Bullet weight for short barrel 9mm

I have taken part in three FBI-criteria, fully calibrated handgun ammo demos over the years, two with Winchester and one with Hornady.

The Winchester 127 gr +P+ and 124 gr +P were very impressive performers in the duty-type tests and are what I stoke my duty-sized guns with at home (plus 230 gr .45 and 180 gr .40 SXT’s.) I know a lot of guys say they don’t need to worry about “duty type” performance. But think about it; if you are carrying for protection and a carjacker runs up and shoves a gun at you while stuck at a stoplight, you just may want to have a round that does penetrate auto glass or a door panel. (Just sayin’.)

The 135 gr +P Hornady Critical Duty 9mm is another amazing performer. (I also was impressed with the consistency of the Critical Defense 9mm and .380.) If I could get them as easily as I can get Winchester ammo, those are rounds I would have no qualms using in my duty-sized guns either.

But, my amigos in San Diego swear the Federal Micro HST 150 gr rounds are excellent performers in their smaller guns. With their recommendation, those are the 9mm rounds I carry in my LC9 and other small off duty pistols.

While I have put in a bit of time and effort before making my defensive ammo selection, I truly hope I never have to find out if my particular ammo choices are effective or not. Getting into a shooting, and the months-to-years long series of emotional aftershocks, is never a pleasant experience.

Stay safe.

In short barreled 9mms, I've always gravitated to the lighter JHPs to have the best chance on expansion.
I've chronod 147gr stuff in some cases in the upper 800 fps range and had them not expand.
No it's not the case all the time, but I get great expansion on 115s and 124s almost all of the time.

115, 124, and .....the 147 out of the Kahr K9 from all respectable ammo mfg.

I've seen what is in mine expand so it's word verse word right now, and what you have pictured doesn't show anything other than spent projectiles.

herrwalther said:

Here is a long and exhaustive test on YT about 9mm in short barrels. Long story short, he picks Winchster Defender 147gr. And he explains why in nearly every video of the ammo quest. In a short barrel, I would want a tad more velocity that you get with a light bullet and a short barrel. But the 147 does have enough velocity to gain enough penetration based on these tests.

Click to expand...

It would have been a better test if the HST were 147s also. 147gr HST vs 147gr Winchester defend.

jm529 said:

It would have been a better test if the HST were 147s also. 147gr HST vs 147gr Winchester defend.

Click to expand...

He had tested 147gr HST in an earlier video. And they did not perform as well in his firearm, think he was using a Sig 938, as the 124gr. He was just taking the best of 40 different brands and narrowing it down to the best and "winner's circle" categories. I watched the entire series and it was pretty enlightening how little variation there is between ammo brands when looking at hard numbers of penetration, expansion etc.

So I just went through this recently. I traded out my Glock 19 for a Sig P239 for HD and added a Kahr K9 for carry to supplement my Ruger LCR. In doing so I bought 200 rounds of 124gr and 200 of 147gr HSTs.

First thing I noticed was the 147gr was quieter and had less felt recoil out of the P239(also in the Glock 19). This was very noticeable to my wife who I for years have tried to find the right HD gun for and get her off her Model 10(that sits loaded in the same safe). Yes I understand why, but was surprised at the difference. Both seemed to group the same from 10 yards.

In the Kahr it was not as noticeable but I like the grouping of the 124 better. And since we both like the 147gr in the 239, I load the Kahr with the 124gr.

We fired off probably 300 of the 400 rounds through the Kahr K9, Glock 19, and Sig P239 with only one failure, human error, when I did not properly seat the magazine after +1ning the gun. But all of the ammo functioned flawlessly.

To the OPs point(which I forgot while I typed), the K9 has a 3.5 inch barrel. And while I went with the 124gr in it I would have no problem at all using the 147. Everything I have watched, read, and experienced shows me that it is 6 of 1 and half a dozen of the other when it comes to penetration and expansion. If I were you I would by a 50 round box of both and see which one shoots better. Then by a hundred more of that one and call it a day.

