Printable View
[QUOTE=Eagleks;2052990]A couple of my guns have issues with 147 gr HP .... so I just don't use it so I don't accidentally have it in the wrong gun and then have an issue when I need it most. Make sure your gun likes it, before you rely on it.[/Q+PUOTE]
I know what you mean. My PPS does not like 147gr but 124gr is flawless. I use any of the 3: Ranger T, Speer Gold Dot or Federal HST. I really don't care to use +P.
I honestly think people overestimate the difference between 124 and 147 grain bullets. I mean really, a 23 grain increase is something none of us can tell by hand. And in a human target, where live bone, tissue and muscle exists there are too many variables to say a minuscule 23 grains is going to make a difference and not even worth discussing. And since we will never be able to be accurately replicate something that resembles a human target with those variables (LIVING bone, muscle, and tissue) nobody can say definitively what will or won't happen with ANY bullet. Velocity is king IMO. My logic is simple, the 55 grain bullet in a .223 is far more destructive than a 230 grain bullet form a .45acp. Why? The .223 is traveling over 2500 fps. So if I can get a 115gr +p bullet moving at 1200fps or more in my 9mm, that is the best bullet IMO. Why do you think the .357 magnum is such a documented man stopper? Because it launches a 125 grain bullet at 1300 fps.
Again, we are talking about ballistics in human targets (unless you all are carrying SD rounds because of the recent rash of flash gelatin mobs taking over) and therefore you can't ever say with certainty that bullet "X" will perform better than bullet "Y" because the target will not be standing still, will not be hit in the exact same spot, nor always in soft tissue.
And yes, I realize all the points I made are arguable, but until we can get the government to let us use rapists and child molesters as our ballistics medium, we won't ever have the data we all want so badly.
I stagger load Speer 124gr +P GDHP and Federal 147gr HST. Both are on DocGKR's list of meeting the criteria for SD rounds.
With that said, there is a slight variation in the perceived attributes of each of the two. Stagger loading allows taking advantage of the positive of those perceived variations, with virtually no down side. The logic being there may be some gain, but no loss.
Most likely an aggressor will be shot more than once, eliminating the need for counting/round position.
I wouldn't limit yourself to just rapist and child molesters.Quote:
Originally Posted by smolck
I get your point, I mean I've seen what a .243 does to the lung of deer, it looks like pulp. That being said, when you get down to the pistol caliber's that are going so much slower, relying on proper expansion and penetration begins to get finnicky. You mention that 23gr's is hardly a difference, but you could say that about anything, i.e. a .40 cal bullet is only a little bit bigger in diameter than a 9mm bullet, but I'd still rather have a .40 S&W caliber gun in my pocket instead of my 9mm if I could. Just like if I have the choice I would rather have 147gr than 124gr, will it make a huge difference? I don't know, but isn't taking all those precautions and doing all those little things what this site is entirely about?
Again, I see your points too and while I don't agree that .40 cal is substantially better than a 9mm. But I will say this, what makes the .40 cal what it is? Larger bullet at a faster speed right? Exactly my point, faster is better. I'd rather shoot a 155 grain .40 cal than a 180 grain .40 cal.Quote:
Originally Posted by IAm_Not_Lost
Ok. Fair enough. I think it just comes down to what each persons opinion is of that proper combo of speed and weight, either way hit em' and hit em' again.
And what does this extra speed actually do?Quote:
Originally Posted by smolck
Nothing permanent.
A faster bullet might create a larger temporary wound cavity, however, the difference would be measured microscopically. Human tissue is incredibly elastic, and common handgun calibers simply do not have the ENERGY required to create a permanent wound channel much larger than the bullet itself. What you want in a bullet fired from a handgun is deep penetration and reliable expansion.
Seriously, what law or theory in physics are you using to base your opinion that "faster is better?"
Also, you said, "But I will say this, what makes the .40 cal what it is?" I can assure you that the only reason .40 S&W still exists is because of the 180 gr load. Why? The 180 gr load has the potential to penetrate through intermediate barriers and expand just as well as a 230gr .45 ACP but has greater capacity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZ Hawk
My favorites
The same law that applies to rifle bullets doing 10 times more damage than any pistol round with a lot less weight but a bunch more speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by AZ Hawk
Also, Mas Ayoob has written (and has videos on youtube) that extensively talk about the higher velocity, lighter weight rounds being more effective in real life shootings. I'm not going to argue with you, merely having a conversation.
Two words: Kinetic Energy.Quote:
Originally Posted by smolck
If your only choice of 9mm ammunition, is NATO ball, so be it, and as we are mostly concerned with our collective ability to survive a lawful use of our carry CCW, and are not limited to NATO ball, then we listen to our peers.
Knowing that no magic bullet exists, and it does not! I went back and forth on WW Ranger, for years, 127g +P+ or 147g non plusP, same Ranger T. As we have more or less no control on that bullet once it enters the human body, accuracy, major factor, bullet performance, ditto.
Then the ability to return to point of aim, becomes paramount, and have more bullets strike in the same time frame, I opted for the 147g, it recoils less.
Shoot a few medium sized game animals with both and then tell me what you think, if you don't think sectional density matters. I can't stand it when people rattle off crap they read or hear someone else say.
Get off the couch, put the computer away and put the so called theories to the test. I bet you come back with a different point of view.
You cannot compare rifle rounds to handgun rounds. They both work but in different ways. To compare in this discussion is stupid. TO make some of the completely baseless statements about the 40 cal or ignorrant statements like a 223 round has a velocity of 2500 fps is laughable.
If you want mythical power from a lightweight bullet, go for it. If you want CONSISTANT performance from a heavier bullet, then fine. I'll personally take the latter, because I know better from real experience not a bunch of regurgitated BS written in Guns & Animosity.
Not pointing the finger at anyone in particular, however, if the shoe fits , wear it.
And that should put this discussion to bed. Since few (if any) of us have had the opportunity to test our preferred SD loads on a real-life BG in a real-world scenerio, it's all speculation at this point.
Hey, all I know is they put bigger brakes on bigger heavier trucks for a reason.:22a:
The extra damage from the rifle round is also a factor of hydrostatic shock. Velocity threshold for that is around 2200 fps, if I remember correctly. To get the additional effect that makes the rifle rounds more devastating, you still need to bump the pistol round up about another 1000 fps at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by smolck
Memory says the FN FiveSeven is the only handgun that gets close to that.
So far as I can tell, bullet design has been the single most important factor determining performance.
I just look for a lately-produced round that I can afford and work on being able to hit what I aim at with it. I won't be a first adopter, though, so it won't be too lately-produced. But there's plenty of choices even without that.