147gr 9-mm

C0untZer0 said:

After writing about it so many times, I don't have the energy to get into it anymore..

Click to expand...

I've begun to feel the same way. Anymore, I just post a few meaningful links like these:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm

http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-statistical-analysis.htm

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs24.htm#Too Good To Be True

http://www.firearmstactical.com/streetstoppers.htm

Once posted, I've lead the horse to water and it is up to him if suffers from severe dehydration after that.

Thompsoncustom said:

Nah PPU makes 158gr 9mm ammo just not the most common thing.

Click to expand...

thx

i read a decent article on stopping power here

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

hope the link works i had to type it in...

And then we have this: http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm#9mm

The Pierce County Sheriffs Department did a series of tests on several calibers and loadings, available here. I've carried 147gr HST and 230gr HSTs ever since.

147gr 9x19? Looks to me like someone wishes they had .40S&W.

No, we wish someone made the old British .38"/200 grn load in 9x19mm.

backbencher said:

No, we wish someone made the old British .38"/200 grn load in 9x19mm.

Click to expand...

Without a doubt the Webley or plebian Enfield version .38/200s revolvers were the best fighting handguns of WWII. Great sights, triggers, easy to shoot and reload.

Marshall & Sanow STILL haven't been debunked?

Click to expand...

People who don't understand statistics THINK they've "debunked" the Marshall and Sanow study. Their study is the ONLY statistical analysis of shooting data related to ammunition and give a definitive guide to the relative effectiveness of different loads and makes of ammo. It is NOT a Las Vegas type odds determination of shooting outcome.

The only way to "debunk" a statistical study is to collect the empirical data and show a different result or argue the mathematics. All those who dislike the stats because they don't support their particular position have been unwilling to expend the effort or unable to show different conclusions using empirical data.

Steve C said:

People who don't understand statistics THINK they've "debunked" the Marshall and Sanow study. Their study is the ONLY statistical analysis of shooting data related to ammunition and give a definitive guide to the relative effectiveness of different loads and makes of ammo. It is NOT a Las Vegas type odds determination of shooting outcome.

The only way to "debunk" a statistical study is to collect the empirical data and show a different result or argue the mathematics. All those who dislike the stats because they don't support their particular position have been unwilling to expend the effort or unable to show different conclusions using empirical data.

Click to expand...

There are other ways to debunk a statistical study. One way is to demonstrate that data has been tampered with, or in the case of M&S' work falsified, through analysis such as in the link below-

http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm

The numbers in the following PDFs from the link above are irrefutable (and can be confirmed in M&S' work)-

www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume3/number1/TABLE2-1.PDF

www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume3/number1/TABLE2-2.PDF

M&S have been caught falsifying their data. There is no other way around it.

Steve C said:

The only way to "debunk" a statistical study is to collect the empirical data and show a different result or argue the mathematics. All those who dislike the stats because they don't support their particular position have been unwilling to expend the effort or unable to show different conclusions using empirical data.

Click to expand...

What if the empirical data for a refuting study can't be collected, b/c it's been made up instead of collected in the first place? Then, as you say, all that's left is to argue the mathematics. Check out the links above. Any idea of how a round can be more than 100% effective in one shot stops?

People who don't understand statistics THINK they've "debunked" the Marshall and Sanow study.

Click to expand...

Cops who dispute the accuracy and honesty of Sanow's "reports": http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/sanow.pdf and http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs8.htm

Shawn Dodson said:

Cops who dispute the accuracy and honesty of Sanow's "reports": http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/sanow.pdf and http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs8.htm

Click to expand...

IIRC, Calibre Press (now defunct) also discontinued carrying the M&S books because of the dubious nature of those works around the same time frame as those articles.

230g is supposed to be the 45 weight. A 147g 9mm is the same sectional density and has more velocity.

I like handguns: semi automatics, revolvers, single shot, single action, double action, and just about any other you can name. I've been an avid boolit caster, hand loader, shooter, experimenter (within established norms) for a long, long time. Got my first rifle when I was 13 (1959-Remington .22) and my first hand gun when I was 21 (Ruger Blackhawk .357 Magnum) and it's been a real trip from then to now. My wife being a relatively new shooter, and a natural born shopper/consumer, has pretty much developed the same likes I have. I've bought few gun lately; I just let her drag me to all the gun stores and I just sit back and watch. She does a mighty fine job.