Lucky Gunner labs did a extensive gel test of 9mm loads. It is worth checking out.

This page https://viperweapons.us/ballistics-testing-1 will explain a lot about bullet performance.
And, I am a new guy here, but was a member years ago when I was shooting Black Powder Cartridge.

I'd contact Speer and see if they can recommend something. My guess would be since you are working with 9mm, that unless you load up mouse farts, the velocity from a 3 or 4 inch barrel will still be plenty to get good expansion from just about any bullet designed to do so.

I was recently trying to determine which bullet weight is the best option in my short barrel M&P Shield 9mm (3.1" barrel), choosing between 124gr or 147gr Federal HST. Both had the same POI as far as I could tell, so I wanted the best ballistic performer. The box statistics say the 124gr round has a lot more muzzle energy (+38ft/lbs), however that's out of a longer 4" test barrel. Out of the Shield's 3.1" barrel, the kinetic energy is actually very similar at the muzzle. The reason is due to a longer dwell time for the 147gr bullet. Due to the 147gr's slower muzzle velocity, this allows more time for the powder to burn and transfer its chemical potential energy into kinetic energy. The Shield stats are (124gr @ 990fps = 270ft/lbs vs. 147gr @ 900fps = 264.5ft/lbs). So there is a difference of ~5 ft/lbs of energy, with the 124gr having the slight edge. 5 ft/lbs is such a small difference though; it's negligible... so with energy being near equal, which round would perform better when assuming the same kinetic energy? The 147gr has a higher sectional density, and it will loose its kinetic energy slower than the 124gr. For example, at just 25 yards, the 147gr bullet already has a +15ft/lbs advantage over the 124gr. So we see the 147 is maintaining an energy advantage out of the Shield, but which one will drive deeper into the target? The 147gr, with its higher sectional density, will be able to push through the target better and have more force to encourage bullet expansion. Also, the 147gr will maintain it's energy over a longer range than the 124gr, and since they are starting at the muzzle with nearly the same energy that means the 147gr immediately gains an advantage. I have seen YouTube videos where the slow 147gr is discouraged for sub-compact pistols, however these same tests show similar expansion results in 10% calibrated ballistics gel between both the 124gr and 147gr rounds... so I don't think velocity is the problem. It takes energy to cause tissue damage, and the 147gr out of a short barrel has the upper hand, and it's expansion appears similar or better to the 124gr st.p out of the same barrel. Also, if any bullet tumbling occurs, the longer 147gr has a longer profile than the 124gr. With all things considered, I have chosen the 147gr as my 9mm carry round for my M&P Shield for the reasons stated. What's interesting to note is the Federal 9mm cartridge specifically designated for "short barrel" ammo is their 150gr variety, so they acknowledge that a heavy for caliber bullet is optimal in a short barrel... however, their 150gr loading seems to be a bit anemic in terms of powder charge (perhaps because the bullet is so long and is encroaching on case volume?), which is why I ignore those cartridges (which chronograph very low in terms of fps and ft/lbs) and favor the standard 147gr loading option instead.

I load Speer 124 gr Short Barrel in my small 9mm (Kimber Micro9 and Kahr PM9). Everything else is either +P 124 or 147grain

I missed this thread the first time around.

Riomouse911 said:

I have taken part in three FBI-criteria, fully calibrated handgun ammo demos over the years, two with Winchester and one with Hornady.

. . . I know a lot of guys say they don’t need to worry about “duty type” performance. But think about it; if you are carrying for protection and a carjacker runs up and shoves a gun at you while stuck at a stoplight, you just may want to have a round that does penetrate auto glass or a door panel. (Just sayin’.)

Click to expand...

