Federal 9BP Gelatin Tests

[Jake'sDad]

They did some testing of the 9BP in this article if that helps any:

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/H...Federal115.htm

The link included some anecdotal information and a reference to shooting 9BP into water, where it shed it jacket. Not exactly the kind of scientific testing many here prefer.

Jake'sDad....I'm thinking some of us may have confused the "tone" of your Who and Why question. You know the internet has a funny habit of doing that to people.

Questioning what many "know" to be factual information, can sometimes upset those who realize their position is based on Bupkis.

[Jwalker]

Jake'sDad: Other than DocGR's statement of "The 124 gr HST is a better load than the 115 gr 9BP", what data are you trying to reference from that link?

JD, I'm not enjoying this thread any longer, and I don't believe I want to answer any more of your questions regarding my motivation. I think my questions were simple and clear and made in good faith; if you don't want to reply to them or don't understand them, then don't. The rest of us will just have to plod along our pedestrian ways without your benevolent guidance.

[Jake'sDad]

JD, I'm not enjoying this thread any longer, and I don't believe I want to answer any more of your questions regarding my motivation. I think my questions were simple and clear and made in good faith; if you don't want to reply to them or don't understand them, then don't. The rest of us will just have to plod along our pedestrian ways without your benevolent guidance.

If you're looking to make statements that go unquestioned, perhaps this site isn't your best choice.

[wahoo95]

If you're looking to make statements that go unquestioned, perhaps this site isn't your best choice.

The very attitude that you display is what turns so many off to this site. You are quick to jump into the discussion and question/criticize rather than assist/teach by presenting the correct information. Most come here to learn from those who are "in the know" about these subjects rather than be questioned about what they don't know.
The OP asked a genuine question because he wanted information. You've had ample opportunity to provide him and the rest of us with the needed data and have instead chosen to simply criticize what we don't know instead. You then choose to follow it up by telling him this site may not be for him because he doesn't have the very information that he came here to get.
I can assure you that discussions like this are not very helpful or welcoming to those new to the site like the OP. If you have good information you should try sharing it rather than withholding and talking down to others for not knowing what you know.

[Jake'sDad]

The very attitude that you display is what turns so many off to this site. You are quick to jump into the discussion and question/criticize rather than assist/teach by presenting the correct information. Most come here to learn from those who are "in the know" about these subjects rather than be questioned about what they don't know.
The OP asked a genuine question because he wanted information. You've had ample opportunity to provide him and the rest of us with the needed data and have instead chosen to simply criticize what we don't know instead. You then choose to follow it up by telling him this site may not be for him because he doesn't have the very information that he came here to get.
I can assure you that discussions like this are not very helpful or welcoming to those new to the site like the OP. If you have good information you should try sharing it rather than withholding and talking down to others for not knowing what you know.

I'd respectfully disagree with your assessment of how this thread went. Take a look at how my simple question was responded to. Had he merely asked a question, my response would have been different, but he started off with a statement. Knowing where the OP was coming from with that statement would be helpful in trying to steer him in the right direction.

If those who have gathered their information from gun magazines and discredited books, are threatened, and become defensive at simple questions, there is probably little chance for intelligent discourse.

I learn from this site almost every time I look at it, even after a lifetime of shooting and teaching, but I come to it with an open mind.

[wahoo95]

I'd respectfully disagree with your assessment of how this thread went. Take a look at how my simple question was responded to. Had he merely asked a question, my response would have been different, but he started off with a statement. Knowing where the OP was coming from with that statement would be helpful in trying to steer him in the right direction.

If those who have gathered their information from gun magazines and discredited books, are threatened, and become defensive at simple questions, there is probably little chance for intelligent discourse.

I learn from this site almost every time I look at it, even after a lifetime of shooting and teaching, but I come to it with an open mind.

If the OP’s information was incorrect, why not provide the correct information instead of simply questioning where it came from and not providing an answer. If it’s wrong it doesn't matter where he got it and discussing where he got it only gets off topic. While he did make a statement it was obvious the guy had a question and wanted to know what others thought.
Like I said, if you have the right info you should provide it rather than talk down to people and withhold. If you really wanted to steer him in the right direction you would have done so already rather than respond the way you did and continue to do.

You have yet to provide him with any credible data or answer to his question/statement based on your experiences or that of others. If you don't like his statement then correct it. Nobody became defensive at your questions, they only asked for clarity....meaning they wanted the correct info.

Not trying to start or participate in a pissing match, however I do want you to realize that many who come to this site will be misinformed and looking for answers. Best thing those here can do is provide answers rather than make them feel unwelcome. By providing the correct information you help in preventing misinformation from speading.

[Jake'sDad]

If the OP’s information was incorrect, why not provide the correct information instead of simply questioning where it came from and not providing an answer. If it’s wrong it doesn't matter where he got it and discussing where he got it only gets off topic.

Because I don't assume what he's basing his information on, or even that he's incorrect, hence my question. Perhaps he has information that I don't have.

Nobody became defensive at your questions, they only asked for clarity....meaning they wanted the correct info.

I'll agree to disagree with you on that.

[DocGKR]

Knock off the petty bickering!

----------------------------

When we re-tested some older 115 gr loads we got some interesting results:

9 mm Federal 115 gr JHP 9BP, Glock 17, gel calib= 9.0 cm @ 596 f/s
Bare Gelatin--vel=1136, pen=9.4, RD=0.62, RL=0.28, RW=109.1

Things got strange with the Denim testing of the 9BP. In every 5 round test, there was at least one bullet which plugged up and failed to expand. The bullets which failed to expand had pen=20+ inches, RD=0.35”, RL=0.52”, RW=115.3.

Glock 17, gel calib= 9.5 cm @ 605 f/s.
Results below do NOT include the bullets which failed to expand!
4 layers of Denim--vel=1139, pen=12.8, RD=0.53, RL=0.41, RW=114.5

Sig P226, gel calib= 9.5 cm @ 605 f/s.
Results below do NOT include the bullets which failed to expand!
4 layers of Denim--vel=1111, pen=11.1, RD=0.55, RL=0.38, RW=114.7

The Federal 115 gr 9BP has insufficient penetration in bare gelatin and has 20 to 40% failure to expand in denim testing. I personally would not choose to use it given all the better options currently available.

--------------------

With the exception of the Barnes 115 gr XPB all copper projectile, in general, most 9 mm 115 gr loads have demonstrated greater inconsistency, insufficient penetration, poor intermediate barrier capability, and failure to expand in denim testing than other 9mm bullets. For those individuals wanting to use lighter weight, supersonic 9 mm’s, I think a better alternative than the vast majority of 115 gr loads is to use the slightly heavier 124 to 127 gr bullets or the Barnes 115 gr all copper bullet, as noted here: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887

[Jwalker]

Thanks, doc - excellent info, and to the point.

[tpd223]

Doc,

Do you have the same info for the 9BPLE? The +P+ stuff is very cheap on our state bid, I'd like info on why the more expensive ammo should be purchased instead.

I know the numbers are likely pretty close, but the actual data would be nice to have.

BTW, I have found both of these 115gr Federal loads to be very accurate from several different pistols, so much so that I have used it for match shooting in the past, and for small game and varmints.