9mm,45 auto self defense ammo

[mildot]

I did some search on the "web" and the consensus is that 147 in 9mm and 230 in 45 auto, with the "hydra shok" bullet are the best choice? am I GTG?

[Oscar 319]

I did some search on the "web" and the consensus is that 147 in 9mm and 230 in 45 auto, with the "hydra shok" bullet are the best choice? am I GTG?

If the data is citing "Hyda-Shock", I would say your data is at least 10 years or older.

[.357sigger]

I would check out Winchester ranger T or Federal HST as carry ammo. Speer Gold Dots are gtg also...:D

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Pistol ammo
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887
(https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887)


Hydroshock discussion
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=31770

[Kimbo]

Honestly any major name brand JHP (Jacketed Hollow Point) will work. Winchester Ranger T's, Speer Gold Dots, and Federal HSTs are my favorite ones. Shoot each and see which one is more accurate in your pistol.

[citizensoldier16]

I choose the heavier bullets...specifically Speer Gold Dot 147gr GDHPs.

9mm 115gr:
Velocities 1210 (muzzle) 1071 (50yds) 981 (100yds)
Energy in FP 374 (muzzle) 293 (50yds) 246 (100yds)

9mm 147gr:
Velocities 985 (muzzle) 932 (50yds) 887 (100yds)
Energy in FP 317 (muzzle) 284 (50yds) 257 (100yds)

[stony275]

Really? Lighter bullets deliver more energy?

I always thought E=MC2!

Quick physics lesson. E (energy) = M (mass) x C (velocity) squared. Obviously the speed of the bullet is the most important since it's whats squared, but mass has considerable effects as well.

Would you rather get hit by a baseball thrown at 85mph or by a car going 85 mph? If speed is constant, or fairly constant, a heavier bullet delivers more energy.

Now, not saying 9mm sucks...because I carry a G19 myself. I choose the Speer Gold Dot w/ 147gr GDHPs.

Check Speer's website for technical info. You'll see that, even given the slower velocities, heavier bullets develop more energy across the spectrum, albeit a negligible amount.

http://www.speer-ammo.com/ballistics/ammo.aspx

C= the velocity of light. You're using a formula that does not apply to this topic.

Maybe you're thinking of KE = 1/2 MV^2
KE=Kinetic Energy
M=Mass
V=Velocity

Also your baseball and car analogy loses relevance in the discussion as it has the underlying false assumption that projectiles of differing weights from a handgun can be launched at the same velocity.

A 124gr 9 mm bullet travels faster (1150 ft/sec for Speer GDHP) than the 147 gr 9 mm bullet (985 ft/sec for Speer GDHP). Hence the dilemma for the shooter in ammunition selection. The 124 gr load has 47 more ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle than the 147 gr load at the muzzle and 13 more ft-lbs at 50 yds.

I'm not advocating that the effectiveness of handgun ammunition can simply be decided by a formula, but if physics is going to be introduced into the discussion, it should be factually correct.

[Jay Cunningham]

C= the velocity of light. You're using a formula that does not apply to this topic.

Maybe you're thinking of KE = 1/2 MV^2
KE=Kinetic Energy
M=Mass
V=Velocity

Stony, you are truly a Renaissance Man!

E=MC^2 has to do with mass/energy conversion... possibly applicable to .40 Glocks...

:eek:

[citizensoldier16]

And thus the dilemma with E=MC^2. Can it be applied in the real world? We could argue all night about it. True, it may not yield the numbers in the chart on Speer's website, but it does illustrate certain facts about bullets, expressed not in FP, but in Joules. In truth, foot-pounds is a measure of work, not energy. A heavier bullet has more energy since it is Mass x the speed of light ^2. Velocity is not used in the calculation.

The baseball/car visual illustrates perfectly Einstein's equation, and the concept of energy and transfer. We're attacking the same question from two different angles. And with that, goodnight.

[wake.joe]

Deleted

[ToddG]

And thus the dilemma with E=MC^2. Can it be applied in the real world?

Yes, it's applied in the real world all the time by reactors (or bombs) which convert matter into energy. If E=MC² plays a role in your small arms terminal ballistics, expect the .gov, the .mil, and probably the U.N. to be knocking on your door shortly. Oh, and Iran wants to hire you.

stony275 provided you with the correct equation, which still squares velocity. That is why relatively small increases in velocity leader to substantial increases in energy, while small increases in mass cause only small increases in energy.

E.g. pretty standard 9mm velocities using (115gr at 1,180fps = 355 ft-lbs) as a reference point:


115gr +p at 1,300fps = 431 ft-lbs (10% increase in velocity, 21% increase in energy)

124gr at 1,100fps = 333 ft-lbs (8% increase in mass, 7% decrease in velocity, 6% decrease in energy)

147gr at 990fps = 320 ft-lbs (28% increase in mass, 16% decrease in velocity, 10% decrease in energy)


As a general rule for a given MAP in a given caliber, heavier bullets will provide greater sectional density and higher momentum, while lighter bullets will provide greater velocity and higher energy.


