9mm defence cartridges

[MTMilitiaman]

I'm with those that say it doesn't matter that much as long as it is reliable in your firearm. I don't even think accuracy is a huge deal. Pretty much any of them are going to shoot as accurate as you can, and if you can put your hand over the group at any reasonable handgun range, say 25 yards and under, that is plenty of accuracy.

I prefer penetration over expansion and tend to favor moderate to heavy for caliber bullets to this end. But the bottom line is that all modern JHP from the old Win Silvertips and Federal Hydrashocks on to the more modern PDX and HST loads from the same companies, respectively, as well as the aforementioned Gold Dots and whatever, are all designed to perform to FBI specs in their tests. So it is no surprise that most of them perform pretty similarly. Pick one that is reliable and shoots to the same point of aim as your practice ammo and rest comfortably at night.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

Oops. Double tap.

 

[RBid]

Hydra shocks are an old design. I recommend against using them. I've seen a few tests where they didn't expand, at all. There are too many other options to put money into this round.

 

[aguywithagun]

9mmforMe -- I checked the walmart site and don't recall seeing any 9mm hollow points. Is that something that I can only find in the brick and mortar store?

 

[Treefrog23]

Thank you all for your input. From consensus opinion it appears whatever your gun will handle, whihc makes perfect sense. Example: I have a Ruger SR22 that will not work with anything other than CCI, so I was able to eliminate a number of brands. From you input, I'll just do the same with my 9mm's.
Thank you for your help.
TF

 

[easyg]

In standard pressure rounds I like the 115g Winchester Silvertips.

For +P rounds I like either 124g Speer Gold Dots or 124g Winchester PDX1 rounds.

I think that if you want a heavier round than 124g then you would probably be better served with a .40 or .45 caliber pistol.

 

[aguywithagun]

i use CCI in my m&p22. mini mags for target shooting but i also have some speer gold dot hp 22lr velocitor. are speer and cci the same company?

 

[CZ57]

Most of the better 124 gr. +P loads will meet minimum depth of penetration requirements. For that reason I would use the 124 gr. +P that will provide as much energy as possible to go with the necessary penetration. The SPEER 124 gr. +P Gold Dot is one of the best but there are some very good loads being made by firms like Underwood and DoubleTap. The real question is are you up to practicing enough to master the slightly higher recoil you'll get from one of these loads. For a very thorough explanation of wound ballistics I'd suggest you read up on it at: http://www.btgresearch.org/wb.htm

 

[conw]

I really don't like these cryptic answers to hardware questions. "The best gun is the one you have on you." "Shot placement matters more than ______".

If I walked into a hardware store and asked what tools I need to build a birdhouse, and I was told "the best tool is one that builds a birdhouse" or "the best tool is the one you have in your toolchest", I'd find a new store.

Hah. So true.

 

[coolluke01]

It does depend on the gun you are shooting. And more on the size than anything. +P in a short barrel is pointless. Lost of muzzle flash and not a big gain in velocity. I shoot 147 gr Ranger T's in my G26.
If you are shooting a gun with a longer barrel then the light and fast could be better.

The Ranger T's preform very well. You will get the penetration needed and they have very wicked sharp petals! These things will do serious damage!

Look for tests of each ammo in a barrel about the size of the gun you will be shooting them from. 12"-14" of penetration is the goal. Read the posts on the does energy count thread. Don't get hung up on energy of the bullet. This is not a very good way to judge the effectiveness of a round. There are far better numbers to look at when researching rounds. Penetration is the main thing to look for. Expansion takes a back seat to penetration IMO. Expansion will allow you to have a slightly better chance of hitting something vital. In the case of a bullet with petals, they will work around and cause bleeding when the subject moves but this won't help much in the short term.

Shot placement is key. There is no magic bullet and one stop shots are not realistic. 80% of handgun wounds are survived! We shoot to stop the threat and that means shots to center mass until it stops. Only a hit on the central nervous system and the brain can cause a guaranteed immediate stop. Spend more money on range ammo than SD ammo!

