9 MM. 3 1/2" barrel, CCW ammo selection?

[Spotteddog]

The M&P9c is about to start being carried, once functional testing with a carry load is done. Since my default setting is usually toward "heavy" bullet weights, does anyone have info as to whether anyone's 147 grain hollow points actually expand? I'm figuring at 1000 FPS it's going to be iffy at best with the 147's? I'm also trying to stay with something that will get penetration through winter clothes, maintain a relatively straight line path of travel in target, but not be as over penetrative as FMJ stuff? Any and all opinions welcomed! Links to stuff really appreciated as well!
THANKS!

 

[Spotteddog]

The M&P9c is about to start being carried, once functional testing with a carry load is done. Since my default setting is usually toward "heavy" bullet weights, does anyone have info as to whether anyone's 147 grain hollow points actually expand? I'm figuring at 1000 FPS it's going to be iffy at best with the 147's? I'm also trying to stay with something that will get penetration through winter clothes, maintain a relatively straight line path of travel in target, but not be as over penetrative as FMJ stuff? Any and all opinions welcomed! Links to stuff really appreciated as well!
THANKS!

 

[Erich]

I've chrono'd a mess of 147-grainers, and consistently find the Gold Dots to be about the fastest nowadays. Mas reports that expansion is okay with these newer 147-grainers, but we all know that it was an issue with the original bullets (which are still out there - check out the Winchester white box 147-gr loading).

You know that I'm a heavy bullet guy myself, so you may be interested in the following. Personally, I've just switched to the Speer 124-grain +P "short barrel" Gold Dots in my 3" RAMI. They average over 1175 fps with deviations under 12 fps and spreads around 30 fps from this gun. They get about the same from a friend's 3.2" Walther PPS, and they're what she's carrying as well.

Hard to beat that, and they function flawlessly in every short gun I've ever used them in (which has NOT been the case with +P+ rounds). I have certainly been skeptical of the claims about the various Speer "short barrel" loadings, but there's nothing wrong with a 124-grain Gold Dot and I am flat-out impressed with these velocities from these short barrels.

This is real 9x19 performance out of a teensy gun. I'm happy enough with it that I've segued away from the 147-grain Gold Dots in my RAMI (which were giving me .38 Spl +P performance at about 920 fps from the 3" gun).

 

[Spotteddog]

I Thank the delegate from New Mexico!
Yup, .38 Special 158 +P type performance was all I was expecting from the 147 JHP's? It's the function of those jackets that makes me nervous!
(Edit)
It's been my experience too in the shorty's even in .45ACP. The +P+ seems to drive the slide velocity up too high to allow the slide time to scavenge the next one up in the mag?

 

[stiab]

147 grain hollow points actually expand? I'm figuring at 1000 FPS it's going to be iffy

I haven't done any expansion tests, but both boxes of the 147 grain Corbon +P's I chronoed from a 4.05" barrel averaged 1061 fps, so your estimate from a 3.5" of 1000 is probably pretty close. But not for the standard pressure 147. Federal Hydra-Shoks from the same gun averaged only 948, so you would be getting a little less than that.

 

[flop-shank]

I think 147 grain bullets are too heavy for caliber, and definately from short barrels. While many of todays 147s seem to be working well, I think it's probably a case of "you come up with a not so good idea, I'll figure out how to make it work" on the ammunition engineers behalf. People tend to think "bigger is naturaly better" (kind of like the child who takes more medicine to try to get better faster), so the ammo makers are forced to cater to such demands. I think Erich is on the right track. As barrels get shorter velocity drops and many heavy loads get perilously close to their expansion thresholds in 9mm. The solution is to take a lighter (but not too light) bullet and push it faster. Expansion stays consistent and proper bullet design will allow a decent amout of penetration. That is exactly what I saw R357M1 do with boring regularity with barrels 2 1/4" through four layers of denim to 6" into bare Perma-Gel. That load never under, or over penetrated in my tests.

One thing I will say in favor of heavy bullets is that I would rather have a bullet that's too heavy and a spotty expander than one that's too light and consistently lacks penetration.

If you do a search in the test bed forum at www.stoppingpower.net you may find 10% gelatin test results for loads that you find of interest. Hopefully your gun likes your favorite load after you do your research.

 

[Spotteddog]

I thank the gentleman from the great state of Michigan! The link will get checked.
48 states and a few territories left?

 

[Erich]

One thing about standard pressure 147-grain loadings: they are ACCURATE.

 

[Spotteddog]

Oh thanks?
That makes the decision easier?
(NOT!)

 

[Hoptob]

Spot,

When considering new carry ammo, I find that stopping power tables offer a lot of good information. Handloads.com have convenient searchable database broken down by caliber, load and barrel length.

As you can imagine there is a lot of street data available for 9mm. In 4" or less bbl various 115, 124 and 127 gr. +P+ and +P loads all group together with 84-87% one shot stops. Pretty good for a small concealable pistol! 147 grainers are somewhat behind but not too far - 78-80%. I find it interesting that FMJ, the bullet which gave 9mm its bad rep as SD caliber, shows only 58% one shot stops.

In a way this data supports flop's theory:

The solution is to take a lighter (but not too light) bullet and push it faster.

Mike

 

[Erich]

I feel that "one-shot stop" data is hooey. Comparing a round that hits a guy in the abdomen to one that hits him in the heart is absurd, but that's what this data gives you. I can show you a case in which an SKS failed to stop someone and another in which a .22 LR standard velocity dropped him like a sack of potatoes.