I’ve seen the Hornady and an ammo distributer dog and pony show. Afterwards, they let people shoot their own guns with their own ammo and it all worked pretty well with popular LE ammo regardless of caliber, barrel length and bullet weight. It was mostly just splitting hairs with some variations depending on barrier. I absolutely agree that people are making a mistake if they don’t think they could need some barrier penetration. I also think it’s pretty cool that you get to pick your own ammo for your LE guns. I thought that most people only get carry what they are given and it doesn’t change depending on barrel length. Most would rather not buy their own ammo anyway.

With respect to the general topic, like I said in a similar thread yesterday, I don’t overthink it. I think that people should pick one of the popular LE loads such as HST, Gold Dots or Critical Duty and test them in their gun for functioning and recoil. Then focus on shooting more than ammo. Most common LE ammo is in the 124-147 range in standard pressure and +P configurations. They all have been heavily vetted. Anyone with doubts should go out and shoot them against barriers and other media.

I like dinking around with stuff instead of just looking at charts, numbers and other people’s YouTube videos. So, I buy stuff at Lowe’s and the grocery store and shoot it. Here's a common LE load, a standard pressure 124 grain Speer Gold Dot fired out of a 3.1 inch barrel. It only averages 1047 FPS muzzle velocity, which many posting here appear to consider inadequate based on prior posts. I’m pretty sure it can leave a mark under adverse conditions. I’ve been carrying them for a long time and I’m not losing sleep over my survivability on the basis of cartridge choice alone. BTW, the same round fired from a 3.7 inch barrel generating 60+ FPS extra MV penetrated another two jugs and kept going. (I should have brought more jugs for that one.) But, that is off topic.



YMMV

WYO said:

Here's a common LE load, a standard pressure 124 grain Speer Gold Dot fired out of a 3.1 inch barrel. It only averages 1047 FPS muzzle velocity,............... BTW, the same round fired from a 3.7 inch barrel generating 60+ FPS.....

Click to expand...

By any chance a P365 with a 3.1" barrel and a P365XL with a 3.7" barrel?

The takeaway that I have gotten from all of the ballistics testing that I have seen is that multiple fabric layers (Which people in MinneSnowta wear in the winter) presents the biggest barrier to proper bullet expansion. What overcomes the fabric problem is higher bullet velocity. To that end I've stayed with higher velocity 115 gr cartridges with my P365 and it's 3.1" barrel.

But I now also own a P365XL with it's 3.7" barrel. So I'm seriously considering using +P 124 gr cartridges. The biggest problem with "P loads is the poor local reliable availability. More often than not I'd need to order it online, and I don't like using credit cards for firearms and ammunition.

Shooting the Bull 410 did some great work, but you have to look at the results and disregard what he says. Its obvious that he fell in love with the 124gr HST and when they failed to penetrate 12 inches he's telling people not to get hung up about it.

The Winchester Train & Defend results speak for themselves. I'm not sure why he elevated the 147gr Winchester Defend above Winchester's 147gr Ranger "T" Series RA9T, the Ranger "T" Series did better than Ranger Train & Defend in his own tests. The Winchester Train & Defend look very similar to Winchester's older 147gr Ranger "T" Series RA9T. From what I read, Olin tweaked the design of the Ranger "T" Series and got rid of the "talons" of the Ranger "T" but tests show the the two brands of ammo performing about the same.

Palladan44 said:

In short barreled 9mms, I've always gravitated to the lighter JHPs to have the best chance on expansion.
I've chronod 147gr stuff in some cases in the upper 800 fps range and had them not expand.
No it's not the case all the time, but I get great expansion on 115s and 124s almost all of the time.

115, 124, and .....the 147 out of the Kahr K9 from all respectable ammo mfg.
View attachment 1110969

Click to expand...

Agreed! My only shorty 9mm is the Kahr CM9, all others are 4 1/4" and longer service types. In the service guns I carry 124 +P Gold Dot but in the little Kahr not only do they have a good bit of recoil I have not seen good reports in testing in the shorter barrels. Based on what I have seen and read I chose Remington 115 JHP standard velocity. They seem to go fast enough in testing to expand reliably, are sold in 50 round boxes at half the price of the big names and shoot like target ammo recoil wise. 9mm rarely suffers from under penetration unless its from a super light really fast fragile HP design (as in the old Silvertip). At worst you get no expansion, plenty of penetration but usually not over penetration as a HP design will slow a bullet down a bit compared to FMJ.

