Another, serious 9mm ammo question

[mr.72]

There is so much misinformation, biased information, and flat-out wrong information mixed in with facts on the Internet that I am compelled to just simply ask opinion.

From the ammo selection article from Chuck Hawks web site is the following riot-inducing quote:

Now it is time to impart some crucial information: NEVER use 147 grain ammo in a 9mm pistol! There was a stupid fad for 147 grain hollowpoints a few years ago, and many were suckered into buying these weak, worthless and malfunction-prone rounds. I don't care what you've heard: never use any 9mm hollowpoint heavier than 125 grains. 147 grain hollowpoints often jam in many popular 9mm guns like the Browning Hi-Power, SIG, Beretta 92, S&W and Glock. Ignore the gun magazine hype and stick to what works. If you want to gamble, go to Reno. Don't gamble with your life. 147 grain ammo sucks.

Well this article is obviously biased and a few years old, perhaps out of date. In fact some of the ammo recommended in this article is actually no longer in production or not available to the civilian buyer.

Is there remaining any reason to not choose 147gr JHPs for a 9mm? Is there any compelling reason to choose 147gr over 124-125gr? Is there any reason to choose either heavier bullet over 115gr?

Along those same lines, what are the consensus opinions on DoubeTap ammo? The velocity looks great on paper. Is it reliable? How do they achieve higher velocities without higher pressure loading?

Disregarding brand name, and considering a 3.5" barrel, what would be your choice of ammo:

115gr standard pressure
115gr +P
115gr +P+
124gr standard
124gr +P
124gr DoubleTap +P
147gr standard
147gr +P
147gr DoubleTap +P

?

 

[Checkman]

I carry the +P+ 115 grain JHP. It's my duty load and is in both my G19 and G26. The +P+ 115 grain JHP has been used for a couple decades now and has performed pretty well. Anyway I don't get a choice. It's what my department issues to me so it's a moot point.

Mr. Hawks has been a topic of a few threads here on THR. He tends to be controversial. That's as far as I'm willing to go ....... okay I'll go farther. I don't go to his site anymore and I'm certainly not going to pay him my hard earned money to read his opinions.

 

[FranklyTodd]

I have no opinion regarding what others should use, but I use Winchester Ranger T-series Bonded 147gr ammo.

Completely reliable in my gun. Virtually without recoil compared to +P, so follow-up shots are effortless. My gun will digest +P or +P+ all day, but I prefer these standard pressure bonded Rangers.

This is the ammo the FBI gives to agents that still carry 9mm (not why I chose it, but nice to know). Here's a quote from Winchester press release 4/29/2008:

Winchester’s 9mm service ammunition utilizes a 147-grain, bonded hollow point bullet and was selected over all other rounds tested. The FBI evaluates the terminal ballistics of each round by shooting a specific test protocol through various barriers such as heavy cloth, wallboard, plywood, steel and auto glass into ballistic gelatin.

http://www.winchester.com/news/newsview.aspx?storyid=242

I recall when considering a Walther PPS that many of the problems experienced by owners occurred when shooting 147gr, so there may be some truth to it causing difficulties in some guns...

 

[hotpig]

I would go with 147 Ranger ammo since the fast burning powder gets the ammo in to its velocity window.

I would avoid DT ammo since it has no street credibility.

 

[OFT]

The fact that Chuck Hawks doesn't like the 147 grain load is enough for me to want to buy a box this weekend.

 

[mr.72]

You guys haven't read the article, as far as I can tell. Here's a link:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/ammo_by_anonymous.htm

Chuck Hawks didn't write it, but I presume he would agree with it. I have no bone to pick with Chuck Hawks but it looks like many of you do.

I was mostly citing that as one of the examples of a suggestion not to use a certain type of 9mm ammo.

Right now I am loading standard pressure 115gr in my 4" gun, BTW. Mostly I like the fact that my practice ammo feels and shoots the same as my carry ammo, and I can't find any legitimate, rational, convincing reason not to carry 115gr standard pressure 9mm rounds. However I am still eager to learn and evaluate new information.

 

[crushbup]

IMHO, in 9x19 there is nothing better than a 147gr Federal HST.

 

[SCKimberFan]

To each his own.

 

[straitR]

I completely agree with crushbup.

First regular Hydra-shok and now HST. I've been using one variety or another of 147gr Federal personal defense ammo ever since I can remember with zero problems.

I understand that there may be better PD ammo out there now, but I enjoy the confidence I've built up in Federal.

 

[ByAnyMeans]

Mr.72

I believe 147 gr. rounds were designed to be subsonic for use with suppressors and in subguns due to longer barrels that gave them the extra needed velocity. I could be wrong however so take it for what you paid for it.

When choosing a round for a handgun I have faith in the FBI tests because they have more minds trained in the field and better tests to check against their hypothesis. They say speed may be a factor in rifles but with a handgun their will be no real effect accept due to what the bullet strikes. Their is no knockdown power with handguns so it all relies on the size and placement of your bullet much more than with a rifle.

