9mm carry ammo...115 or 147

[RetiredUSNChief]

A bit surprised by all the people with Dutch-loaded magazines.

I think really the only advantage of 9mm ball would be shooting through metal cover, and even on that a bonded JHP would do just as well.

The ogive on 9mm ball lends itself to richocets off of angled hard surfaces like auto glass.

Make no mistake here...hollowpoints richochet off angled hard surfaces like auto glass just as much as ball.

One advantage that ball ammo has over the equivalent mass/velocity hollowpoint is penetration. For a given mass/velocity of ammunition, the ball will penetrate deeper than the hollowpoint under almost all circumstances. Practically speaking, this means that ball ammo has a greater chance of reaching vital organs in a more reliable fashion than hollowpoints.


THAT SAID, all varieties of ammunition are a compromise or trade off of one characteristic over another, which are somewhat mitigated through specific bullet design, mass, and velocity. (Which is why I made my comparison as "for a given mass/velocity of ammunition...")


Regardless of what one chooses for self-defense ammunition, it should be reasonably capable of penetrating deeply enough to puncture vital organs. If it can do this, then all other factors become "icing on the cake". If it cannot do this reliably, then all other factors become "cr*p which doesn't work worth a darn".

 

[tuj]

Stan Chen ASYM Precision 115gr Barnes solid copper hollow point, +p, low-flash powder used here.

 

[Hummer70]

FWIW When I was working the Command Office in DC called me and I was told he had just witnessed a demo for 147 gr. 9MM ammo that was being procured by the SEALS. He wanted me evaluate it and send recommendation.

He gave me a point of contact and a 50 cal can of it was sent to me. In the meantime I talked with Crane Naval Wpns Ctr and was told it was only used in H&K MP5 w/ cans and that it was not reliable in a handguns beyond the first round.

At any rate when it arrived I started shooting it in different 9MM handguns I had access to and they were right. The feed reliability was not at a desirable level.

As I remember I reported to him that I would carry one round in barrel and the rest in mag would be NATO Spec 9MM ball and also I thought there would be confusion with the personnel if two kinds were available.

I got a reply of thanks and cease all efforts in that regard.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

Back in the day I used to carry 115gr ammo and never gave it much though what kind. Eventually I decided to go with a more "advanced" design and switched to Black Talons and Hydra-Shok, and later Gold Dots. But as I transitioned from all steel guns to steel and polymer ones I began to feel that heavier bullets were superior for function. There are a few (the Nano being one) that are supposed to run 124gr and larger. None of my guns seem to be fussy but I've stuck with 147gr for a long time. It seems that the heavier bullets penetrate the most and modern bullets offer pretty good consistent expansion nowadays. If the bullet fails to expand then it may as well penetrate.

My EDC load in all the nines I carry is 147gr Federal HST. I wouldn't hesitate to carry the 124gr HST but the 147gr is easier to find, so I went "all in" on 147gr, stocking up on that weight for practice loads, too.

 

[JDR]

Cor Bon DPX09115/20

This round features solid copper bullet construction to penetrate hard barriers such as auto glass and steel while still maintaining its integrity. This is an optimum Law Enforcement load:

- Deep 12-17 inch soft tissue penetration.
- Reduced recoil due to lighter weight projectile.

Caliber: 9mm Luger +P
Bullet Wt.: 115gr DPX
Velocity: 1250fps
Energy: 399ftlbs
Test Barrel Length: 4.0"

 

[Madcap_Magician]

Make no mistake here...hollowpoints richochet off angled hard surfaces like auto glass just as much as ball.

Very true, auto glass is perhaps the worst thing to shoot through, and bullet performance (and direction) after going through it is extremely erratic.

One advantage that ball ammo has over the equivalent mass/velocity hollowpoint is penetration. For a given mass/velocity of ammunition, the ball will penetrate deeper than the hollowpoint under almost all circumstances. Practically speaking, this means that ball ammo has a greater chance of reaching vital organs in a more reliable fashion than hollowpoints.

That's true, but it's matched by the disadvantages that it produces small through-and-through wounds with little tissue damage and is both more likely to penetrate a target completely and to retain its shape and enough velocity to penetrate things behind the target as well.

THAT SAID, all varieties of ammunition are a compromise or trade off of one characteristic over another, which are somewhat mitigated through specific bullet design, mass, and velocity. (Which is why I made my comparison as "for a given mass/velocity of ammunition...")


Regardless of what one chooses for self-defense ammunition, it should be reasonably capable of penetrating deeply enough to puncture vital organs. If it can do this, then all other factors become "icing on the cake". If it cannot do this reliably, then all other factors become "cr*p which doesn't work worth a darn".

And that's basically all there is to say about it.

 

[Mainsail]

The ogive on 9mm ball lends itself to richocets off of angled hard surfaces like auto glass.

