9mm SD ammo

[MedWheeler]

Winchester 115-grain "Defend" JHP in my PF9 and G2C. Same price as their "Train" ammunition, which is sold alongside it as a 115-grain FMJ. It's probably the same stuff as their 115-grain JHP WWB stuff.

I've also trusted Remington-UMC 115-grain JHP stuff in the PF9 and in my Ruger P95. Ran out of it before I got the Taurus, so never tried it in that.

 

[bdickens]

+1... with the caveat that I run 135grn CD in my Kahrs.

If you are carrying to defend yourself against gel blocks, then all the research is valid, but there will be nothing text book about performance if and when you would have to fire that ammunition in the Real World... there are simply too many variables. My suggestion is to find appropriate ammunition that functions 100% in your particular weapon, and otherwise performs well for your shooting style. For example, I've sworn off +P ammos... the muzzle blast is usually too great compared to regular ammos and I find it distracting. Hitting your target with a firearm that cycles properly under duress is far more important than expansion test results. I would easily carry FMJ that cycled 100% over some HP's that gave me fits.

*Sigh* [shakes head]

I know I'm not going to convince you, but this is for those who either haven't already made their minds up, or who are willing to open them up to different ideas.

1) NO dynamic critical incident is likely to be "textbook." That's why one of Murphy's Laws of Combat states "no plan survives contact with the enemy."

2) I am convinced that people make ridiculous statements like "If you are carrying to defend yourself against gel blocks, then all the research is valid..." because of a fundamental misunderstanding of what gel tests tell us as well as what they don't. At the same time, they also have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the case studies do, and don't, tell us.

 

[bearcreek]

If you are carrying to defend yourself against gel blocks, then all the research is valid, but there will be nothing text book about performance if and when you would have to fire that ammunition in the Real World... there are simply too many variables.

Nothing textbook? At all? Even just a little bit? I find that hard to believe. How do you know that for certain?

 

[94045]

Winchester 115-grain "Defend" JHP in my PF9 and G2C. Same price as their "Train" ammunition, which is sold alongside it as a 115-grain FMJ. It's probably the same stuff as their 115-grain JHP WWB stuff.

I've also trusted Remington-UMC 115-grain JHP stuff in the PF9 and in my Ruger P95. Ran out of it before I got the Taurus, so never tried it in that.

Defend uses the same Bullet as PDX1 to the best of my knowledge. It's often loaded a little slower than PDX1 for recoil reduction.

The standard Remington 115 JHP works well in pistols with 4" or longer barrels. It often runs into expansion issues in short barrels.

WWB Personal Protection 115 JHP tends to work very well in the short barrels but tends to fragment and under penetrate in duty length firearms.

PS The Defend I've seen is the same price per box but it only has 20 rounds in the box vs 50 in the Train so it's 250% the price per round.

 

[IdaD]

Just my two cents but I don't think ammo selection is quite as critical in the duty caliber range as it is with smaller guns and shorter barrels. I.e., 380 ACP out of a pocket pistol. I've carried HST, XTP, Critical Duty and WWB in my 9mm carry guns and felt fine with all of them. Just need to run some rounds to be sure they function properly and hit where you expect, and you're GTG with just about any mainstream 9mm JHP, imo. I do like XTP bullets and they're a pretty good value in the American Gunner line or even Fiocchi and a couple of other smaller manufacturers. They may give up a little on expansion but they seem to penetrate very reliably.

 

[Zendude]

Since OP mentioned price, I think we can narrow the recommendations a bit. For example, Remington Golden Saber is a good value.

 

[94045]

Since OP mentioned price, I think we can narrow the recommendations a bit. For example, Remington Golden Saber is a good value.

It's as cheap as WWB, Fed 9BP or RGW right now. Some have issues with it's tendency to lose the jacket but from what I've seen this tends to happen right at the end of it's travel and have little effect on it's penetration. I used to use the 185+P (.45 ACP) before the Fed Tac Bonded was put on sale since Fed has discontinued it.

 

[Zendude]

It's as cheap as WWB, Fed 9BP or RGW right now. Some have issues with it's tendency to lose the jacket but from what I've seen this tends to happen right at the end of it's travel and have little effect on it's penetration. I used to use the 185+P (.45 ACP) before the Fed Tac Bonded was put on sale since Fed has discontinued it.

You’re right about the Federal BP being a good deal right now. Just checked Lucky Gunner and the +P+ BPLE is 31 cents per round.

 

[Charlie98]

That's silly.

Of course there are a lot of variables, but in terms of terminal performance, barrier and gel testing results are corroborated by real wold performance. The really important variables have to do with entry wound location and angle and the posture of the target, and not terminal performance.

I tend to agree.

Yep.

