Why does 147 gr 9mm have a bad rep?

[Kframerbluvr]

What started it was the 1986 FBI Miami incident. After the smoke had cleared the FBI thoroughly damned the 9mm 115STHP as being the reason why their agents got killed and shot up.

After the FBI held their symposium to pick their ammo, the FBI decided to issue the Winchester Olin Super Match 147JHP Subsonic Type-L ammo to their agents. Other agencies jumped onto the "Me Too" Band Wagon and started using the same ammo with very unimpressive results in real life.

The Win OSM Type-L bullet & loading was never designed for use out of handguns, and the first generation 147 loads from Federal and Remington didn't do any better.

That was the start of the "bad rap" for the 9mm 147JHP loads.

This was our first duty load for our new G17s in the late '80s. We never had any shootings with it, so cannot comment on that. These were the cleanest burning loads I have ever encountered. The empty cases had no soot or discoloration on them after firing.
I had forgotten about this until I found a small stash of this stuff at the house and shot it at the range. Still shot very clean. Due to all the bad press this load got, I still have a phobia about 147 grain 9mm loads and prefer the Winchester Ranger 127 grain +P+ load on the rare occasion that I carry a 9mm. YMMV.

 

[Kanewpadle]

First off, how do you know, personally, what info Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow have or don't have? You're just regurgitating accusations made by members and followers of the now defunct IWBA. Of course the IWBA people will say anything to defame and debunk M&S because they have a monitary interest in eliminating ANYONE who would dare to contradict them. Millions of $$ in Govt grants and contracts from LEA's and the DoD is nothing to sneeze at. That's these "ballistican's" gravy train, and anyone who disagrees with them must be dealt with with extreme prejudice.

Secondly, I'm glad you brought up the subject of Eugene Wolberg's article which is fraught with fraud. Wolberg used bullets that were literally cherry-picked in order to prove his hypothesis! If he had used ANY bullet that had failed to expand, under penetrated or over penetrated, this would have invalidated his hypothesis. Even your beloved Hero Gary Roberts admitted on the Beretta Forum that Wolberg used cherry-picked bullets that were provided by San Diego's ME/Coroner for his paper!

I know nothing about wound ballistics. And I know very little about the agenda of so called "experts" in the field.

Over a period of ten years I found Marshall to contradict himself many times on his forum. But there was also good information to be learned.

I have also read Faklers findings.

Since I don't know who's full of it and who isn't, I decided to listen to those currently in LE.

And, I was called to put high security locks on the ammo storage rooms of two local police departments. When I looked inside there where two brands in multiple calibers. Speer Gold Dot and Federal HST.

I carry HST. And I don't worry about it.

 

[Darkenfast]

This is good info for the duty-gun crowd, but I would suspect the majority off CCWers carry a pistol with a bbl of 4" or less. I carry 147s in my 3913/14 pistols because they hit where the sights are. If the 115s did that and the 147s didn't, then 115 is what I would carry (and prefer, due to the difference in cost.) All of my plinking and adjustable sight 9mms are sighted for 115 standard pressure.

Yes, the short barrels are quite the rage. I don't carry, but if I did, my old Browning High Power simply disappears inside the waistband AND has a 4 5/8-inch barrel. That said, I think the short-barreled nines beat the heck out of a J-frame revolver! I just like the longer ones, cuz I'm a wimp and proud of it! My 17L is a joy to shoot.

 

[Boge]

...Since I don't know who's full of it and who isn't, I decided to listen to those currently in LE...

There is a retired IL State Police Captain who investigated tons of shooting in the 80's & 90's for the ISP. His thoughts are a primary source and conclusive in their results. I couldn't find his posts here on this forum, but he made a long reply to someone on another forum back in Jan. that is worth quoting here:

Quote:

We carried the 9mm until 2000 when we went to .40. Olin was an IL company located in E Alton IL. We worked closely with Olin and they developed the W-W115 JHP+P+ which pretty much duplicated the BPLE. When you buy over 7 million rds a year from a company they will work with you to give you what you want. The Olin plant isn't that far from our main range. IL statute says preferential contracts go to IL companies if all else is substantial equal therefore it was W-W load. So we carried the W-W load for the last few years we issued the 9mm.
Then in 1999 (I was in charge of our R&D then) we got money from the legislature to get new guns. Our 5904/6904s were getting close to where they were going to need night sights and in the past we've been able to get all new guns for next to nothing by swapping in our old duty guns. The boss declared the new guns would be in .40. The FBI had just gone to the .40 not long before. He was a grad of the FBI Senior Management Course and his son was just hired as an FBI SA. So he had a lot of connections with the FBI. We still were having good success with the 9mm but when the boss says we're going to .40 because the FBI carries .40 then we go to .40. The boss doesn't need a reason or explain why, he's the boss. What he did let us do was pick our guns. We did extensive tested over a year of 15 different makes/models (all .40). We ended up with Glock even tho Glock came out 3rd, albetit the top 3 were pretty closely ranked. Sig, S&W, and then Glock. Glock substantially underbid Sig and S&W.
Had we stayed with the 9 it would be nothing but personal speculation if we'd have stayed with the 115. At that time the 147 was mostly pushed as the subsonic rd and wasn't all the great of a performer. I did 7 investigations for another agency using the 147 Subsonic and it wasn't cutting it. The mid-weights were still being played with by the manufacturers and not yet a lot of street cred. The 115 had worked for us for quite a few years. I know we would not have gone with the 147 Subsonic however 147s today aren't the same as the 147s back then just as the mid-weights are more developed than back then.
Contrary to what some have written our selection of guns and ammo isn't decided by cheapest bidder. Our people along with the ammo makers run lengthy testing. They do a lot of testing then review the performance after we have shootings.
An example is when we were issued the 115 Silvertip which only lasted a couple of months. It was supposedly the latest and greatest. Then in 1980 2 of our Troops were in a shootout with a outlaw biker near Joliet IL. The biker was wearing a leather vest over a leather jacket and he was a fair size guy. He was hit a number of times, can't recall exact number 11-13, COM in various locations. None of the rds went deep enough to get to vitals. He returned fire with a 5 shot snubbie and when his gun was empty he jumped on his motorcycle and fell over dead. He didn't die from any bullet wound. He died of a heart attack due to his poor life style and the stress of the situation. Nearly all his arteries were clogged so he was a heart attack waiting to happen. As soon as we found the lack of performance of the Silvertip the dept called everyone whether working or off duty and told to dump the Silvertip, new ammo would be coming. There was an emergency purchase and we carried the Federal 115 BP for a few months. During that time the dept worked with Federal and they developed the BPLE. That is the history of where the BPLE came from and why. Then working with Olin their JHP+P+ was developed.
Move ahead a few years. The FBI began carrying autos in 9mm. They had developed what was known as the Computerman Model. The science of their computer told them the best defensive rd was rapid expansion/limited penetration. Their science told them the 115 Silvertip was the best rd to meet that criteria. A couple of our range guys loaded up with the biker shooting file from 1980 and some of our other subsequent shootings and drove to Quantico where they met with the FTU. They went thru our results with the Silvertip and how when presented with heavy leather the Silvertip opened too quickly and lacked sufficient penetration. They went thru the shooting performances we'd had with the BPLE. The FBI blew them off. They weren't interested in street results. Their science and computer man model told them differently. So our guys packed up and came home. Then came Miami for the FBI. Unfortunately they learned the hard reality of what we had found 6 yrs prior.
Science and theory is whatever a person/group wants to make it to be. Too often a group will pick the results they expect and then develop their theory to support what they want. They then either fail to follow thru with testing their theory in the real world or they ignore results. My first major in college was physics. Theories in the classroom are no more than theories. Testing in the lab is to see if the theory is worth putting into practice. It's not until the theory is put into actual working model can the results of a theory be fully seen. Then after the results of the actual use it's time to go back and tweak the theory if needed. This is basic science 101. What amateurs and uninformed do is develop the theory and assume it's correct without real world results and they ignore the results because it conflicts with their theory. They refuse to admit their theory was wrong.

Unquote.

 

[Cleveland48]

Thanks boge that was very interesting.

 

[David LaPell]

I think one of the reasons 9mm in the older years had a bad rap was because guys were just starting to get into semi autos and what happened officers in uniform who were used to six rounds now had more rounds in the mag, and it's typical of when I see a new shooter get handed a semi auto .22 rifle. There's an instant urge to unload those rounds as fast as one can. I can tell you from experience I have seen instructors try out getting rounds downrange on the targets with inexperienced handgun shooters with results that are to be expected. Groups open up wider and wider. Bill Jordan said it best, "Speed is fine, accuracy is final". Yes rounds need to go downrange but if you put them all there at once and the target is not getting hit where it needs to, well, don't blame the performance of the round or the gun. I saw a lot of shooters when they started using our Glock 21 .45 ACPs who had never even fired a handgun in their lives shoot disastrously at first because they were told to fire five rounds downrange for example and those five rounds sounded like full auto. Sure the .45 ACP is perhaps better than the 9mm, but you know what, the 9mm has been around a long time. It's no slouch and it will get the job done.