Seriously, is this an important factor in choosing a self-defense round for regular citizen?

I’m not trying to be snarky, really, but have you ever heard of a self-defense shooting by a citizen where there was a need to shoot through auto glass? If so, does it happen often enough to be a deciding factor in round choice?

I think we can sometimes forget why we carry, and confuse our needs with the needs of a police officer or soldier. Since THR is primarily a forum for regular citizens and their self-defense carry, I really don’t understand how a certain round’s ability to perform offensive types of roles is realistic for the majority of us. I carry the 147gr HSTs because they tested well with police (and they function reliably in my pistols)- not because I think I’ll ever need to perform police type functions.

 

[C0untZer0]

Car jacking.

My mom made it through an attempted car jacking in Chicago last year - she wasn't armed, but it does happen and you may need to shoot through glass.

A little bit different than shooting through a windshield though... I think the angle would be different in most cases.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

I’m not trying to be snarky, really, but have you ever heard of a self-defense shooting by a citizen where there was a need to shoot through auto glass? If so, does it happen often enough to be a deciding factor in round choice?

See - A Word of Caution About Hornady's Critical Defense Handgun Ammunition - for credible circumstances in which an armed private citizen may have to shoot through windshield glass and auto bodies.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Let's just say that shooting through automobile glass and automobile bodies is not the norm and, at any rate, represents yet another obstacle that handguns are somewhat less than optimum for.

With respect to 9mm semi-automatic pistols that may be carried for self-defense, I think when we start talking about overcoming such obstacles then we rapidly start shifting the compromise scale radically to one side with respect to desired terminal ammunition performance characteristics.

If you want to best penetrate obstacles such as automobile glass and bodies with a 9mm, then you will necessarily have to compromise on other bullet performance characteristics to do so. For example, poking holes in glass and steel in cars is best performed with heavier bullets of the round-nosed, jacketed variety, preferably moving at a pretty decent velocity.

As someone else pointed out, this leads to a potential problem with over penetration. If you can reliably shoot through auto glass and steel and still adequately penetrate to vital organs in a human body, then under other circumstances you'll be over penetrating the beejeebers out of the human body and into whatever is behind them.


So my advice is to quit looking for specialized bullets with which to deal with the most exacting circumstances and concentrate on finding the bullet(s) which will adequately and reliably perform their role as a self-defense round, while functioning reliably in your pistol.

There aren't any magic bullets. Quit looking for them.

 

[F-111 John]

A Word of Caution About Hornady's Critical Defense Handgun Ammunition

Which is why Hornady developed Critical Duty, and why I carry it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYwnZt0j7co

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Which is why Hornady developed Critical Duty, and why I carry it.

If you're firing it from a full-size "duty" pistol (4" bbl or longer )then you can probably expect the kind of performance depicted in the YouTube video. If you're firing from a compact pistol (3.5" or shorter) don't expect it to expand.

Even when fired from a full sized "duty" pistol it's expansion performance is underwhelming. See - http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?7205-New-Service-Caliber-Handgun-Tests

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Let's just say that shooting through automobile glass and automobile bodies is not the norm...

I don't believe it's "not the norm" if you CCW and you drive a car. Google "shot while changing flat tire", "robbed while changing flat tire", "attacked while changing flat tire" and "assaulted with car trouble".

If you want to best penetrate obstacles such as automobile glass and bodies with a 9mm, then you will necessarily have to compromise on other bullet performance characteristics to do so. For example, poking holes in glass and steel in cars is best performed with heavier bullets of the round-nosed, jacketed variety, preferably moving at a pretty decent velocity.

This is not the case with well-designed modern JHP ammunition - you DO NOT have to compromise terminal performance. There are JHP ammunition choices that perform well in circumstances where light/heavy clothing is encountered as well as through auto sheetmetal and windshield glass.

 

[C0untZer0]

Repeating myself:

Maybe you own a messenger service in Minneapolis and you drive around all day and your primary concern is a car jacking. And you determine you need to be able to shoot through you drivers side window and stop a car jacker. Well then you want a bullet that can go through glass, heavy clothing and still reach vital tissue. Find the cartridge that does that.

Maybe you own a house on the beach in Florida and you sit on the beach all day but you want to be able to deal with muggers or thugs from the bad neighborhood down the way... so you're probably not going to be shooting through drywall, car doors or heavy clothing... just shooting into an assailant who is wearing a T-shirt or even bare chested, so find a bullet that reaches vital tissue under those circumstances.

It brings up the issue of switching out ammo depending on what self-defense situation you want to prepare for or carrying a round that does well in different conditions / through all sorts of different barriers.

Research the performance characteristics of your round.

