Not to derail but I thought it was relevant to this thread. For a 3.1" barrel, would the 147 hst and ranger loads still be recommended or do I need to go buy some gelatin?
I dont know if that .4" is gonna make any difference or not.
I’m not an expert. But from the Ballistics Gel testing I observed conducted at my agency’s facility last year, the 147 gr loads work well enough out of a 3" Kahr PM9.
I personally do not see the need to buy a separate load for your 3.1" gun if you are already using the 147 HST or Ranger T loading in your larger guns.
I carry the 147 Ranger loading in my 3" PM9 and in my 3.1" Shield. I’m much more concerned about shot placement than about the minimal difference in performance I may get out of the smaller barrel.
147gr.+P HST Fired last night from a Glock 19
I chose hst 147 +p over standard pressure specifically for the increased slide force and velocity. I did this because there is no promise that when I need my weapon that it will be 100% clean or that I will have the time and mind to achieve a proper grip on the weapon. This means with +p ammo (in my mind anyway) that dirty, gummed up, poor grip, ext, ext… It doesn’t matter. My slide will function 100% . If I am wrong here, please correct me.
Btw, as far as added recoil and muzzle flash goes… The 147gr hst +p seems to be much much softer and forgiving than other +p ammunitions. At least in the platforms that I have been running them in.
how about the federal 115 +p+ 9BPLE?
From the tests Ive seen, all the +P gets you is alittle more expansion, less penetration and more recoil.
11.25" penetration and .70 RD from the 147gr +P HST vs 13.25" penetration and .664 from the 147gr HST standard pressure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i67WILeK66Y&list=PL727CAFF8A6C0D3BF
Thats what I thought but hadnt seen any definitive info. As long as its still opening up and not acting like an fmj (and still handles denim well) Im good. I have no 9mm currently (just .40) so this is gonna be first “duty” type 9mm I buy.
I’ve had the 127gr+p+ Ranger Talon tear at the serrations all the way to the base of the bullet. Sure thats tremendous expansion, but it didnt dent the back wall of the first jug of water.
Its ft-lbs of energy has nothing to do with its wounding capability.
The 9mm Shield and the 147gr HST will be a great combination for you. The more time I spend with my Shield, the more I like it. It really grows on you.
Wow. The 147gr hst +p doesn’t even meet the 12" minimum penetration standard??? I didn’t know that. I may have to rethink my options.
Yea I got it mainly for the girl to use, but once I get a holster I’ll be carrying it till she gets her ccw. Only 300rds through it but I love it already. Thanks for the info.
The standard 147 gr HST works just fine…
“a re-rolled black talon”… so… a re-rolled bullet from the mid 1980’s? hardly a stellar recommendation. Its not about foot pounds or kinetic engergy, its about penetration and expansion. Standard pressure rounds do just fine for that.
It might seem counter intuitive but the 147gr loads do better out of short barrels.
[i]When we redesigned the Ranger T Series of ammunition we widened the velocity window under which the round would expand to allow for the slower velocities that shorter than standard barrels produce. What this means is that if you own a standard or sub compact pistol the round should have adequate expansion. In 9mm I would recommend the 147 grain bullet as it loses a lower velocity percentage than the faster lighter bullet in shorter than normal barrels. This is because the bullet has more dwell time in the bore and has a greater opportunity to burn the powder before the bullet exits the bore. Powder that is burned outside the bore does nothing for velocity. The lighter faster bullets generally have more powder to burn and since the lighter faster bullets have less time in the bore they are not efficient burners of powder in the shorter barrels.
We increased the velocity window under which the round would expand by increasing the size of the hollowpoint, tweaking the jacket thickness and the depth of the cuts on the inside of the jacket petal segments.
Sincerely,
Paul Nowak
Senior Technical Specialist
Winchester Law Enforcement Ammunition[/i]
I recently participated in ammo testing using a Glock 17 and 19 for 9mm ammo.
My recommendations for the Glock 19 (closest to the 26) after testing into bare gel / heavy cloth / wall board / auto glass was:
Remington Golden Saber - 147 gr, which had a 98.47% weight retention average through all 4 mediums and averaged 15" of penetration.
and
Speer Gold Dot - 147 gr, which had a 96.97% weight retention average through all 4 mediums and averaged 13.69" of penetration.
Hope that helps.
Was the HST tested?
I could care less about weight retention what matters is penetration and expansion and expansion is where the HST kicks the Golddot and the Golden Sabers arse. Seriously who cares how heavy a bullet ends up as long as it did its job.
Pat
How is a bullet going to do it’s job effectively if it loses all of its mass between a barrier and the intended target? Weight retention is not everything, but it is most certainly part of the equation. We did test the HST round, but it did not out perform my previously mentioned rounds in 9mm.
HST has out performed Golden Saber and Gold Dot in my tests for expansion. And again weight retention means nothing so long as the bullet does make it to its intended target which is measured by 12 inches minimum in gelatin. Some of the best 5.56 rounds totally fragment and have very poor weight retention but very good terminal performance. Your tests results did not even show expansion. If all you care about is weight retention and penetration then ball is the load for you. And we all know how poorly ball ammo performs in the real world. Weight retention is not part of the terminal performance equation. It may help with penetration but it in and of itself means nothing. Penetration and expansion are what matters.
Pat
I’m not sure how you can compare a 5.56 round moving somewhere around 2700 FPS that uses fragmentation as a wounding mechanism to a handgun round moving somewhere around 1000 FPS using expansion as a wounding mechanism.
A difference in ~0.1" of expanded diameter between the 9mm GD and 9mm HST is marginal at best and is analogous to the argument between the terminal ballistics of 9 vs. 40 vs. 45
At the end of the day, pistol rounds still suck. It is a compromise no matter which way you slice it. Stick to a known good manufacturer of a known good performing bullet and realize that shot placement has more to do with the effects on the target than does the bullet construction.