 

[SuperMan]

Thanks Boge...I needed a smile today...Bob

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

First off, how do you know, personally, what info Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow have or don't have? You're just regurgitating accusations made by members and followers of the now defunct IWBA. Of course the IWBA people will say anything to defame and debunk M&S because they have a monitary interest in eliminating ANYONE who would dare to contradict them. Millions of $$ in Govt grants and contracts from LEA's and the DoD is nothing to sneeze at. That's these "ballistican's" gravy train, and anyone who disagrees with them must be dealt with with extreme prejudice.

I know what info Marshall & Sanow have. I followed them for many years, bought their expensive books and, before that, followed all their magazine articles. If you have all that, you know that they have disappearing data.

In addition, their criteria for accepting data in the first place was very selective. This produces weird results. Well into their studies, Sanow took some courses in statistics, perhaps in a junior college or something; I don't really know. At any rate, he learned to perform mathematical operations on data, presumably according to established rules. What he didn't understand was that the underlying math applied to data with a certain kind of distribution, generally random, and produced results certainly not valid for cherry-picked data. Yet that is EXACTLY what Marshall and Sanow were working with.

BTW, this represents NO dishonesty on their part. Marshall was a policeman, not a mathematician, and Sanow probably was never presented with an emphasis on the mathematical underpinning of statistics, or paid more attention to what he was going to be tested on. BOTH were trying to use real-world info to isolate actual performance from complex theoretical predictions. This is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. Unfortunately, they weren't quite up to it.

I personally believe that Roberts et al have more useful information. I know nothing of financial incentive concerning ANY of the parties, and have no reason to believe that anyone is doing anything other than his honest best to answer the questions.

I believe that if one were to follow some of the threads on www.accuratereloading.com on effectiveness of bullets on big game, one would come to a new appreciation of bullet placement, chance/divine providence, and maybe even the FBI protocol.

 

[HappyPuppy]

That's why I just use whatever the local LE use. They use gold dots they like them.

 

[jupiter1]

We have well documented cases that illustrate the failures of the under penetrating jhp's. Would a fully penetrating FMJ or a slightly expanded 147gr jhp have ended ended the FBI Miami fight or the Illinois biker shooting?

 

[V0OBWxZS16]

147 grain why did you change your handle to V0OBWxZS16?

???

Really,..? I've known Mr. Marshall for going on 38 years. Honest to a fault, been there and done that. He has probable forgotten more about ballistics and shootings than most folks recall.

First off, how do you know, personally, what info Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow have or don't have? You're just regurgitating accusations made by members and followers of the now defunct IWBA. Of course the IWBA people will say anything to defame and debunk M&S because they have a monitary interest in eliminating ANYONE who would dare to contradict them. Millions of $$ in Govt grants and contracts from LEA's and the DoD is nothing to sneeze at. That's these "ballistican's" gravy train, and anyone who disagrees with them must be dealt with with extreme prejudice.

One character witness for Marshall. One character accusation of the IWBA based on the theory they were protecting their funding.

What I'm NOT seeing is a refutation of the analyses I referenced and the multiple individuals stating that Marshall misrepresented the facts of shootings.

Secondly, I'm glad you brought up the subject of Eugene Wolberg's article which is fraught with fraud. Wolberg used bullets that were literally cherry-picked in order to prove his hypothesis! If he had used ANY bullet that had failed to expand, under penetrated or over penetrated, this would have invalidated his hypothesis. Even your beloved Hero Gary Roberts admitted on the Beretta Forum that Wolberg used cherry-picked bullets that were provided by San Diego's ME/Coroner for his paper!

Do you have a link or other reference to this alleged admission by Dr. Roberts or other evidence that the bullets were cherry-picked? Do you have any references to studies showing a poor correlation between calibrated ballistic gelatin and soft tissue hits in real shootings?

While some disagree with Marshall and Sanow's methods or results, the underlying theme they strove for, examining real world results after a police shooting, is worth pursuing. We dismiss real world results in exchange for lab testing at our own peril.

