9mm 147 Gr JHP supposedly Unsat? - Page 2

Sig229 · July 9th, 2007, 10:22 AM

Hmmm.....
I always thought the 147gr. 9mm rounds were more ideal for sub machine guns in 9mm. Such as the UZI, MP5 and such.

ghost tracker · July 9th, 2007, 11:29 AM

I'm under the same impression. Weren't 147 gr. 9mm loads originally build/intended as carbine & sub-gun ammo? I recall some NATO (surplus) 147 gr. 9mm boxes being marked that way.

Like some of the other posters, I'm sold on the 124 gr. +P (or +P+) 9mm.

Whyveear · July 9th, 2007, 03:23 PM

San Diego PD found it to perform well: http://www.btammolabs.com/fackler/winchester_9mm.pdf

Andy W. · July 9th, 2007, 03:43 PM

Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness

This does not get caliber specific, but it explains how it works.

SCGunGuy · July 9th, 2007, 05:35 PM

I have read in various places that early 147 grain rounds did not perform well in all instances. As times and designs change, so did the 147 grain rounds, and a well-designed 147 grain round today will perform as well as a well-designed 9mm round of another weight. A # of large PDs have had good success with them, and info on TacticalForums, Firearmstactical.com and other places gives me no reason to doubt the current 147 grain rounds.

FWIW, I carry RA9T, the 147 grain Winchester Ranger T round.

sheepdog · July 9th, 2007, 08:07 PM

I have seen some photos of Gold Dot 147s taken out of people our officers shot. The people didn't shoot back and the bullets looked just like the expanded ones in the Gold Dot ads. Note: all bullets were properly placed to start with, so none of that matters.
;)

Stetson · July 10th, 2007, 01:19 PM

I'll stick with 147gr remington gold sabers that I use right now.I'll try
something different when it's time to cycle out my ammo but I am
sticking with 147 grain as I like heavy and slow.

Redneck Repairs · July 10th, 2007, 01:31 PM

The 147 of today is not your dad's 147 , Its a whole nother critter from the 147 of the 80s and 90s which were basicly a slow ball ... ie a 9mm at near .45 acp speed . They did not work out well for a lot of reasons , and both in the gun culture , and on the internet both good and bad info seems to live foreaver without update . I went from 115s to 124s myself , but i would not worry if all i could get was 147s , i just would run a mag or two thro to establish feed , and point of aim/point of impact out to 50 yards or so .

retiredswine · July 11th, 2007, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Holliday

My info maybe screwed but I think the FBI had some difficulties with the early 147 gr loadings. Maybe someone else can clear this up but weren't they trying to shoot the subsonic loads that are better suited for SMG's and getting marginal results out of them? I thought I remembered reading about that sometime ago. I don't personally carry 147gr. in my 9mm. I carry 124 gr. +p.

Doc's right,...... there were definatly early problems with the 147's. The 9mm or parabellum was designed for SMG's way back when. The 147's were designed for SEAL team use in suppressed SMG's for use against sentries and dog's. They were designed to be subsonic, hence quiet from a silenced weapon as well as accurate. Having said that, the 147 grain 9mm's have come a long way in just the last 5 years in as far as their lethality. However, it is my humble opinion that one is better served with either the 115 or 124 grain rounds in Plus P or Plus P plus configuration.

Gary Brommeland · July 11th, 2007, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retiredswine

Doc's right,...... there were definatly early problems with the 147's. The 9mm or parabellum was designed for SMG's way back when. The 147's were designed for SEAL team use in suppressed SMG's for use against sentries and dog's. They were designed to be subsonic, hence quiet from a silenced weapon as well as accurate. Having said that, the 147 grain 9mm's have come a long way in just the last 5 years in as far as their lethality. However, it is my humble opinion that one is better served with either the 115 or 124 grain rounds in Plus P or Plus P plus configuration.

Yep! The 147 gr HP was developed to get velocities down to subsonic levels. The HP bullets were designed for accuracy, not expansion.
Bullet design is a "work in progress" and as such terminal performance is improving all the time. However, my concern with a 147 is overpenetration. If it is absolutely unavoidable, I can live with the idea of taking a life to preserve my own, but I do not believe that I could cope with killing an innocent bystander...
FWIW, RA9TA 127gr +P+ offers great performance with minimal overpenetration risk.

July 9th, 2007, 10:22 AM	#11
Sig229 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Pennsylvania and West Virginia Posts: 524	Hmmm..... I always thought the 147gr. 9mm rounds were more ideal for sub machine guns in 9mm. Such as the UZI, MP5 and such. __________________ *A "CCW" Is NOT* a Carry License. Its your Concealed Carry Weapon!**

July 9th, 2007, 11:29 AM	#12
ghost tracker Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Ky Backwoods Posts: 738	I'm under the same impression. Weren't 147 gr. 9mm loads originally build/intended as carbine & sub-gun ammo? I recall some NATO (surplus) 147 gr. 9mm boxes being marked that way. Like some of the other posters, I'm sold on the 124 gr. +P (or +P+) 9mm. __________________ There are only *TWO* kinds of people in this world; those that describe the world as filled with two kinds of people...and those who don't.

July 9th, 2007, 08:07 PM	#16
sheepdog Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Texas Posts: 496	I have seen some photos of Gold Dot 147s taken out of people our officers shot. The people didn't shoot back and the bullets looked just like the expanded ones in the Gold Dot ads. Note: all bullets were properly placed to start with, so none of that matters. ;) __________________ What Would Gumby Do?

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

July 9th, 2007, 03:23 PM	#13
Whyveear Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Over here Posts: 246	San Diego PD found it to perform well: http://www.btammolabs.com/fackler/winchester_9mm.pdf

July 9th, 2007, 03:43 PM	#14
Andy W. Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: KY Posts: 687	Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness This does not get caliber specific, but it explains how it works.

July 9th, 2007, 05:35 PM	#15
SCGunGuy Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: SC Posts: 133	I have read in various places that early 147 grain rounds did not perform well in all instances. As times and designs change, so did the 147 grain rounds, and a well-designed 147 grain round today will perform as well as a well-designed 9mm round of another weight. A # of large PDs have had good success with them, and info on TacticalForums, Firearmstactical.com and other places gives me no reason to doubt the current 147 grain rounds. FWIW, I carry RA9T, the 147 grain Winchester Ranger T round.

July 10th, 2007, 01:19 PM	#17
Stetson Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Augusta,Maine Posts: 861	I'll stick with 147gr remington gold sabers that I use right now.I'll try something different when it's time to cycle out my ammo but I am sticking with 147 grain as I like heavy and slow.

July 10th, 2007, 01:31 PM	#18
Redneck Repairs VIP Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 5,141	The 147 of today is not your dad's 147 , Its a whole nother critter from the 147 of the 80s and 90s which were basicly a slow ball ... ie a 9mm at near .45 acp speed . They did not work out well for a lot of reasons , and both in the gun culture , and on the internet both good and bad info seems to live foreaver without update . I went from 115s to 124s myself , but i would not worry if all i could get was 147s , i just would run a mag or two thro to establish feed , and point of aim/point of impact out to 50 yards or so .