147 gr. bullets have come a long way and current production produces a bullet that opens up under the lower velocity than before and makes the round no longer just for subguns or suppressors. Their is no energy dump or fragmenting and yawing bullets such as found when using a rifle according to the FEDS so use whatever 1) functions in your gun 2) is accurate 3) allows for an easy follow-up shot provided it's from a major manufacturer and marked "for defensive purposes".




Who is Chuch Hawke ?

 

[Phil DeGraves]

I have not had any feeding issues with it but the 147 grain bullet is not a reliable expander at the velocities it travels. It behaves very similar to the old 158 grn RNL .38 spl. That said, the 158 grn rnl .38 stopped a lot of bad guys, but there are rounds that deliver better wounding effect in 9mm. The best ones are the 115 grn and 127 grn +P+ rounds that are nearly the ballistic equal to the .357 Sig, much like the .38 125 grn +P+ loadings.

 

[Deanimator]

I use Winchester White Box 147gr. JHP in my 9mm handguns. It's totally reliable in my Glock 19. Box of Truth gives it high marks, both for penetration and expansion. If I have to shoot somebody with the stuff, I'm not expecting any thank you cards from the recipient afterwards.

 

[c1ogden]

As I recall, this load was developed for the Navy for use in suppressed submachine guns. They originally used 9mm match ammo (145gr) but it wouldn't reliably cycle the guns so they bumped up bullet weight a bit. Being a subsonic load, the bullets rarely expanded.

We had a lot of problems with them when the dept issued it for use in our Sigs. Jams were reduced significantly when we changed to 124s.


I use 124gr standard pressure loads in all my 9s (HiPowers and K9s).

 

[SomeDude]

I use 115 grain hollowpoints in my pistol. I shot the 124 and 147 but the 115 just had better consistency (accuracy, feeding was never an issue for any of them). Every gun and every shooter is different, therefore everyone should do what works for them.

 

[FranklyTodd]

[T]here are rounds that deliver better wounding effect in 9mm. The best ones are the 115 grn and 127 grn +P+ rounds that are nearly the ballistic equal to the .357 Sig, much like the .38 125 grn +P+ loadings.

You are probably right for one-shot ballistics, but depending on how light your weapon is, follow up shots after a +P+ round might be slower than std. pressure 147s (maybe not for you, but for me!).

If I can put two 147s practically right on top of each other, that beats the hottest single +P+ out there!

Again, not preaching here, but "better wounding effect" seems to ignore this important point.

 

[hartzpad]

I've shot tons of 115, 124, 125, 127 and 147 9mm hp's and the only problem I ever had feeding was with 147 gr. hp's going into an Uzi. The Uzi just wouldn't accept any 147's. It would take 115 and 125's. No chamber relief to allow it to feed a long bullet? Go figure.

 

[NG VI]

IMHO, in 9x19 there is nothing better than a 147gr Federal HST.
__________________

Absolutely! Penetrates AND expands better than the lighter HST loads, and expands better than any other 9mm load, and penetrates at least enough. And it has been doing very, very well in the limited street applications it has seen.

I have not had any feeding issues with it but the 147 grain bullet is not a reliable expander at the velocities it travels. It behaves very similar to the old 158 grn RNL .38 spl. That said, the 158 grn rnl .38 stopped a lot of bad guys, but there are rounds that deliver better wounding effect in 9mm. The best ones are the 115 grn and 127 grn +P+ rounds that are nearly the ballistic equal to the .357 Sig, much like the .38 125 grn +P+ loadings.

Not anymore it isn't.

 

[spwenger]

That Was Then, This Is Now

As I recall, this load was developed for the Navy for use in suppressed submachine guns. They originally used 9mm match ammo (145gr) but it wouldn't reliably cycle the guns so they bumped up bullet weight a bit. Being a subsonic load, the bullets rarely expanded.

Yes, the original 147 gr. subsonic load was developed for the Navy SEAL's, who wanted head-shot accuracy from their suppressed HK MP5's, at 50 yards.

The FBI began advocating this bullet weight for pistols after concluding that the 115 gr. Winchester Silvertip had not penetrated deeply enough in their April 11, 1986 shootout in Dade County FL. Early versions did not always expand well and many people preferred the lighter, faster 115 gr. loadings at +P or +P+ pressures (higher velocities).

These days, many people who follow this stuff closely believe that the best 9mm loads are +P's, in the 124 to 127 gr. range, at least out of pistols with four- to five-inch barrels.

Bullet design has improved since 1986 and many of the newer 147 gr. loads do expand reliably. People who prefer these subsonic loads generally prefer deeper penetration.

