Heavy vs. Light Bullets

[easyg]

In my opinion, based upon everything I've seen, heard, and read, the 9mm performs better with the 115g or the 125g round.

I think that if one wants a heavier slug then one should move on to the .40S&W or the .45ACP.

 

[GLOOB]

This debate is the reason 40SW was invented. If you're really torn, go with a 155 gr bullet at 1200fps. How can that not be better than a 147 gr bullet at 950 fps?

 

[Prosser]

Everything I've gone over indicates the 9MM NATO is at it's best when loaded to 35-41k Pressure, using bullets from 60-130 grains, and shot through a submachine gun.

It's pretty clear it wasn't designed to be shot from a 3.9" barrel.

So perhaps it would be better to trash the general statements, look at what is possible for the gun in this topic, and see what actually works?

Sigs are pretty strong, as a general rule, and, the ones I loaded for in 9MM had VERY stiff springs. The MINIMUM bullet weight to cycle the action was 130 grains, and a maximum load. Don't know how much that has changed. Also might contact Sig to find
out if surplus Nato 9mm is a viable option for this gun.

9MM Magnum=9MM NATO Russian, pretty much in pressure, and velocity.

Not sure what powders they use for that stuff, and, if it holds velocity well in short barrels.

 

[easyg]

Everything I've gone over indicates the 9MM NATO is at it's best when loaded to 35-41k Pressure, using bullets from 60-130 grains, and shot through a submachine gun.

It's pretty clear it wasn't designed to be shot from a 3.9" barrel.

What???

9mm NATO is just a slightly hot version of the standard 9mm Para (aka: 9mm Luger)....and yes, it was designed for a handgun.
IIRC the original Luger pistol had a barrel approx. 4" in length.

9MM Magnum=9MM NATO, pretty much in pressure, and velocity.

What????

No.
9mm NATO is not even as powerful as most 9mm+P ammo readily available in gunstores across the USA.

 

[Prosser]

Georg Luger, 9X19mm Parabellum and Deutsche Waffen- und Munitionsfabriken (DWM) designed, name change to 9MM Luger, 1902 or so.

Submachine gun ammo in WWII was loaded VERY hot. It was floating around a couple years ago, with warnings to be used only in very strong guns.

Russians jacked 9MM NATO up to 41K using 63 to 80 grains at 1500-1970 fps steel penetrator core(7Н21 (7N21) and 7Н31 (7N31) / PBP).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP-443_Grach

"Neat Pistol: MP-443 Grach
Yarygin PYa, MP-443 Grach (Russian: Пистолет Ярыгина, ПЯ, МР-443 "Грач" rook) is the latest Russian standard military-issue side arm. It was developed in response to Russian military trials, which began in 1993. In 2003, it was adopted as a standard sidearm for all branches of Russian military and law enforcement, alongside GSh-18 and SPS. It is a semi-automatic pistol chambered in the Russian version of 9 mm Luger Parabellum or 9mm NATO, 7N21, which generates significantly more pressure than standard NATO 9mm ammunition, thus providing significantly higher kinetic energy to the bullets (600 J relative to 450 J for the standard Luger). "

Guess that sort of makes it like the the FN Five Seven on steroids.

Point being the focus of the round shifted from being used in a Luger to it's primary purpose being used in submachine guns that were built to handle the increased pressure.

 

[Strykervet]

Actually, it is excellent advice across the board.

Who said anything about supressors? The OP never asked about them and I sure as heck never mentioned them either.

My Department has had excellent results with the 9mm 147 gr. JHP (we've never lost an Officer or failed to put a bad guy out of action) over the years and I plan to remain with them for the long term.

Supressors? Irrelevant.

Nobody asked about your job either. 147's are relevant to suppressors because I think that is why they were invented in the first place, but I could be wrong. Folks don't usually go straight to the subsonic rounds when looking for defense ammo anyway. Thanks for the support though.

As for deforming the HP, what exactly do you think deforms the bullet on impact? And before we get into a physics conversation here, I'll go ahead and pull the quantum physics card and invoke Einstein while I'm at it and say it is all relative and describes the same thing in a different language. Throwing science around like that illustrates ignorance and not enlightenment, give me some formulas and proofs first. If you studied math and physics at a collegiate level, you'd know that though.

