with the perceived ineffectiveness of the 147 grain 9mm loadings as it did with achieving near .45 ACP level performance from a 9mm platform (with the original 180 grain .40 loadings).

The truth is that all of those gelatin tests look so similar because the loadings are so similar. 165 grain .40, 147 grain 9mm, 158 grain .38 +P, not much difference between those three...and, they will all get the job done as well as any standard handgun loading.

First off, many "ammunition failures" have nothing to do with the bullet performance or lack thereof. If you don't hit vital areas, it doesn't matter what you're using-if you rule out tactical nukes.

Secondly, I believe that when Mas Ayoob wrote about a progression from the 147 gr 9mm to .40, he also commented that many of those departments that stayed with lighter weight (+P?) 9mm bullets stayed with the 9. Some departments went back to a lighter weight bullet and decided to stay with the 9mm.

The performance of the 125 gr JHP .357 Magnum load has demonstrated that a light for caliber, high velocity round can be extremely effective. A combination of bullet design and load development can deliver similar results in any other caliber.

My 2 cents.. I am still trying to figure out which is the best load to carry also. One thing I disagree with is the statement that size/weight of the bullet is king. A simple law of physics from high school says that Force F = M (mass) x V2 (velocity squared) Since velocity is squared the faster the projectile can travel the force goes up much faster than using a larger bullet.
I will explain the math using no units.
Force =a mass of 10 and a velocity off 10 = 10x(10x10) = 1000 units
If you double the mass to 20; Force = 20 x(10x10) = 2000 units
But if you double the velocity; Force = 10X (20x20)= 4000 units
So velocity is really king. I am not a ballistics expert or even a good journeyman. I am just looking at the math. SO I don't understand why a lighter bullet (say 115gr) going significantly faster than a subsonic 147gr bullet has less penetration. It should have more. Please help me with this. I must be missing something. Unless when we mean penetration we really mean the damage done by a larger object when it enters a cavity. That is a different science altogether. Somewhere in the past couple of month I read a really interesting paper on stopping power, hydro shock and penetration. I wish I could find it. Anyway.. I remain a learner on this subject and I just carry good factory fresh ammo that is recommended to do the job of ever needed.

__________________
John 1:17
NRA Life Benefactor

Google "sectional density" for the answer to your question. There is more to the physics than velocity.

Out
West

Those are really good questions and a good example that we shouldn't just automatically accept what we hear, or even read.

I'm going to use a few things that I think are true. If you piece this together with a lot of other stuff, you might get an answer.

Gelatin block tests show the heavier slugs getting better penetration. This depends on both bullets expanding to about the same size.

The formula works in a medium of little resistance, like air, but traveling through a semi solid other factors come into play. Like pushing watery organs and flesh aside plus more friction and the effects of penetrating different materials, skin, organs, muscle as well as expanding the bullet and making a bigger hole.

Hunters of very large game use heavy, 'solid' bullets for the greater penetration. Not that they don't deform at all, they mostly blunt instead of 'mushroom'.

Bottom line. 12" is given as a the needed penetration to wound deeply in a human. It doesn't matter a whole lot what the weight/mass of the bullet is as long as it makes that requirement.

This is all opinion, not gospel and I'd welcome any additions but I prefer the 124 and 147 grain jhp type bullet going fast enough for them to perform properly. Better makes like the 'Gold Dot' are very predictable in terminal performance.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Sorry, but that's wrong.

F=MA
Force = Mass x Acceleration

KE = 0.5MV^2
Kinetic Energy = One-Half x Mass x Velocity x Velocity

P = MV
Momentum = Mass x Velocity

SD = M/D^2/7000
Sectional Density = Mass (in grains) / Diameter (in inches) / Diameter (in inches) / 7000


DESIGN IS KING. The bullet design must be matched to the cartridge and target. Design cannot be captured by the basic physics equations and must be verified against a useful test protocol.

What comes to mind is an old video of a corvette in a high speed chase rear ending a semi and disintegrating. The semi was practically unharmed. Now imagine a semi going the same speed, im sure the results would be much differebt for the semi that was rear ended

There is a whole lot more to the science of terminal ballistics than just one aspect or focus point. Lots of variables must come together in the successful development of a good performing bullet and then on to loadings for that bullet. There are many published articles and books on terminal ballistics along with a ton of info on the internet. Some is good, some bad, and some written with hidden agendas. Read all you can and form your own opinions.

Velocity alone is not the end all in defensive ammo. From all my study and profession, I have found no scientific evidence that a bullet at handgun velocities can shock the body. A handgun bullet works as a cutting implement that destroys tissue. Bullets that expand, jacketed hollow point, are the most effective duty/defensive bullet designs as they disrupt more tissue resulting in more blood loss to stop an attacker.

