Just to get an accurate representation of what is being said, basically, the same 127gr +P+ Ranger T that I use for carry in my G19 is “acceptable” ammunition in a G26, it just probably isn’t the most optimal ammo to use? I’m not worried about losing a little bit of velocity because the barrel is so small.
I understand that 147gr. would keep it’s velocity better, and understand the mechanics of dwell time and velocity. I’m just wondering if there are any other drawbacks to using this ammunition in a sub-compact other than increased muzzle flip and lower velocity retention than on a compact or full-size.
Surprising that there is not more official testing by major departments or the FBI that allow the use of small barreled back up guns on duty.
Now many say that the 147gr maybe a good choice but I have always been a “Show Me” type of person that likes to see solid, reliable testing results before making a defensive ammunition choice.
Would anyone know what the expansion window velocity wise for the Federal HST 147gr loading is?
I don’t have any definitive info on this, but I do recall one of the Winchester engineers speaking about a widened expansion window being a feature of their updated Ranger-T line, to address this very issue…
That’s exactly why I ask. I am a “show me” type of person and there seems to be no clear answer to this question in sight, I’ve been looking pretty hard.
But just how wide is that window. I bought a case of 127gr +P+, I think I may have to dedicate a box to some testing. I think that it will yield good results. I’m just, again, a “show me” type of person.
My agency hosted a ballistics workshop today for ATK. In 9mm the three rounds tested were the following:
Federal HST 147 gr (P9HST2)
Speer 124 gr +P (53617)
Winchester 147gr JHP (WWB - Current issued duty load)
The test gun was a M&P9 (4" barrel). Bare Gel, 4 layer denim, wall board and auto glass tests were done.
After, that, bare gel tests were done with a M&P9c (3.5" barrel). The penetration of the HST round was exactly the same with the M&P9c as with the M&P9 (14.25").
I had a personally owned Kahr PM9 that I included. A bare gel shot of all three rounds was conducted. The penetration of the HST round only increased to 15". I don’t have the other figures as the data sheet is at the range with our Range Master. But the minimum and maximum expansion, and retained weight of the HST round from the 3.5" M&P9c to the 3" PM9 wasn’t enough to get excited about.
I am sure of the data as I was the one doing the measuring for this workshop. (ATK prefers to not have their personnel do the measuring.)
Bottom line, I personally would not worry about the 147 gr HST in a 3" PM9.
Other things I might mention: The Federal flight control 00Buck loading is amazing. Our current reduced recoil 00 Buck grouped 11" at 50’. The Federal flight control loading grouped 5.5" out of the same 870 at 50".
The Speer 38spc 135gr +P out of my S&W 642 went 11.5" in bare gel, and looked picture perfect in the uniformity of it’s expansion.
Shooting a 9mm 147gr HST round and a 230gr 45 HST round into the same block of gel is an eye opening experience. Both rounds penetrated to exactly the same distance. Carrying 17 rds of 9mm vs 10 rds of 45? A no brainer for me…
Kent and Johann from ATK were a class act. Johann really knows what he’s talking about and is an interesting guy to talk with. But after spending the day with him, I now feel the need to go buy a folding Strider knife!
Next week, Winchester is coming out. Will see how the 147gr Ranger loading performs out of the PM9.
Beat Trash,thanks for posting this info.I’ve been mulling over what load I was going to use in a PPS. Looks like I may just stick with my regular 147’s.
Do you recall the penetration depths of the 45 and 9mm HST’s that penetrated the same in the gel?
A no brainer if you only want to look at half the equation. Doc preaches penetration AND expansion. Remember, in handgun rounds the temporary cavity is not important… the permanent crush cavity is. An HST 230 +P expanded to .85" gives you better odds of striking a vital structure than does an HST 147gr 9mm expanded to .61 inches (based on the correctly measured data from Doc, not the incorrectly measured bullet diamters from ATK). In fact, if we assume a perfect circle and look at the area the .45 crushes (pi x r-squared), it is almost double at .567 in-sq vs. .292 in-sq for the 9mm. If we want to compare real mag capacity, I will take my 14 rounds of .45 (Glock 21SF) vs. your 18 rounds of 9mm. Finally, the fact that a heavier bullet will have more momentum is a proven scientific fact. The 230 grain bullet is much less likely to be swayed by bone and will retain more velocity over longer distances than the 147 will.
Anyway whats wrong with Federal 115 +P+ 9BPLE? Many times it is available at near nato fmj prices. Also Winchester has the ranger +P that comes up reasonable at times also. Seems like once a year on of them pops up for cheap. I am just a believer that with your primary CCW you should practice with the same ammo you carry. You just never know as far as hollow points and jams and it takes a lot of rounds to have the confidence and natural reflex with a round that you want if God Forbid you ever actually need to use it. I guess I am willing to give up the slight ballistic handicap for using the same round I practice with.