Therefore, unless you have truly groundbreaking information to add that we all missed, going with the round that generates the most kinetic energy (or force or momentum or whatever, true they have different meanings but they are all RELATIVE, literally and figuratively) IS the best bet when all the other variables are the same.

Finally, cops are issued pistols and ammuniton for much the same reason soldiers are: if you let them pick whatever they like, you'll have some idiots running around with .500 Smiths. Ask me how I know this. 147's aren't necessarily the best, but they sure beat explaining why Officer BJ's round penetrated five classrooms and six students after passing through a one hundred pound junkie. Likewise, it prevents the other end of the spectrum from happening. Illinois SP carried 115gr. Ranger +P+ for twenty years. Obviously the cops aren't in concert regarding this.

And if I spouted off any "misinformation" I learned it on here. Everything else I got out of books. Use whatever though, I don't care.

 

[Strykervet]

What???

9mm NATO is just a slightly hot version of the standard 9mm Para (aka: 9mm Luger)....and yes, it was designed for a handgun.
IIRC the original Luger pistol had a barrel approx. 4" in length.



What????

No.
9mm NATO is not even as powerful as most 9mm+P ammo readily available in gunstores across the USA.

Yeah, the 9mm NATO stuff, 124gr., gets in the very high 1100's to low 1200's if I recall right.

 

[easyg]

Georg Luger, 9X19mm Parabellum and Deutsche Waffen- und Munitionsfabriken (DWM) designed, name change to 9MM Luger, 1902 or so.

Actually the 9x19 we are talking about was originally the 9mm Luger.
The name was changed to the "9mm Parabellum" after it was adopted by the German military.

Submachine gun ammo in WWII was loaded VERY hot.

Not true.
In fact, most of the WWII 9mm ammo was weaker than the typical 9mm ammo usd today....certainly weaker than current 9mm NATO and the civilian 9mm+P.

Russians jacked 9MM NATO up to 41K using 63 to 80 grains at 1500-1970 fps steel penetrator core(7Н21 (7N21) and 7Н31 (7N31) / PBP).

What the Russians are using is NOT 9mm Para, 9mm Luger, or 9mm NATO, and has nothing to do with this thread.

BTW, don't believe everything you read on wiki.

 

[2zulu1]

Nobody asked about your job either. 147's are relevant to suppressors because I think that is why they were invented in the first place, but I could be wrong. Folks don't usually go straight to the subsonic rounds when looking for defense ammo anyway. Thanks for the support though.

As for deforming the HP, what exactly do you think deforms the bullet on impact? And before we get into a physics conversation here, I'll go ahead and pull the quantum physics card and invoke Einstein while I'm at it and say it is all relative and describes the same thing in a different language. Throwing science around like that illustrates ignorance and not enlightenment, give me some formulas and proofs first. If you studied math and physics at a collegiate level, you'd know that though.

Therefore, unless you have truly groundbreaking information to add that we all missed, going with the round that generates the most kinetic energy (or force or momentum or whatever, true they have different meanings but they are all RELATIVE, literally and figuratively) IS the best bet when all the other variables are the same.

Finally, cops are issued pistols and ammuniton for much the same reason soldiers are: if you let them pick whatever they like, you'll have some idiots running around with .500 Smiths. Ask me how I know this. 147's aren't necessarily the best, but they sure beat explaining why Officer BJ's round penetrated five classrooms and six students after passing through a one hundred pound junkie. Likewise, it prevents the other end of the spectrum from happening. Illinois SP carried 115gr. Ranger +P+ for twenty years. Obviously the cops aren't in concert regarding this.

And if I spouted off any "misinformation" I learned it on here. Everything else I got out of books. Use whatever though, I don't care.

You're way over the top with your post IMO. What 481's dept carried and its performance in shoot outs against felons is relevant in this thread and I find his first hand experiences refreshing vs those who post whatever rant that fills their head at the moment.

It's the performance of the 147gr that gave me confidence to carry the 9mm and your statement of over penetration is rather hysterical, any JHP in any caliber can clog or fail to expand and perform like a FMJ.

