Heavy vs. Light Bullets

[Jac]

Just FYI, if it's the article I think it is, the info on 147g 9mm on Chuck Hawks' site is about 10 years old. They've been much improved since then.

 

[Strykervet]

Regardless of caliber, I just go with a "heavy-for-caliber" premium JHP design that produces a muzzle velocity of 800-1000 fps.

This is good advice for .45ACP ammo selection. I'd still go with +P, so in the 1000fps range, and in 200-230gr. weight.

For 9mm, this isn't such good advice. The 147gr. bullet is generally subsonic and is good for use in suppressed weapons. With a suppressor, you have to make some sacrifices in velocity so going as heavy as possible is only logical.

In the short barrel, I'd go the other way as opposed to heavier, unless the calibre itself is subsonic to begin with. The 9mm uses fast burning powder and generally burns it all, so go with the faster stuff. Instead of 124 or 127gr., which work the absolute best in service size and compact pistols, you could use the 115gr. You'll still get good velocity using a +P or +P+ loading. In my opinion, you should use the load with the absolute maximum muzzle energy in a short barrel, so if that is lighter (usually is) go that route. The issue 9mm round in the army is 124gr. FMJ and is a +P loading (but they don't say this).

Revolvers, with their ability to use fast or slow burning powders and greatly reduced velocity when you cut the barrel down have different criteria --usually heavy bullets work better for snub nose revolvers (I hear the 140gr. bullet is optimum for the .357mag).

OP, glad to help, the Federal HST is probably a fine choice in 124gr. (I haven't used them, but hear good stuff). Try and get +P or +P+ loadings, provided the Sig can eat 'em.

 

[blinkjr]

Again - thanks to all for helping to educate this newbie. I went to the range today for the first time. Discovered I need lots of practice! I had a few failures to load, but I think that was me not getting them in the mag properly. It was always the first round in a new mag. As an aside, I picked up an UPLula loader - great device. I heartily recommend.

Strykervet, the manual says +P is okay occasionally, but not +P+. So, I'll be on the lookout for the Federal HST 124 grain.

 

[basicblur]

You did save the Word.doc in the earlier post, didn't you?
Winchester's recommendations go against the lighter/faster 'conventional wisdom', but they've redesigned the 147 grain bullet.

 

[holdencm9]

I use the Cor Bon DPX (115gr) personally. I like the higher velocity and all-copper bullet to ensure weight retention. One thing to keep in mind is the heavier bullets may not always achieve full stated velocity out of a pistol barrel so make sure to check specs out of your length barrel.

A lot of people will tell you that light is better. I have found that heavy is always better. If I told you that you were going to be in a car crash and you got to pick what kind of vehicle was going to broadside you - either a Honda Civic or a Peterbuilt semi with a maximum load - which one one would you choose? Don't worry about recoil, it really is no big deal. Unless you have some kind of medical condition.

Kind of a silly comparison. First of all, a 115 grain bullet or 147 grain is more comparing a Honda Civic to a Honda Accord or Odyssey. And the real question you should be asking is if you'd prefer to be hit by an Accord moving 60 mph or a Civic moving 80.....I think either way it'll do damage!

Also as far as recoil, I think the lighter faster loads are "snappier" whereas the heavier loads are more of a slow "kick" but both are manageable. The key with both is to not limp-wrist, but not "fight" the recoil. Good follow-through is key.

 

[gofastman]

124 gr. gives a good balance in 9x19mm, especially for compact CCW's. That said, I like 147 gr. +P in full size guns. 115 is for range use.

Interesting, I prefer 147+P in small guns and 124gr (preferably +P) in full size guns.
I agree 115gr is for range use, with the exception of the Tac-XP bullet, or if you are required to use FMJ.

 

[P5 Guy]

I stick with 124gr bullets. FMJ for range practice, JHP for SD/HD.

 

[481]

This is good advice for .45ACP ammo selection. I'd still go with +P, so in the 1000fps range, and in 200-230gr. weight.

