View Full Version : Federal 9BP Gelatin Tests
Are there any available gelatin tests for the Federal 9BP 115 gr loads? While there are many improved loadings now, the 9BP was a good load for its time and it would be interesting to have it to compare to today's controlled expansion rounds.
Thanks.
Are there any available gelatin tests for the Federal 9BP 115 gr loads? While there are many improved loadings now, the 9BP was a good load for its time and it would be interesting to have it to compare to today's controlled expansion rounds.
Thanks.
On what do you base your assessment of the 9BP being a "good load for it's time".
And which time was that? And which other loads of that "time" was it better than?
On what do you base your assessment of the 9BP being a "good load for it's time".
And which time was that? And which other loads of that "time" was it better than?
The 9BP was widely considered to be one of the best readily available, non-exotic commercially loaded standard pressure 9mm loadings all through the 90s. I still use it.
The 1980's and 1990's, I suppose. I understand many police departments used them, so I presume they were well-considered.
Is there a problem with my question?
The 9BP was widely considered to be one of the best readily available, non-exotic commercially loaded standard pressure 9mm loadings all through the 90s.
By who?
And why?
The 1980's and 1990's, I suppose. I understand many police departments used them, so I presume they were well-considered.
Is there a problem with my question?
No. Just trying to understand your statement.
By who?
And why?
Per published testing data that was widely available at the time.
Because of a good balance between pressure, reliable feeding and terminal effectiveness.
Why are you being so argumentative? Do your own research if you want the answers to your questions. There's plenty of information out there on the 9BP.
Federal 9BPLE is +P+ ammo and was considered good ammo during the days when "Light and Fast" was all the rage. Do a little searching and you'll find it was in use by many agencies small and large around the country with success. I still have some and while I prefer heavier more modern bullet designs, I wouldn't feel ill equipped if I needed to use it. Don't have a source, but I do remember reading where it has the best stopping performance of all 9mm ammo based on actual shootings. That tells me that it must work fairly well and must have been in widespread use.
This data was taken from StoppingPower.net:
10% Ballistic Gelatin Tests for:
Federal 9mm 115gr. +p+ 9BPLE
Testing Platform: Glock 19
Barrier: 4 Layers of Denim
TEST RESULTS:
Round # 1:
Penetration: 12.50"
Recovered Weight: 110.1 gr.
Expansion*: .680 cal.
Velocity: 1298 fps.
Notes: .680 at widest “leg,” .551 cal average diameter.
* Expansion measured at widest point.
By who?
And why?
Keep in mind that the NYPD would only allow Winchester 115 grn FMJ's up until 1999-2000.
In the 1990's, many angencies issued Federal 115 grn 9mm in standard, +P, +P+ and Hydrashock loadings.
Winchester Silvertips were also commonly issued.
When I started my career in 1996, the agency I worked for had just switched from a Federal 115 grn JHP (don't recall which loading) to a Remington 124 grn Golden Saber +P. The Golden Saber's were replaced with the 135 grn Tactical Bonded round 2-3 years later.
Per published testing data that was widely available at the time.
Because of a good balance between pressure, reliable feeding and terminal effectiveness.
Why are you being so argumentative? Do your own research if you want the answers to your questions. There's plenty of information out there on the 9BP.
How am I being "argumentative"?
What makes this site different than others. is statements are usually backed up.
You said "The 9BP was widely considered to be one of the best readily available, non-exotic commercially loaded standard pressure 9mm loadings all through the 90s".
When I ask "by who?", you answer "per published testing data that was widely available at the time", then cop an attitude?
Keep in mind that the NYPD would only allow Winchester 115 grn FMJ's up until 1999-2000.
In the 1990's, many angencies issued Federal 115 grn 9mm in standard, +P, +P+ and Hydrashock loadings.
Winchester Silvertips were also commonly issued.
When I started my career in 1996, the agency I worked for had just switched from a Federal 115 grn JHP (don't recall which loading) to a Remington 124 grn Golden Saber +P. The Golden Saber's were replaced with the 135 grn Tactical Bonded round 2-3 years later.
Thanks. I started in 1975. I'm familiar with the history of issued ammo, I was looking for where the OP was coming from, or rather, where he was getting his info.