I have found Ranger T's for .50c each. This is much cheaper than some "premium" SD rounds. Don't fall for the hype and go with what is proven to work.

 

[primalmu]

Geez guys, looks like you all didn't read my whole post. I said that to emphasize that you need to find a round that your gun likes and that you are accurate with. I don't care how effective XYZ brand ammo is if your gun jams or you can't hit anything with it.

 

[coolluke01]

I don't care how effective XYZ brand ammo is if your gun jams or you can't hit anything with it.

I would never carry and trust my life to a gun that will only shoot some brands of quality ammo. Also ammo is not an excuse for missing.

Any recommendation I would give on ammo would be assuming that you would be shooting them from a gun that has a good reputation and will shoot most any ammo.

 

[Okiegunner]

For myself...

Hornady Critical Defense, 115gr FTX, or , Federal HST JHP.

 

[CZ57]

It does depend on the gun you are shooting. And more on the size than anything. +P in a short barrel is pointless. Lost of muzzle flash and not a big gain in velocity. I shoot 147 gr Ranger T's in my G26.
If you are shooting a gun with a longer barrel then the light and fast could be better.

Flash is overblown since the majority of the manufacturers use powders that are treated for it. Fast and light would be 115 gr. +P or +P+. 124 gr. is the standard 9mm bullet weight. You may lose some velocity in a short barrel with 124 gr. +P but 147s for the most part are already subsonic and will also lose velocity. The one thing of note to take away from the "Does Energy Matter" thread was the link to BTG Research. Two PHd physicists with the latest research that debunks some commonly held beliefs such as a heavier bullet always being a better choice and mistakenly based on the "penetration only" theorums.

The one shot stop data has in fact been proven to be pretty conclusive according to BTG who debunk its debunkers like Fackler, Roberts and MacPherson. Shot placement is still the key and you shoot until the threat is stopped. I don't know of anyone who recommends otherwise.
http://www.btgresearch.org/wb.htm

 

[wrc]

I prefer Federal because I have the most rounds of their LE/SD ammo through my equipment.

I am most comfortable with the 135gr +P "Tactical Bonded" (LE9T5), but I also use the 124gr +P "HST" (P9HST3).

I have good secondhand accounts of most Winchester Ranger-T offerings.

If you're using quality ammunition, you're usually in a good place. The most important thing is to make sure that your chosen ammunition feeds correctly and hits where you want it to. Some guns don't work well with some ammunition, and you need to check beforehand.

 

[primalmu]

I would never carry and trust my life to a gun that will only shoot some brands of quality ammo.

Well, that's certainly an admirable way to go about things (I myself carry a G26 for that reason), but its certainly not any basis to criticize my comments. After all, there will always be someone that wants to carry a cheap 1911 or some other handgun that may not be as reliable as other brands.

Also ammo is not an excuse for missing.

Unless someone is trying to shoot +P+ ammo but can't effectively shoot with the higher power cartridge. That's akin to saying caliber doesn't matter.

 

[481]

Flash is overblown since the majority of the manufacturers use powders that are treated for it. Fast and light would be 115 gr. +P or +P+. 124 gr. is the standard 9mm bullet weight. You may lose some velocity in a short barrel with 124 gr. +P but 147s for the most part are already subsonic and will also lose velocity. The one thing of note to take away from the "Does Energy Matter" thread was the link to BTG Research. Two PHd physicists with the latest research that debunks some commonly held beliefs such as a heavier bullet always being a better choice and mistakenly based on the "penetration only" theorums.

Given Courtney's fixation upon unreliable and minute phenomena, it is hard to imagine that there is much worth "taking away" from the link to BTG Research in the "Does Energy Matter" thread. Even if the phenomena occurred with greater relaibility, its miniscule effect, if it can be discerned at all, is of little real-world consequence.