For 9mm, this isn't such good advice. The 147gr. bullet is generally subsonic and is good for use in suppressed weapons. With a suppressor, you have to make some sacrifices in velocity so going as heavy as possible is only logical.

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.

 

[blinkjr]

hmmm...now seemingly more confused.

basicblur - I didn't download the paper, but I did read it. Thanks!

From what I am reading in these postings, there seem to be a number of LEO responding. If I read these correctly, it appears many departments issue a 147gr round with good results. The reason I referred to Chuck Hawks website was the inference that the recommendations for SD/HD rounds there were based on actual shootings. And his updated (as of August 2011) recommendation is lighter JHP rounds (specifically CorBon 115gr +p JHP). So, is there some consensus among LE agencies as to the "best" round for 9mm?

I really don't care if my chosen round can go through cinder blocks or car doors. I do want it to cause maximum damage to any intruder that I may have to shoot.

Thanks again for all your responses. Definitely a learning experience.

 

[Prosser]

I'm kind of wondering how your gun worked with the different weights?

First time I loaded for a 9mm Sig, new, the springs were so stiff that the gun wouldn't even cycle with my max loads 9mm using a 124 grain HPs.

By the way, here is my take. Depends on the bullet. Penetration and expansion can be varied by the jacket thickness.

San Diego PD were using 147 grain HST, IIRC. That's what I've got in my gun, simply since I came across a ton of it for a great price. My 9mm is a Kahr PM9.

Generally heavier bullets create more resistance, and, tend to work better in short barrels. Yours is 4"?

I'm not real sure what the solution is. 9mm light bullets aren't going to go over 1200 fps, I don't think, by much, out of your gun.

I also get concerned that if the 147 grain bullet expands, it may not penetrate enough. I also carry 130 grain ball ammo. I would rather have an LFN type bullet, around 120 to 130 grains, in the 1100-1200 fps range.

I'd start by doing a web search for your gun, and ammo tests with your gun.

Keep in mind that LEO are using longer barrels, for higher velocity then you are going to get with your Sig.

My take with 9mm short guns is straight line penetration is more important then expansion. While not popular, a LFN or truncated cone that doesn't expand, at higher velocity will tend to penetrate straighter.

On the otherhand, a heavier bullet has a better chance of going through bone, and staying on line.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Strykervet writes:

For pistol, the 115-124 and even the 127 grain bullets are where it's at. If they don't expand, they all, 115-147gr., make a 9mm hole, but if they do expand they make a bigger one, and since the lighter bullets have greater velocity and more kinetic energy (and here kinetic energy plays a direct role in the transfer of energy that causes the bullet to deform) they tend to expand greater and make a larger diameter crush wound inside the target. 147gr. is known to not expand and to even over penetrate due this combined with increased momentum, whereas there is lesser weights tend to shed more energy inside the target and not overpenetrate.

Lots of misinformation.

It’s inertial force that causes a bullet to “deform” when it penetrates flesh, not kinetic energy. A 9mm bullet impacting the human body at 1000 fps is resisted by an inertial force of about 800 lbs.

There’s plenty of valid data to disprove the claim that: “147gr is known to not expand and even over penetrate due to this combined with increased momentum…”

 

[Loosedhorse]

It’s inertial force that causes a bullet to “deform” when it penetrates flesh, not kinetic energy. A 9mm bullet impacting the human body at 1000 fps is resisted by an inertial force of about 800 lbs.

What's the distinction? The amount of "inertial force" is dependent on the amount of kinetic energy the missle has; since the body is not in motion, the total collison energy comes from the bullet.

A bullet thrown with a speed of 20 fps at a body will not encounter 800 lbs of force, even though it encounters the same body as the 9mm @1000fps.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

A bullet thrown at a body with a speed of 20 fps will not encounter 800 lbs of force, even though it encounters the same body as the 9mm @1000fps.

A bullet impacting at 20 fps is resisted by sheer force – which has greater effect at lower velocities than inertial force.

