9mm ammo question: Deepest Penetrating?

I think we are wondering why?? What is the penetration for? If your on bear country I would really invest in a heavy caliber revolver with some hardcast heavy loads. I'm in WV and i think my HSTs would be fine if I had to face a black bear. For grizzy or a really big black bear I would feel pretty undergunned with a 9mm. If its to guard against people than stick with your regular carry ammo.

I voted for 147g. I do not know much about the 9mm, but it seems more common than the 158. Only because I have never heard of 158. I think the lighter bullet would go faster.

Where you getting 158 gr. 9mm/.355" bullets?

Other

Double Tap +P 147 gr. Speer Gold Dot @ 1,135 FPS
out of a Glock 17 = 4.5" Bbl.

Randall

My opinion is as follows: "Forget the 9mm and get a .45ACP no need for a double tap with a 230 grain HP".
Chief

147 gr. FMJ

I will stick with the other 83 grains of bullet weight 230-147=83.
Chief

I would check out some Cor-bon "DPX", it is a solid copper slug, and penetrate's really deep. DPX Stands for "deep penetrating" and the "X" part references the Barnes X Bullet. Only problem with them is they are leaning on the pricey side, but for the money, if they will save your butt when you need to use them they basicly become priceless.

Mr. Stephen A Camps review of them, He is a good guy and his reviews are spot on.

http://http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Corbon%209mm%20115.htm

Am I wrong here? You're in Colorado and want a woods load? Aren't some of the critters mighty big there? Forget the 9mm, the .45 isn't much better (check the stats) Go with a BIG bore revolver.

.45acp is just about the worst thing you could carry when you want penetration.

.357sig is pretty notorious for being a penetrating round.

altho, if you want large critter protection.. i wouldn't carry an autoloader. .44mag or 12g shotgun imo.

OOPS! I just caught your PS. OK, You're doing better with the 10mm. Beats the snot out of a 45. But I still think bigger would be better in this case. For your wife I'm thinking the Fed Nyclads might be good.

I voted 158 gr. FMJ, just make sure it cycles reliably. Where did you find it?

I love how some people on this board don't like to answer simple questions.

Instead, they like to pontificate about the whole premise of the question- acting just like the greasy, bearded, fat guy who always leaning on the counter at the local gun shop.

The question presented was not "What gun should my wife carry in the woods?"

If she is comfortable with the 9mm, she should carry the 9mm, not some super magnum revolver just because the internet people said so.

When my wife and I backpacked in Alaska, she carried a Ruger Police Service-Six in .357 mag.

what: OMG! Someone actually carried a .357 in Alaska! According to the internet, I thought the .44 Mag was the minimum allowed!)

That was the largest gun she felt comfortable shooting, and I felt much better with her having that loaded with Federal 180 gr. Cast Cores than some uber magnum she could not hit s**t with...

The last 158 FMJ 9mm I shot was about 10 years ago, and it was Israeli/IMI. Great stuff, just very hard to find nowadays.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

I voted 147gr because I've never seen 158gr and imagine it's both hard to find and overpriced.

I think you should get 147gr jhps instead of fmj however.

For a woods gun, you should go with the 10mm

For woods it is better to carry fmj ammo. Animals are different then people and there skin and bones are very tough so self defense ammo is not so good. As far as the GR goes take the middle of the road not too light not to heavy. The most important thing is aim. You can be shooting a bear all day long with a 30-06 in the paw or hit it once in the head with a 380.

30 views and only 1 opinion posted on the poll... I thought we were all much more opinionated than that around here... I'm disappointed.

Click to expand...

Nobody has actually tested the rounds you're considering. I don't have a clue which round will penetrate more. Many times, the slower round penetrates more when dealing with relatively solid projectiles. I dunno why.

A bullet with a FP will tend to be mo' useful/consistent than a true ball shape, since it won't veer as much as it slows and will punch through bone better.

I would carry whatever she shoots best and has been shown to be reliable in her pistol. If it's a toss-up between them, I would carry the one that has a flat nose.

I was just trying to think of where you are, that has that much dangerous game when you're backpacking.

Typically I would expect: With two bullets of similar (or near identicle) dimension, the one with more weight will travel deeper past point of impact. The lighter faster round may do more initial damage as it expends energy quickly, but the heavier bullet will drive deeper because it's got more intertia...

But then you mention that the heavier bullet is sub-sonic which would lead me to beleive it's moving considerably slower than the lighter - not just marginally as if they had similar charges... So in this case I would go with the lighter full-power round...

I don't have a clue what would be better, see if you can find some gelatin tests.

However, I think we all need to tell him he's undergunned with 10mm.

KB-

Assuming bullets of identical nonexpanding FMJ design and similar cross sectional dimension (9mm here) the one possessing the highest sectional density and momentum should be the deepest and most efficient penetrator in targets of identical composition.

Using factory "specs" as a basis for determining momentum:

(147 gr. x 990 fps.) / 225,218.3399 = .646173 in.-sec.

(158 gr. x 940 fps.) / 225,218.3399 = .659449 in.-sec.

Considering that there is only a ~2.05% difference between the two heaviest rounds, I believe that the difference between the two in terms of maximum penetration would be close to negligible. With the marginal "edge" going to the 158 gr. FMJ that is the one that I voted for. I suspect that there is very little "real" difference between the two, though.

Typically, 9mm 115 FMJs penetrate about 22-24 inches of calibrated ordnance gelatin, 9mm 124 FMJs penetrate 26-28 inches of calibrated ordnance gelatin and 9mm 147 FMJs will penetrate 29-31 inches of calibrated ordnance gelatin.

Warmer NATO spec. 9mm 124 FMJs can penetrate in excess of 32 inches of calibrated ordnance gelatin as a "general rule".

In his book, "Modeling the Dynamics and the Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma", Duncan MacPherson lays out a mathematical model using drag parameters in which it is possible to estimate reasonably well the penetration of a given projectile through calibrated ordnance gelatin. If you are interested in such matters, I'd recommend quite highly his book, but caution that there is considerable math (calculus) contained within. It is an excellent "read".

Of course, there are no guarantees.

Hope this helps you out.

I think that the FP might aid in preventing bullet deflection. I'd vote for that.

IMO, I think the 9mm is fine for the purpose you've stated it'll be used. The 2-legged threat is something I worry more about than the 4-legged threats, if proper camping rules are followed (such as where you put smelly stuff that bears like).

Plus, I'm not really envisioning that you'll be too far off with those HCs. Your woman sounds like she's got the right idea of defense using what she's comfortable and familiar with.

My wife carries a 9mm around the camp too. First round in the pipe is a 147g Gold Dot, with the rest of the mag being 147 fmj. We both share a nearby shotgun and if I'm worried I'll take extra stuff.

9mm is fine, but asking our opinions on what penetrates best won't do you much good. 99 % of our opinions are useless. You need to review some actual penetration tests. One of the members has a bunch of them on a site but I can't find the link right now.