+P+ 9mm ammo, round 2

[wannasupra]

ok, I don't know what all the drama is for, we're all adults and most of us are male, so act like it.

now, so far the 127 grain ranger seems to be a decent round, judging by the consensus. what are the most important attributes of self defense ammo?

putting the bad guy on the ground (or under it)

this is accomplished in a few ways, namely penetration, mass retention, and energy transfer. a bullet can be fast as hell, but if it just punches right through, it's not transferring all of it's energy to the target, and is a waste. if it hits the target and stops, it's transferring energy, just not enough to penetrate and cause damage. if it penetrates and breaks to pieces, it's not going to do as much damage as if it stayed together and penetrated deeper. so what 9mm load has the best and most lethal combination of these attributes? and remember to play nice.

 

[Badger1911]

I'm also browsing the market to decide on my 9mm carry ammunition. Was following your first thread until it derailed.

The Winchester Ranger T 127gr +P+ definitely looks like a fine SD round. I'm not going to weigh in on either the physics of the +P+ round, or the experience angle...not qualified for either.

I will point out two sources that I've looked at recently that have been very helpful.

First, tnoutdoors9 on YouTube has done a series of tests with various 9mm SD loads including the 127gr +P+. I found these very interesting and most helpful. I can't post the links to the specific videos from work, but you can start here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/tnoutdoors9

The other source that I have found to be very useful is this:

http://frag.110mb.com/

From what I've gathered from these two sources, I was actually a little more impressed with the penetration and expansion of the Federal HST 147gr. than I was the Winchester 127gr +P+. (The problem seems to be finding the Federals in stock!) I hope to try both out soon to determine which I'll carry.

Who knows...I may just stock some of both to carry along with my SPGD 124gr +Ps.

Cheers! And good luck to this thread, and your search for the ammo that's right for YOU!

 

[Hammerdown77]

"Energy transfer" is not very useful when talking about handgun bullets. They just don't move fast enough. They don't produce shockwaves that destroy tissue. Shoot a block of wood, the weight of a human, hung from a rope, and it won't move hardly at all. Handguns don't injure/incapacitate/kill via "energy transfer".

What a handgun does do is punch a hole in something. The bigger the hole, the more blood comes out and the more chance of tearing up vital organs/tissue as it passes through. The size of the hole can be determined by caliber and or by expansion. A small caliber projectile that doesn't expand and just passes through has less chance of doing organ/nervous system damage than a big fat bullet, or an expanded bullet with sharp petals.

That Winchester round looks like a good one, and I'd like to try it in my Glock. I'm using +P 124 gr. Gold Dots right now.

 

[legion3]

HST is almost impossible to find these days. You will certainly have to order it on line, if you can find it. I had a case of the 147 and offered the contents for sale and it went like hot cakes. Still have some of the HST 124+P as a back up to the 127 +P+ which I prefer.

Winchester Rangers in several 9mm varieties are much more available on line at many of the large ammo supply places. Cost varies but generally around $25 ish per 50 which for a high quality SD ammo ain't bad.

Good luck with your search and inquiry but no 9mm is a magic bullet and just as soon as you settle on a round...it will be out of stock.

 

[wannasupra]

i already picked up a box, so my search is over for now. i just wanted to restart the thread because i was learning stuff until stuff started to fly.

 

[Badger1911]

Once you have a chance to try out your new ammo (I'm assuming you picked up some 127gr Rangers), I'd love to hear your opinion about recoil with that round.

 

[Elmer]

"Energy transfer" is not very useful when talking about handgun bullets. They just don't move fast enough. They don't produce shockwaves that destroy tissue. Shoot a block of wood, the weight of a human, hung from a rope, and it won't move hardly at all. Handguns don't injure/incapacitate/kill via "energy transfer".

What a handgun does do is punch a hole in something. The bigger the hole, the more blood comes out and the more chance of tearing up vital organs/tissue as it passes through. The size of the hole can be determined by caliber and or by expansion. A small caliber projectile that doesn't expand and just passes through has less chance of doing organ/nervous system damage than a big fat bullet, or an expanded bullet with sharp petals.