While we're on the topic of state agency carry, after the death of a NY state trooper in a shoot out against two felons, 4 well placed shots (124gr Gold Dots) on one felon and two shots on the second; NYSP determined the death of the trooper was a result of caliber failure. Subsequently, NYSP changed calibers and began issuing the 45 GAP.

 

[481]

Nobody asked about your job either. 147's are relevant to suppressors because I think that is why they were invented in the first place, but I could be wrong. Folks don't usually go straight to the subsonic rounds when looking for defense ammo anyway. Thanks for the support though.

As for deforming the HP, what exactly do you think deforms the bullet on impact? And before we get into a physics conversation here, I'll go ahead and pull the quantum physics card and invoke Einstein while I'm at it and say it is all relative and describes the same thing in a different language. Throwing science around like that illustrates ignorance and not enlightenment, give me some formulas and proofs first. If you studied math and physics at a collegiate level, you'd know that though.

Therefore, unless you have truly groundbreaking information to add that we all missed, going with the round that generates the most kinetic energy (or force or momentum or whatever, true they have different meanings but they are all RELATIVE, literally and figuratively) IS the best bet when all the other variables are the same.

Finally, cops are issued pistols and ammuniton for much the same reason soldiers are: if you let them pick whatever they like, you'll have some idiots running around with .500 Smiths. Ask me how I know this. 147's aren't necessarily the best, but they sure beat explaining why Officer BJ's round penetrated five classrooms and six students after passing through a one hundred pound junkie. Likewise, it prevents the other end of the spectrum from happening. Illinois SP carried 115gr. Ranger +P+ for twenty years. Obviously the cops aren't in concert regarding this.

And if I spouted off any "misinformation" I learned it on here. Everything else I got out of books. Use whatever though, I don't care.

Regardless, your introduction of suppressors is OT for the thread.

Rather than spout misinformation learned here, you might try educating yourself by reading a textbook on physics. Focusing on the disciplines of fluid- and thermo-dynamics in addition to classical mechanics should prove most informative for the topic matter being discussed here.

Dynamic pressure (pressure is defined as force per unit area) produces the force that initiates and drives projectile expansion. (see Dodson's post on the prior page #38)

Here is the equation for that quantity-

P = ½ρV^2

It is a start for what you are addressing although it is by no means "comprehensive" to the entire topic.

 

[481]

You're way over the top with your post IMO. What 481's dept carried and its performance in shoot outs against felons is relevant in this thread and I find his first hand experiences refreshing vs those who post whatever rant that fills their head at the moment.

It's the performance of the 147gr that gave me confidence to carry the 9mm and your statement of over penetration is rather hysterical, any JHP in any caliber can clog or fail to expand and perform like a FMJ.

While we're on the topic of state agency carry, after the death of a NY state trooper in a shoot out against two felons, 4 well placed shots (124gr Gold Dots) on one felon and two shots on the second; NYSP determined the death of the trooper was a result of caliber failure. Subsequently, NYSP changed calibers and began issuing the 45 GAP.

Heh.

2z1,

I am just waiting for someone to tie this all together through Grand Unification Theory.

Hopefully, the member suggesting it in a prior post won't disappoint us.

 

[481]

If you are interested in terminal ballistics, I would suggest you get McPherson's Bullet Penetration book so you can learn and understand why the momentum model is better suited than the KE model when discussing service calibers.

Bullet expansion is directly related to its design/construction velocity range, as an example, some hand gun designs may expand at 5,000 psi while other designs need a higher pressure to expand. For example, XTPs need a faster velocity to expand to the same diameter as a Silvertip. Given the same weight/velocity, the XTP penetrates deeper because it deforms less than the Silvertip.

Got it. Read it. So I do understand why he believes "the momentum model is better suited than the KE model when discussing service calibers." (Better model of what, did you mean to say?)

Unless he "explains" in his book that the bullet's kinetic energy is NOT the source of the energy needed to deform the bullet, not sure why you assumed I needed to "learn" about his book. But thanks.

Remember, 2z1, just 'cause someone reads a book doesn't mean that they "get" what they read. MacPherson explains very clearly how expansion arises.

 

[Loosedhorse]

there's no kinetic energy involved. Kinetic energy is not deforming the bullet.