That "theme" is a fool's errand. The extensive set of variables, the high data precision, and the wildly varying psychological responses requires a data volume that makes it impossible to obtain valid results.

If Marshall and Sanow can be dismissed for bias and pursing an agenda...

I am dismissing M&S because their criteria is fundamentally flawed and their numbers are unbelievable.

Horrible tactics and poor marksmanship were the parents of the Miami horror, not a 115 gr Silvertip that failed to penetrate enough.

Are you claiming that all else being equal that an adequately penetrating shot would not have penetrated Platt's heart? Are you claiming that all else being equal an otherwise identical shot that pierced Platt's heart would not have incapacitated him more quickly?

I am not concerned here with the tactics and marksmanship of the Miami shootout. In fact, this paragraph is the first time I've typed "Miami" in this thread.

True, but statistics are revealing. While predicting psychological reactions will never be mathematically predictable equations, the more info we collect on what actually happened on the street might make trying to predict such things irrelevant.

I'm not sure of your meaning here. Are you claiming that with enough data we may be able to create bullet designs so advanced that physiological incapacitation is guaranteed and therefore psychological responses would be irrelevant?

I'm not a physicist, but I understand kinetic energy.....

Energy is required to do work, but not all of the KE does damaging work. You're measuring the input (KE) instead of the output (crush cavity, penetration, expansion, etc.) When driving I watch the odometer to see how far I've gone, not the gas gauge.

I read this. A potential problem here is his quote:

It is a comparison of real shots in flesh versus ballistic gelatin. His references to Miami and desired penetration depth are not relevant to the accuracy of the analysis.

And I understand that for lab consistency, bone hits were disregarded. But in street shooting analysis, they certainly aren't. If you have a round that can split or shatter bone in stopping a killer, that's a plus, it's not something I would disregard for the sake of a lab test.

I presume you have based this idea on studies demonstrating a significant difference in the ability to spit or shatter bone between the common duty/self-defense rounds. I am very interested in reading those studies. The only one I know of was performed by the Canadians in 1984.

I am curious about "today's ballistic environment" and how it is different than yesterday's ballistic environment...

Can't answer that.

So this was a meaningless throw-away line?

Bad guys are bad guys. But technology has progressed to the point where you can get .357 Magnum performance without the blast and flash, the heavy revolver and the limited 6 round capacity. Modern ammo design makes rounds like the 10mm, lightweight .45's and .357 Sigs great options (and yes, even the 9mm, if loaded properly).

It's been a long while since I've run into a .357 sig shooter, but I definitely recall it having excessive muzzle blast, especially with multiple shooters at once.

 

[Gamecock]

Contrary to what some believe, bullet expansion is an important component in stopping power, not just penetration alone. Ask any big game hunter which kills (IE STOPS) quicker, a FMJ or expanding bullet.

Performance of hollow point bullets at pistol velocities has double ought nothing to do with rifles.

 

[Nevada Ed]

c/o RWSmith;
"...the FBI really needed was rifles or carbines..."


We can't help that some of the people in the "FBI" can not shot
accurately and need a longer sight plan to get scores that almost pass.
Going from 4" to 18" still is not a given.

Heck, a lot of them could not "Man Up" to handle the 10mm auto.

Now you expect them to be able to handle a 147gr 9mm bullet !! ??

Now that I ranted........................

The 147gr is a great low fps target loading for a lot of 9mm pistols. I have reloaded it down to 807 fps for good results.

As a "Super Duper SD load" it can work in a lot of pistols but...........
it has to be able to work w/o any problems and be able to be controlled by the shooter for a follow up shot if needed.

"Mag" loads have been a go to thing for all shooters..........
it just depends if they work in your weapons.


I had a 3/4 oz. steel duck load at 1850 fps that was faster than lightning.............
only problem, after a box of shells I did not have one duck to put on my strap to take home for the BBQ!!!

 

[SuperMan]

As to the 9mm/147s...was just wondering what exactly the FBI has finally decided on for a load and what velocity is it going from their chosen weapons....

Thanks...Bob

 

[Jaymo]

I'm starting to think this whole field of ammo/bullet effectiveness is just one big collection of guess work -- with no information that even approaches the level of fact.

Every single piece of analysis has been debunked multiple times, and then the "debunkers" are themselves debunked.

