View Full Version : 9mm 147gr and Short Barrels
I am about to order a variety of 9mm ammo off of DocGKR's to see what our pistols like. I'm going to try to standardize to one round. Pistols to be used are a Glock 19, Kahr PM9, and HK P2000Sk.
I have a suspicion that we'll end up using a standard pressure round since my wife will be more comfortable with it.
How do the various 147gr loadings perform out of the PM9's short barrel?
http://www.box.net/shared/static/5li8m192c0.jpg
I am about to order a variety of 9mm ammo off of DocGKR's to see what our pistols like. I'm going to try to standardize to one round. Pistols to be used are a Glock 19, Kahr PM9, and HK P2000Sk.
I have a suspicion that we'll end up using a standard pressure round since my wife will be more comfortable with it.
How do the various 147gr loadings perform out of the PM9's short barrel?
Out of a Sig P226 (4.4" bbl), muzzle velocities run anywhere between 900 - 1000 fps with averages around 940 - 950. Kahr's website shows an average velocity of 845 fps with a standard deviation of 43 fps at 5 yards using Federal Hydra-Shok 147 gr.
Personally, I like the Winchester Ranger Bonded 147 gr. (Q4364)(http://www.ammunitiontogo.com/catalog1/product_info.php/cPath/23_61_119/products_id/2847). However, I don't know what the velocity threshold floor is for reliable expansion. Most "short barrel" loads for the 9mm are 124 gr +P's (http://www.ammunitiontogo.com/catalog1/product_info.php/cPath/23_61_119/products_id/655).
In a response to a question about which grain 9mm Ranger ammo to use in a short barreled pistol including 3.5" and 3", I got the following response from Winchester LE Ammo:
When we redesigned the Ranger T Series of ammunition we widened the velocity window under which the round would expand to allow for the slower velocities that shorter than standard barrels produce. What this means is that if you own a standard or sub compact pistol the round should have adequate expansion. In 9mm I would recommend the 147 grain bullet as it loses a lower velocity percentage than the faster lighter bullet in shorter than normal barrels. This is because the bullet has more dwell time in the bore and has a greater opportunity to burn the powder before the bullet exits the bore. Powder that is burned outside the bore does nothing for velocity. The lighter faster bullets generally have more powder to burn and since the lighter faster bullets have less time in the bore they are not efficient burners of powder in the shorter barrels.
We increased the velocity window under which the round would expand by increasing the size of the hollowpoint, tweaking the jacket thickness and the depth of the cuts on the inside of the jacket petal segments.
Sincerely,
Paul Nowak
Senior Technical Specialist
Winchester Law Enforcement Ammunition
I hope this helps.
In a response to a question about which grain 9mm Ranger ammo to use in a short barreled pistol including 3.5" and 3", I got the following response from Winchester LE Ammo...
Thanks for that info. Unfortunately, we still don't know what the lower end of that "velocity window" is. I have a message in to Paul Nowak on an unrelated matter and if I can gain his attention, I'll ask him if they have any published data about those velocity windows.
YukonGlocker
12-29-08, 19:12
In my highly scientific wetpack tests, Win. RA9T expanded and penetrated beautifully out of a PM9.
Speer 124+P standard and short barrel loads did well also.
sigmundsauer
12-30-08, 11:10
In a response to a question about which grain 9mm Ranger ammo to use in a short barreled pistol including 3.5" and 3", I got the following response from Winchester LE Ammo:
I hope this helps.
That's one of the better and truthful responses that I've seen provided by a manufacturer. For the same reasons, I tend to lean to 147 grainers out of short barrels, unless you are comfortable with the greater muzzle blast of fast, light bullets. Speer 124+P would be my choice, if that be the case.
Tim
I had a very similar question recently between the Federal 124gr HST and the 147gr HST out of a Glock 26 and a PM9. I wanted a round that was a soft shooter so anyone in my family could control it, and the newer generation of bullets seem to need the velocity boost of +P less now. Anyway, went with standard pressure for my tests. No chrono data, just subjective "feel" and observation.
I had a friend load a random mix of 124gr and 147gr on my mags, and I could not tell any difference in recoil, blast, barrel rise, or shot-to-shot split times. My friend was watching, and he could not see any difference either. Again - no measurements were taken, just seat-of-the-pants observation.
I did notice the 147gr had a slightly longer OAL, and I wondered if this might potentially cause feeding issues, perhaps if gun got dirty. Didn't experience any feeding issues, and probably fired 200 rounds without cleaning in this little test.