Now if you can afford a few thousand rounds of the $1 a pop stuf, then by all means go for it but the rest of us? Eh I don’t know.
haha, that’s like saying “cells are a proven scientific fact.” That doesn’t really mean anything if you don’t put it into context.
There is no point in abusing science to try to prove yourself right. If anything the only thing that 50+ years of formalized ballistic testing has shown is is that there is a lot that we still can’t examine or quantify, and that nothing that we have come up with proves anything definitively.
The differences between the classic duty cartridges are minimal and not really worth fighting about. It is more important to examine the different options for JHPs within a given caliber and pistol to determine what will work best for you and not so much what you think should work best for others. This thread is better left to the discussion of what loads work best in 3" 9mm barrels as there is much more to be gained from that than a petty caliber war.
While I appreciate your condescending comments, this is not a petty caliber war. My daily carry gun is a Kahr PM9 loaded with Winchester 127 gr +P+. I edited my comment for clarity above. It is a proven fact that a heavier bullet has more momentum. If you had read my post carefully, you would have noted the second part of the momentum comment that a heavier bullet, all other things being equal, will maintain its velocity longer. My point was of the post was not to bag on the 9mm, but to point out that there was another component to look at other than penetration, i.e, expansion. Mag capacity is another component. We need to remember that we are dealing with a platform that is less than ideal for the job at hand. A handgun is a trade-off of convenience versus firepower. I remember my firearms instructor in the academy asking us, “if you knew you would be in a gun fight this very afternoon, what gun would you take with you?” Some answers were M60 machine gun, 12-gauge shot gun, 300 Win Mag, etc. I carried a Glock 22 on duty for 10-years because the Glock 21 grip was just too fat for me until I finally got the slim frame.
Your comment, “nothing proves anything”, wreaks of the current nihilistic attitude which has crept into the scientific community as of late.
The 147gr standard pressure load suffers the least amount of velocity loss when fired out of shorter barrels. It is a far more efficient loading than +P or +P+.
Going with a higher pressure, higher velocity load is a matter of diminishing returns in shorter barrels. The faster the bullet travels, the faster it leaves the barrel and doesn’t allow the charge to burn off inside the barrel and thus…build up more pressure. Standard pressure ammo, particularly the 147gr load, stays inside the barrel longer allowing more powder to be burned and more pressure buildup. I’ve often found lots of unburned powder in +P and +P+ 9mm as well as .357sig. Not so with standard pressure loads or slower velocity .40 and .45. The same principle applies to rifle calibers. In 5.56, heavier, slower velocity loads suffer less velocity loss in SBRs and are better for those applications.
While I agree with this data, do you see a fallacy with looking at velocity loss as opposed to actually comparing the velocity of specific rounds out of a 3-inch barrel as it relates to their expansion threshold?
Yep, % velocity drop probably isn’t a simple linear relation to change in expansion.
I think probably the smartest thing to do is find a reputable JHP round you can afford and control/shoot the best with. Get enough experience with that ammo in your pistol so it is routine. Loading your carry weapon with expensive ammo you rarely shoot cause it has better numbers on paper just doesn’t seem wise.
Indeed. Each individual bullet design and weight is setup differently. A 124gr+P Gold Dot may have reliable exansion 75fps slower than what it was designed for, but a HST may be able to push that envelope from -100 to -150. Probably why Speer felt a need for producing short barrel ammunition for its Gold Dot line, while Federal didn’t feel it necessary with the HST.
All that being said, you’ll likely get good performance out of any of top three manufacturers…Federal, Speer, and Winchester in 3" barrels. The +P+ loads still work well, I just feel that the extra blast, flash, and recoil particularly out of a smaller barrel are unnecessary distractions to the shooter to slow down your shooting and alertness. Larry Vickers, Ken Hackathorn, and Gary Roberts seem to like the 147gr HST.
I broke down last night and ordered 150 rounds of Federal HST 147 gr +P’s from Kyle’s Gunshop. The 127 gr +P+, while not un-manageable, does have significant muzzle jump. Not sure when I can get to the range in the next week or two but I will post up my results with the PM9.
Doc doesn’t recommend the BPLE because the disadvantage is not “slight”.
The various old school 115gr +P and +P+ loads typically over expand and fragment on bare gel tests, and often fail to expand through heavy clothing/4 layer denim tests.
The BPLE fails to expand like 20-25% of the time when shot through heavy clothing. OIS performance backs up these tests.
These loads also suck at getting through cover effectively.
I would carry BPLE over ball ammo (and in the past I have actually done so), but I would much rather carry any of Gold Dot, Ranger-T or HST loads.
FWIW, In real life I have noted that the 124gr +P Gold Dot works almost exactly the same, terminal ballistics wise, whether it is launched from a G26 or a G17.