The one shot stop data has in fact been proven to be pretty conclusive according to BTG who debunk its debunkers like Fackler, Roberts and MacPherson. Shot placement is still the key and you shoot until the threat is stopped. I don't know of anyone who recommends otherwise.
http://www.btgresearch.org/wb.htm

Courtney's attempt to "debunk the debunkers" is a singular failure in that it never addresses the well-documented statistical analyses conducted by Fackler, van Maanan, and MacPherson.

Instead, Courtney's "review" on the subject does nothing more than make excuses and implore the reader to deny the findings of the statistical analyses of Marshall & Sanow's work without ever showing where the math underlying the statistical analyses was in error.

One of the most laughable excuses made in support of Marshall & Sanow's work occurs on page 14 of Courtney's "review", to wit;

However, the suggestion that M&S used uncalibrated gelatin does not nullify their results. It suggests only that their gelatin measurements might not be optimally accurate.

"Optimally accurate"? Aw, c'mon...

"Uncalibrated" means that the gelatin was not with the standards specified for its use- the results are unrepeatable and the underlying premise of such a claim is that somehow "sloppy research" is valid research. That Courtney resorts to such contrived (yes, "made up") arguments suggests a level of discomfort and dishonesty, not only with his readers, but with himself.

Such "excuses", no matter how they are couched, are not proof that the statistical analyses were incorrect. Rather, his behavior suggests that Courtney has nothing to support his position except excuses and appeals to emotion.

 

[Sauer Grapes]

I read a couple test that ranked the Remington 115 and 124's right near the top for penatration and expansion.
They function perfect in both my carry guns, so that's what I use.

 

[CZ57]

Courtney's attempt to "debunk the debunkers" is a singular failure in that it never addresses the well-documented statistical analyses conducted by Fackler, van Maanan, and MacPherson.

Instead, Courtney's "review" on the subject does nothing more than make excuses and implore the reader to deny the findings of the statistical analyses of Marshall & Sanow's work without ever showing where the math underlying the statistical analyses was in error.

Courtney clearly states the flaws in the reasoning of Fackler and others. His theories however are not grounded in any attempt to debunk Fackler. It also shows that Fackler ignored sound research conducted previous to his own like Sorenson and a number of others. Not to mention the 3 ammunition failures experienced by the FBI based on Facklers research.

I think you might want to correct what you said in haste in the second paragraph. Courtney points out the flaws of Fackler claiming things like the OSS data as well as the Strasbourg goat tests were hoaxes. Fackler states the goat tests were hoaxes because the researchers remained anonymous (for obvious reasons) and pointed to an FBI review board that concurred with him yet they all remained nameless. Typical of Fackler and his bandwagon approach to statistical evidence.

Anyone interested should go to the BTG research site and draw your own conclusions. http://www.btgresearch.org/wb.htm I think you'll find the evidence more compelling than that of a self serving physician, a dentist or an engineer. Like I said both Courtneys hold a PHd in physics from MIT and provide mathematical evidence with probability of error for all of their work as well as the probability of error with the M&S OSS data.

 

[481]

Courtney clearly states the flaws in the reasoning of Fackler and others. His theories however are not grounded in any attempt to debunk Fackler. It also shows that Fackler ignored sound research conducted previous to his own like Sorenson and a number of others. Not to mention the 3 ammunition failures experienced by the FBI based on Facklers research.

Courtney fails in that he leaves untouched the mathematical underlayment of the statisical analyses. The math is irrefutable, unless of course, one considers the odds of the M&S "study" arising from untampered data to be one in 3.46 trillion to be good odds.

I think you might want to correct what you said in haste in the second paragraph. Courtney points out the flaws of Fackler claiming things like the OSS data as well as the Strasbourg goat tests were hoaxes. Fackler states the goat tests were hoaxes because the researchers remained anonymous (for obvious reasons) and pointed to an FBI review board that concurred with him yet they all remained nameless. Typical of Fackler and his bandwagon approach to statistical evidence.