The energy required to do the work of deforming the bullet comes from the bullet's kinetic energy

MacPherson explains very clearly how expansion arises.

If you are agreeing that the bullet's kinetic energy provides the energy for that bullet's deformation, then you are agreeing with me, and your MacPherson reference is irrelevant.

If you are saying that the bullet's kinetic energy is NOT the source of the energy required for bullet deformation, then you are wrong. And if MacPherson says that (quotation and page number reference, please), then he is wrong.

But he doesn't say that. You appear to be throwing his name around with any clear idea of what he actually said. To try to insult me.

Too bad for you: physics is a stubborn thing, and it says you are wrong.

 

[481]

If you are agreeing that the bullet's kinetic energy provides the energy for that bullet's deformation, then you are agreeing with me, and your MacPherson reference is irrelevant.

If you are saying that the bullet's kinetic energy is NOT the source of the energy required for bullet deformation, then you are wrong. And if MacPherson says that (quotation and page number reference, please), then he is wrong.

But he doesn't say that. You appear to be throwing his name around with any clear idea of what he actually said. To try to insult me.

Too bad for you: physics is a stubborn thing, and it says you are wrong.

He explains the dynamic response of solids encountering the forces produced (and how they arise) at impact in Chapter 7 (pages 122 to 148) and never makes the assertion that (there is some requisite level of) KE is the primary determinant of expansion. In fact, the words "kinetic" and "energy" never appear in that chapter, not even once.

Thank you for demonstrating that you didn't "get it" and still don't "get it".

You should give MacPherson a call and set him straight. Report back with how that goes.

 

[Loosedhorse]

never makes the assertion that KE is the primary determinant of expansion.

never makes the assertion that (there is some requisite level of) KE is the primary determinant of expansion.

Yes, MacPherson never makes either assertion. And neither did I, though you are trying to claim that I did. Classic strawman, one of the most tortured I've ever seen!

I said (3rd time):

The energy required to do the work of deforming the bullet comes from the bullet's kinetic energy

And this:

If you are saying that the bullet's kinetic energy is NOT the source of the energy required for bullet deformation, then you are wrong. And if MacPherson says that (quotation and page number reference, please), then he is wrong.

You did not quote MacPherson's actual words, because they don't contradict me. In fact, you admitted that he doesn't mention kinetic energy, so he cannot possibly have said that kinetic energy is not the source of the energy needed to deform a bullet.

So, thank you for demonstrating that you are wrong. That you don't care what I actually said. And you don't care that MacPherson did not contradict what I said.

All you care about is saying, "you didn't 'get it' and still don't 'get it'." Even though you have no basis for that statement. Your policy is insult, don't discuss.

But maybe that's your "Department"'s policy?

You should give MacPherson a call and set him straight

Why? He hasn't contradicted what I said. Just you. So I set you straight. Reporting back: it went swimmingly!

 

[481]

You did not quote MacPherson's actual words, because they don't contradict me. In fact, you admitted that he doesn't mention kinetic energy, so he cannot possibly have said that kinetic energy is not the source of the energy needed to deform a bullet.

So, thank you for demonstrating that you are wrong. That you don't care what I actually said. And you don't care that MacPherson did not contradict what I said.

All you care about is saying, "you didn't 'get it' and still don't 'get it'." Even though you have no basis for that statement. Your policy is insult, don't discuss.

But maybe that's your "Department"'s policy? Why? He hasn't contradicted what I said. Just you. So I set you straight. Reporting back: it went swimmingly!

No need to quote MacPherson again. You didn't get it if you read the book so unless your reading comprehension has improved suddenly it would be a waste of time to retype it here.

As for insulting behavior, you've managed to establish for yourself quite the reputation for that.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I haven't insulted you (though I understand your obvious attempt to say that I have--since you have insulted me, you don't want be seen for what you are, and so you smoke-screen by claiming I'm no better). I haven't implied that you haven't read MacPherson (as you have implied about me), or that your claim to have read MacPherson is false (as you have said about my claim), or that your reading comprehension is poor (as you have said about me).