Exactly right.

That Winchester round looks like a good one, and I'd like to try it in my Glock. I'm using +P 124 gr. Gold Dots right now.

It's a decent round, (as is your Gold Dot), with similar expansion and penetration, but less than that of several non +P 147 grain loads.

Here's Winchesters comparator tool for their ammunition. http://www.winchester.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/flash-SWFs/law_bullit.swf

Only you can decide if the mighty +P+ designation is necessary for you.

 

[Dogguy]

The Ranger ammo is well respected. My only concern would be the "+P+" designation. I know what pressure +P is loaded to but there is no guidelines for +P+ that I know of.

Winchester Ranger 127 grain +P+ is rated by Winchester as 1250 fps. (Winchester's site actually only lists this as "9mm Luger P". Not sure what that means.)

Speer Gold Dot 124 grain +P is rated by Speer as 1220 fps.

Federal HST 124 grain +P is rated by Federal as 1200 fps.

If the Ranger ammo is loaded to a pressure higher than +P and it's only gaining 30-50 fps in doing so, I would prefer sticking to rounds that are within SAAMI guidelines.

 

[Elmer]

The Ranger ammo is well respected. My only concern would be the "+P+" designation. I know what pressure +P is loaded to but there is no guidelines for +P+ that I know of.

Winchester Ranger 127 grain +P+ is rated by Winchester as 1250 fps. (Winchester's site actually only lists this as "9mm Luger P". Not sure what that means.)

I think that's just a typo on that part of the site. The comparator shows it as their +P+

TSpeer Gold Dot 124 grain +P is rated by Speer as 1220 fps.

Federal HST 124 grain +P is rated by Federal as 1200 fps.

If the Ranger ammo is loaded to a pressure higher than +P and it's only gaining 30-50 fps in doing so, I would prefer sticking to rounds that are within SAAMI guidelines.

Or perhaps standard pressure loads that both penetrate and expand more than the 127 grain SXT.

http://le.atk.com/pdf/LosAngelesWBW.pdf

http://le.atk.com/pdf/RiversideWBW.pdf

 

[IdahoLT1]

I was under the impression that +p+ ammo is usually intended for sub machine guns. Maybe I heard wrong or misunderstood.

My favorite load for my carry weapon is Hornadys critical defense in 9mm. It offers consistent expansion and penetration while utilizing flash suppressent in the powder. Granted this test wasn't on 9mm but its definitely worth a look.

http://hipowers-handguns.blogspot.com/2008/12/informal-tests-hornady-critical-defense.html

 

[ironhead7544]

I like the CorBon 115 gr. Goes 1260 fps from my G26.

 

[M1key]

I prefer the 127 over the 147 for a couple of specific reasons. It shoots exactly to point of aim out of my Glocks. The 147 is 3" high and right, and I can't get a combo of front/rear night sights to bring point of impact in where I want it.

Also 127+P+ is FLATTER SHOOTING out to 100yds with little or no hold over. This makes the load more useful to me as a field load.

YMMV

M

 

[Elmer]

I prefer the 127 over the 147 for a couple of specific reasons. It shoots exactly to point of aim out of my Glocks. The 147 is 3" high and right, and I can't get a combo of front/rear night sights to bring point of impact in where I want it.

Having watched 147 grain loads shot from a couple thousand guns, I'd say yours is an anomaly, but certainly if you don't don't shoot a particular load well in your gun, then it's not a good choice for you, regardless of it's terminal performance.

Also 127+P+ is FLATTER SHOOTING out to 100yds with little or no hold over. This makes the load more useful to me as a field load.

Interesting. Do you have some data for that? I wouldn't think the difference in trajectories would be more than 2 or 3 inches at 100 yards.

Unless you're doing 100 yard 9mm sniping, I wouldn't see that as an advantage that would trump increased terminal performance, at realistic pistol ranges, but different folks have different needs.

