147gr. 9mm ammo


PDA






Cactus Jack Arizona
May 23, 2011, 12:20 AM
I've only shot 115gr and 124gr 9mm ammo. However, how safe (for the pistol) is it to shoot 147gr ammo through a 9mm firearm that was made in the 70's? How about 124+P ammo? How do you define a "modern" firearm?

Thanks.

If you enjoyed reading about "147gr. 9mm ammo" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ccsniper
May 23, 2011, 12:38 AM
what gun is it?

AZ Five seveN
May 23, 2011, 01:12 AM
147gr has the same pressure (35,000 psi) as both 124gr and 115gr, so you have nothing to worry about there. You'll have to consult the owner's manual to find if your gun can shoot +P and/or +P+.

Hope that helps.

GRIZ22
May 23, 2011, 01:28 PM
As cc said what gun are we talking about?

Standard pressure ammo should work fine.

I am not a fan of +P or +P+. If you need more velocity or power get more gun.

rellascout
May 23, 2011, 01:35 PM
147 GR should not be a problem as others have pointed out unless labelled differently it is standard pressure ammo.

As far as +p of any vintage I think a reasonable amount is fine through most pistols. It can be debated if it is needed but most guns can take a reasonable amoungt.

I shoot 124gr +P gold dots out of my 1972 BHP without any issue. Some people will tell you a non-MKIII BHP will turn to dust in your hand if you shoot +p ammo out of it but my experience shows me this not to be the case.

I am not sending 1000 rounds a range session down the pipe but a few thousand over its lifetime is not going to turn it to dust IMHO.

joe_security
May 23, 2011, 03:21 PM
I switched to Win. SXT 147gr. instead of 124gr Speer GD. Less percieved recoil and highly accurate in my "bought new in 2000" non-rail P226.

rellascout
May 23, 2011, 03:34 PM
I switched to Win. SXT 147gr. instead of 124gr Speer GD. Less percieved recoil and highly accurate in my "bought new in 2000" non-rail P226.

I have been running more and more of the 147s too. I actually like them out of the smaller shorter barrelled 9mms. My Kahr CW9 eats them up.

AZ Hawkeye
May 23, 2011, 04:19 PM
As cc said what gun are we talking about?

Standard pressure ammo should work fine.

I am not a fan of +P or +P+. If you need more velocity or power get more gun.
Why? Why should I switch calibers because I don't like the ultraconservative, underpowered standards set by SAAMI? NATO ammunition is anywhere from 4% to 12% higher than SAAMI, in comparison.

A well made, modern firearm such as my HK P30 will have no issue with +P ammunition. It's only a 10% increase in pressure, which is hardly anything to write home about. (35,000 to 38,500 psi and the 9mm can handle up to 44,000 psi)

IMO, non +P 9mm ammo is underpowered. The reason we started adding pressure to the 9mm was to increase terminal ballistic performance from the original standard set in 1902. (Which it did!)

When shooting 147gr 9mm, there is no reason not to use +P, as 147gr was intentionally made to be "soft shooting." My practice ammunition(s) (115gr Federal Champion or my 124gr NATO Winchester Ranger) shoots hotter than than my Federal Tactical HST 147gr +P carry ammunition. (NATO pressure is, with rare exceptions, lower than +P).

I say the above as I tested both the 147gr standard HST and 147gr +P HST at the range in depth; I fired 150 rounds of both to test for differences in accuracy, follow up shots and recoil, and the differences would have to be measured microscopically, as I couldn't discern any.

My .02

Strahley
May 23, 2011, 04:49 PM
You can send it to me, I'll run it through a Glock and won't think twice about it

Mainsail
May 23, 2011, 05:55 PM
147gr HSTs are all I shoot through my 9mm Sig P239, other than some occasional range stuff.

rellascout
May 23, 2011, 06:25 PM
My .02

Here is your change...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ZGoNArkoGbM/SRHijZjldmI/AAAAAAAACVc/tI2i8Zec3nk/s400/two_cents_.jpg

LOL to each their own. There is no end all be all round there is no end all be all gun...

AZ Hawkeye
May 23, 2011, 06:36 PM
LOL to each their own. There is no end all be all round there is no end all be all gun...

I didn't say there was...? I'm simply responding to GRIZ22's incredulous statement.

rellascout
May 23, 2011, 06:40 PM
I didn't say there was...? I'm simply responding to GRIZ22's incredulous statement.

Nothing incredulous about it. It is an opinion which differs from yours...

There are lots of reasons not to use +P ammo.

