9mm 115 Gr. vs 124 Gr. vs 147 Gr.

[David Sinko]

I was flipping through the latest Combat Handguns magazine and found an article by Chuck Taylor wherein he dismisses all 147gr. 9mm ammo as being anemic because it gets only 875 FPS in the 3.5" auto that he was testing. I find this pretty amazing, in light of the fact that I have gotten 1080 FPS in a 2" 9mm revolver by handloading the 147 gr. Gold Dot. Does anybody care to discuss this bullet when it is driven to its full potential?

Dave Sinko

 

[38-44HD45]

David, I think some of our "senior" writers like Chuck are sometimes guilty of being frozen in time with respect to advances in bullet design, load efficiency, and the like. Chuck would fit that category. Since I'm something of an old guy, I try not to hold it against them.

I don't use 147gr. 9x19, so I've not kept up with what the "majors" are doing with it, velocity-wise, but I know that Mike McNett at Double Tap is running it pretty hot, and I'd sure be willing to depend on his loads. Cor-Bon, too, for that matter.

Back when I was shooting lots of IPSC, when folks first started loading "Major 9" loads, and Major required a PF of 175, I loaded some 147gr. bullets up to 1220 fps. with AA#7, from a stock Glock 17. (DO NOT TRY THIS, kids!). 1100fps from your 2" 940 equates to the same from roughly a 3.5" auto, so it should be doable plenty safely.

 

[stiab]

I was flipping through the latest Combat Handguns magazine and found an article by Chuck Taylor wherein he dismisses all 147gr. 9mm ammo as being anemic because it gets only 875 FPS in the 3.5" auto that he was testing. I find this pretty amazing, in light of the fact that I have gotten 1080 FPS in a 2" 9mm revolver by handloading the 147 gr. Gold Dot. Does anybody care to discuss this bullet when it is driven to its full potential?

Dave Sinko

Dave, I have tested two factory 147 grain 9mm loads, the Corbon +P and the Federal Hydra-Shok. From a 4.05" barrel the Corbon averaged 1061 FPS and the Federal 948 fps.

 

[David Sinko]

I have never owned a 9mm Glock and I've always wondered if it is the weak link with its chamber dimensions. I can run my 9mm handloads pretty hot in the 940 with its offset cylinder stop notches but I'd be reluctant to let anybody try this stuff in a Glock. On the other hand, if you can do 175 PF in a stock Glock, my fears just might be unfounded.

An interesting thread has been resurrected in the Handloading section regarding duplication of the Buffalo Bore 158 gr. SWCHP in .38 Special. This bullet has a reputation for being a very good stopper (though the lead is very soft) and I have already exceeded the 1050 FPS velocity with 147 gr. bullets in the 9mm.

Dave Sinko

 

[new cal shooter]

dbc-

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

and for paper punching anything cheap.

 

[Out West]

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.

 

[safearm]

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.

 

[N_itis]

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.

 

[38-44HD45]

I have never owned a 9mm Glock and I've always wondered if it is the weak link with its chamber dimensions. I can run my 9mm handloads pretty hot in the 940 with its offset cylinder stop notches but I'd be reluctant to let anybody try this stuff in a Glock. On the other hand, if you can do 175 PF in a stock Glock, my fears just might be unfounded.

An interesting thread has been resurrected in the Handloading section regarding duplication of the Buffalo Bore 158 gr. SWCHP in .38 Special. This bullet has a reputation for being a very good stopper (though the lead is very soft) and I have already exceeded the 1050 FPS velocity with 147 gr. bullets in the 9mm.

Dave Sinko

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.

 

[thetrio_94043]

I use all of the above in my guns.

For Self-Defense a good quality bullet is what I look for mostly. I currently using 115 Grain Federal (9BP) as my protection load, but also some 124 gr +P Speer gold dots and some 147 gr JHP from Federal.

For target shooting, I shoot federal and winchester 115 gr FMJ that I pick up from Wal-mart (inexpensive to shoot).

 

[WR Moore]

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.

 

[mbliss57]

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.

 

[The Sarge]

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

 

[Stu Honea]

David, I think some of our "senior" writers like Chuck are sometimes guilty of being frozen in time with respect to advances in bullet design, load efficiency, and the like. Chuck would fit that category. Since I'm something of an old guy, I try not to hold it against them.

I agree,sir. It's a very prevalent thing with those writers who don't keep up with the advances. I can't hold it against Taylor either.He's the only guy I know besides myself who's crazy enough to shoot himself to see if his vest worked.

 

[Out West]

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.

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

Out
West

 

[ElectroMotive]

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.

 

[Rich K.]

Sorry to say David but you are a bit mistaken on your thinking here. The term over penetration is a valid concearn to the responsable shooter and refers to a shot going completely through your assailant and possibly putting innocents in the area in danger. Defense rounds expand out for two reasons, first to cause extra tissue damage inside your attacker than compared to a FMJ round to better stop them and to stop over penatration so the round isn't as likely to go through your assailant, into a building behind him, through the dry wall and into some poor child. So yes over penetration is something to be worried about.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that there is no such thing as "over penetration." The term itself makes it sound like complete penetration of your adversary is a bad thing, from a ballistic point of view. The best way to stop your assailant who is trying to kill you is by shooting THROUGH him. That means that we'd like the bullet to expand at least a little bit and we want one hole in and another hole going out. This belief that a bullet must stay inside the adversary to "dump all its energy" is complete nonsense and is the purvey of gun writers, police chiefs and lawyers. Being concerned about being sued is one thing, but advocating the carry of less than effective ammo for the explicit purpose of not being sued is another matter entirely.

Does this mean that we want to go around carrying ball ammo? No, not at all. In this day and age we have bonded cores (Speer Gold Dot) and homogenous construction (Barnes XPB) which should expand at least a little bit and retain enough weight to punch on through. In my experience, many of our better loadings today simply lack velocity. It's unfortunate that we have some of the best technology and it's being defeated by watered down ammo. From what I've seen out on the street, we're far better served by jacketed flat points than most of the hollow points we have nowadays.

I will concur with the laws of physics and momentum in that all else being equal, heavier is almost always better.

Dave Sinko

 

[Phil Weber]

Comparing 9 mm ammo

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?

 

[Nevada Ed]

ANY bullet will work if..........................

1. it has enough fps/energy
2. expands...... (optional )
3. hits an organ to cause enough blood loss
4. does enough damage to prevent movement
5. lastly......... is just visible !! (revolvers)

I have shot9mm 110 to 147gr bullets and it just comes down to what YOU feel comfortable with.
Nothing worse than having a load in your weapon that you do not have trust in.
To some a +P+ load is what works for them, while there are others that are happy with just a standard 9mm loading.
If you can only hit a target with just one out of twelve shots.......
you need to fine tune every thing a little more...............

 

[therewolf]

My experience is with full-size pistols, and standard

FMJ loads. For SD purposes, I prefer 147 grain, as

bullet speed won't matter, but weight might make a

difference. For target, 124 grain is preferable, for my taste.

115 grain is OK for general practice, and also for distance

shooting.

The S&W 3914 is a fine pistol, but I would experiment, and

see what works best for you. The shorter barrel and lighter

weight are going to shoot differently than a full size gun.