*Sigh* [shakes head]

I know I'm not going to convince you, but this is for those who either haven't already made their minds up, or who are willing to open them up to different ideas.

1) NO dynamic critical incident is likely to be "textbook." That's why one of Murphy's Laws of Combat states "no plan survives contact with the enemy."

2) I am convinced that people make ridiculous statements like "If you are carrying to defend yourself against gel blocks, then all the research is valid..." because of a fundamental misunderstanding of what gel tests tell us as well as what they don't. At the same time, they also have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the case studies do, and don't, tell us.

Nothing textbook? At all? Even just a little bit? I find that hard to believe. How do you know that for certain?

Wow, I didn't realize you guys were so hot to take what I posted out of context.

Think about it... while gel test do provide data on what a bullet might do, there is nothing cut and dried in a shooting... by that I mean the infinite amount of variables presented by the target... weather, clothing, overgarments, angle of presentation, motion, deflection from other debris, distance... the list goes on. It would be great if the perp would stand nekked 7yds square on and allow you an aimed shot at his vitals, chances are that's not going to happen.

bdickens, in your #1 you clearly state what I was trying to convey, then turn around in your #2 and criticize me for what you agreed with me about in statement #1...

Bearcreek... how many self-defense shoots are laid out like a quantitative test? Nothing textbook, indeed...

You people needlessly pouring over details and tests about bullet expansion and such... which is a valid concern when designing a bullet... but even a HP bullet that doesn't expand .001" still has the effect of a FMJ in any event. I stand by my statement that what matters more than wound channels in gel is a cartridge that cycles 100% and allows the operator to place his shots as effectively as he or she can.

 

[bearcreek]

You people needlessly pouring over details and tests about bullet expansion and such

Not sure who "you people" are exactly. I assume you're part of them though, since you're here commenting on this thread. It's no secret that gun people argue too much on internet forums about minutia. That's half the reason forums like this exist.

I stand by my statement that what matters more than wound channels in gel is a cartridge that cycles 100% and allows the operator to place his shots as effectively as he or she can.

No one is saying that bullet expansion is more important than reliability ( at least that I've seen, maybe I missed that post). The cool thing is that with pretty much any decent, modern pistol, you can have both. None of my pistols have a problem working reliably with quality, HP ammo (or garbage, gun show sourced HP ammo, for that matter).

 

[Kleanbore]

You people needlessly pouring over details and tests about bullet expansion and such..

Yeah, there certainly is a lot of that going around.

I stand by my statement that what matters more than wound channels in gel is a cartridge that cycles 100% and allows the operator to place his shots as effectively as he or she can.

Yes, or course, and that means firing several shots very quickly to maximize the likelihood of hitting something critical in the time allowed.

And don't forget penetration.

 

[94045]

1. Reliability.
2. Concealibilty (If you won't carry it, it doesn't matter. Everyone has their own personal limit. Most won't carry an S&W X-Frame)
3. How well you shoot the platform.
4. Caliber (If a choice exist, .45 Shield size platform only comes in one caliber).
5. Ammo

 

[94045]

Wow, I didn't realize you guys were so hot to take what I posted out of context.

Think about it... while gel test do provide data on what a bullet might do, there is nothing cut and dried in a shooting... by that I mean the infinite amount of variables presented by the target... weather, clothing, overgarments, angle of presentation, motion, deflection from other debris, distance... the list goes on. It would be great if the perp would stand nekked 7yds square on and allow you an aimed shot at his vitals, chances are that's not going to happen.

bdickens, in your #1 you clearly state what I was trying to convey, then turn around in your #2 and criticize me for what you agreed with me about in statement #1...

Bearcreek... how many self-defense shoots are laid out like a quantitative test? Nothing textbook, indeed...

You people needlessly pouring over details and tests about bullet expansion and such... which is a valid concern when designing a bullet... but even a HP bullet that doesn't expand .001" still has the effect of a FMJ in any event. I stand by my statement that what matters more than wound channels in gel is a cartridge that cycles 100% and allows the operator to place his shots as effectively as he or she can.

Agreed. You could even make the case that due to shape and edges the JHP actually tends to make a slightly larger hole in tissue. Enough to matter? <Shrug>

 

[sequins]

I use the lucky gunner test data and feel good shooting the 147gn winchester ranger T ammunition in any barrel length.

 

[Spats McGee]

I just bought a G2C, and AFAIK it doesn't have any known/specific problems eating +P, so I was looking around for a SD ammo that has a nice balance between price and performance....

Personally, I carry Remington Golden Sabers. It feeds well in my 9mms, is carried by all LE agencies of which I am aware, and is made locally (which may explain that second factor). I'm more concerned about whether a bullet feeds and fires consistently than I am about any other performance factor out there. Yes, using rounds that fail the FBI protocols may result in a failure to reach vital organs. But as long as the rounds feed and fire, I'm still a step ahead of having to use my pistol as an impact weapon.