Making a choice that you're not going to fire through glass is like making a choice that you're only going to ever have to fire 2 or 3 shots, or making a choice to prepare for the average person - not prepare for having to make a cross shot on a barrel-chested, muscle-bound thug wearing a jean jacket over a shirt, and a T-shirt underneath that.

I don't try to tell other people what they may need but I do encourage people to think about it.

Car jacking is a very real possibility in Chicago and some other municipalities in Illinois, so I carry a round that performs well through barriers - the Winchester Ranger "T" RA9T.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I don't believe it's "not the norm" if you CCW and you drive a car. Google "shot while changing flat tire", "robbed while changing flat tire", "attacked while changing flat tire" and "assaulted with car trouble".



This is not the case with well-designed modern JHP ammunition - you DO NOT have to compromise terminal performance. There are JHP ammunition choices that perform well in circumstances where light/heavy clothing is encountered as well as through auto sheetmetal and windshield glass.

Finding various examples of gunshots with involve shooting through auto glass and metal does NOT make this the norm. It simply illustrates some example wherein gunfire did involve such circumstances. For it to be the norm, then a very large fraction of violent encounters involving gunfire must involve shooting through auto glass and metal.


And sorry to pop this bubble, but you DO sacrifice terminal performance, most expecially with handgun ammunition.

Handguns are not the best firearm for self-defense in terms of power and terminal performance. They are, perhaps, the best CONCEALABLE and PORTABLE firearm for a person to carry/have on them. But in doing so, they represent yet more compromise in performance in order to gain that concealability and portability.

A 9mm bullet, regardless of mass, design, and velocity, is STILL subject to the laws of physics whenever impacting on any other object. Shooting through glass or metal necessarily causes bullet deformation/fragmentation, loss of velocity, and deflection for any angle other than a straight-on shot (and sometimes even those cause deflections).

Fire a jacketed hollowpoint of any kind through automobile glass or metal and you WILL adversely affect it's terminal performance characteristics. Loss of velocity, bullet deformation, filling the hollowpoint with debris, angle of deflection, and destabilization of the bullet will ALL act to do SOMETHING to reduce the hollowpoint performance below its optimal.

This is not to say that such a bullet will NOT hit, penetrate, and expand in the target, however. Only that it's ability to do so in an optimal fashion, as it was designed to do, WILL be reduced by some unpredictable factor.


It is well worth the time to go through the "Buick O' Truth" on The Box O' Truth's website:

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/thebuickotruth.htm

Pretty entertaining, as well as revealing. Shooting through glass was with a 9mm ball did, indeed, cause bullet deformation, deflection, fragmentation, and loss of penetration power.

The bullet mass is not mentioned...but a little research I did says that "9mm ball" refers to 112 gr jacketed. Perhaps some would care to enlighten me on this. If so, it would be quite interesting to note that this 9mm ball did quite a number with respect to penetrating auto glass and metal doors.


ALL THAT SAID, I fully understand that people design bullets for a wide variety of uses and performance characteristics. But in doing so, you ALWAYS affect some other characteristic of the ammunition and gun performance while doing so. Increase the velocity and chamber pressures and recoil are increased. Increase mass and velocity goes down. Increase mass and velocity both and chamber pressures and recoil go up even more dramatically. Use a hollowpoint with lower mass and get increased velocity at the cost of other factors. Use a hollowpoint with higher mass requires a longer bullet, which means seating deeper into the cartridge, which changes the type of powder used and affects chamber pressures/velocities.

It's ALWAYS a give and take.


Handguns are NOT the best weapon for shooting through auto glass and metal, PERIOD. You can improve their capability to do so within some limitations, yes. However, this WILL affect performance in other areas.


So my closing comment in post #85 is especially important:

Quit looking for specialized bullets with which to deal with the most exacting circumstances and concentrate on finding the bullet(s) which will adequately and reliably perform their role as a self-defense round, while functioning reliably in your pistol.

There aren't any magic bullets. Quit looking for them.

 

[Warp]

124+P for me. Followed by 147. Though there are some 115 +P+ rounds I'd be fine with too.

 

[Flintknapper]

Mine 9's are fed 147's.

 

[M1key]

Ironically I like to shoot both those weights through my Glock 34. The handloaded 115 XTP ahead of a heavy charge of Unique and the Winchester Ranger 147 SXT factory (very accurate).

Here's what the XTP does through water jugs at 10-12 yards. Penetrates into the third 6-inch water jug, expands to just under .60", and retains most of it's weight. I don't worry carrying this load, but I do understand it's limitations.

M

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Finding various examples of gunshots with involve shooting through auto glass and metal does NOT make this the norm.

It does make it a realistic possibility if you're disabled and vulnerable on the side of a rural highway or sketchy area with a flat tire or car trouble.

And sorry to pop this bubble, but you DO sacrifice terminal performance, most expecially with handgun ammunition.

