Q?: 9mm 115 vs 145 in a pistol vs rifle

[danez71]

In general terms....

If you had bunch of both weights and a pistol and a rifle...

Ballistics wise, does it make a difference which weight gets shot in the rifle?


Mainly focused as to if either one gain/lose more in the rifle as 9mm isn't a rifle round.


Fwiw:
3.1" - 4.5" pistols
16" rifle (maybe 18" rifle)

 

[Larry in wyoming]

Well, I've never actually looked into it. I shoot 124s in my pistols as I want more speed to enhance bullet performance. I always figured I'd try 147s in a carbine if I ever got one; on the theory the longer barrel would give me more velocity. I could be all wet.

 

[Walkalong]

I mostly shoot 124s in both. I have a high speed lightweight 9MM load that is super fun in pistols, but doesn’t transfer to the rifle well, just meh in it, so I don’t waste them there.

 

[mavracer]

% wise heavy bullets will lose less velocity from a short barrel. If you look at BBTI data you'll see that there's like 100 fps difference from short barrels but with long barrels some of the 115s are 200-300 fps faster.

BBTI - Ballistics by the Inch :: 9mm Luger Results

(statement of intent)

www.ballisticsbytheinch.com

 

[twofewscrews]

I've got a Ruger PCC and went down this rabbit hole myself. IIRC 115 and 124 gain between 100 to 200 fps in 16" barrel and 147 gains 50 fps or nothing at all. Ballistically nothing else changes. Check Ballistics By The Inch and Lucky Gunner for numbers.

 

[jmr40]

All of the bullet weights, 115, 124, and 147 are designed to expand at the velocity for that bullet weight. IMO penetration is more important than expansion, but I do want some expansion, and 115's don't impress me with penetration. I shoot a fair amount of that weight in FMJ target rounds because they are cheap. But for defense I've always preferred 124 gr.

But I've seen some test data that has me thinking the 147 gr loads may be the best option. Early 147 gr HP ammo got a bad rap because of poor expansion but they seem to have corrected that.

I'd be more concerned about bullets over expanding when fired from a carbine. The 115 gr loads in the BBTI data are designed to be around 1200-1250 from a 4" barrel, but could be over 1500 fps from an 16-18" barrel and impacting faster than they were designed for.

The 147 gr loads are around 950-1000 fps from a 4" pistol yet are still under 1100 fps from a carbine and should still be within the design parameters for expansion.

 

[Larry in wyoming]

All of the bullet weights, 115, 124, and 147 are designed to expand at the velocity for that bullet weight. IMO penetration is more important than expansion, but I do want some expansion, and 115's don't impress me with penetration. I shoot a fair amount of that weight in FMJ target rounds because they are cheap. But for defense I've always preferred 124 gr.

But I've seen some test data that has me thinking the 147 gr loads may be the best option. Early 147 gr HP ammo got a bad rap because of poor expansion but they seem to have corrected that.

I'd be more concerned about bullets over expanding when fired from a carbine. The 115 gr loads in the BBTI data are designed to be around 1200-1250 from a 4" barrel, but could be over 1500 fps from an 16-18" barrel and impacting faster than they were designed for.

The 147 gr loads are around 950-1000 fps from a 4" pistol yet are still under 1100 fps from a carbine and should still be within the design parameters for expansion.

That sort of validates my feelings on the matter. I'd have thought a little more velocity gain for the 147s but that was only a guess.

 

[herrwalther]

Whenever possible, I would like to find ammo that all my firearms like in terms of accuracy, reliability, and performance. If the situation is asking for a 9mm handgun I would carry and a 9mm rifle I would do "in a pinch" hunting or some other purpose, I would lean toward 124gr bullets. They sit in a nice middle ground between velocity and weight, which is important when deciding a reliably expanding hollow point.

That sort of validates my feelings on the matter. I'd have thought a little more velocity gain for the 147s but that was only a guess.

Nope. Heavy bullets will decelerate faster than lighter bullets. Much more noticeably in small cartridges like 9mm. On BBTI, the spread in velocity between barrel length in 147gr is 246 FPS. In 124gr Hydra Shok is 331 and 115gr Federal is 349. As you can tell, 124gr velocities are really really close to the faster 115. One reason why my preference is 124gr out of all the common weights.

 

[twofewscrews]

Nope. Heavy bullets will decelerate faster than lighter bullets.

Are you sure about that? IIRC lighter 9mm lose velocity faster then heavier 9mm . . .

Take a look at Federal's Premium Defense line advertised velocity charts.