Anyway, with all of that said: First, my ideal choice is a round that reliably feeds and fires and meets those FBI performance protocols. Second, there are a lot of really good rounds out there, so I wouldn't feel ammo-deficient if I found myself carrying HSTs, Hydrashoks, Gold Dots, etc. And I suspect that almost all of the most popular SD rounds on the market would feed and fire just fine.

 

[Charlie98]

Not sure who "you people" are exactly. I assume you're part of them though, since you're here commenting on this thread. It's no secret that gun people argue too much on internet forums about minutia. That's half the reason forums like this exist.

It's kind of interesting... back in the Old Days, SD ammo function was more of an issue than expansion, bullet design being what it was back then, and maybe that's why I'm more concerned with that over a gel block wound channel. If memory serves, the Federal HydraShok was pretty notorious for poor feeding, and that may have been more an issue with the pistols of the day, not necessarily the ammunition. Even when I was carrying a .380, I never really drilled down that much to what the bullet was 'supposed' to do, I was more concerned about it cycling properly... and that may have been because of what I was carrying... an AMT DAO 380. Fast forward to today, we have excellent SD bullets that function in probably 4 times as many available pistols... you really can't go wrong with any of them as long as they feed and fire properly.

Bullet expansion tests remind me of vehicle mileage ratings on new cars... you don't really expect to get that, do you?

 

[Jim Rau]

As stated above, there are MANY choices today, and all of them will preform well as long as they are reliable and accurate in YOUR gun. There is no such thing as a 'MAGIC' bullet, so stick with a good JHP.

 

[Kleanbore]

...all of them will preform well as long as they are reliable and accurate in YOUR gun.

I prefer more assurance that what i use will reach vital organs when needed.

 

[Jim Rau]

I prefer more assurance that what i use will reach vital organs when needed.

Well than FMJ is the only way to go if that is your primary/main concern!!! I do agree that penetration is the most important consideration. If it don't 'get there' it can't do it's job. But what I am saying is that the ammo company's have put a lot in to RD and MOST of their ammo that is sold for 'defense' will 'do the job' it was designed for. As I said there is no 'magic bullet' so choose a medium weight JHP in the caliber of your choice and if you have the means 'test' it. There is MORE than enough data out there which is readily available to all to make a WISE decision on what ammo you should carry.

 

[Kleanbore]

Well than FMJ is the only way to go if that is your primary/main concern!!!

"Primary/main" does not mean only.

MOST of their ammo that is sold for 'defense' will 'do the job' it was designed for.

Do you really know that?

There is MORE than enough data out there which is readily available to all to make a WISE decision on what ammo you should carry.

Yes.

That does differ from your original premise ("all of them...").

 

[Charlie98]

I prefer more assurance that what i use will reach vital organs when needed.

I guess that's my biggest point of contention. You are implying that the bullet you would use would reach the vital organs 'when needed,' and there is no way to guarantee that no matter how much research and proof you can provide. The potential is there, but whether or not the bullet will achieve it's goal... is always questionable.

Do you really know that?

No, I don't... not having been involved in a situation where I have had to discharge my firearm for that reason. I've ventilated a lot of paper, shot a lot of bowling pins and dirt clods, but whether or not the next bullet that leaves my barrel will reach the vitals 'when needed' is up for grabs. I certainly intend to do my part, as I'm sure the bullet itself would, to the best of our ability, but to have a blanket expectation that the bullet WILL reach the vitals is nonsense.

 

[Zendude]

Not intending to start a ruckus or be Captain Obvious, but FMJ does check the first two boxes on the list very well - reliable feeding and penetration.
Just might not be the best choice though. Maybe.

 

[Kleanbore]

You are implying that the bullet you would use would reach the vital organs 'when needed,'

Not for a second.

Test results indicate, with a high degree of confidence, that the bullets I use can penetrate sufficiently, and should do the job if at least one shot enters the target in the right place and at the right angle--timely.

 

[Hartkopf]

I prefer ammo that is proven to be a medium expander and a high penetrator. Also one with a long and proven track record on the streets and with agencies around the country. Gold Dots.

 

[Styx]

I've been carrying Federal Syntech in my carry gun lately... Seems to preform well, penetrates well, and is affordable. I'm personally not overly obsessive or feel the need to analyze the crap out of every little thing when it comes to carrying a firearm for projection. I believe only a very small percentage of hard core gun nuts do, and more power to them. This is just my opinion, but I strongly believe that most self defense ammo will have basically the same affect if it hits it's Target in the same place... I don't obsess on about whether a bullet expand a perfect mushroom or not.. That's just me... I just think a lot of extremist in the gun community waste too much time worrying about every little thing.