Speer Gold Dot, Federal HST, Winchester Ranger, Barnes XPB, etc., all perform superbly against bad guys in the open and bad guys shot through auto sheetmetal and windshield glass. More info here: http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4337-Service-Caliber-Handgun-Duty-and-Self-Defense-Ammo

Automobile windshield glass:

Automobile windshield glass is an important barrier for some (but not all) law enforcement agencies, so it might seem that some requirement associated with this barrier would be appropriate in an ammunition specification. The problem with such a requirement is associated with the dynamic forces on the bullet as it penetrates the glass. Careful testing has shown that the forces on the bullet are so large during penetration that any bullet that expands in soft tissue has no effective resistance to deformation from glass contact.[3] As a result, attempting to improve JHP bullet performance through automobile windshield glass can significantly compromise performance through soft barriers without making any useful improvement in performance through the glass. A specification for performance through automobile windshield glass can be included, but this is not recommended because the probable result is more likely to be unintended negative consequences than ammunition improvement. Performance of well designed JHP bullet designs through automobile windshield glass is usually acceptable.

-- MacPherson, Duncan: "THE IWBA HANDGUN AMMUNITION SPECIFICATION PACKAGE"; http://www.firearmstactical.com/iwba.htm

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Soooo...your quote from your source actually supports what I was saying? Fascinating...

"The problem with such a requirement is associated with the dynamic forces on the bullet as it penetrates the glass. Careful testing has shown that the forces on the bullet are so large during penetration that any bullet that expands in soft tissue has no effective resistance to deformation from glass contact. As a result, attempting to improve JHP bullet performance through automobile windshield glass can significantly compromise performance through soft barriers without making any useful improvement in performance through the glass. A specification for performance through automobile windshield glass can be included, but this is not recommended because the probable result is more likely to be unintended negative consequences than ammunition improvement."

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Soooo...your quote from your source actually supports what I was saying? Fascinating...

Well-designed bullets expand reliably after passing through light clothing and heavy clothing alike. The best designs show very little difference in penetration depth performance between bare gelatin and gelatin covered by four layers of heavy denim cloth (4 Layer Denim (4LD)). Well-designed bullets recovered from actual shootings, in which no hard barrier material is encountered, are reported to have performed most closely to 4LD tests.

No manufacturer I'm aware of designs handgun JHP bullets to "expand" after passing through glass (which is what MacPherson is addressing) but they do design them to remain intact as much as possible to retain adequate penetration potential (12+ inches) after passing through windshield glass.

FBI has two tests involving windshield glass and there are bullets that perform well in these tests (penetrate at least 12 inches) that also perform well in the light and heavy clothing tests (as well as the IWBA's 4LD test). There's no "compromise" or "sacrifice terminal performance" as there is ammo that performs very well from extreme to extreme.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

FBI has two tests involving windshield glass and there are bullets that perform well in these tests (penetrate at least 12 inches) that also perform well in the light and heavy clothing tests (as well as the IWBA's 4LD test). There's no "compromise" or "sacrifice terminal performance" as there is ammo that performs very well from extreme to extreme.

If you have deflection, deformation, and fragmentation as a bullet passes through an interceeding medium, then by definition you have "compromise".

 

[RussellC]

Hornady +P 135 grain critical duty.

Russellc

 

[Shawn Dodson]

If you have deflection, deformation, and fragmentation as a bullet passes through an interceeding medium, then by definition you have "compromise".

However you implied "compromise" in terms of reduced terminal performance in shootings in which no hard barrier materials are encountered - if one chooses a bullet that also performs well against auto sheet metal and windshield glass (i.e., bullets that perform well against sheetmetal and windshields are somehow inferior).

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

However you implied "compromise" in terms of reduced terminal performance in shootings in which no hard barrier materials are encountered - if one chooses a bullet that also performs well against auto sheet metal and windshield glass (i.e., bullets that perform well against sheetmetal and windshields are somehow inferior).

The object of any bullet used for self-defense is to deliver that terminal performance to the intended target. The more obstacles a bullet must travel through, the more degraded and unreliable the expected terminal performance will be...regardless of how that bullet is designed.

Some obstacles have little noticable effect on the degradation of performance...yet it IS there. That's pure physics for you.

The subject of automobile glass and metal most assuredly has a noticable effect on the degradation of performance.

Shoot through a windshield, and you have deflection. You have loss of velocity. You have bullet deformation. You have bullet fragmentation.

You cannot have ANY of these things and still say there is no degradation of terminal performance. That is impossible. As Scotty might say: "Ye canna change the laws of physics!"

A bullet might be designed to perform better than another when passing through such barriers...but passing through them will STILL degrade their performance when they reach their intended target.


All bullet designs are tradeoffs from one design to another in some way, shape, or form. Choose what you think is best for the circumstances you think you will be likely to encounter and make sure you are proficient with them. That's the important thing.