Their 124g HST leaves the muzzle at 1150fps and at 100 yards is going 977fps, which is a decrease in velocity of 173fps.

Their 147g HST leaves the muzzle at 1000fps and at 100 yards is going 914fps, which is a decrease in velocity of 86fps.

 

[twofewscrews]

All of the bullet weights, 115, 124, and 147 are designed to expand at the velocity for that bullet weight. IMO penetration is more important than expansion, but I do want some expansion, and 115's don't impress me with penetration. I shoot a fair amount of that weight in FMJ target rounds because they are cheap. But for defense I've always preferred 124 gr.

But I've seen some test data that has me thinking the 147 gr loads may be the best option. Early 147 gr HP ammo got a bad rap because of poor expansion but they seem to have corrected that.

I'd be more concerned about bullets over expanding when fired from a carbine. The 115 gr loads in the BBTI data are designed to be around 1200-1250 from a 4" barrel, but could be over 1500 fps from an 16-18" barrel and impacting faster than they were designed for.

The 147 gr loads are around 950-1000 fps from a 4" pistol yet are still under 1100 fps from a carbine and should still be within the design parameters for expansion.

IIRC from the tests i saw Federal HSTs, 124g and 147g, worked fine when pushed beyond their advertised velocities but Speer Gold Dot were prone to uncontrolled expansion when shot from a carbine. Choose you bullet wisely.

My EDC gets 124g HST but if I had to use a PCC for something other then paper I'd step up to 147g HST. I've found heavier 9mm to be more accurate at distance then lighter 9mm and if I'm using a carbine distance is definitely a factor in it's selecton.

 

[LiveLife]

9mm 115 vs [147j ... and a pistol and a rifle...

Ballistics wise, does it make a difference which weight gets shot in the rifle?

3.1" - 4.5" pistols
16" rifle (maybe 18" rifle)

Yes for me in terms of accuracy, especially at longer distances.

I shoot mostly Glock 22/23/27 with 40-9mm conversion barrels and different 16" PCCs and 17" Just Right Carbine with 9mm/40S&W/45ACP conversions.

When I started PCC load testing, I noticed 150-200 fps velocity increase compared to pistol barrels - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...llets-in-9mm-40s-w-45acp.799231/post-10338994

I shoot my pistols mostly closer than 25 yards but when I tested PCCs/JR Carbine at 50-100 yards, I noticed vertical stringing caused by bullet drop to be an issue - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/loading-for-ruger-pc9.926017/post-12785492

Especially at 100 yards, if muzzle velocity variation (SD number) is greater, vertical stringing will be more pronounced and have seen vertical stringing as much as 6 inches or more. (Due to bullet drop, holdover of moving POA above top of copy paper was required to produce POI around center of copy paper target). For this reason and at the suggestion of @Walkalong, I tested lighter 100 gr bullet which produced less bullet drop/vertical stringing and even lighter 95 gr bullets which shrank group size further.

Here's 100 gr 50 yard targets with 1.5"-2" group size.

And 95 gr 45 yard targets with 1"--1.5" group size (50 yard shooting spot was taken on test day and 45 yards was best I could do to shoot with chrono)

100 gr Promo load that produced 1.5"-2" at 50 yards produced 3"+ groups at 100 yards. This was with Promo load that produced very low velocity variation of 13-16 fps yet still produced vertical stringing at 100 yards (BTW, Promo is reverse temperature sensitive). Powder/loads with more velocity variation produced greater vertical stringing so for accuracy at longer distances, chrono and choose ammunition with smallest velocity variation (SD number):

• 100 gr RMR HM RN 4.5-4.7 gr Promo @ 1.050": 1478-1475-1480-1471-1467 fps (58 F - JR carbine)
• 100 gr RMR HM RN 4.5-4.7 gr Promo @ 1.050": 1458-1450-1445-1442-1448 fps (71 F - JR carbine)

 

[s4s4u]

Factory fodder, or handloads? If handloading you could tailor a load with a slow(er) burning powder and heavy bullets that would make use of the longer barrel. Factory 9mm loads are designed around getting the most out of short barrels, usually with fast burning powders. The small case capacity limits the options, but it would be a fun experiment. The type of action of the PCC also matters, blowback can steal some performance as I found out with a Marlin Camp Carbine I once had.

 

[LiveLife]

If handloading you could tailor a load with a slow(er) burning powder and heavy bullets that would make use of the longer barrel

Well ... If OP @danez71 is using PCC with blowback action (Think Ruger 10/22), faster burning powders will seal case neck/mouth with chamber better to produce more consistent pressures before bolt/buffer moves back to start leaking gas. During my PCC/JR Carbine testing with blowback action, faster powders like Promo/Red Dot/W231/HP-38 produced smaller average groups than slower powders like BE-86, especially at 50-100 yards.