The following link is to ATK's test data for the HST (early data - no +P rounds available).
http://le.atk.com/pdf/PierceCountyWorkshop.pdf
You'll notice penetration depth was uniformly good through all barriers, with the 147gr going a little deeper, but not by much. In most cases, both weights went around 12" to 13".
Expansion was equally pretty good, with the 124gr edging out the 147gr, but again not by much.
I ended up going with the 124gr, figuring if the rounds performed as advertised, either would be good, while if the rounds failed to perform, expansion would suffer, while penetration would increase. As they all penetrate adequately now, extra penetration wasn't a goal, but loosing expansion might be an issue, and I figured the faster 124gr might hold expansion a little better than the 147gr.
I have 9mm down to two rounds. For my G26 I carry Corbon 115 grain +P. For my service barrel sized 9mm I run Corbon 124 grain +P. I was told by reliable sources that in 9mm you really need no less then 1,000 fps for reliable expansion. In a short barreled weapon a lighter bullet will preform better since it will have a higher velocity. In a service length barrel the lighter bullet tends to go so fast that it can shead it's jacket when impacting hard objects, this is why I go with the 124 grain in full size handguns.
I had a very similar question recently between the Federal 124gr HST and the 147gr HST out of a Glock 26 and a PM9. I wanted a round that was a soft shooter so anyone in my family could control it, and the newer generation of bullets seem to need the velocity boost of +P less now. Anyway, went with standard pressure for my tests. No chrono data, just subjective "feel" and observation.
I had a friend load a random mix of 124gr and 147gr on my mags, and I could not tell any difference in recoil, blast, barrel rise, or shot-to-shot split times. My friend was watching, and he could not see any difference either. Again - no measurements were taken, just seat-of-the-pants observation.
I did notice the 147gr had a slightly longer OAL, and I wondered if this might potentially cause feeding issues, perhaps if gun got dirty. Didn't experience any feeding issues, and probably fired 200 rounds without cleaning in this little test.
The following link is to ATK's test data for the HST (early data - no +P rounds available).
http://le.atk.com/pdf/PierceCountyWorkshop.pdf
You'll notice penetration depth was uniformly good through all barriers, with the 147gr going a little deeper, but not by much. In most cases, both weights went around 12" to 13".
Expansion was equally pretty good, with the 124gr edging out the 147gr, but again not by much.
I ended up going with the 124gr, figuring if the rounds performed as advertised, either would be good, while if the rounds failed to perform, expansion would suffer, while penetration would increase. As they all penetrate adequately now, extra penetration wasn't a goal, but loosing expansion might be an issue, and I figured the faster 124gr might hold expansion a little better than the 147gr.
Just on a side note, non of the test results done by Pierce County where with compact and sub compact guns. These where all guns with 4-5" barrels. Bullet performance can and typically does drop off quiet a bit out of 3" or shorter barrels. This is why you need to go to a lighter bullet to make up for the velocity, the opposite is in play with a longer barrel. With a longer barrel you need a heavier bullet to slow it down a bit to insure it does not strip it's jacket when impacting hard objects; the heavier bullet will also aid in deeper penetration.
Just on a side note, non of the test results done by Pierce County where with compact and sub compact guns. These where all guns with 4-5" barrels. Bullet performance can and typically does drop off quiet a bit out of 3" or shorter barrels. This is why you need to go to a lighter bullet to make up for the velocity, the opposite is in play with a longer barrel. With a longer barrel you need a heavier bullet to slow it down a bit to insure it does not strip it's jacket when impacting hard objects; the heavier bullet will also aid in deeper penetration.
You are quite correct, and I should have noted this in my first reply. I don't know how the rounds will actually perform out of a 3" or 3.5" barrel. I'm hoping the extra velocity from the lighter bullet will make up some for the loss of barrel length. I could go 124gr +P and get an extra 50 fps, but blast, recoil, and split times go up. I'd rather have faster, more accurate follow up shots.
I have 9mm down to two rounds. For my G26 I carry Corbon 115 grain +P. For my service barrel sized 9mm I run Corbon 124 grain +P. I was told by reliable sources that in 9mm you really need no less then 1,000 fps for reliable expansion. In a short barreled weapon a lighter bullet will preform better since it will have a higher velocity. In a service length barrel the lighter bullet tends to go so fast that it can shead it's jacket when impacting hard objects, this is why I go with the 124 grain in full size handguns.