From now on, I think I'll just rely on common sense:

Bigger holes are more effective than smaller holes.

A hole that goes deeper is more effective than one that is shallower.

Once a bullet passes clear through a target, any energy/velocity it has has no more effect on that target and it just becomes a danger to bystanders.

My field is computer engineering and if we understood computing and computer design as poorly as ballistics is understood, then we would still be using abacuses.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate everyone's efforts to answer my questions.

Marshall and Sanow's data were debunked because they falsified their reports.
They included CNS shots for .40 and under, or under .40 (don't remember which).
They EXCLUDED CNS shots for larger caliber rounds.
Thus, the smallbores looked better than the big bores.
That's how you get ridiculous statements such as the oft-repeated ".32 ACP HP is a better stopper than .45 ACP ball".

Apples to oranges.

As a result, their data cannot be taken seriously.

 

[Sylvaticus]

I'm starting to think this whole field of ammo/bullet effectiveness is just one big collection of guess work -- with no information that even approaches the level of fact.

Every single piece of analysis has been debunked multiple times, and then the "debunkers" are themselves debunked.

From now on, I think I'll just rely on common sense:

Bigger holes are more effective than smaller holes.

A hole that goes deeper is more effective than one that is shallower.

Once a bullet passes clear through a target, any energy/velocity it has has no more effect on that target and it just becomes a danger to bystanders.

My field is computer engineering and if we understood computing and computer design as poorly as ballistics is understood, then we would still be using abacuses.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate everyone's efforts to answer my questions.

Actually, you are periously close to allowing the fog of Internet BS cloud your view of the now solid science of wound ballistics. Yes, SCIENCE. As a professional university biologist, I am all for common sense, except that when I see that phrase online, it usually means the poster has decided to jettison fact and science in favor of wrong-headed superficial viewpoints. Please don't follow that path!

We are in an era where we have a great lab protocol for testing bullet designs, and when these are corollated with street performance, predictions (and improvements) can be made. This had led to what we have today, an array of high-performing bullets in a large number of cartridges.

One of the problems is getting rid of out-dated ideas and information. Marshall and Sanow are one example. Their work would be rejected by any decent scientific journal, it is so full of holes, statistical errors, and yes, common-sense issues. It is a shame they wasted their time and effort, and the time of others.

The same is true for issues with the 147-grain 9 mm hp. The first generation performed poorly, as many feared. But those days are long gone; re-designed, the 147-grrain is a solid performer and a good choice for self-defense, just as it is for LE. Those who say otherwise are basing their opinions on data that is 25 years out-of-date, or based on . . .pure predjudice. They just don't like it. Pretty good reason for choosing/not choosing a round, right? Watch out for gunwriters and so much of what passes for "fact" on the Internet. Especially when you question the veracity of what someone writes, and they just come back louder and louder. Those who tell you about needing to carry five reloads, and pack bullets no police department would ever authorize. Sound familiar?

There is science behind terminal ballistics. Don't let the cloud of BS convince you otherwise.

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

I'm starting to think this whole field of ammo/bullet effectiveness is just one big collection of guess work -- with no information that even approaches the level of fact.

Every single piece of analysis has been debunked multiple times, and then the "debunkers" are themselves debunked.

From now on, I think I'll just rely on common sense:

Bigger holes are more effective than smaller holes.

A hole that goes deeper is more effective than one that is shallower.

Once a bullet passes clear through a target, any energy/velocity it has has no more effect on that target and it just becomes a danger to bystanders.

My field is computer engineering and if we understood computing and computer design as poorly as ballistics is understood, then we would still be using abacuses.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate everyone's efforts to answer my questions.

So true.......A 9mm may expand......But a 45 will never shrink......

 

[dusty3030]

It's alive! It's alive! It's alive ha ha ha!

 

[jeffreybehr]

I use them now in my pocket 9mm because they have improved quite a bit since we carried them in 1990. We had the Winchester 147 JHP subsonic which had crimped primers and were designed for the military for use in their sub machine guns. I had quite a few of them fail to cycle the slide on the Glock 19. I have chronographed the WW white box 147's and they are right at 1000 fps. You can duplicate this load with Longshot.

And use Longshot only if you want LOTS of muzzleflash. I've tested it and LOTS other powders; LS is one of the worst.

 

[Gamecock]

"Those who say otherwise are basing their opinions on data that is 25 years out-of-date"

Nothing has changed about humans in 25 years.