What I have said:

• That you are wrong if you say that the energy for bullet deformation comes from some other source but the bullet's KE.
• That you are wrong if you say MacPherson says that.
• That you have purposely used insult when you failed in argument.
• That you are wrong if you say that I claimed something besides the above and (4th time):

The energy required to do the work of deforming the bullet comes from the bullet's kinetic energy

And so it does.

Why you persist in your errors and insults, well, who can say? But by all means, keep diggin' your hole. Perhaps another Department policy?

 

[Prosser]

Guys. NOBODY CARES, EXCEPT YOU!:banghead:

I had a friend that was an expert in this field before MacP or any of these babies were out of diapers. He took pictures of projectiles penetrating barriers, with the world's fastest camera, for Lockheed. Some of this stuff is on the net.

The point is no matter what causes the deformation, it is more important to know the set of circumstances that explain the actual action.
As a general rule, ALL shootings are different. Trying to come up with blanket
math equations to explain what creates it isn't worth much, if anything.

What is important is at what speed bullets made of certain materials deform, or don't, and what will cause them to deform, or won't.

In particular, just so you remember, here is what this thread is about:

Hi all. New guy here. Just purchased my first handgun (Sig SP2022 in 9mm) and am looking to learn. I have read quite a few thread/posts on which caliber you need to shoot. I have read just as many about ammo brands. What I can't seem to find is a discussion of bullet weight (115/124 grain vs 147 grain for 9mm). Can anyone shed some light on the advantages and disadvantages of each end of the scale? Especially when it comes to SD/HD rounds. Also how each affects recoil."

This is a pretty narrow sandbox, and your general discussion belongs somewhere else.

 

[2zulu1]

By using Winchester's LE ammunition heavy clothing gel data, one can see the correlation between stress (bullet deformation) and bullet design.

RA9124T - 124+P - 1180fps - 13.3/.68/117.6
RA9TA - 127+P+ - 1250fps - 12.2/.68/123.0
RA9BAB - 124+P - 1180fps - 18.2/.56/124.0
RA9BA - 147 - 995fps - 15.8/.58/146

115gr JHP data is not listed for LE ammo comparison.

Given the above data, plus the data from collected from other calibers, it appears that Winchester's bonded ammunition offerings are designed to deform with less expansion than their non-bonded Ranger T offerings.

FWIW, the light and fast 357SIG Ranger T does not compare well with the 45auto:

RA357SIGT - 1350fps - 10.7/.69/125 heavy clothing
RA45TP - 990fps - 15.7/.78/230

 

[LCPor9mm]

WOW!

It appears this really IS rocket science!

OP: My suggestion, as another poster has already pointed out, would be to go to the manufacturer's sites or just root around on the internet until you find what looks like it works in YOUR GUN. I would also lean toward what LE is using if you can find any departments that haven't gone to .40 yet.

PS: Bullets need energy to expand.

 

[Prosser]

San Diego PD use and like 147 grain HSTs.

"LCPor9mm It appears this really IS rocket science!"

 

[blinkjr]

OK - there seems to be a little disagreement as to the more effective bullet weight. So, I will re-ask my second question. If I use 115 gr FMJ as my range ammo, should I expect different performance if I use 147 gr JHP? I realize this can be gun specific, so I will accept generalities here.

Reminder - I have a Sig SP2022 - that's a heavy polymer frame.

If that makes any difference.....

and thanks for this lively discussion!!!!!

 

[Prosser]

Have you tried 115 grain range ammo in your gun?

I wouldn't be surprised if your gun won't even cycle it.
9MM sigs I loaded for liked heavy bullets, starting at 130 grains, and going up, along with stiff powder charges.

 

[joed]

Both light and heavy will work in different situations with good and bad results. Heavy gives more penetration which could be a bad thing in some situations.

I've always hated the 115 gr bullet in the 9mm though and shoot nothing but 147 gr in mine.

 

[Loosedhorse]

it appears that Winchester's bonded ammunition offerings are designed to deform with less expansion than their non-bonded Ranger T offerings.

Hornady has a simlar situation.

Their Critical Defense loads expand well, but penetrate short of 12 inches. So they have come up with Critical Duty, which expands less and (therefore) penetates more, to meet the 12 inch LE minimum, plus a little.