 

[KBintheSLC]

so what 9mm load has the best and most lethal combination of these attributes?

The best one is the one that functions in your gun 100% of the time, and the one that you shoot well with. The rest is a bunch of trivial, knit-picky BS designed by ammo marketing depts to make you think that their product will stop an attack where others will fail. The fact remains that it is just a pistol, and pistols are inherently weak man-stoppers.

Modern JHP's have come a long way in the past 3 decades. Most of them will do the job just fine if you do your job. I would recommend you don't waste too much of your energy pondering this issue.

If you want to drop someone dead in their tracks, you have to use a shotgun or a rifle. Handguns are always a gamble, and are only useful because they are compact.

 

[M1key]

Yeah, check that. It was my XD9 and XDm9 that threw the 147 high and wide. They definitely prefer the hot loaded 115s.

The Glock 17 loves the 127 +P+ and shoots tight groups, 1 inch above the front post at 20 yards. The 147 shoots okay--different POI, wider groups.

My considered 9mm field load is for small, four-legged targets out to 100 yds, like javelina, skunks, foxes (both of these are big carriers of rabies), the occasional coyote, wild or aggressive dogs, MAYBE mountain lion, etc. all of which inhabit these mountains. Makes a walk in the woods an INTERESTING experience.

So, flatter shooting 9mm, with a little heavier bullet (127+P+) is more my cup of tea. Also, my wife can shoot the 9mm with better results that any other caliber. So I want her armed with what I feel is a more well-rounded load.


M

 

[Elmer]

The best one is the one that functions in your gun 100% of the time, and the one that you shoot well with.

Agreed.

The rest is a bunch of trivial, knit-picky BS designed by ammo marketing depts to make you think that their product will stop an attack where others will fail.

Because some ammunition will stop some attacks, where some others will fail.

While it's true there is much hype and inaccurate information out there, the majority of it doesn't come from the major ammunition makers, but from gunwriters, fictional book writers, and internet telephone book killers, many of whom have had financial ties to esoteric ammunition companies themselves.

Some of the most effective handgun ammunition made, is made for law enforcement, and receives relatively little in the way of marketing by the companies, and in fact much of it isn't marketed at all outside of LE, as the companies make far more profit on their less effective loads.

The fact remains that it is just a pistol, and pistols are inherently weak man-stoppers.

Absolutely correct.

Modern JHP's have come a long way in the past 3 decades. Most of them will do the job just fine if you do your job.

Again, absolutely true. Bullet placement overwhelmingly remains the most important factor. You're also correct that many folks spend lots of effort obtaining the latest whiz bang esoteric ammo for their gun, yet can't shoot for beans.

If you want to drop someone dead in their tracks, you have to use a shotgun or a rifle. Handguns are always a gamble, and are only useful because they are compact.

True.

Hand grenades can also be quite useful, but like rifles and shotguns, problematic to have with you while at the mall with your children, so a handgun loaded with effective ammunition, that you shoot well, becomes the more practical, if imperfect alternative.

 

[Proud Southern Son]

If a round is reliable, accurate, and controllable in your preferred weapon, then all that is left is to decide what you, personally, consider acceptable performance of the round.
I'm quickly finding out on here that "heavy and slow" vs. "light and fast" ranks right up there with Ford vs. Chevy in folks getting defensive about their preferences. It's up to you to choose the round that has those traits that you believe are important to performance. Anybody can call themselves an expert in this subject because there can be no real "scientific studies" done to prove either theory wrong or right because of the nature of the subject; the shooting of living humans. I've made my decision on carry ammo based on what makes sense to me (including what I've read on both sides of the issue and what I've seen in real life), and my 9mms are all loaded with Winchester 127+p+. It will probably never make a difference if I use a 147 subsonic or a +p+, but being confident in my equipment can be nothing but positive in a bad situation.

 

[Elmer]

If a round is reliable, accurate, and controllable in your preferred weapon, then all that is left is to decide what you, personally, consider acceptable performance of the round.
I'm quickly finding out on here that "heavy and slow" vs. "light and fast" ranks right up there with Ford vs. Chevy in folks getting defensive about their preferences. It's up to you to choose the round that has those traits that you believe are important to performance. Anybody can call themselves an expert in this subject because there can be no real "scientific studies" done to prove either theory wrong or right because of the nature of the subject; the shooting of living humans. I've made my decision on carry ammo based on what makes sense to me (including what I've read on both sides of the issue and what I've seen in real life), and my 9mms are all loaded with Winchester 127+p+. It will probably never make a difference if I use a 147 subsonic or a +p+, but being confident in my equipment can be nothing but positive in a bad situation.

You make some good points, but actually there is scientific data out there, in work done by agencies like the FBI, and various law enforcement wound ballistics professionals around the world, many of who's names aren't well known, as their work wasn't directed at books, magazine articles, forums, or ammunition marketing.

We know quite a bit today about how handgun projectiles work. Testing methods pioneered 25 years ago have been shown, over and over, to closely correlate to actual shootings.

What's interesting is that many of the wound ballistics experts that are routinely dismissed by those who choose to follow gunwriters and fictional books instead, don't make product recommendations, but instead suggest minimum standards, that many different rounds meet, (including the round discussed here), and stress bullet placement is far more important than any "magic bullet".

 

[Proud Southern Son]

Elmer, I understand what you're saying. There have been numerous experiments conducted, and data collected, no doubt. My point is there can be no true scientific sample of identically sized humans, with identical wills to fight, being shot in exactly the same place. I believe that either theory can be supported by some scientific experiments and accumulated data, but not proven. It's just the nature of the subject. In the end, it is the responsibility of each of us to make our choices based on what we consider desirable traits in our ammunition.
And I don't think the opinion of wound ballistic experts have been dismissed nearly as often as the opinion of people who have actually seen some of this ammunition at work in the real world.
I also don't personally put any more faith in a government study than I would one sponsored by a gun magazine or one done by an ammunition producer. Probably less, come to think of it. But that may just be my hang-up.

 

[Harley Quinn]

I want to get this in before it gets closed

Number one thing is placement of the 9mm 124 grn or ??? If NATO type round it will do the job

Passing thru the chest cavity "Heart" into the spinal cord and exiting, no need to look further, for a good stop Head shot going from front to back and lodging in the plaster is a good one

 

[Elmer]

Elmer, I understand what you're saying. There have been numerous experiments conducted, and data collected, no doubt. My point is there can be no true scientific sample of identically sized humans, with identical wills to fight, being shot in exactly the same place. I believe that either theory can be supported by some scientific experiments and accumulated data, but not proven. It's just the nature of the subject. In the end, it is the responsibility of each of us to make our choices based on what we consider desirable traits in our ammunition.

You're ascribing the tactics of the "energy dump" and "one shot stop" crowd, to the LE wound ballistic folks, who don't put forth that kind of drivel.

Trying to test how a various individuals, in various states of movement, or in various mental states, will react, to a particular bullet, is, as I think you suggest, impossible. There are too many variables. What can be measured, is average penetrations necessary to reach vital organs, in a majority of scenarios. Further, we know that a larger hole made while reaching that penetration depth, all other things being equal, is more desirable.

That's why wound ballistic professionals, do not tell you to use X or Y, because they will statistically guarantee a higher number of "one shot stops". They merely use quantifiable measurements, to compare what one bullet will likely do, as opposed to another, in penetration and expansion. Where you put that expansion and penetration will determine how effective it might be.

And I don't think the opinion of wound ballistic experts have been dismissed nearly as often as the opinion of people who have actually seen some of this ammunition at work in the real world.

Well, there's where we might disagree.

I've seen more than my share of the effects of actual ammunition. None of that gave me much in the way of useful information. Like you suggested, there's just too many variables. Just because I saw a number of "one shot stop", DRT shootings with .22's, while seeing some shot with .45's and 12 gauges continue to fight/run, isn't a reason to switch out my home defense plan to a battery of 10-22's and Beretta 87's.

I also don't personally put any more faith in a government study than I would one sponsored by a gun magazine or one done by an ammunition producer. Probably less, come to think of it. But that may just be my hang-up.

Certainly if there were one government study, I'd tend to agree with you. One of those kind of "studies" is what gave us the +P+, high velocity, 110 grain, low penetrating, .38 special "Treasury" loads back in the late 70's, which the "study" told us were more effective than .38 158 grain SWC's, .357's, or even .45 autos. They were wrong, and cops had to die before we figured it out.

But most of the modern study of wound ballistics, has come from a varied group of researchers, all around the world, with healthy disagreements, and subject to intense peer review. And I believe it's widely accepted that the improvements in ammunition that have resulted from that work, definitely showed up in the field, as agencies adopted newer designed ammunition, such as the 127 grain SXT.

 

[Elmer]

I want to get this in before it gets closed

Hopefully no one comes in and causes that to happen.

Number one thing is placement of the 9mm 124 grn or ??? If NATO type round it will do the job

Passing thru the chest cavity "Heart" into the spinal cord and exiting, no need to look further, for a good stop Head shot going from front to back and lodging in the plaster is a good one

The same can be said of a .22 to the eye socket.

 

[Proud Southern Son]

Elmer, I think we agree on more points than not. We just reach different conclusions. We both agree that previous studies, both private and government, have been flawed and proven wrong. We both agree that, as a result, popular wisdom concerning ammunition performance has changed over the years. It will continue to change, and there will always be those looking for a magic bullet. I'm not one of those folks, but I can appreciate the advances in ammunition that this particular movement has caused.
I have carried firearms professionally on a daily basis for a long time (I'm aware that in no way makes me a "wound ballistic expert"), and there was a time that I carried 147 grain 9mms. But, over time, I read what I could, talked to people wiser than I, and considered what I wanted my ammunition to do. In the meantime, I also saw more than my fair share of what bullets do in the real world. This all brought me to my current preferences in ammunition. That does not mean I won't change my preferences one day, but right now, I prefer a round that transfers the most energy to the target medium, while penetrating sufficiently to reach vitals.

 

[Elmer]

Elmer, I think we agree on more points than not. We just reach different conclusions. We both agree that previous studies, both private and government, have been flawed and proven wrong. We both agree that, as a result, popular wisdom concerning ammunition performance has changed over the years. It will continue to change, and there will always be those looking for a magic bullet. I'm not one of those folks, but I can appreciate the advances in ammunition that this particular movement has caused.
I have carried firearms professionally on a daily basis for a long time (I'm aware that in no way makes me a "wound ballistic expert"), and there was a time that I carried 147 grain 9mms. But, over time, I read what I could, talked to people wiser than I, and considered what I wanted my ammunition to do. In the meantime, I also saw more than my fair share of what bullets do in the real world. This all brought me to my current preferences in ammunition. That does not mean I won't change my preferences one day, but right now, I prefer a round that transfers the most energy to the target medium, while penetrating sufficiently to reach vitals.

Cheers!

 

[sidheshooter]

I've got nothing to add but a single comment about placement and a question: there is (as some other savvy THR shooters occasionally note) a 3-dimensional aspect to "bullet placement" that, to some extent, falls within the dubious purview of bullet selection.

Does anyone have any data regarding likelihood of internal deflection from one bullet weight category to another?

Or put differently; assuming about equal penetration and expansion (which modern design standards all seem to be gravitating towards) will the modern 147s be less likely to deflect off course inside tissue and structure than fast middle weights like 124 +P and +P+ or the 127 ranger load? Or more likely, due to less velocity?

I don't know myself, I really am asking, in part because I subscribe to the placement is king theory, and I've seen photos of some "failure" wound tracks that involved some pretty amazing right turns of bullets inside BGs.