147g 9mm out of a sub compact

Rollo · October 21st, 2009, 08:25 PM

I am currently carrying 124g hydrashocks in my Taurus 709 (Non +p rated). I am looking to change to something a bit more modern. After a bit of research I found a lot of data pointing to Federal 147g HST as a qualit round. My question though (Because I don't know much about ballistics) is this. From what I understand 147g rounds are slower then 115 and 124. Also, generally speaking the shorter the barrel the round is fired from the less velocity you get. Will a 147g round coming out of a 3 inch barrel have sufficent velocity to expand and penetrate?

ibesarcasm · October 21st, 2009, 08:32 PM

um......my NON-technical answer would that I would not want to get hit with ANY of the rounds....and at most any velocity...... however, knowing BG's like I do, I would not think they will care what you shoot them with..... MHO anyway... But they are not very smart are they??

Ok, your question.....I like a 124 grain in a 9mm, just a great all purpose round, quick with good penatration..... a bigger grain without a bigger cal. is not always the best answer....... take that as you wish..... just my .02.......

MnemonicMonkey · October 21st, 2009, 08:40 PM

Yes, with shorter barrels heavier rounds won't have as much time to accelerate. That's why I carry the 124 grain HST's.

Cuda66 · October 21st, 2009, 09:15 PM

I actually preferred 147gr bullets in my G26; heavier bullets tend to have better penetration, and modern bullet designs open up just fine at lower velocities.

Glock30SF · October 21st, 2009, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cuda66

I actually preferred 147gr bullets in my G26; heavier bullets tend to have better penetration, and modern bullet designs open up just fine at lower velocities.

+1

frankmako · October 21st, 2009, 10:44 PM

here are some factory loads through my chrongraph.

glock 19 - kkm barrel.
factory 147 gr hydra shok ammo, 5 shot average - 957 fps.
factory ball 124 gr, 5 shot average - 1,056 fps.

glock 23 - kkm barrel
federal hydra shok 165 gr, 5 shot average 951 fps.

glock 27 - kkm barrel
speer gold dot 165 gr gdhp, 10 shot average 938 fps.

the only load i have tested through a g26 and g30 are some cast lead reloads that i made to be lite range loads.

paragon1 · October 21st, 2009, 11:27 PM

On another forum, a poster cut and pasted an email from a technical guy at Winchester.

He pretty much reccommended 147 gr. Ranger for short barrels.

He spoke about dwell time in the barrel of the 147 gr. being longer because it is a slower round, enabling the round to take better advantage of the propellant burn.

Lighter rounds leave the barrel quicker, not taking full advantage of the powder.

He said to think in terms of time in barrel, taking fuller advantage of the propellant.

This was contradictory to what I thought I knew about ballistics.

Speer has some lighter +P ammo designed specifically for short barrels, that uses a quicker burn for the lessened dwell time. I would use this, or one of the Premium 147 gr.

zacii · October 21st, 2009, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paragon1

On another forum, a poster cut and pasted an email from a technical guy at Winchester.

He pretty much reccommended 147 gr. Ranger for short barrels.

He spoke about dwell time in the barrel of the 147 gr. being longer because it is a slower round, enabling the round to take better advantage of the propellant burn.

Lighter rounds leave the barrel quicker, not taking full advantage of the powder.

He said to think in terms of time in barrel, taking fuller advantage of the propellant.

This was contradictory to what I thought I knew about ballistics.

Speer has some lighter +P ammo designed specifically for short barrels, that uses a quicker burn for the lessened dwell time. I would use this, or one of the Premium 147 gr.

That makes sense. I hadn't thought about it before, the heavier bullet would take longer to exit the barrel. If the powder charge is generating equal pressures in both the lighter and heavier bullet cartridges, then naturally, the heavier bullet would take longer to exit...

SamRudolph · October 22nd, 2009, 11:36 AM

That's an interesting point. I'd never thought of that before, but it does make sense. A bullet that goes slower will take longer to exit a short barrel and will waste less of the powder charge. So ballistically you could consider it a more efficient round in short barrels.

TravisABQ · October 22nd, 2009, 04:44 PM

I put this question to Springfield for my 3" XDSC.