Shot placement and adequate penetration are what matter, gents. The stats compiled by anyone out there can't tell you more than that.

 

[Hoptob]

Well, Erich, by the same token you can argue that any statistics is absurd... Marshall & Sanoff's data (and similar data from Jeff Cooper) is statistics - it works when numbers are high and it does not work when numbers are low. Sure, you can't compare one round of load A that hits in the abdomen with one round of load B that hits in the heart. But you can compare 200 COM hits with load A to 200 COM hits with load B.

That's just as valid as ranking QB's by scores they brought or ranking batters by homeruns. Each play (or each shot) is different but the differences average out over time. What's left is true ranking of the players (or the loads).

Mike

 

[flop-shank]

Yes I think that OSS stats are usable as long as one understands that they're a rough guideline to the good loads. Marshall himself says find a load in the top third on any given caliber that you and your gun shoot well together and run with it. He also says that the OSS is a measure of performance, not a tactical doctrine, and recommends shooting until lockback if necessary. As the years go by his data is becoming increasingly irrelevant since he has not collected data for over seven years and many new loads have been introduced in that time. One thing E M has also suggested is that since we know how the better loads perform in gelatin, we can develop new loads that yield similar results and they should then perform reasonably well on the street.

Originally posted by Erich:
One thing about standard pressure 147-grain loadings: they are ACCURATE.

That makes a lot of sense. Like a wadcutter, 147s should have a greater bearing surface on the barrel.

 

[Erich]

I'm not getting down on Marshall and Sanow - they both made clear that one should take those numbers with more than a grain of salt. But I call hooey, hooey, hooey! on anyone who claims that OSS numbers are worth a hoot.

Mike, first of all - who cares whether numbers from games are right? I certainly don't; we're talking about nonsensical one-shot-stop "ratings" being presented as if they were of any more scientific validity than a Magic-8 Ball. Of course I think that good statistics can certainly be useful - but this requires that they measure the same thing and have a decent number of samples. Comparisons of "center of mass" hits are almost as stupid as comparisons of races of human beings - you simply need individual data on such hitting to get to the relevant information. Did it hit the heart? The appendix? The liver? A lung? The aorta? The liver, a lung and the heart? None of these? Ask a pathologist: this matters.

I also bought this percentage-of-one-shot-stop nonsense back before I'd ever seen an autopsy, myself, and I'm bitterly resentful of it. I've now worked on far too many shooting cases to be swayed by vague and amateurish comparisons of "torso hits" or "center of mass hits." You should feel free to believe anything that you want, but I have to speak up when someone starts quoting voodoo-as-science if there's a possibility that a newbie will be led astray by such nonsense - as I was.

 

[flop-shank]

I am glad you brought this up, Erich, because the uninformed need to know how debated OSS statistics are, so that they can do their own research and reach their own conclusions. Anyone who uses them as more than a rough guideline is taking them more literally than they were meant to be taken by the very people who created them.

 

[Spotteddog]

I thank those who have posted! As always, this place has a tremendous knowledge base and strong valid opinions. Since I have the ear of the gentlemen, how "much" penetration do you consider to be "adequate"? I'm not comfortable with the 10-13 inch numbers I see in several of the types and weights. Especially if the dude is 200 + pounds.
Thanks Again!

 

[flop-shank]

I like 12"-14". I can live with a little more or less, but there really is no hard rule, within reason, as to what's right or wrong. We all want enough to deal with the 300 lb. monsters, but in my neck of the woods a 140 lb. punk with a chest only 9" thick is also a very real possibility. If you think you are more likely to use your weapon in an environment where overpenetration is a concern, then that might make you tend toward less. You might be comfortable with more if you spend a lot of time alone or in desolate places.

 

[Erich]

For the most part, I figure the FBI scientists did a pretty good job on determining a base penetration goal, but one's needs may vary with one's circumstances. When I hike up Bear Canyon behind my house, I certainly carry a more penetrative round than when I walk around downtown - it all depends on one's anticipated needs at the time.

 

[Spotteddog]

Downtown urban, two legged, 00:00 - 02:00, all shapes and sizes, me alone, them not always, (likely high-insert drug of choice), back splash danger at that time/location, more of their customers or pals.

 

[Hoptob]

Okay, guys, just as this debate started heating up, my ISP sustained direct hit by a falling tree. Apparently, it (the tree) penetrated networking equipment far enough to leave me without connection for better part of the day.

Originally posted by Spotteddog:
Downtown urban, two legged, 00:00 - 02:00, all shapes and sizes, me alone, them not always, (likely high-insert drug of choice), back splash danger at that time/location, more of their customers or pals.

That's quite a scenario, Spot! I say it's time to shake the dust off your full body armor and turn fire selector of your illegally modified AK47 to full auto.

Originally posted by Erich:
I call hooey, hooey, hooey! on anyone who claims that OSS numbers are worth a hoot.

[sic]
I have to speak up when someone starts quoting voodoo-as-science if there's a possibility that a newbie will be led astray by such nonsense - as I was.

This thread is not a place to have a stopping power debate. We can do it in a separate thread if anyone wants to start it (I don’t). But for the sake of those endangered newbie’s (it’s for the children!) -- and for those Rt Hon. members who want to get past "hoot & hooey" type of debate -- I respectfully direct your attention to an excellent treatise authored by Michael Courtney & Amy Courtney of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point – link. I particularly liked the section of this paper entitled "Ad hominem attacks, appeal to ridicule fallacy, and bandwagon fallacy"; hope you will enjoy it too.

Mike