BTW, USPSA PCC/3-gun match shooters using blowback action PCCs probably found the same thing about burn rate vs dwell time of bolt/case mouth/neck in contact with chamber before gas leaked and pressure dropped from bolt/buffer moving back to prefer faster burning powders for their match loads:

• PCC (9mm) - Titegroup 31%, Sport Pistol 18%, N320 16%, Clean Shot 11% (Comparable to AA No. 2)

 

[s4s4u]

Well ... If OP @danez71 is using PCC with blowback action (Think Ruger 10/22), faster burning powders will seal case neck/mouth with chamber better to produce more consistent pressures before bolt/buffer moves back to start leaking gas. During my PCC/JR Carbine testing with blowback action, faster powders like Promo/Red Dot/W231/HP-38 produced smaller average groups than slower powders like BE-86, especially at 50-100 yards.

BTW, USPSA PCC/3-gun match shooters using blowback action PCCs probably found the same thing about burn rate vs dwell time of bolt/case mouth/neck in contact with chamber before gas leaked and pressure dropped from bolt/buffer moving back to prefer faster burning powders for their match loads:

• PCC (9mm) - Titegroup 31%, Sport Pistol 18%, N320 16%, Clean Shot 11% (Comparable to AA No. 2)

I suppose it depends on the goal of the exercise. Gamers are concerned mostly about time on the clock. A slower powder would likely require more mass, and tests have shown that it is near impossible to over-mass a blowback 9mm. Like I said, it might be a fun experiment. I built up a 16" AR-9 upper during the brace ban BS so have the platform for it.

The Overmass Project: World’s heaviest 9mm blowback action? (with videos)

[UPDATED Dec 2022] This is my biggest experiment project so far. How much mass can we put into a 9mm blowback before it stops cycling? This information is intended solely for entertainment purposes…

blowback9.wordpress.com

 

[LiveLife]

I suppose it depends on the goal of the exercise. Gamers are concerned mostly about time on the clock.

For PCC Division, many match shooters are not running 125-130 power factor for PCC loads as many are preferring 135+ PF for reasons outlined above (I needed to run my PCC loads to near max/max load data for most "efficient" powder burn that produced smaller groups).

As to keeping front sight "flat" for faster follow up shots, that's another discussion topic well addressed in other subcategories and threads.

For me between 115 gr 147 gr, my vote goes to 115 gr for greater accuracy, especially for longer range "flatter" shooting with less bullet drop/vertical elongation on target.

Of course, YMMV depending on what your goals/objectives are like suppressed shooting with subsonic loads.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Federal 9mm 124gr HST.

Probably the best general purpose load for both platforms, considering your 3.1" pistol barrel.

Speer 9mm 124gr Gold Dot for PCC only. It achieves +P velocity in a PCC but is too rugged for reliable expansion from a 3.1" bbl.

 

[CraigC]

None of it really amounts to much. I only use 147's when I want subsonics.

 

[danez71]

Factory fodder, or handloads?

Good question. Fodder stuff. I dont reload (maybe someday) and I'm a plinker at heart.

Boiling this down....

I have a stash of 115 and thinking of buying more. Started thinking how my dogs dislike 115 9mm more than 380 or 20ga and got me thinking about 147 since as they usually dont have the crack like Craig alludes to.....

None of it really amounts to much. I only use 147's when I want subsonics.

And that got me wondering about thungs like this

For me between 115 gr 147 gr, my vote goes to 115 gr for greater accuracy, especially for longer range "flatter" shooting with less bullet drop/vertical elongation on target.

That mole hole got me thinking maybe I should 1 weight in pistols and the other in rifle....

Generally speaking, are 115 fodder flatter shooting than 147 fodder?


I haven't shot them side by side as I don't have bulk 147.

But I was thinking possibly 115 in rifle and 147 in pistols with the guess that keeping the crack of the 115 further from me and having a bonus of flatter trajectory in the rifle...?

 

[mavracer]

Generally speaking, are 115 fodder flatter shooting than 147 fodder?

Yes but to put it in perspective I plugged a 115 xtp @1400 fps and a 147 xtp @1100 in my strelock app and max point blank range goes from 114 yards for the 147 to 129 yards for the 115.
Harsh reality is they both drop like rocks past 100 yards, besides that terminal ballistics themselves are pretty weak.