I say all that to say this. As much as we like them, no handgun is ever going to come up to a rifle's power and effectiveness in most cases. For us, and we work as a team on this, if the threat appears (and it has twice) the hand gun(s) buy time to get to a battle rifle. You can say what you want about "handgun stopping power", but 40-60 rounds from a pair of ARs, Ruger "Mini" rifles or AKs is safety in depth as well as safety in numbers. I can live with that.

And yes, we've been known to carry rifles and shotguns when we travel. If we can tote the handguns, we can have the long guns too. Perfect solution? Nope; nothing is. But like I said, defense in depth and safety in numbers.

PedalBiker said:

230g is supposed to be the 45 weight.

Click to expand...

Sort of. The original 45 ACP bullet weight was 200 grains. But both 200 and 230 was just to meet a specific military spec requirement at that time. What is "supposed" to be is whatever works best for you in your intended application.

For what it is worth, I run Win Ranger 147's in two of my 9X19's because, in my hands, those pistols clearly shoot that ammo more accurately.

Win 127+P+ and Gold Dot 124+P's shoot equally accurate (best) in my other 9mm's.

Accuracy and penetration count.

My two cents and probably worth that much.

All handguns are relatively poor "stoppers" regardless of caliber or bullet used.
Shot placement & sufficient penetration are paramount, all else is secondary.
With that being said, I carry Winchester 147gr bonded in all my 9's if for no other reason that I find they have more push but less snap for faster followup shots.
Tomac

RE: CZ-75B...

Being a European pistol, chances are it was likely designed around 9mm NATO 124gr FMJ.

Click to expand...

Not designed for the NATO round, to be sure, as the 75 was introduced way before the fall of the Communist Block --use by NATO (or a NATO country) use wasn't gonna happen.

Czechoslovakia could only sell to a few Western nations, because of the Embargo imposed by most NATO and Western countries. You could get CZs in Germany and Canada, however.

According to CZ, however, the CZ-75 was designed to use the Sellier & Bellot 124 hardball round. Mine always liked 115 or 124 the same.

My HD/SD load for my CZ 75B is the
DoubleTap 9mm Luger +P 147 gr.
rated at 1,100 FPS SPeer Gold Dot - I think DT
switched to a different bonded JHP since I got this stuff.

I like the Fed. American Eagle 147 gr. for range / target
practice - less recoil than hot 115 gr. imo

R-

I've found that the 147 Gold Dot works in everything from Glock 26 barrels to a Glock 17L barrel . The 147 Hornady XTP. works well in their loading , but in a Glock 26 ,the same bullet loaded by Fiocchi using the same bullet is too slow and overpenetrates and has poor expansion.

I've been loading 147 gr Federal HST in my CCW guns lately. Obviously I've never shot anyone with them but I've read that there are several PDs that have had stellar results with the round. If I could find anything I want I'd maybe choose 124 or 135 but I'm pretty confident that HSTs and Gold Dots will do the job if I do my part.

Whether you use 115 gr., 124 gr, or 147 gr. jhp rounds is entirely a matter of personal preference. How they shoot from your guns in your hands is the only difference. These rounds, if made by reputable manufacturer and intended for personal defense, are all manufactured to meet FBI and Justice Dept. specs.

The are built and designed to expand and penetrate to 12-16" through several layers of denim and into 10% ballistic gelatin irregardless of the weight of the bullet. You can hunt around some and see which one will give you an extra inch of penetration in testing but whether it'll do it from your gun is a crap shoot.

The heavier bullet will not necessarily penetrate deeper reliably because it's built not to. The lighter bullet will not necessarily expand more than the heavier and again it's because it's built that way. Bullets are built better these days than any time in the past. They are generally built to perform well within a standard set of parameters.

I encourage folks to drop by here and spend some time poking around...

http://www.brassfetcher.com/index_files/9x19mmSlowMotion.htm

The design of a particular bullet is often as important as it's weight.

tipoc