124 vs 147 gr 9mm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glockman10mm

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.

---

Do you think you are the only who has killed wild game? Do you think only YOUR opinion is correct? Are you honestly telling me that Mas Ayoob and others who are documented experts are wrong in saying the faster bullets do better in real world shootings?

And are you really asking me to take your hunting experiences as gospel on what I should carry in my SD pistol? Seems to me you are saying I should think heavy bullets are better because you say so, that is short sided my friend. Nobody, not Mas Ayoob, myself, or Clint Smith can say with 100% certainty anything about ballistics in human targets. It is narrow minded and prideful to argue that point.

And you are right, the .223 remington in 55gr doesn't go 2500fps, it is closer to 3200fps, my apologies. I would like your analysis on how rifle bullets are so much different than pistol bullets if you don't mind.

My opinion is that I perfer 124gr +P. I perfer velocity. God Bless :smile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smolck

Do you think you are the only who has killed wild game? Do you think only YOUR opinion is correct? Are you honestly telling me that Mas Ayoob and others who are documented experts are wrong in saying the faster bullets do better in real world shootings?

And are you really asking me to take your hunting experiences as gospel on what I should carry in my SD pistol? Seems to me you are saying I should think heavy bullets are better because you say so, that is short sided my friend. Nobody, not Mas Ayoob, myself, or Clint Smith can say with 100% certainty anything about ballistics in human targets. It is narrow minded and prideful to argue that point.

And you are right, the .223 remington in 55gr doesn't go 2500fps, it is closer to 3200fps, my apologies. I would like your analysis on how rifle bullets are so much different than pistol bullets if you don't mind.

---

1. Hornady's 55gr TAP Urban .223 load travels at 2900 fps.

2. Rifle bullets can yaw, fragment and tumble in any combination depending on the load. Or, they might do none of it. Last time I checked, fragmentation and yaw were highly desirable in .223/5.56 bullets. Do I need to explain that hollow points do none of these things? Do I also need to mention the vast differences in the amount of kinetic energy?

3. Mas Ayoob is not a ballistic wound expert. Dr. Roberts and Dr. Fackler, however, are.

4. Heavier bullets are better because they offer the best chances of deep penetration. People aren't stationary targets, and if someone is shooting at you, it's highly likely that they have their arms out in front of their chest holding their weapon. You need a bullet that is capable of penetrating the forearm and then the spinal cord.

5. It's not narrow minded at all. The vast amounts of information from what was formally known as the IWBA (International Wound Ballistics Association) is all over the internet, you just have to want to find it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AZ Hawk

1. Hornady's 55gr TAP Urban .223 load travels at 2900 fps.

2. Rifle bullets can yaw, fragment and tumble in any combination depending on the load. Or, they might do none of it. Last time I checked, fragmentation and yaw were highly desirable in .223/5.56 bullets. Do I need to explain that hollow points do none of these things? Do I also need to mention the vast differences in the amount of kinetic energy?

3. Mas Ayoob is not a ballistic wound expert. Dr. Roberts and Dr. Fackler, however, are.

4. Heavier bullets are better because they offer the best chances of deep penetration. People aren't stationary targets, and if someone is shooting at you, it's highly likely that they have their arms out in front of their chest holding their weapon. You need a bullet that is capable of penetrating the forearm and then the spinal cord.

5. It's not narrow minded at all. The vast amounts of information from what was formally known as the IWBA (International Wound Ballistics Association) is all over the internet, you just have to want to find it.

---

I am merely here to have a discussion. I find it odd that internet "experts" always tend to have hostile overtones to their responses. Too bad we can't just talk like people, but instead have to throw backhanded comments at people. Sad state of affairs. And while I disagree with you on most of your points, I will treat you with the respect I give any other human being and not fire back.

Also, we are way off my original point which was merely that there isn't a discernible difference between 124 and 147 grain bullets. I stand by that statement. If 147 grain makes you feel better I have no issues with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smolck

I am merely here to have a discussion. I find it odd that internet "experts" always tend to have hostile overtones to their responses. Too bad we can't just talk like people, but instead have to throw backhanded comments at people. Sad state of affairs. And while I disagree with you on most of your points, I will treat you with the respect I give any other human being and not fire back.

Also, we are way off my original point which was merely that there isn't a discernible difference between 124 and 147 grain bullets. I stand by that statement. If 147 grain makes you feel better I have no issues with that.