If expansion were not a factor, heavier weight, in the same caliber, would produce deeper expansion, due to greater sectional density (essentially how much weight is behind how much cross-section.) However, the rate at which bullets expand (or fail to expand) has a great influence on depth of penetration. For example, Cor-Bon's DPX load, with an all-copper 115 gr. bullet appears to offer both reliable expansion, under a wide variety of conditions, coupled with fairly deep penetration.

As already noted, some guns are fussy about cycling with the added weight and somewhat different pressure curve of the 147 gr. loads. If your gun will cycle them and you want to go that route, for reasons you can justify, pay your money and take your chances.

 

[Myles]

I still have 3 magazines loaded with 147gr. HydraShok +P+, along with a few boxes set aside.

I also cherish several boxes of older Remington 124gr. JHP +P.

 

[un_lucky]

Even Evan Marshall has said that the newer 147s seem to work well. Personally I use 124+p

 

[The Bushmaster]

Anything is better then a pointy stick...I use Hornady 124 grain HP/XTP

 

[12131]

...There is so much misinformation, biased information, and flat-out wrong information mixed in with facts on the Internet that I am compelled to just simply ask opinion...

So, why do you think it's different this time around?

 

[Loomis]

I'll probably get attacked from all sides for this, but...

Corbon Pow'Rball
100grain +P

http://www.the-armory.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/9mm_Luger_PowRBall_Corbon.html

40S&W level muzzle energy from that round.

I used to be a stubborn old fashioned kind of guy that would never consider anything but 158 grain 38 special or 230 grain FMJ 45ACP for self defense. But I'm on the wonder9 bandwagon now. I used to think hollowpoints were a hoax.

 

[sm]

Chronologically I must be getting older.

I didn't grow up, just got bigger - Art's buddy.

Ammo Selection Uncle 'teve's take:


1.What is the firearm designed to shoot in regard to ammo specs?

2. Shot placement is dependent on a firearm feeding, extracting and repeat, along with point of aim/point of impact (POA/POI) of loading.

I mean one cannot hit what needs hitting, if the gun does not run, and if it does, the projectile(s) do not go where they are supposed to.

i.e. Most .38spls were spec'd to shoot 158 grain loads and the fixed sights were set to shoot this 158 grain loading POA/POI.

9mm, if memory serves, was 124 grains.

3. I was raised to read or listen to something, and not take anything for face value.
Instead, this sensory input was to get my brain going and I was to investigate and verify for me to know.

i.e. The Weather Idiot in the newspaper, radio or television might say it is not going to rain, still if I look outside, and it is raining I would be wise to take an umbrella.

I mean the Weather Idiots are not the ones going outside, I am, so it is my responsibility to investigate and verify.


I shoot guns with a variety of loads within the parameters of mfg specs.
I find out what a gun does with loads in regard to feed, extract, repeat, with all mags, and how it shoots in regard to POA/POI.

I do this with any gun, be it a revolver, or any platform of handgun, rifle or shotgun.
I have never had any of you folks show up when matters were serious for me, and I suspect you will not be there for me in the future either.

I will not be at your Gunfight - Awerbuck

I prefer Standard Pressure 124 grain loads in 9mm
Next is 115 grain loads.

This is just based on being around all these years and having shot a variety of 9mm guns, and loadings over all these years.

One of the best 9mm loads, does not get much attention, as it is not a "new" loading.
Federal Classic 115 gr JHP ( forget the number, see Mr. Camp's site, he has it listed).
Standard Pressure loading that always runs in whatever gun I run it through and it goes where it is supposed to.

Another one, is Win 115 STHP.
Heck the 45ACP (185 gr) along with it, always feeds and extracts in whatever guns I have tried them in, over a lot of years.

Chuck Hawks is Chuck Hawks.
So are the rest of any of the known writers and all.

These folks are not going to be at my gunfight, so it is up to me, to investigate and verify what works for me.

Oh I can read, and get an idea of a starting place, and I can get an idea of what to avoid, saving time and money.

i.e. Win Xpert .22 rim-fire ammo has too reports over too many years of not working in guns.
I investigated and verified for me, so that one is off my list to ever mess with again.


If memory serves, Kel-Tec does not recommend 147 gr loads and it is not because it is "thumpy", it has to do with timing and the wear and tear on the gun.

Colt Woodsman have a code, and one is advised to NOT use anything but Standard Velocity in some guns, and later on the code shows what guns will take some high velocity ammo if need.

Then again, I have found Standard Velocity to be more accurate and more reliable in most .22s anyway, and prefer to shoot Standard Pressure .22.

I prefer Standard Pressure ammo in centerfire as well.

.38spl, 9mm, 45ACP...

Investigate and Verify, it does not matter what anyone else uses, or recommends.

Exceptions are Dept Issue, or Military Issue.

 

[bluetopper]

I buy 147gr cast lead flat point bullets for my 9mm 1911. No jackets and no hollow points.

They are inexpensive and perform great with oustanding accuracy. I aint changing because of all knowing Chuck Hawks.