Nope, no need for that. Courtney can't sustain his claim that the OSS data (obviously manipulated and therefore a hoax) is legitimate, unless of course, again, one finds the odds of the M&S "study" arising from untampered data to be one in 3.46 trillion to be good odds. Same goes for proving that the Strasburg tests were not fabricated. Courtney's word, which is all he has, given his disingenuous record of justifying M&S's sloppy research (as described above), is simply not worth the breath drawn to utter it.

However, the suggestion that M&S used uncalibrated gelatin does not nullify their results. It suggests only that their gelatin measurements might not be optimally accurate.

"Optimally accurate".... Hysterical.

One wonders if Courtney could keep a straight face while typing that.

Anyone interested should go to the BTG research site and draw your own conclusions. http://www.btgresearch.org/wb.htm I think you'll find the evidence more compelling than that of a self serving physician, a dentist or an engineer. Like I said both Courtneys hold a PHd in physics from MIT and provide mathematical evidence with probability of error for all of their work as well as the probability of error with the M&S OSS data.

Yeah, please, do that.

 

[CZ57]

Courtney fails in that he leaves untouched the mathematical underlayment of the statisical analyses. The math is irrefutable, unless of course, one considers the odds of the M&S "study" arising from untampered data to be one in 3.46 trillion to be good odds.

One in 3.46 trillion??? Who states that utterly ridiculous nonsense??? You took an overdose of the Kool-Aide. One in 3.46 trillion odds sounds like the work of some kind of mutant mad scientist. I also find you and those you subscribe to be uniquely unqualified to dispute the findings of a doctor of physics just as Fackler, Roberts and MacPherson ignored the findings of other researchers that preceded them. Roberts and MacPherson's sole purpose in research is little more than an attempt to reinforce Fackler. You have a problem because Courtney's findings find the flaw in everything you subscribe to. The issue of the FBI making 3 mistakes in ammunition based on Facklers research is undeniable with a probability of error at 0 and Fackler has been attacking M&S ever since. Somehow he feels that that is the way to bring more credibility to his own failed concepts. Your undeniable bias is best ignored. By all means tell us who these people are who can state the odds at one in 3.46 trillion. What a crock of unscientific BS.

 

[HankB]

I would be comfortable with any "premium" 115 - 124 grain JHP from the major manufacturers - Speer, Winchester, Remington, Federal, and now Hornady - that ran well in my gun.

I use +P or (preferably) +P+ in guns that will handle them.

I think the big ammo makers have all gotten their act together in their premium lines, and I really don't think brands make any real difference any more.

(I stay away from the "boutique" ammo makers because I'm not entirely convinced their QC is up to snuff . . . but that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. YMMV.)

 

[C0untZer0]

I would never carry and trust my life to a gun that will only shoot some brands of quality ammo.

If I have a Rohrbaugh that doesn't like Tula, Wolf or American Eagle but cycles 147gr Winchester Ranger T flawlessly - why wouldn't I load it with Winchester RA9T and trust my life to it ?

 

[2zulu1]

At one time, when I thought energy mattered in terminal performance, I didn't pay much attention to the 9mm. A few years ago I began testing the 9mm and did a number of tests using the 147gr Gold Dot.

For those who carry the 9mm and are curious about performance through intermediate barriers, the results of this test will put a smile on your face.

L-R, redwood 4x4, steel washing machine lid, very hard cow rib bone;



Through the 4x4, steel and bone;



And it expanded;





Still retained enough velocity to blow up one of the green bottles. Bullet was recovered after putting a "dent" in a back up 4x4;



For a comparison, and I'm not saying one is a better defensive round than the other, I came across some Remington 125gr SJHPs, chronographs 1627fps from my 686P/6" (1457fps Dan Wesson/4"), with over 700 ft/lbs of energy, for those misguided souls who believe in such things.

A simple bone test;



As much as I like the 357mag, this ammunition performed rather dismally;



Recovered bullet weight was only 83.7grs, given the bullet's asymmetrical expansion, it tumbled.

 

[CZ57]

The Remington 125 gr. SJHP with its soft exposed lead nose. Now that's real scientific and enlightening. LOL Talk about your misguided souls.