---

I was being hostile and "throwing backhanded comments?" If you don't mind pointing out exactly which of my comments were hostile and backhanded...

You wanted to know the difference between rifle calibers and pistol calibers in terms of ballistic performance, and I provided the major differences between the two.

There isn't a huge difference between 124gr and 147gr bullets, but heavier bullets always offer greater potential penetration in humans and through intermediate barriers. ALL common handgun calibers suck when you don't hit something vital anyways.

P.S. You said, "If 147 grain makes you feel better I have no issues with that."

In actuality, I prefer the 115gr +P Corbon DPX load.

Smolck, arent you the guy who purchased a cheap 1911, rubbed the finish off of it to make it shiny, and was going to put expensive Ed Brown aftermarket parts on it, then found out it wasnt worth a dime?

Pardon me, but I found it hard to take anything you take seriously, let alone credible.
Think what you want about my opinion.
I can predict with almost certainty how a given load will perform. Its not rocket science. But of course you have got to learn how to properly pick and then treat a handgun before you get the ammo part right, so I will overlook that part.

And, its really brassy to put yourself in the mix with Clint and Mas, both whom I respect a great deal, but worship neither.
Ill say no more, as you are apparently not understanding what is truly being said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glockman10mm

Smolck, arent you the guy who purchased a cheap 1911, rubbed the finish off of it to make it shiny, and was going to put expensive Ed Brown aftermarket parts on it, then found out it wasnt worth a dime?

Pardon me, but I found it hard to take anything you take seriously, let alone credible.
Think what you want about my opinion.
I can predict with almost certainty how a given load will perform. Its not rocket science. But of course you have got to learn how to properly pick and then treat a handgun before you get the ammo part right, so I will overlook that part.

And, its really brassy to put yourself in the mix with Clint and Mas, both whom I respect a great deal, but worship neither.
Ill say no more, as you are apparently not understanding what is truly being said.

---

My 1911 was a learning experience, that is a given and I will not hide from my mistake (though it never had a hint of rust in the white). I sold it because I had feed issues, wanted something smaller and easier to carry. I am sure you have never made any mistakes in your life, apparently everything you do is perfect. Congratulations.

I go back to my earlier statement, people like you must be rude and degrading to others when engaged in discussion so as to make yourself feel almighty and better than others. If that is your thing, no problem, I'm in no position to tell you how to live.

i prefer a heavier bullet. i've used 147gr hydra-shoks for years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smolck

My 1911 was a learning experience, that is a given and I will not hide from my mistake (though it never had a hint of rust in the white). I sold it because I had feed issues, wanted something smaller and easier to carry. I am sure you have never made any mistakes in your life, apparently everything you do is perfect. Congratulations.

I go back to my earlier statement, people like you must be rude and degrading to others when engaged in discussion so as to make yourself feel almighty and better than others. If that is your thing, no problem, I'm in no position to tell you how to live.

---

If you truly desire to engage in conversation, I can oblige you, even in the "gentile" fashion. However, I do request you support your statements with at least some tangible thought or from some experience and not just spout off things someone else said, and use that as the basis for your position.

There is a name for what you are accusing me of. It is called "Projection"

Some like me, some dont. Never been into that type of stuff. But, I learn everyday cause I listen when people tell me something, and Im smart enough to know, that I dont know much, and thats how I know what little I dont.

I'd tell ya the same thing in person, but I'd do with such a grin on my face, you couldnt get as mad at me as you probably are right now:yup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glockman10mm

I'd tell ya the same thing in person, but I'd do with such a grin on my face, you couldnt get as mad at me as you probably are right now:yup:

---

I'm not mad at you at all. I feel sorry for you.

I have done a lot of reading on ballistics, I am sorry if I don't have 20 years experience so I have to simply repeat what I have learned from people who do have it. If that is such a bad thing (you said all I do is spout off things someone else said) then everyone with a Harvard education is a moron because all they do is learn from stuff other people said. Isn't it better to learn from others than make the same mistakes?

Enjoy your bourbon.

Prefer Speer Gold Dot 147gr in my 9mm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius

I know there is no one right answer here, but what do you all see the various pros and cons between these two loads in premium SD cartridges? Your personal choice?