Federal 9BPLE is +P+ ammo and was considered good ammo during the days when "Light and Fast" was all the rage. Do a little searching and you'll find it was in use by many agencies small and large around the country with success. I still have some and while I prefer heavier more modern bullet designs, I wouldn't feel ill equipped if I needed to use it. Don't have a source, but I do remember reading where it has the best stopping performance of all 9mm ammo based on actual shootings. That tells me that it must work fairly well and must have been in widespread use.
This data was taken from StoppingPower.net:
10% Ballistic Gelatin Tests for:
Federal 9mm 115gr. +p+ 9BPLE
Testing Platform: Glock 19
Barrier: 4 Layers of Denim
TEST RESULTS:
Round # 1:
Penetration: 12.50"
Recovered Weight: 110.1 gr.
Expansion*: .680 cal.
Velocity: 1298 fps.
Notes: .680 at widest “leg,” .551 cal average diameter.
* Expansion measured at widest point.
9BP and 9BPLE are two different loads.
And you might want to do a little research of your own when it comes to sites that you're taking ballistic data, or "actual shooting" data from.
Anyone who's been around for awhile and knows much about 9mm knows that 9BPLE was the hot ticket it in the 90's and was in widespread use by many agencies/departments to include the Illinois State Police who played a part in its development. They used it with great success as did the Border Patrol for a number of years.
Are you saying that you've been around since 1975 and you didn't know this already or are you simply wanting him you to bring you documentation of what is seen as common knowledge to most?
I believe he felt you were being argumentative because you question him and me yet you don't provide any reasearch to back your points either?
"I stand corrected as I was speaking on 9BPLE and the OP was referring to 9BP."
Can't speak to the suitability of either load, but I remember when 50rd boxes of 9BP and 9BPLE were available at Walmart for $11.97.
They were what they were, and there are better loads now. See also: Hydrashok
Anyone who's been around for awhile and knows much about 9mm knows that 9BPLE was the hot ticket it in the 90's and was in widespread use by many agencies/departments to include the Illinois State Police who played a part in its development. They used it with great success as did the Border Patrol for a number of years.
Are you saying that you've been around since 1975 and you didn't know this already or are you simply wanting him you to bring you documentation of what is seen as common knowledge to most?
You seem to be having difficulty understanding the fact that 9BP and 9BPLE are two different loadings.
And yes, I'm aware that 9BPLE was a "hot ticket" for some agencies in the 90's.
What does that have to do with my questions?
Here you go, Jake'sDad: https://www.m4carbine.net/archive/index.php/t-50434.html Yes, I believed this to be generally available info.
I believe it would be interesting to compare a good loading from "then" to a good loading "now." Had I simply asked for the data with no context, most of the replies would have been suggestions to use the 124 gr HST instead, as no one would know the basis for my question.
So, is/are there gelatin test figures for the 9BP standard, and 9BP+p? Wahoo's provided the +p+; 9BPLE's fine for the latter.
I believe he felt you were being argumentative because you question him and me yet you don't provide any reasearch to back your points either?
:confused:
Did I somehow stumble on to another firearms site?
I merely asked on what data was the OP basing his statement on, and others chime in with repetitious references to "common knowledge" and allusions to discredited studies.
Here you go, Jake'sDad: https://www.m4carbine.net/archive/index.php/t-50434.html Yes, I believed this to be generally available info.
Is/are there gelatin test figures for the standard, +p? Wahoo's provided the +p+; LE's fine for the latter.
They did some testing of the 9BP in this article if that helps any:
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/HiPowerFederal115.htm
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.
Here you go, Jake'sDad: https://www.m4carbine.net/archive/index.php/t-50434.html Yes, I believed this to be generally available info.
:confused:
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?
Is/are there gelatin test figures for the standard, +p? Wahoo's provided the +p+; LE's fine for the latter.
The data wahoo provided was from stoppingpower.net, Evan Marshal's site. Use the search function here and decide how much you may wish to rely on it.
Wahoo95, Yes, thanks - I'd read the article and missed the reference to bare gelatin. Expecting a table format, I guess...
They did some testing of the 9BP in this article if that helps any:
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/HiPowerFederal115.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Thanks, doc - excellent info, and to the point.
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.