AZ Hawkeye
May 23, 2011, 06:49 PM
Nothing incredulous about it. It is an opinion which differs from yours...

There are lots of reasons not to use +P ammo.
And, there are lots of reasons to use +P ammo. I don't get where you are going this other than just arguing opinion with opinion which is apparently what you are attempting to scold me for. He said +P has no use to him, I said it has use to me...

Yes, my opinion differs from his as it apparently also differs from yours. I still don't understand your original response to my first response. I did nothing to suggest that the 9mm is the "end all, be all" round as it's nowhere near it. I offered a fact based opinion as to why I prefer plus pressure ammunition in 9mm.

Edit: And yes, "incredulous" was a very poor choice of word on reflection.

rellascout
May 23, 2011, 06:58 PM
I think its your tone in the first post which is backed up with the use of incredulous in your next one.

If you simply stating and opinion... I do not think that word incredulous means what you think it means.

Incredulous: unwilling to admit or accept what is offered as true

Honestly the difference between 9mm 115gr vs 115gr +p or 124gr + 124gr +p or 147gr vs 147gr +p is moot. They all at times get the job done and at different times they fail.

Today's modern hollow point designs are so similar its 6 of 1 half dozen of the other.

rellascout
May 23, 2011, 06:59 PM
Edit: And yes, "incredulous" was a very poor choice of word on reflection.

I agree. I shoot both +p and non +P defensive ammo. I personally buy what feeds and what is cheapest within reason. :eek:

AZ Hawkeye
May 23, 2011, 07:06 PM
I think its your tone in the first post which is backed up with the use of incredulous in your next one.

If you simply stating and opinion... I do not think that word incredulous means what you think it means.

Incredulous: unwilling to admit or accept what is offered as true

Honestly the difference between 9mm 115gr vs 115gr +p or 124gr + 124gr +p or 147gr vs 147gr +p is moot. They all at times get the job done and at different times they fail.

Today's modern hollow point designs are so similar its 6 of 1 half dozen of the other.

Yes, yes I said incredulous was a poor choice already :cool:; I'm doing about six things at once at the moment. It seems I need to use smilies more often, as people always assume I'm ticked off on forums for whatever reason! :D

As for the differences between modern hollowpoints: there are still some differences in them, as Dr. Roberts has not vetted a single 115gr 9mm round, with the exception the Barnes copper bullet, since they began vetting rounds in terms of ballistic performance. But I'll agree with you that they will all likely get the job done, and failure is highly unlikely.

Effigy
May 23, 2011, 07:07 PM
As someone who hasn't fired 9mm but is planning to in the near future, I'm curious about people saying the 147gr loading is "soft shooting." Assuming both rounds are loaded to the same pressure, wouldn't the heavier bullet have more recoil due to inertia?

murf
May 23, 2011, 07:15 PM
no. recoil is a combination of bullet weight and speed. the 147gn bullets will be going slower than the 124s. multiply bullet weight (grains) times velocity (fps) to get an idea of comparable recoil of the two loads.

murf

Effigy
May 23, 2011, 07:25 PM
They travel slower because the heavy bullet had more inertial resistance before it left the barrel though. Since recoil is an equal and opposite force, it doesn't seem that recoil should be any less if the force required to move the bullet is the same (e.g. loaded to the same pressure). This is the same reason .45 ACP doesn't recoil less than 9mm even though the 9mm has a higher velocity. Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem to make any sense that the 147gr would recoil less.

AZ Hawkeye
May 23, 2011, 07:39 PM
They travel slower because the heavy bullet had more inertial resistance before it left the barrel though. Since recoil is an equal and opposite force, it doesn't seem that recoil should be any less if the force required to move the bullet is the same (e.g. loaded to the same pressure). This is the same reason .45 ACP doesn't recoil less than 9mm even though the 9mm has a higher velocity. Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem to make any sense that the 147gr would recoil less.
It's not that either load has more or less recoil; recoil is the wrong word, imo. It's more like comparing the snap of the .40 to the slow push of the .45; the 115gr and 124gr loads are "snappier" than the 147gr, which is why it's considered a "soft shooter."

When I say "snappier" you have to remember that it's still a 9mm, and the differences are very subtle, but they are there.

I hope that helps.

Cactus Jack Arizona
May 23, 2011, 11:35 PM
The gun would be a '70's HP. I've had several 9mm pistols throughout the years but I've never used +P or 147gr. rounds. I might just give it a try?

HK Jake
May 24, 2011, 12:27 AM
The gun would be a '70's HP. I've had several 9mm pistols throughout the years but I've never used +P or 147gr. rounds. I might just give it a try?