Alllen Bundy said:

By any chance a P365 with a 3.1" barrel and a P365XL with a 3.7" barrel?

The takeaway that I have gotten from all of the ballistics testing that I have seen is that multiple fabric layers (Which people in MinneSnowta wear in the winter) presents the biggest barrier to proper bullet expansion. What overcomes the fabric problem is higher bullet velocity. To that end I've stayed with higher velocity 115 gr cartridges with my P365 and it's 3.1" barrel.

Click to expand...

Yes. Standard P365 and P365XL. It gets cold in Wyoming, too, plus it's windy. I don't worry about this as much as you. Each situation has different variables, and striving for one's concept of perfection involving a single specific set of variables leaves a whole bunch of other variables tested. Take care.

Edited to add. BTW, you can go to a Goodwill store or garage sale and buy some of the thickest clothes you can find and drape them over some water jugs. Water jugs are not a substitute for ballistic gel, but they are a really good medium for testing maximum expansion.

I like 124 HST (+p or normal, whatever I can find) since it’s always fed and shot well in my guns. Gold dot, Golden Saber, PDX Will all be fine too, doesn’t really matter to me. I did 147 for a while but moved away from that when some of my guns didn’t like my 147 grain range ammo as much so I just standardized on 124 so everything worked fine.

WYO said:

Then focus on shooting more than ammo

Click to expand...

Could not agree more, same with triggers and springs and what not. Focus less on the hardware and more on your shooting skills and you’ll be better off, IMO.

147 gr HST

I understood the 124 gr. Loading was superior w any barrel.

Bcwitt said:

I understood the 124 gr. Loading was superior w any barrel.

Click to expand...

How do you define "superior" ?

The OP asks for "the best expansion, and minimum of 12" penetration." In my opinion, the best way to find that cartridge is to find all the rounds that penetrate to 12" and pick the bullet with the largest average diameter. The laws of physics are going to make it improbable that a commercially available 9mm Luger cartridge is going to penetrate deeper and expand larger than the largest expanding bullet that stops short of 13"

But that bullet , the bullet with the largest expansion at 12" of penetration, whatever it is and whoever makes it, will not have superior terminal ballistics to the bullets that penetrate to 14.00" - 14.5" and expand from .60" to .66" with the 4 layer denim protocol.

C0untZer0 said:

How do you define "superior" ?

The OP asks for "the best expansion, and minimum of 12" penetration." In my opinion, the best way to find that cartridge is to find all the rounds that penetrate to 12" and pick the bullet with the largest average diameter. The laws of physics are going to make it improbable that a commercially available 9mm Luger cartridge is going to penetrate deeper and expand larger than the largest expanding bullet that stops short of 13"

But that bullet , the bullet with the largest expansion at 12" of penetration, whatever it is and whoever makes it, will not have superior terminal ballistics to the bullets that penetrate to 14.00" - 14.5" and expand from .60" to .66" with the 4 layer denim protocol.

Click to expand...

"Superior" in energy. Thus, a greater potential to do all the above. Bullet construction is a bigger factor. The thing is, a bullet designed to penetrate will penetrate more w more energy. A bullet designed to expand will expand better w more energy. The energy gives it the potential. The bullet does everything else.

These discussions can get really pedantic. Find a good quality hollow point that functions well in your gun and carry it. The difference between all these rounds isn’t as much as you may think it is.

Hartkopf said:

124gr +p Gold Dots

Click to expand...

These are my CC load in my P365 Sig. Rod

I use 147s to calm the recoil in a Smith 940, which has a surprisingly sharp with even standard 115s.
To really know how fast your rounds are going in a short barreled carry gun, it is worth shooting them through a chronograph.
Moon