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.
147gr. 9mm ammo
- Thread starter Cactus Jack Arizona
- Start date
- Status
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.
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
Member
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
Member
yes on both counts.
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
Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 490
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 .
HK Jake
Member
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
Member
It's funny you say that as heavier bullets tend to penetrate and expand much more consistently than their lighter counterparts.
If you are looking for 147gr HST, check out Ammunition To Go /// 9mm JHP. They currently have it in stock, and I stocked up on it!
HK Jake
Member
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.I have some that have SXT on it, and in the corner, RA9T.
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.
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
Member
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.
Apocalypse-Now
Member
we all know no one is 100% correct. stating that is redundant
- Status
Similar threads