A light weight/high velocity JHP may over expand and not reach deap enough into the body's vital organs despite its velocity and kinetic energy. A slower/heavier bullet will have the momentum and mass/sectional density to continue to plow through clothing, bone, muscle, etc and reach the vitals. In the past JHP bullets were highly dependent on being velocity driven to expand. The latest high tech bullet designs are not dependent on velocity to perform. In selecting ammo for serious purposes penetration is tops on my list followed by expansion. If a certain loading has adequate penetration, consistent expansion, accuracy/pistol functioning, and performs well through heavy clothing/light barriers, its velocity is of no real concern to me. Bill

Mass and momentum are what is being neglected..

For the record Dallas, Tx PD started running 9mm as issued in 1988'ish. They used the 115fgr Hornady XTP and had issues with bullets not expanding (clogging up with clothing) or shallow penetration. They then moved to the Remington +P+ 115gr JHPand the problems persisted. In 1996 they did two things, they authorized the .357sig, and they changed their 9mm duty load to 147gr Winchester Ranger SXT, and later to Ranger Talon. The problems have gone away except for some old cops tales of woe about 9mm.

Contrary to what certain magazine and book writers will tell you, even in the 80's 147gr JHPs did just as well (or poorly) as bulkets in other weights.

My primary carry is a Glock 23, .40 cal. I also have a Glock 43, 9 mm. My comments relate to the latter handgun. I use 9 mm 115 grain +P FMJ primarily for practice on the range. For personal protection I use 9 mm 124 grain +P JHP. I've owned the Glock 43 for six months and have fired approximately 1,500 rounds on the range and in the field. I have noticed little or no difference in the performance of the two aforementioned loads. Comments?

It doesn't matter how fast it is, the design, the weight, the material, the jacket, the lube etc. It only matters what happens when it gets there. And this is the biggest secret of the ammo industry.

And the manufactureres and the firearms media are doing everything they can to keep that secret.

The latter is hugely affected by the former, no?

That's my point, we don't know. There is no Underwriter Laboratories for cartridge performance. No standards. Just opinions based on nothing. All we have are a bunch of YouTube "scientists" who brew up a batch of gel in their bathtub and put grandma's old denim underwear in front of it and shoot.

I agree there's less definitive information than desired, but what about FBI protocols as afar as standards, and dedicated groups or individuals like Brassfetcher and DocGKR for properly performed, dispassionate testing?

We don't know.

Ah, the old argument... Supersonic BB or the sub-sonic bowling ball.

Me... I like the supersonic bowling ball.

__________________
CSM, U S Army(Ret) 1963-1990

lol I agree! I was gonna say just use 45 super and be done with it.

We do know a lot about terminal performance from hunting, not just self defense. Heavier bullets for caliber and better sectional density lead to superior penetration, as far as weight is concerned with bullets, when isolated from other aspects, we more than understand the importance of this. When bullet design stays the same, heavier weight bullets are chosen for penetration, this is age old. Weight and sectional density matter a lot, and you can't simply sweep it under the carpet.

The 115 grain hollow point bullet was based on an extremely flawed theory in the 1970's and early 80's based on the theory that temporary cavities from bullet shock caused damage, and lead to stoppages in attacks. This lead to the flawed idea that maximizing temporary cavity and shock was the means to increasing effectiveness of handgun rounds, and an entire science was formed around this, using 20% ballistics gel and measurements of temporary cavities in these gels. Since fast, light bullets for caliber caused the greatest amount of shock in these tests, all of the experts at the time said that light and fast bullets were now super duper awesome cutting edge super one hit stopping ultra mega bullets. The experts took the flawed conclusions of the metrics and immediately went to the pulpit in front of LEO's and preached from the mighty gospel of fast handgun bullets. With great firebrand preachers for the new cult, they converted many a heretic to the One Truth of handgun terminal performance, that speed and shock are everything. Did you know that the Glaser Safety Slug is the best bullet ever designed?

Low and behold, true believers, it turns out the theory and conclusions they drew were absolutely wrong. The great new cult was built around misunderstandings and bad scientific conclusions, a deeply flawed theory. It turns out that almost no handgun can produce hydrostatic shock, and that temporary cavities are of little to no importance in stopping attacks. The 20% gel tests also purposely exaggerated these effects, making the illusion worse. It turned out the primary, and perhaps only, mechanism of stoppage was the actual crush cavity from the bullet itself. The super duper ultra mega super one hit man stoppers turned out to not be what they were said to be by the preachers of the new terminal ballistics cult, but the myth lives on today through those who still believe.