“Force” is what causes bullet deformation, not “energy”. The force exerted on the bullet by the media it penetrates is the same as the force the bullet exerts on the media.

 

[Loosedhorse]

The force exerted on the bullet by the media it penetrates is the same as the force the bullet exerts on the media.

Right. So the faster the bullet, the more energy it has, the more force it encounters, and the more it deforms.

My experience (in hunting) is the faster an HP hits an animal, the more deformation. Perhaps your experience is different. If it is not, then, as stated, increased bullet deformation correlates with increased kinetic energy.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Right. So the faster the bullet, the more energy it has, the more force it encounters, and the more it deforms.

You can stack 800 lbs of weight on a bullet and it deforms. You can stack 1000 lbs of weight on a bullet and it deforms more - and there's no kinetic energy involved. Kinetic energy is not deforming the bullet.

 

[Loosedhorse]

there's no kinetic energy involved

If you stack 800lbs on a bullet, it doesn't deform at all...until something starts to move (in this case, the weights start to move down and parts of the bullet move relative to other parts). That force applied through distance transforms potential energy (from the weights' higher position and gravity) into kinetic energy (and eventually into friction, once everything comes to a rest).

(If the weights and the bullets did not move, then no deformation would occur, and the potential energy would be be unchanged.)

Again, if the bullet is just standing there, the "force" of the body can't act on it. It is the KE of the bullet that allows the bullet and the body to have an impact, so that the bullet's propulsive (accelerating) force acts on the tissue, and the tissue's resistive (decelerating) force acts on the bullet.

The energy required to do the work of deforming the bullet comes from the bullet's kinetic energy, part of which is "used up" to deform the bullet. Where else could the energy required to deform the bullet come from?

 

[basicblur]

So, is there some consensus among LE agencies as to the "best" round for 9mm?

Probably not-only thing I can tell ya is I'd stick with the 50 round LE ammo, and avoid the 20/25 'consumer' boxes.

I also don't know that you need to go to +P/+P+ - bullet designs are constantly changing, so a lot of the info you'll find will be based on older designs.

You should save the earlier Word.doc and you have some of Winchester's recommendations. The Federal HST has been getting good reviews, and it looks like Federal has done the same as Winchester-the mouth is larger, and the cuts are longer and/or deeper.

You'll note Winchester's recommendation for short barreled guns is directly opposite to a lot of 'conventional' recommendations. Most folks traditionally have said go +P or +P+ in shorter barrel guns to maintain velocity-Winchester's letter says stick with their 147 gr., but it all depends on the bullet design, and companies usually know their product.

 

[Prosser]

This isn't really rocket science. You have various forms of lead, combined with other metals, surrounded by a Copper Jacket, with an open end, or not.
We also have solid brass bullets, but, they aren't in the consideration here, due to cost.

The bottom line is certain metals expand at certain weights and speeds.

Speed seems to be the most important factor, combined with bullet materials, followed by bullet design.

I don't think, with 9mm, bullet expansion is the most important factor in stopping anything. Straight line penetration, is more important, combined with shot placement.

I'd look at Double Tap and Buffalobore for ammo, probably plus P.

You might have to change springs, but, McNett does some intresting stuff.
Bullet expansion occurs with hard cast bullets at 1350 fps and above, in particular if it hits bone. McNett is offering a 124 grain HP at about 1300 fps.
Problem is, I don't know how much you are going to loose in your short barrel. Still, that's near 357 magnum low end specs.

He also offers a 147 grain flat point FMJ. Probably 1100 fps out of a 4" barrel, just a guess. When you get a flat point designed bullet moving over 1100 fps it creates it's own decent sized wound channel, and doesn't really need expansion. It will be more likely to create bone secondary projectiles then a lighter, faster hollow point.

Here is a good reference for some popular ammo out of your size gun:

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9mmluger.html

basicblur has a really good point. ASK the ammo makers what they would use in a short barreled gun. They know the powders they are using, how fast, and, they get to see results from the use of their products from LEO
in this digital day. Also, you'll get their perspective on which avenue they think works best.

 

[2zulu1]

If you stack 800lbs on a bullet, it doesn't deform at all...until something starts to move (in this case, the weights start to move down and parts of the bullet move relative to other parts). That force applied through distance transforms potential energy (from the weights' higher position and gravity) into kinetic energy (and eventually into friction, once everything comes to a rest).

(If the weights and the bullets did not move, then no deformation would occur, and the potential energy would be be unchanged.)

Again, if the bullet is just standing there, the "force" of the body can't act on it. It is the KE of the bullet that allows the bullet and the body to have an impact, so that the bullet's propulsive (accelerating) force acts on the tissue, and the tissue's resistive (decelerating) force acts on the bullet.

The energy required to do the work of deforming the bullet comes from the bullet's kinetic energy, part of which is "used up" to deform the bullet. Where else could the energy required to deform the bullet come from?

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.

 

[basicblur]

ASK the ammo makers what they would use in a short barreled gun

Yup-if you'll search Speer's site, you'll see they have a short barrel load in 9mm that's +P. 'Course, it's in those pricey 20 round boxes-if you go to their LE site, they also list it, but don't tell how many rounds are in a box-I'd be willing to bet the LE ammo is in 50 round boxes, and sells for about half (per round) the consumer 20 round box.

Speer makes a 124 gr. +P marketed for short barreled guns, Winchester recommends their 147 gr.-ya can't just make blanket statements 'bout using +P in shorter guns etc as powder loads/mixtures are a bit of a witch's brew.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I would suggest you get McPherson's Bullet Penetration

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.

 

[NG VI]

At that time, I selected several top brands of 9mm in different weights and chose to shoot them at extra heavy walled CMU's (aka Cinder Blocks) to see how they performed. To my surprise the best performing bullet was the Remington 115 gr. JHP which penetrated both sides of the CMU, leaving a 9mm hole on entry and a 1" hole on the off side. The 124/125's and the 147's pentrated the first wall of the CMU, but were stopped by the off-side wall and I found them in the void between the walls.

Now ammo has changed a lot since then and one can find heavier bullet loads that will pass my CMU test. But the bottom line is to find out what performs to your expectations out of your gun.

Doesn't really prove anything at all about the way bullets behave in living tissue, unless your cinderblocks were waterlogged at the time.

I also get concerned that if the 147 grain bullet expands, it may not penetrate enough.

147 grain 9mm bullets have the most innate momentum of all the 9mm projectiles, why would you be concerned that they won't penetrate deep enough, or are you concerned about the penetration of every 9mm bullet that expands?

I also don't know that you need to go to +P/+P+ - bullet designs are constantly changing, so a lot of the info you'll find will be based on older designs.

You should save the earlier Word.doc and you have some of Winchester's recommendations. The Federal HST has been getting good reviews, and it looks like Federal has done the same as Winchester-the mouth is larger, and the cuts are longer and/or deeper.

You'll note Winchester's recommendation for short barreled guns is directly opposite to a lot of 'conventional' recommendations. Most folks traditionally have said go +P or +P+ in shorter barrel guns to maintain velocity-Winchester's letter says stick with their 147 gr., but it all depends on the bullet design, and companies usually know their product.

Just thought that post was worth a re-read for the OP and Stryker. You may think that you should try to use the fastest possible bullet in a short barreled gun to make up for velocity loss, but that isn't the best option for a couple of reasons. The largest is bullet design.

You may have noticed that none of the major manufacturers have introduced or bothered to redesign an existing 115 grain bullet in years, with the exception of the DPX, which we'll ignore because we're talking about conventional lead and copper JHPs right now. Actually, let's not ignore it, because it is a good example of the single biggest pactor in handgun JHP behavior- design.

In 1986, when JHPs were still pretty much sophomores at best, you needed high speeds to get a bullet to expand. The designs of the day were unable to expand without a lot of resistance, gained by propelling the bullet as fast as possible. Today's bullet designs can expand much more consistently across a wide spectrum of velocities, because they are designed differently.

The reason bullet design makes a difference is because bullets expand based on resistance and hydraulic pressures acting on their hollow cavity. The way the bullet reacts to that pressure is entirely based on design, because it isn't just a function of velocity, it's a mechanical action that is going on. You can make a JHP that won't expand without 1500 feet per second of velocity, and you can make on that will come to pieces at 900 feet per second. Bullet designer's goals aren't to create products that do either one of those things.

The goal for a long time has been to create bullets that expand as close to every single time they enter living tissue as possible, and that do not fragment at their intended velocity, and that penetrate to a distance that is considered acceptably deep. Bullet designers lately have been able to achieve those goals more consistently with the 147 grain bullets, with the 124s still being a good choice.

Except for Critical Defense, a shallow penetrating, mediocre expanding load designed exclusively for non-duty carry, and the all-copper DPX, no one has introduced a 115 grain JHP marketed for defense in some time. I read quite a bit into Hornady marketing the Critical Defense strictly to the 'civilian' carry market, by the way.

And the 147 grain loads lose less velocity from a shorter barrel than the lighter and faster loads, both as a total number and as a percentage of their starting velocity. The lighter bullets are more likely to be out of their intended operating range than the 147 bullets, because as we've learned, it's not purely velocity or kinetic energy that makes a hollow point behave the way it does, but design and construction.

 

[JROC]

I much prefer heavy bullets. I tend to shoot them more accurately, and they do more damage in general to what I'm shooting than bullets with faster velocities.

My favorite 9mm ammo by far is the Winchester Ranger 147gr JHP's.

This is just my opinion though.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I read quite a bit into Hornady marketing the Critical Defense strictly to the 'civilian' carry market, by the way

Surprised to hear that they did that. The Critical Defense load is one of the two "duty" loads (the other is TAP CQ) listed at Hornady's LE site.

(I do note that the .40 FTX seems to get just under 12 inches of gel penetration).

To the extent that Hornady has marketed this round strictly to non-LE, I wonder if that's because they feel that some non-LE consumers may not be concerned with a strict adherence to the 12-inch minimum--or because they themselves feel it's not a "must" for non-LE use.

 

[Prosser]

"Just thought that post was worth a re-read for the OP and Stryker. You may think that you should try to use the fastest possible bullet in a short barreled gun to make up for velocity loss, but that isn't the best option for a couple of reasons. The largest is bullet design."

The other reasons are mainly physics. A heavier object takes more force to start into motion. Therefore a heavier object is going to require more pressure to exit case then a lighter one. The slower burning powders benefit from this.
You can safely build higher pressure behind a heavier bullet, and to a higher point, then you can a light one. It may sound strange, but slower powders seem to create higher velocity, yet with lower pressures.

In other words, the heavier bullets allow powder to build to higher pressure before the bullet starts moving, and then it provides more resistance as it goes down the barrel, as well. Therefore, you can use a slower powder and still get better velocity. The alternative is to use a quick spiking powder, that goes quickly to maximum pressure. The down side to this is they don't build enough pressure to get maximum velocity, and, that sudden, quick spike is harder on brass, and chambers.

An extreme example of this is the .500JRH, out of short barrels. We shot 430 grain bullets at 1350 fps, out of a carbine, 5.5" gun, and 2" snub. The carbine and the 5.5" gun gave the same velocity, 1350. The 2" snub was on the high side of 1250 fps, don't remember exactly. It appears with bullets over 350 grains the weigh and retention allows near full velocity in a very short barrel.

The issue of the ammunition makers not to make new bullets, and or use different powders is a real concern.

The 9MM case is pretty small, and, even at max length, powder room is at a premium. The 147's don't leave a lot of room, but, on the otherhand, that means the case is full. Consistent velocity and ignition.