While I can't (and won't! :cool: ) tell you your gun can fire +P rounds as I don't know, I do know that any 9mm gun that can fire 115gr and 124gr can fire 147gr as they are loaded to the same pressure.

murf
May 24, 2011, 12:28 AM
force is equal to the mass (weight of the bullet) times the acceleration of the bullet. force involves speed and weight. that's why i gave you the simplistic formula to figure relative recoil between two loads (in the same gun, of course).

murf

joe_security
May 24, 2011, 10:05 AM
After my comment in post #6, I should follow up by saying Im unclear on the expansion of this 147gr. SXT ammo. Im sure the GD ammo is much better in that regard, for me the softer shooting SXT is a greater advantage.

SIGLBER
May 24, 2011, 12:55 PM
Shouldn't really be a problem. As long as it's a quality waepon it should feed any standard weight 9mm round. The only one I've seen that does not like 147gr. rounds are the Kel Tec PF9's. Some will shoot them and some won't. Doesn't matter I lean towards the fast middle weight rounds anyways. I have some of the Winchester Ranger loads in 147gr. and they work fine in all my 9mm's except the little Kel Tec. The version I have is the bonded type so becaue they are designed to penetrate auto glass and the like I don't usually carry them. In my Condo overpenetration could be a real problem.

SIGLBER
May 24, 2011, 01:04 PM
BTW out of allot of guns the 147gr. ammo is superbly accurate. The early 147gr. OTM used for MP5 subguns was made specifically for accuracy out of the subguns. Suppressed subguns to be exact. The 147gr. Federal HST has some real impressive performance in the F.B.I. testing and in the departments that are using it. And like I said the F.B.I. went with the bonded 147gr. Ranger load that I have some for good performance no matter what you have to shoot through or not. The old 147's had a bad reputation for not opening up. The above mentioned Winchester OTM for instance. The new stuff seems to work very well.
A few years back I picked up some Gold Dots in 115gr. +P+, 124gr. +P, and some 147gr. standard pressure loads. The Gold Dot is another superb bullet by the way. In everything I shot them through they all expnded and penetrated well. So the old stories that you here from people saying the old 147gr. rounds may be true. but most of the newer ones as far as penetration and expansion work as well as any of the other loads.

HK Jake
May 24, 2011, 02:48 PM
After my comment in post #6, I should follow up by saying Im unclear on the expansion of this 147gr. SXT ammo. Im sure the GD ammo is much better in that regard, for me the softer shooting SXT is a greater advantage.
SXT is old Winchester bullet technology. The Ranger-T bullet is the current design, and it performs much, much better than the SXT did.

Apocalypse-Now
May 25, 2011, 12:09 AM
yes on both counts.

NG VI
May 25, 2011, 12:45 AM
After my comment in post #6, I should follow up by saying Im unclear on the expansion of this 147gr. SXT ammo. Im sure the GD ammo is much better in that regard, for me the softer shooting SXT is a greater advantage.


Why, because of the lighter weight? Faster isn't essential for expansion these days, better design is, and the 147s have more mass, more material for the designer to work with. The heavyweights can penetrate the same degree as the lightweights while expanding more, easily, or they can penetrate more and more importantly more dependably while still expanding to the ssame diameter.

In modern bullet designs there is almost never a good reason to go with a lightweight over a heavy. The heavies perform to spec more often in short barreled pistols, they maintain energy and impact for greater distances than lightweights, they are typically very accurate, and they allow designers the option to either make them expand like a peacock and still penetrate adequately, or expand well and penetrate like John Holmes.


And personally I think +P from any reputable loader is going to be absolutely fine, pressure isn't what affects a pistol, other than the bore, it's recoil impulses that impact longevity, and the recoil impulse doesn't really change all that much adding another 50-75 feet per second to a 147, or 75-125 to a 124, I don't play with 115s except as range fodder or if I were to buy some DPX.

joe_security
May 25, 2011, 08:38 AM
In any event, Im sticking with 147gr. 9mm ammo, for the reasons I stated. Expansion isnt everything, and the lower recoil makes for good shot placement. This is what works for me. I may hunt down some standard pressure 147 gr. HST when I have the time. I also have some of the older Ranger 147 gr. on hand, not the T version .

Orion8472
May 25, 2011, 09:00 PM
Is the T version the RA9T? Does the T version still have "SXT" on it?

HK Jake
May 25, 2011, 09:40 PM
Is the T version the RA9T? Does the T version still have "SXT" on it?
The Ranger-T does not have "SXT" on it. The Ranger-T bullet is an updated and much improved SXT bullet.