 

[danez71]

Yes but to put it in perspective I plugged a 115 xtp @1400 fps and a 147 xtp @1100 in my strelock app and max point blank range goes from 114 yards for the 147 to 129 yards for the 115.
Harsh reality is they both drop like rocks past 100 yards, besides that terminal ballistics themselves are pretty weak.

Thanks, Your point is well taken however,,,

Could you please elaborate more?

I Googled "point blank range"... I must be missing something as, certainly, any 9mm will need the barrel tilted up to compensate (or adjust sights) for 100yd distance.



For me, I consider 9mm pcc ok for 100 yds max... well, pretty much most all of my shooting is 100 yrd max. Usually less.

I tend to shoot mostly 9mm and 22lr under 100 yards. Pistols in the 10-25 yd range and rifles in the 20 to 80 yd range (all estimated)

 

[Slamfire]

I could not find a 1000 meter ballistic chart for the 9mm cartridge, so I don't know the velocity of the bullet at that distance. I did remember the Mauser C96 had long range sights (some to 1000 meters) and a shoulder stock. The linked article shows eventually the 9mm received a 500 meter rear sight, I guess hitting something at 1000 meters with a 9mm pistol was determined to be impractical.

Have to wonder, would a 9mm bullet fired from a pistol simply bounce off a human, though leaving a bruise, at 1000 meters? Or would it be spent at 500 meters.

This article provides some 9mm rifle velocities, the shooter does gain at the muzzle, but not much at distance.

Something that I have been surprised about is the velocities of my 308 Win bullets at 200 yards. My Gun Club has 200 yard electronic targets which reveal bullet velocity at the target face. My 168 grain reloads with 39.0 grs IMR 4895, (a mild load), leaves the barrel around 2400 fps, and is going about 2100 - 2150 fps at 200 yards, the old 41.5 grain load (2550 fps muzzle) about 2250-2300 fps at 200 yards. Even with this "modern" rifle round, bullet velocities decrease quickly the further the bullet travels.

 

[twofewscrews]

I Googled "point blank range"... I must be missing something as, certainly, any 9mm will need the barrel tilted up to compensate (or adjust sights) for 100yd distance.

Point blank range is a user defined parameter based on the size of your target, the distance you intend to shoot at and your choice of cartridge which dictate your zero.

If you intend to shoot a 4 x 4 target, at distances between say 100 and 200 yards, and your using a .308, you set your zero so that within 100 and 200 yards the bullet rise, 2 inches, and drop, 2 inches, between those distances allows you to put the cross hairs on the center of the target and you'll hit your mark without the need to compensate.

PBR is the maximum distance for a given zero you can put your cross hairs on the center of a target and make a hit without having to make adjustments.


 

 

[danez71]

Point blank range is a user defined parameter based on the size of your target, the distance you intend to shoot at and your choice of cartridge which dictate your zero.

If you intend to shoot a 4 x 4 target, at distances between say 100 and 200 yards, and your using a .308, you set your zero so that within 100 and 200 yards the bullet rise, 2 inches, and drop, 2 inches, between those distances allows you to put the cross hairs on the center of the target and you'll hit your mark without the need to compensate.

PBR is the maximum distance for a given zero you can put your cross hairs on the center of a target and make a hit without having to make adjustments.


 

Thanks.

I grew up with PBR meaning, basically, that you can't miss even without using the sights.

As-in, 'within spit'n distance'


So by your definition, I mainly plink in the PBR range... a little hold over or under and Kentucky windage.

Shooting for single holes doesn't do it for me for very long. Really cool to do but not my thing.

 

[danez71]

Have to wonder, would a 9mm bullet fired from a pistol simply bounce off a human, though leaving a bruise, at 1000 meters? Or would it be spent at 500 meters.

I wonder about those kinds of things too sometimes.


What I do know is that a 115 bulk RN 9mm from a 3.5" barrel is capable of killing a ~100+lb pig ~ 50+ yards away, DRT

 

[s4s4u]

Thanks.

I grew up with PBR meaning, basically, that you can't miss even without using the sights.

As-in, 'within spit'n distance'


So by your definition, I mainly plink in the PBR range... a little hold over or under and Kentucky windage.

Shooting for single holes doesn't do it for me for very long. Really cool to do but not my thing.

It's also called point blank zero, dead hold zero, and likely a few other things depending on who says it.

With an AR-9 and typical red dot I just zero @ 25 yards, will be a little high @ 50 and a little low @ 75, how much is dependent upon bullet weight but close enough across the board for my purposes with 9mm. If you use uber-high optics mounts you will have to adjust accordingly.