Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 90 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
i read this article:
Ammunition For The Self-Defense Firearm

the part that talks about 9mm states this:
"I don't care what you've heard: never use any 9mm hollowpoint heavier than 125 grains"

what are your thoughts on this? i have never heard this until i read this article.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,569 Posts
It looks like the author of the article doesn't like the heavier grains since they didn't feed well in the guns sampled. I haven't had an issue with 147 grain rounds, but I tend to stick with 124 grain simply because I like Speer Gold Dot +P ammunition (Short Barrel). It feeds very well in my Glock 19 and Kahr PM9. It's also a very good performer.

Best Choices for Self Defense Ammo

Besides, shot placement is the most important factor...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,146 Posts
Far as I can tell, the anonymous author of that essay and I are in agreement. I noted with approval that his recommendations for 9mm, .38 spl and .357 ammo are what I carry. All of my research (this essay now included) and examination of ballistic performance confirms that Corbon DPX is a consistent, accurate and reliable round with superb expansion. The 115 - 125 grain velocities are so high that they deliver equivalent kinetic energy to heavier but slower rounds.

Like Ayoob, I go with #1 Buck for HD. I have tried many of the other items discussed, and at the range I practice with ball ammo in the above handgun calibers. It was painful (physically and monetarily) to shoot several boxes of DPX in the various guns because it's so expensive but you have to do that.

Tip: If you can find WWB +P JSP, it makes a very economical practice round that feels about the same as DPX.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,298 Posts
I thought the article was very elementary, and regurgatated hogwash. People believe what they want, everyone thinks they know something. I totally disagree that the heavier 9mm bullets are not good. While I do like the +p 124 9mm bullets, I like the heavier +p 147 more. Yes, the much repeated "shot placement" is very important, but only if the bullet gets deep enough to damage a few things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
236 Posts
I thought the article was very elementary, and regurgatated hogwash. People believe what they want, everyone thinks they know something. I totally disagree that the heavier 9mm bullets are not good. While I do like the +p 124 9mm bullets, I like the heavier +p 147 more. Yes, the much repeated "shot placement" is very important, but only if the bullet gets deep enough to damage a few things.
^^^^^^^ What he said.^^^^^^^

My thought was "How old is this article?"

The original 147 9mm hollowpoint was not designed to expand. The hollowpoint moved the center of gravity of the bullet for superior accuracy. It was developed for a particular group of people with a specific set of requirements ie. reliability and accuracy. When the gun "gurus" learned who the rounds were tailored for they became the newest "must have" item that quickly developed a reputation for failing to expand. Again, it was never designed to expand!

A close bud of mine was one of the operators this round was designed for. I asked him if the lack of expansion hindered him in any way. He explained the purpose of the round (above) and said expansion was not a design parameter. It had to be 100% reliable and supremely accurate. He ended with "expansion doesn't mean much when you shoot everyone in the head."

Reminds me of a Kid Rock song: "It ain't cocky if you can back it up."

The mantra "shot placement is key" is very important. Realistically, a hit with a non-optimal bullet that is 100% reliable beats the latest whiz-bang marketing idea that misses or mis-feeds. There has been A LOT of bullet development and design improvements over the past decade including the 147 9mm. BTW Buffalo Bore Ammo deserves a look.

IMHO Carry the biggest, heaviest hollowpoint that is 100% reliable that you can control. I carry 230gr JHP in .45 and 240gr JHP in my .44. YMMV
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,855 Posts
I think ANY 9mm round HP will be acceptable.
Will some be definitely better, yes.
That said, I believe 124 grn. on up, Gold Dot , Corbon And Some Federal Tactical and Winchester Ranger line.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
I believe that has to do with velocity in relation to expansion. The heavier loads are typically slower, resulting in less consistent expansion. I do, however, agree that the technology in the hollow point design has more than caught up to negate that factor.

To be honest, I wouldn't want to be shot with any of it.

Shot placement is definitely key, though. I like that quote about expansion doesn't matter if you shoot everyone in the head!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,262 Posts
"...the author of the article doesn't like the heavier grains..."

Grains has popped up in place of weight again!

No such thing as bullets with heavier grains. Takes 7000 grains to equal one pound. Always has. Always will. Some bullets might have more weight than others but the grain as a unit of weight measurement will remain the same.


I tend to utilize heavier bullets for most handgun chores and many rifle chores. The 147 grain 9mm load strikes a distinctly harder blow to my swinging disc target stand than any 9mm bullet of lesser weight. The stand was designed for use with .45 ACP. When struck with any .45 ACP load, it will pinwheel merrily. No 9mm will even flip a disc over once except for the 147 grain loading. I don't know how this would translate to stopping power effectiveness but the bullet weight is bound to aid in effective penetration.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,211 Posts
I thought the article was very elementary, and regurgatated hogwash. People believe what they want, everyone thinks they know something. I totally disagree that the heavier 9mm bullets are not good. While I do like the +p 124 9mm bullets, I like the heavier +p 147 more. Yes, the much repeated "shot placement" is very important, but only if the bullet gets deep enough to damage a few things.
This ! :yup:

The article is definately dated as several of the newer loads such as Gold Dot are not even mentioned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,532 Posts
The article referenced in the OP was perhaps relevant with the ammo availible during the Clinton regime. Not only is it woefully outdated, it also relies on bogus studies to reach its conclusions (iirc,besides M&S, it also references the fictional "Strasbourg Tests").

The second link in tokerblues' post is a lot more relevant now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,336 Posts
After quickly going through the link I will say this; I don't really care for 147gr ammo however I really wouldn't take advice from someone that think that a 90gr 9mm round is better than a 147gr 9mm round.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,072 Posts
I prefer the heaviest bullet available unless it presents reliable cycling issues in a semi-auto. It's just what I have always done. No scientific rationale, just habit.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,685 Posts
what are your thoughts for the best 9mm defensive ammo?
Just to keep it simple...........what are our troops using? Whatever our service members are using for their defensive loads in 9mm should be good enough for the rest of us and the best that can be found. Now you know how much we've been over-thinking things for so many years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,211 Posts
Ummm... I wouldn't go that route. NATO is a bit conservative on the terminal efficacy of ammunition. I prefer not to carry ball ammo...
Agreed here. The only reason our troops use ball is because they are mandated to and over penetration is good in a military combat enviornment.

Good looking bully you got ooxlinusxoo !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,016 Posts
I just have not had any problems with any of the 147 gr or 124 gr 9mm ammo that I have shot over the years....The BG that gets a double tap COM won't complain that the bullet was to heavy or to light ...I don't think.......but there is always the "maybe"
 
1 - 20 of 90 Posts
Top