For example, Ranger-T 127gr +P+ is marked RA9TA, and Ranger-T 180gr is marked RA40T.

HK Jake
May 25, 2011, 09:43 PM
In any event, Im sticking with 147gr. 9mm ammo, for the reasons I stated. Expansion isnt everything, and the lower recoil makes for good shot placement. This is what works for me. I may hunt down some standard pressure 147 gr. HST when I have the time. I also have some of the older Ranger 147 gr. on hand, not the T version .

It's funny you say that as heavier bullets tend to penetrate and expand much more consistently than their lighter counterparts. :cool:

If you are looking for 147gr HST, check out Ammunition To Go /// 9mm JHP (http://www.ammunitiontogo.com/index.php/cName/9mm-hollow-point-ammo). They currently have it in stock, and I stocked up on it! :D

Orion8472
May 25, 2011, 09:50 PM
I have some that have SXT on it, and in the corner, RA9T. :confused:

HK Jake
May 25, 2011, 09:56 PM
I have some that have SXT on it, and in the corner, RA9T. :confused:
If it says SXT, it's likely SXT. The old SXT part number was RA9TSXT; I'm guessing they may have just removed the SXT from it.

GRIZ22
May 26, 2011, 12:48 AM
Why? Why should I switch calibers because I don't like the ultraconservative, underpowered standards set by SAAMI?

Utraconservative and underpowered as they are these are specs that engineers design guns with and add a significant safety margin.

It's only a 10% increase in pressure, which is hardly anything to write home about. (35,000 to 38,500 psi and the 9mm can handle up to 44,000 psi)


44,000 psi ammo will wear down a gun designed for 35,000 psi ammo faster. You can keep pushing the envelope but it will break at some point.

IMO, non +P 9mm ammo is underpowered. The reason we started adding pressure to the 9mm was to increase terminal ballistic performance from the original standard set in 1902. (Which it did!)


Well how much did we increase the terminal ballistic performance? 50%? No more like maybe 10% in reality. This is not going to win a fight. There are too many other things to be concerned with in looking to win a fight. Most of them are mental and have nothing to do with guns, ammo, or shooting skill. Among them I would place what bullet low on my list after establishing reliability of the ammunition to function.

Too many people get way to wrapped up in what bullet they are using rather than the important stuff.

He said +P has no use to him, I said it has use to me...


No, I said...

Standard pressure ammo should work fine.

I am not a fan of +P or +P+.

I use +P in K frame and larger 38s and +P+ in 357 revolvers. AFAIC semi autos are designed by engineers to operate in a narrower pressure curve due to all the parts that need to cycle.

Edit: And yes, "incredulous" was a very poor choice of word on reflection.
May 23, 2011 06:40 PM


Thanks for recognizing that.

Dr. Roberts has not vetted a single 115gr 9mm round, with the exception the Barnes copper bullet, since they began vetting rounds in terms of ballistic performance.

This is the second time I heard "Dr Roberts" name dropped as if everyone automatically knows who he is (he's a dentist that has done a lot of research in terminal wound ballistics for those who don't know). This leads me to believe that you have drank your share of Dr. Roberts' Kool Aid.:) Don't perceive this as an insult as we all partake of somebody's Kool Aid. Just don't get totally wrapped up in what Dr. Roberts says as axiomatic. He spends a lot of his effort (as many do) working at disproving what many of his predecessors have done. I've drank a lot of Kool Aid in my time from different sources but have never finished the glass. Be a bit skeptical of anyone's blanket statements.

After all in conclusion, you say,

But I'll agree with you that they will all likely get the job done, and failure is highly unlikely

and I said,

Standard pressure ammo should work fine.

Which leads to agreement I'd say.

Apocalypse-Now
May 26, 2011, 01:02 AM
This leads me to believe that you have drank your share of Dr. Roberts' Kool Aid.

apparently the FBI and the U.S. dept of defense have drank his koolaid as well, as he's a consultant for both.

you forgot to mention that he worked at the army's wound ballistics lab for a number of years, and is considered one of the top experts in the world on said matters ;)


dr. fackler is also a renowned expert in the field of wound ballistics.

GRIZ22
May 26, 2011, 12:50 PM
apparently the FBI and the U.S. dept of defense have drank his koolaid as well, as he's a consultant for both.

I'm not saying he's all wrong, however no one is 100%. Please note that I also said, 'we all partake of somebody's Kool Aid".

Apocalypse-Now
May 26, 2011, 01:50 PM
we all know no one is 100% correct. stating that is redundant ;)

If you enjoyed reading about "147gr. 9mm ammo" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!