No matter how well you design a bullet, weight and sectional density will limit its potential. That's a dead on fact. Handgun bullets are already light for caliber to begin with, and sectional density is always an issue. All standard handguns area also low velocity and low energy. 1150 fps, or 1350 fps may be relatively fast for a handgun, but its still very slow. You don't really hit high velocity till you break the 2000 fps mark, and no "high velocity" handgun does that, much less a 115 grain 9mm Luger. No, the velocity is not high enough to create effective shock in tissue, no, the energy isn't high enough either. Its a medium power handgun, a low power cartridge, and a low velocity projectile.

So, when we talk about handgun bullets, and expanding bullets, what is best? Handgun bullets don't penetrate very well to begin with, weight, velocity, energy, and sectional density all considered, they aren't spectacular to begin with. The supposedly dangerous FMJ over penetrating tissues has been greatly over exaggerated, and non expanding bullets often times don't go through targets. If a non expanding bullet can fail to punch through a man, what does that say about expanding bullets? The answer is that we should be careful that the bullets don't fail to punch deep enough because of the increased surface area and resultant drag reducing penetration, not to mention bullets absorb their own energy in expanding. They can easily fail to get deep enough in angle shots.

So, if we need to make sure we can punch deep enough with our expanded bullet, what's the best way to go about it? One way is to build a better bullet that won't fragment or over expand. This is key to success, and preventing failure. The other is giving it the advantage of weight and sectional density, increasing its ability to penetrate deep even with the increased drag of crushing a bigger cavity with its bigger expanded face. It would appear for the handgun, with its limitations, would be best suited to use the heaviest bullets for caliber available when using expanding bullets. Using a higher velocity, lighter bullet simply doesn't seem to make sense, and in fact, fliess in the face of what we know about terminal ballistics.

Yes, you can attempt to design a bullet that will expand less and mitigate the problems of the light bullet, but that won't change the end limitations. Sure, they can and have designed 115's that won't fragment or they control expansion to prevent it from under penetration, but in truth, these bullets still under perform against heavier rivals. In the end, design can't make up for real physics and real physical limitations.

The people who believe in the Cult of the light bullet will often times pull out the old flawed science or Marshall and Sannow's work to prove they are right. Prove to them the old tests were flawed and the books they read are poor statistical hack work, they tend to degrade into "terminal ballistics don't matter, shot placement is everything" and generally try to change the subject to something other than the subject at hand. The same people who bash modern ballistics gel testing are sometimes the same people who preached to you about the old gelatin tests being final proof of smaller calibers and lighter bullets being superior. They ignore the science when its convenient.

Lastly, the 125 grain .357 Magnum rounds did well. But, what about the 158 grain hollow points? Just because .357 magnum had the power to make the 125 work well, is there the possibility that there is better? Could it be a hotload 158 grain hollow point of the same build might actually out perform the all sacred 125? Could it be, that even though the 125 grains were incredibly effective, that perhaps there was something even better? The 125 grain bullet argument always seems to state that 125 worked in 357, but I've never heard of any of these people ever mention if it was better or stacked up against other .357 Magnum rounds. They state the 125's grand superiority as if it were the best, without ever once stacking it up against alternatives.

I'm partial to the heavier bullets. Most of my friends think I'm wrong. I will say this; when weight is an issue for carrying comfort, I will carry a 10 rd. magazine stoked with 115 grain projectiles as opposed to a 15 rounder loaded with 147s.

I have a Beretta PX4 Sub Compact I carry when I'm not carrying my 40c and was concerned with 147 grain JHP bullets expanding properly under the lower velocity from a 3 inch barrel verses a full size weapon with a 4-5 inch barrel producing a much higher barrel velocity ..

Testing with what was available - water filled gallon milk jugs with 4 layers of denim from a pair of jeans !! All of the different brands of JHP in 147 grain I tested expanded shooting through this configuration .. some did expand slightly more then others but all the modern rounds expanded in the 3 inch barrel..

The one that I thought expanded the best was Western Defend and that is the one I carry after my experiment and watching video of test of the round being shot into gelatin that is on YouTube ..

A series of video's called Ammo Quest on YouTube tests many of the most popular bullet sizes and weights in a controlled environment that comes close to simulating FBI Testing Controls ..

I see we've managed to resurrect a six-year-old thread to have another discussion about bullet weight, complete with math formulas about E=MC2.

My two cents? Experiment and shoot all of them. 115, 124, 125, 147, whatever else you can find.

Whichever brand and bullet weight is the one you are most accurate with, use that one.

I don't shoot 9MM all the time, but when I do, it is Hornady 135gr Critical Duty.

Get several different ammos, at least a half-dozen, and do a lot of shooting. Regardless of bullet weight, stay with what functions reliably, is accurate, and you can shoot well. No 9mm ammo produces hand-wrenching recoil. No need to concern yourself with Internet gunfighting theory.

I haven't found them to have any hard recoil either, but I will have to visit this thread again as there is some interesting stuff written in it.