Christ. Now I have dig out a bunch of pre-Internet dead tree pubs to defend a simple statement of my general, uncontroversial recollection of something?
Where's my ignore button?
What seperates this site from others, especially this particular section, is that we prefer to deal with facts. The study of terminal ballistics is extremely important, and many people take it very seriously. Hence why when assertions are made that dont always "jive" questions will be asked. When you make an assertion, its always best to be prepared to acknowledge it, and present data supporting it. It's not meant to be personal, but it needs to be professional.
ETA:
When someone says "it was one of the best loads" that person shouldnt be offended when someone else asks for facts that support such a statement. It is not up to the person questioning the assertion to provide data. Saying XXXXXX City PD uses the load isnt data.
What seperates this site from others, especially this particular section, is that we prefer to deal with facts. The study of terminal ballistics is extremely important, and many people take it very seriously. Hence why when assertions are made that dont always "jive" questions will be asked. When you make an assertion, its always best to be prepared to acknowledge it, and present data supporting it. It's not meant to be personal, but it needs to be professional.
ETA:
When someone says "it was one of the best loads" that person shouldnt be offended when someone else asks for facts that support such a statement. It is not up to the person questioning the assertion to provide data. Saying XXXXXX City PD uses the load isnt data.
Thanks.
I was beginning to think my browser had a hijack in it.........
HeavyDuty: Where's my ignore button? It's under "User CP/Edit Ignore List."
My usual rule for joining new fora such as this is to look at several multi-page (and therefore controversial) threads and find - easily - several people to populate initially my "Ignore" lists. It saves effort by not having to waste time on them in the future. I'll not forget again.
Are there any available gelatin tests for the Federal 9BP 115 gr loads? While there are many improved loadings now, the 9BP was a good load for its time and it would be interesting to have it to compare to today's controlled expansion rounds. Thanks.
A simple observation from the past, about a generally held view, turns into an exercise in nit picking.
In order to maintain the high standards of this website, it would be best if we limit the 'cite your source' requests to more substantial claims.
Jwalker, sorry you had to go through this inquisition. This place is usually better behaved.
Doc, you should lock this thread.
A simple observation from the past, about a generally held view
200, before you pile on, maybe you should ask Doc if the 9BP was "one of the best loads available throughout the 90's", in the view of the wound ballistic community. I can tell you the IWBA folks I know sure didn't think so.
Sometimes "generally held views", aren't generally held, by those who actually know what they were talking about.
Compare the data on the 9BP posted here from Evan Marshal's site, or the opinion of this loads effectiveness, with the data and opinion posted by Doc. Notice the discrepancies?
9BP was the darling of gun magazine writers throughout the 90's who touted it in opposition to much better performing 147 grain loads that were available. It became legendary for it's "street performance" pushed by the same writers. That legend continues on today for many who haven't familiarized themselves with the work of folks like Fackler, Wolberg, and Roberts, or the experiences of agencies that switched from 115 grain loads to 147 grain loads in the 1980's or 1990's.
That's why I asked the simple questions that seemed to upset a couple posters, and made them so defensive.
I carried and was issued 9BP and 9BPLE back in the mid to late 1980's--it was better than some of the other options available back then, as it was accurate, reliable, and penetrated better than loads like the Silvertip, Glasser, and other such nonsense. With the advent of Dr. Fackler's work, the wound ballistic workshops at Quantico and founding of the FBI BRF, as well as the work of the IWBA, improved loads were developed that offered better penetration, improved intermediate barrier performance, and enhanced terminal performance consistency.
As I have stated before, bullet designs like the 9BP/BPLE, Silver Tip, Hydra-Shok, and Black Talon were state of the art 15 or 20 years ago. These older bullets tend to plug up and act like FMJ projectiles when shot through heavy clothing; they also often have significant degradation in terminal performance after first passing through intermediate barriers. Modern ammunition which has been designed for robust expansion against clothing and intermediate barriers is significantly superior to the older designs. The bullets in the Federal Classic and Hydrashok line are outperformed by other ATK products such as the Federal Tactical and HST, as well as the Speer Gold Dot; likewise Winchester Ranger Talons, Ranger Bonded, and Ranger Partition are far superior to the old Black Talons or civilian SXT's.
It is time to move on...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.