---

Heres my answer to your OP
I go with the 124+p gold dot because the 147 has a history of the hollow point not opening because its too slow
, that said most of that has been fixed with the newer loads .
The 115 grain has had a history of fragmenting and not penatrating as deep as I would like.
But again, the new 115 grain DPX bullet are solid copper and do not fragment so that can be called fixed.
still I just like the 124s better ,just my .02:smile:
The 124s are the best of the three

Here is some more information from Dr. Roberts: 9 mm 124 gr testing - M4Carbine.net Forums

This week we tested some 9 mm 124 gr +P JHP's in contrast with current 147 gr duty ammunition.

Fed HST 124 gr +P JHP (P9HST3) fired from G17 at ave vel of 1208 f/s; 5 shot ave below:
BG: Pen = 12.2", Ave RD = 0.64", Ave RL = 0.38", Ave RW = 123.8gr
4LD: Pen = 14.4", Ave RD = 0.53", Ave RL = 0.39", Ave RW = 124.1 gr
AG: Pen = 14.2", Ave RD = 0.46", Ave RL = 0.50", Ave RW = 123.0 gr

Rem Golden Saber 124 gr +P bonded JHP (GSB9MMD) fired from G17 at ave vel of 1188 f/s; 5 shot ave below:
BG: Pen = 12.6", Ave RD = 0.59", Ave RL = 0.37", Ave RW = 123.0 gr
4LD: Pen = 15.9", Ave RD = 0.55", Ave RL = 0.41", Ave RW = 124.1 gr
AG: Pen = 14.2", Ave RD = 0.46", Ave RL = 0.50", Ave RW = 123.8 gr

Fed HST 147 gr JHP (P9HST2) fired from G17 at ave vel of 1014 f/s; 5 shot ave below:
BG: Pen = 12.2", Ave RD = 0.63", Ave RL = 0.39", Ave RW = 147.5 gr
4LD: Pen = 15.4", Ave RD = 0.53", Ave RL = 0.50", Ave RW = 147.2 gr
AG: Pen = 13.0", Ave RD = 0.50", Ave RL = 0.59", Ave RW = 143.6 gr

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____


The G26 is a 3.5" barrel, G19 is 4", G17 is 4.5". Generally we test using a 4" barrel, although in this specific test we were asked to use a G17. There is minimal difference using well designed 9 mm ammunition in barrels from 3.5" - 4.5". No go down to a 3" barrel or use another caliber, things can change a bit.

9 mm Speer 124 gr JHP Gold Dot (53618) fired from G17 at ave vel of 1149 f/s; 5 shot ave below:
BG: Pen = 13.0", RD = 0.62", RL = 0.32", RW = 125.5 gr
4LD: Pen = 16.6", RD = 0.51", RL=0.43", RW = 125.2 gr

9 mm Speer 124 gr +P JHP Gold Dot (53617) fired from G17 at ave vel of 1232 f/s; 5 shot ave below:
BG: Pen = 12.0", RD = 0.67", RL = 0.30", RW = 124.2 gr
4LD: Pen = 13.0", RD = 0.54", RL= 0.39", RW = 124.5 gr

Both of these loads offer acceptable performance, although the 124 gr +P has a slight edge.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______

And more testing from Doc Roberts, this time on the CorBon 115 gr. DPX and 147 gr. Federal HST: http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=26390

9mm Corbon 115 gr +P Barnes XPB JHP; ave vel=1229 fps (G19); gel cal= 9.5cm@593fps
BG: pen=14.8", RD=0.54", RL=0.48", RW=115.1gr
4LD: pen=15.1", RD=0.54", RL=0.49", RW=115.4gr

9mm Fed 147 gr HST JHP; ave vel=997 fps (G19)
BG: pen=14.6", RD=0.61", RL=0.39", RW=147.1gr
4LD: pen=15.6", RD=0.56", RL=0.53", RW=145.5gr

(There is a picture comparing the two rounds if you follow the link).

According to Dr. Robert's testing, the differences between 124 gr. and 147 gr. are negligible. I still prefer the CorBon DPX 115 gr. +P, and the Speer Gold Dot 124 gr. +P. (I'm more accurate with the added recoil than without it...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chiefs-special-guy

The heavier load will generally shoot Higher than the lighter one, if that helps any.

---

I think your right,I shot some 115 grain bullets in 9mm and they shot 6-8 inches below the bulls eye.When I used the 124 grain it was only an inch,two at the most below the bulls eye.I'm going to try 147 grains next.Thank you for your info.Sweet.