Bullet performance can and typically does drop off quiet a bit out of 3" or shorter barrels. This is why you need to go to a lighter bullet to make up for the velocity, the opposite is in play with a longer barrel. With a longer barrel you need a heavier bullet to slow it down a bit to insure it does not strip it's jacket when impacting hard objects; the heavier bullet will also aid in deeper penetration.
FWIW, your comments contradicts Winchester LE Ammo's Senior Tech Specialist and also Molon's chart, the #2 post of this thread, which shows an average velocity decrease of 5.3% when comparing SIG 4.4" barrels to Kahr 3.0" barrels. Note that the ammunition with the smallest velocity loss by %(3.5) and measured fps(33) was the 147gr. I would interpret that by saying that bullet performance does not typically drop off much with 3" barrels. Similarly, your 1000fps minimum threshold for expansion suggests that the 147gr, which rarely exceeds 1000fps, will not expand at all which is false. You might be providing dated info.
When asking that same tech specialist under what circumstances he would ever recommend using the Ranger 127gr+P+ or 124gr+p (which also should apply to your choice of Corbon 115gr +p and 124gr +p), he wrote:
Some people seem to think that faster is better no matter what and really don’t think much about terminal ballistics. They only think about foot pounds of energy. The +P+ cartridge is not a SAAMI cartridge and has a substantially higher pressure than regular or +P ammunition. It also has more recoil than the 147 gr. product 23% more to be exact. In addition many gun manufacturers will not warranty their guns if used with ammo that is not loaded to SAAMI specs. This ammo is definitely harder on your gun and on you since you have more recoil to deal with. If I was going to use the 127 gr. +P+ round, I would want to use it in a standard barrel length gun.
Sincerely,
Paul Nowak
Any literature that I've seen which casts a negative light on the 147gr is 10-20 years old. All else being the same, I think the current crop of premium 147gr is the way to go in short barrels (or any barrels for that matter) for SD when compared to lighter, faster or higher pressure ammo. YMMV. If jacket separation is an issue, then a bonded bullet is the way to go.
Here's a good read for ammo choices in general:
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm
Best of luck.
Beat Trash
01-15-09, 18:31
I use the Winchester 147 gr Ranger-T series loading in all of my 9mm's that I carry of duty. This has included the following guns;
M&P 9mm/M&P 9c
Glock 19/Glock26
Kahr PM9
The round is reliable in my guns and shoots to the same point of aim as the Winchester 147 gr TMJ training round that is available for me to train with. The recoil is about as good as it gets from a 9mm.
From the charts posted and the letter posted form the Tech Rep at Winchester, this is not a bad choice. While I could tell you a bunch of B.S. about why I came to use one round for all of my personally owned & carried 9mm's, the truth is much simpler.
It's easier and cheaper for me to stock one round. This round is reliable in all of my guns, and is one of the better overall performers.
I don't look for the "perfect man stopping round". I question if such a thing exists for a handgun.
I figured I would make up for any percentage of performance when using the smaller guns by training more. I don't expect miracles from my ammunition, other than it goes bang. That way I won't be surprised if the round fails to expand, ect.
I prefer to worry more about tactics, training and practicing putting rounds on target, than if I have THE perfect JHP round.
But then, I never claimed to be an expert.
It's easier and cheaper for me to stock one round. This round is reliable in all of my guns, and is one of the better overall performers.
I don't look for the "perfect man stopping round". I question if such a thing exists for a handgun.
I figured I would make up for any percentage of performance when using the smaller guns by training more. I don't expect miracles from my ammunition, other than it goes bang. That way I won't be surprised if the round fails to expand, ect.
I prefer to worry more about tactics, training and practicing putting rounds on target, than if I have THE perfect JHP round.
I gathered that the OP is/was looking to go with one round for all of their pistols. I think it's a legit question regarding performance from short barrels. I didn't gather that he was in search of a perfect round but, wanted to learn whether or not the rounds he was interested in would perform as designed.
Robb Jensen
01-16-09, 07:30
I am about to order a variety of 9mm ammo off of DocGKR's to see what our pistols like. I'm going to try to standardize to one round. Pistols to be used are a Glock 19, Kahr PM9, and HK P2000Sk.
I have a suspicion that we'll end up using a standard pressure round since my wife will be more comfortable with it.
How do the various 147gr loadings perform out of the PM9's short barrel?
I'd check out the Winchester Ranger SXT 147gr. It's a standard pressure 9mm load and does over 1000fps out of my Glock 17. It also shoots softer than many 115gr and 124gr standard pressure loads.
I use the Winchester 147 gr Ranger-T series loading in all of my 9mm's that I carry of duty. This has included the following guns;
M&P 9mm/M&P 9c
Glock 19/Glock26
Kahr PM9
The round is reliable in my guns and shoots to the same point of aim as the Winchester 147 gr TMJ training round that is available for me to train with. The recoil is about as good as it gets from a 9mm.
I don't look for the "perfect man stopping round". I question if such a thing exists for a handgun.
My (and family's) 9mm's are similarly eclectic: G17, G19, Beretta 92, Taurus 92, S&W 6906, Kahr PM9. I've found the Speer GDHP 124 gr round functions flawlessly in all our guns, and since it's more easily available locally than WW 147 Ranger Talon, that's what I've gone with. I am in complete agreement with you: stocking a single round for all my 9mm's makes a lot more sense than finding "the best" round for each gun individually. If you check out DocGKR's ballistics testing, both rounds meet the basic criteria for penetration and expansion, so in terms of terminal performance, there is little to choose between them.
I strongly believe you are wise not to look for the "perfect manstopping round", as it clearly does not exist. Far more often than not in the OISs I've reviewed, multiple rounds (of ANY caliber/weight) have been required to incapacitate the offender.
I figured I would make up for any percentage of performance when using the smaller guns by training more. I don't expect miracles from my ammunition, other than it goes bang. That way I won't be surprised if the round fails to expand, ect.
I prefer to worry more about tactics, training and practicing putting rounds on target, than if I have THE perfect JHP round.
You have wisdom beyond your years, young Jedi. Practice and training will beat theoretical physics every time.
If performance between several weights is pretty much the same (124gr HST & 147gr HST both have similar penetration and expansion numbers, and both meet or exceed the FBI specs), what criteria would you use to select?
I know that ultimately it doesn't really matter - both are good, and shot placement is still the key. However, I will be buying several cases for storage and training, and I would prefer to buy one round only.
Barrel length will range from 3"to 5", with 3.5" being primary.
Disregard above post - I'm getting caught up in trying to count how many angles are dancing in the head of the pin. I just need to stock up, practice more, and seek additional training.
Moonshot... no, no, don't apologize. The fact is there ARE some real differences between rounds, especially in some pistols.
I've gone with the Speer GDHP 124 gr +P at mi casa mostly because 1) DocGKR's data say it works when tested according to the FBI protocol, and 2) because it feeds in ALL my guns, and my kids' guns. If somebody in my nuclear family came home with a really, really good tactically-applicable 9mm firearm that didn't like 124 gr GDHP's, but did well with RA149T, I'd switch to RA149T for all our guns.
The issue isn't that all 9mm ammo is the same. The point is that if you can find one round from DocGKR's list that works in all your guns, buy a few cases of it.
On further consideration here on BHO's inauguration day, you might want to consider buying a pallet of it.
Kidding. It ain't gonna be that bad under the BHO administration. He'll be too busy dealing with the economy to f**k with our guns & ammo.
Disregard above post - I'm getting caught up in trying to count how many angles are dancing in the head of the pin. I just need to stock up, practice more, and seek additional training.
I think it was a good question. The ballistics of each may not be different enough (and we'll assume they both work reliably in your gun) to worry about but those two loads are probably going to feel a little different to shoot. Try each one out and see if there is one that you shoot more accurately or faster. Then add your practice on top of that.
I think it was a good question. The ballistics of each may not be different enough (and we'll assume they both work reliably in your gun) to worry about but those two loads are probably going to feel a little different to shoot. Try each one out and see if there is one that you shoot more accurately or faster. Then add your practice on top of that.
Ditto.
In smaller calibers like 9mm I don't feel much subjective difference in recoil, especially my favored larger-platform guns. But with heavier calibers (.44 Mag, .45 Colt) I've noticed that pushing a large-for-caliber bullet at moderate velocities is a lot easier on my wrists than a light-for-caliber bullet at high velocities. As such, I tend to use heavier bullets in most of my pistol cartridges. In 9mm, 124-127 gr suits me. In .44 Spl/Mag, I like 240 or 300 gr bullets. In .45 Colt, I like 260-300 gr bullets. In .357 Mag, I like 158's or better yet 180's.
Just my humble, and my wrists. YMMV.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.