minutemen1776
Member
A couple of days ago, someone resurrected an old thread from 2009 highlighting an excerpt from a Chuck Hawks reprinted article that was very critical of 147-grain 9mm loads. Yesterday, the moderator closed this thread that was "16 years old" (though the first post was from 2009 ) but invited a new thread about 147-grain loads. So, here it is.
Interestingly, this morning I clicked again on the Chuck Hawks article referenced in the old thread. Since the time I looked at it just a couple days ago, that article has been revised. (http://www.chuckhawks.com/ammo_by_anonymous.htm) Does Chuck Hawks read THR posts? I don't know, but it's noteworthy that the revision removes the derogatory language about 147-grain 9mm loads. Now, both HST and Golden Saber 147-grain loads are included in the "good" category for 9mm defensive loads. Does that signal that 147-grain loads are finally getting a following, if not at least a little respect?
Interestingly, this morning I clicked again on the Chuck Hawks article referenced in the old thread. Since the time I looked at it just a couple days ago, that article has been revised. (http://www.chuckhawks.com/ammo_by_anonymous.htm) Does Chuck Hawks read THR posts? I don't know, but it's noteworthy that the revision removes the derogatory language about 147-grain 9mm loads. Now, both HST and Golden Saber 147-grain loads are included in the "good" category for 9mm defensive loads. Does that signal that 147-grain loads are finally getting a following, if not at least a little respect?