In truth, foot-pounds is a measure of work, not energy.

Work and energy use the same units of measure. 1 ft-lb = 1.3558179483314004 joules.

[stony275]

Yes, it's applied in the real world all the time by reactors (or bombs) which convert matter into energy. If E=MC² plays a role in your small arms terminal ballistics, expect the .gov, the .mil, and probably the U.N. to be knocking on your door shortly. Oh, and Iran wants to hire you.

stony275 provided you with the correct equation, which still squares velocity. That is why relatively small increases in velocity leader to substantial increases in energy, while small increases in mass cause only small increases in energy.

E.g. pretty standard 9mm velocities using (115gr at 1,180fps = 355 ft-lbs) as a reference point:


115gr +p at 1,300fps = 431 ft-lbs (10% increase in velocity, 21% increase in energy)

124gr at 1,100fps = 333 ft-lbs (8% increase in mass, 7% decrease in velocity, 6% decrease in energy)

147gr at 990fps = 320 ft-lbs (28% increase in mass, 16% decrease in velocity, 10% decrease in energy)


As a general rule for a given MAP in a given caliber, heavier bullets will provide greater sectional density and higher momentum, while lighter bullets will provide greater velocity and higher energy.



Work and energy use the same units of measure. 1 ft-lb = 1.3558179483314004 joules.

Thank you. I'm glad someone gets it. Also stated far more diplomatically than I would have.

[John_Wayne777]

I did some search on the "web" and the consensus is that 147 in 9mm and 230 in 45 auto, with the "hydra shok" bullet are the best choice? am I GTG?

Please take the time to look over the links that FromMyColdDeadHand posted. Within them you'll find out what duty loads are recommended by the wound ballistics experts and why they have that recommendation. That's the simplest way to go.

Remember that about 75% of what you hear about terminal ballistics on the internet is absolute nonsense. Many people will extol the virtues of load X or load Y based on anecdotal information like the time they shot a hog with load X, or because they shot some clay one time, etc. They'll often whine that the ballistic testing done by real experts in the field is "flawed" for a number of reasons, or will simply say that "jello" testing is worthless.

These people are morons.

There are a number of government agencies out there with armed agents/employees who are expected to use their issued weapons to kill bad people if necessary. Those agencies pay very close attention to the work done by ballistics experts like DocGKR. This would be a clue about the value of that information.

[John_Wayne777]

Stony, you are truly a Renaissance Man!

E=MC^2 has to do with mass/energy conversion... possibly applicable to .40 Glocks...

:eek:

1. Since you're the one who glows in the dark, I'll leave moderation of any potential arguments in this thread to you. "No math" was clearly spelled out in my mod contract. Plus my TI-83's batteries are dead.

2. .40 caliber Glocks...***

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y16/jwayne_777/howaglockworks.gif

***NOTE: This is a joke. Humor. Meant to be funny. If you are in any way offended, please let me know. We will discuss it like adults....and by "discuss" I mean that I will actually throw my TI-83 at you.

[CaptainDooley]

***NOTE: This is a joke. Humor. Meant to be funny. If you are in any way offended, please let me know. We will discuss it like adults....and by "discuss" I mean that I will actually throw my TI-83 at you.

I'm offended that you would throw a TI-83... what did it ever do to you?!

Thanks for the E=MC^2 correction... I was really hoping not to have to give a physics lesson this morning when I first started reading this... Todd and Stony got it right.

As for the OP's Q... from what I've read the Hydra-Shoks are outdated and mediocre performers at best when compared to more recently-designed rounds. Read up in our forum here on Terminal Ballistics and pay attention to anything DocGKR says...

[El Cid]

FWIW, I use/recommend Corbon DPX. The 9mm is 115gr +P and the 45 is 185gr +P. Neither round shoots/feels like a +P. My ex-gf shot the 9mm from an M&P compact without any fuss and she was a new shooter.

Previous to DPX, I always used 230gr for 45ACP - the Speer Gold Dot to be precise.

[tpd223]

Funny, the Glock .40s I saw never blew up, they would have to feed properly first in order to be able to blow up.

Anyway, my contribution;

The Hydrashock in 9mm flavor was, in our experience here, a very poor choice of duty loads. Both the 124gr and 147gr rounds would often fail to expand due to being clogged with heavy clothing, or they would over-expand and fragment, leading to shallow penetration.
Weirdly enough we have seen both extremes in the same OIS.

The Gold Dot, HST and Ranger-T/Ranger Bonded bullets are far better choices.

[DocH]

I prefer the RA9T in the Glock 19's and the RA45T in the 1911's. Second preference choice is the HST's also in the 147 gr and 230 gr standard pressure loadings.

[Business_Casual]

I'm surprised this hasn't been moved to the Terminal Ballistics Forum.

Since it is about that.

M_P