The response I got back favors the 147 load, but there was no criticism of lighter loads, either.

+P loads would be fine, but would cause more wear with constant use. I was cautioned against reloads or foreign ammo. (of course)

Unless someone actually does some ballistic tests, I think we're doing OK with most factory loads, in short barrels.

October 21st, 2009, 08:25 PM	#1
Rollo Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Indiana Posts: 230	147g 9mm out of a sub compact I am currently carrying 124g hydrashocks in my Taurus 709 (Non +p rated). I am looking to change to something a bit more modern. After a bit of research I found a lot of data pointing to Federal 147g HST as a qualit round. My question though (Because I don't know much about ballistics) is this. From what I understand 147g rounds are slower then 115 and 124. Also, generally speaking the shorter the barrel the round is fired from the less velocity you get. Will a 147g round coming out of a 3 inch barrel have sufficent velocity to expand and penetrate? __________________ I'm a liberal, not a sissy.

October 21st, 2009, 08:32 PM	#2
ibesarcasm Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Colorado Posts: 195	um......my NON-technical answer would that I would not want to get hit with ANY of the rounds....and at most any velocity...... however, knowing BG's like I do, I would not think they will care what you shoot them with..... MHO anyway... But they are not very smart are they?? Ok, your question.....I like a 124 grain in a 9mm, just a great all purpose round, quick with good penatration..... a bigger grain without a bigger cal. is not always the best answer....... take that as you wish..... just my .02....... __________________ Sarcasm - Just one of the many services I provide! Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

October 21st, 2009, 08:40 PM	#3
MnemonicMonkey Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Indiana Posts: 147	Yes, with shorter barrels heavier rounds won't have as much time to accelerate. That's why I carry the 124 grain HST's. __________________ "Lord, help me to be the person my dog thinks I am."

October 21st, 2009, 09:15 PM	#4
Cuda66 Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: minnesota Posts: 485	I actually preferred 147gr bullets in my G26; heavier bullets tend to have better penetration, and modern bullet designs open up just fine at lower velocities. __________________ One man's theology is another man's belly laugh. --RAH

October 21st, 2009, 10:44 PM	#6
frankmako VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Parts Unknown Posts: 2,488	here are some factory loads through my chrongraph. glock 19 - kkm barrel. factory 147 gr hydra shok ammo, 5 shot average - 957 fps. factory ball 124 gr, 5 shot average - 1,056 fps. glock 23 - kkm barrel federal hydra shok 165 gr, 5 shot average 951 fps. glock 27 - kkm barrel speer gold dot 165 gr gdhp, 10 shot average 938 fps. the only load i have tested through a g26 and g30 are some cast lead reloads that i made to be lite range loads. __________________ An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject. Red State State of Mind

October 21st, 2009, 11:27 PM	#7
paragon1 New Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pensacola, Florida Posts: 13	On another forum, a poster cut and pasted an email from a technical guy at Winchester. He pretty much reccommended 147 gr. Ranger for short barrels. He spoke about dwell time in the barrel of the 147 gr. being longer because it is a slower round, enabling the round to take better advantage of the propellant burn. Lighter rounds leave the barrel quicker, not taking full advantage of the powder. He said to think in terms of time in barrel, taking fuller advantage of the propellant. This was contradictory to what I thought I knew about ballistics. Speer has some lighter +P ammo designed specifically for short barrels, that uses a quicker burn for the lessened dwell time. I would use this, or one of the Premium 147 gr.

October 22nd, 2009, 11:36 AM	#9
SamRudolph Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Rochester, MN Posts: 105	That's an interesting point. I'd never thought of that before, but it does make sense. A bullet that goes slower will take longer to exit a short barrel and will waste less of the powder charge. So ballistically you could consider it a more efficient round in short barrels.

October 22nd, 2009, 04:44 PM	#10
TravisABQ Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: New Mexico Posts: 400	I put this question to Springfield for my 3" XDSC. The response I got back favors the 147 load, but there was no criticism of lighter loads, either. +P loads would be fine, but would cause more wear with constant use. I was cautioned against reloads or foreign ammo. (of course) Unless someone actually does some ballistic tests, I think we're doing OK with most factory loads, in short barrels.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode