View Full Version : 3" Inch 9mm Carry Loads?
PA PATRIOT
07-05-11, 14:44
With all of the Micro 9mm pistols currently the new fade with CCW owners I was wondering what if any of DocGKR's approved carry/duty loads would offer acceptable performance in a 3" inch barrel.
Now most likely the best choices maybe the Barnes XPB 105 & 115 gr JHP (copper bullet) or Speer 9mm +P Short Barrel loading but I have not seen any data to confirm either as a viable short barrel loading.
I remember in a old thread some talk on the now discontinued Winchester Partition Gold 124 gr JHP (RA91P) being a decent short barrel loading but can't find that thread under a forum search.
brzusa.1911
07-05-11, 14:50
HST 147gr or 124gr +P
PA PATRIOT
07-05-11, 14:53
HST 147gr or 124gr +P
Can I ask what data you are basing your choice on that qualify these loadings acceptable with 3.0 inch barrels?
Thanks!
Phila PD
brzusa.1911
07-05-11, 15:19
Can I ask what data you are basing your choice on that qualify these loadings acceptable with 3.0 inch barrels?
Thanks!
Phila PD
Basing on ballistics data I have found when researching for my EMP 9mm.
Powder_Burn
07-05-11, 15:44
Review Molon's chrono posts on this...basically 147's suffer less velocity loss out of short barrels. Federal sells both standard and +P 147gr HST loads that would be a good option.
147 gr doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling when it comes to 3" barrels. I guess I just haven't seen enough data. It just seems too close to the reliable expansion window velocity wise.
I've seen the Gold Dot SB tested from Glock 26s and Kahr PM9s, it does exactly what you would want it to.
I've had good results with the 147gr HST and Ranger T. If you don't feel comfortable with the 147gr, give the Ranger RA9TA 127gr +P+ a shot.
O
Beat Trash
07-08-11, 13:53
My 3" gun is a Kahr PM9. I use the same ammunition in it as in my larger 9mm's, which is winchester Ranger T series 147 JHP.
It's been awhile since I studied it. (I've had the Kahr since 2005.) But when I looked into it at the time, the velocity loss from the 147 gr loads by going from a 4" to a 3" barrel wasn't all that much.
I worry more about shot placement with the little guns than I do about losing a few FPS.
147 gr doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling when it comes to 3" barrels. I guess I just haven't seen enough data. It just seems too close to the reliable expansion window velocity wise.
OK. Whats the expansion window for 147gr loads?
Can I ask what data you are basing your choice on that qualify these loadings acceptable with 3.0 inch barrels?
Thanks!
Phila PD
From Paul Nowack of Winchester"
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.
PA PATRIOT
07-08-11, 19:50
From Paul Nowack of Winchester"
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.
Thank you!
I'M trying to stay away from +P and +P+ loads as my 17oz Ruger LC-9 pistol would have stout muzzle flip with same drastically cutting my accuracy and speed between shots. Now a good 147gr H/P such as the Federal HST looks promising with Paul Nowacks information and I'M hoping DocGKR or another reputable source has some 3.0" barrel testing data to confirm its accuracy.
OK. Whats the expansion window for 147gr loads?
Well sir, you'll have to take that question to the manufacturer... :) I thought most 147gr would peter out @ 875 maybe 900 fps or something like that.
PA PATRIOT
07-11-11, 21:10
DocGKR,
Have you done any testing with the Corbon 95gr DPX H/P?
Corbon makes the below statement that all of the DPX line meets the FBI standard when tested with a medium of 10% ballistic gelatin with four layers of 10 oz denim barrier.
Sounds like the perfect short barrel 9mm load if independent testing confirms Corbon's claims.
Caliber: 9mm Luger
Bullet Wt.: 95gr DPX
Velocity: 1300fps
Energy: 356ftlbs
Test Barrel Length: 3.1 Inches
Info from http://www.shopcorbon.com/DPX-Handgun/9mm-Luger-95gr-DPX/DPX0980-20/200/Product
DPX is a solid copper hollowpoint bullet that combines the best of the lightweight high speed JHPs and the heavy weight, deep penetrating JHPs. Recoil and recovery between shots are similar to the light weight rounds while soft tissue penetration is similar to the heavy weight rounds.
Hard barrier penetration on auto glass and steel are no problem for this all copper hollowpoint round. You get superb performance on these hard barriers while still maintaining safe soft tissue penetration depths.
The research and development team for CORBON products used the protocol from the FBI's testing procedures to develop the defensive line of DPX ammunition. They achieved soft tissue penetration of 12-17", with reliable and consistent expansion. The recovered bullets are 150% to 200% of the original size and 100% weight retention when recovered from the test medium of 10% ballistic gelatin with four layers of 10 oz denim barrier. The permanent crush cavity is also considerably larger than that of a typical JHP.
The all copper bullet construction makes it conquer hard barriers like auto glass and steel while still maintaining its integrity. This is an optimum load for Law Enforcement.
Deep penetration on soft tissue 12-17"
Easily conquers hard barriers like auto glass and steel
Reduced recoil due to lighter weight projectile
Well sir, you'll have to take that question to the manufacturer... :) I thought most 147gr would peter out @ 875 maybe 900 fps or something like that.
Every bullet has its velocity threshold. 124gr is different form 147gr rounds.
OK. Whats the expansion window for 147gr loads?
Well sir, you'll have to take that question to the manufacturer... :) I thought most 147gr would peter out @ 875 maybe 900 fps or something like that.
Every bullet has its velocity threshold. 124gr is different form 147gr rounds.
Yup... they sure are. Don't forget bullet makeup/design/manufacturer/etc.
PA PATRIOT
07-14-11, 19:50
Found this over on Glock Talk but Michael Shovel does not give any testing data to back up his claims.
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1229602
TeamCorbon
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Western PA
Posts: 237
From the horses mouth instead of the internet commandos!
The 95 gr standard pressure DPX load in 9mm was designed for use in the smallest compact 9mm pistol. It actually mimics the performance of the 115 gr +P load fired from a full sized gun when the 95 gr load is fired from a compact 9mm. If you shoot the 115 gr +P 9mm DPX load from a gun with a 4-4.5" barrel into ballistic gelatin, it would give you 15-16" penetration with a recovered diameter of @ .60" The same results would be obtained using the 95 gr load in a 9mm pistol with a 3" barrel.
If you use the 95 gr DPX load in a full sized gun, it would give deeper penetration ( probably 19-20" in ballistic gelatin).
__________________
Michael Shovel
National Sales Manager
CORBON/Glaser
www.CORBON.com
Mike@CORBON.com
PA PATRIOT
07-14-11, 20:45
Wonder if the 9MM Luger 92.6 Grain Solid Copper Hollow Point that MagTech uses in there First Defense Ammunition line is the same bullet as the Corbon DPX load?
http://www.magtechammunition.com/sitepages/pid103.php?productId=575<emplate=details&templateId=14&pageId=103&search=details
http://www.magtechammunition.com/images/products/fdef.jpg
http://www.magtechammunition.com/images/products/fdslug.jpg
http://www.magtechammunition.com/images/products/schp.jpg
Any one have any info on the 9mm Speer Gold Dot Short Barrel 124gr. +P?
http://www.speer-ammo.com/products/short_brl.aspx
Some time ago I had the opportunity to chronograph (Oehler M 35P at 10 ft) a 9mm Wather PPS (3.2" barrel) with some regular Gold Dot +P 124gr 9mm (part # 23617). Five shots averaged 1179 fps, which is about 96% of the published velocity on the Speer website.
I'm just some guy on the internet so take this with a grain of salt, but I would not worry about velocity loss from a 3" 9mm barrel with premium self-defense ammo.
It is better to select a proven duty round from Doc's list and test your protection handgun for reliability with it. It is futile to worry about velocity, expansion or penetration if your pocket pistol jams when it is needed most.:fie:
viperashes
08-24-11, 04:06
Just to get an accurate representation of what is being said, basically, the same 127gr +P+ Ranger T that I use for carry in my G19 is "acceptable" ammunition in a G26, it just probably isn't the most optimal ammo to use? I'm not worried about losing a little bit of velocity because the barrel is so small.
I understand that 147gr. would keep it's velocity better, and understand the mechanics of dwell time and velocity. I'm just wondering if there are any other drawbacks to using this ammunition in a sub-compact other than increased muzzle flip and lower velocity retention than on a compact or full-size.
PA PATRIOT
08-24-11, 10:14
Surprising that there is not more official testing by major departments or the FBI that allow the use of small barreled back up guns on duty.
Now many say that the 147gr maybe a good choice but I have always been a "Show Me" type of person that likes to see solid, reliable testing results before making a defensive ammunition choice.
Would anyone know what the expansion window velocity wise for the Federal HST 147gr loading is?
I don't have any definitive info on this, but I do recall one of the Winchester engineers speaking about a widened expansion window being a feature of their updated Ranger-T line, to address this very issue..
viperashes
08-25-11, 00:42
Surprising that there is not more official testing by major departments or the FBI that allow the use of small barreled back up guns on duty.
Now many say that the 147gr maybe a good choice but I have always been a "Show Me" type of person that likes to see solid, reliable testing results before making a defensive ammunition choice.
Would anyone know what the expansion window velocity wise for the Federal HST 147gr loading is?
That's exactly why I ask. I am a "show me" type of person and there seems to be no clear answer to this question in sight, I've been looking pretty hard.
I don't have any definitive info on this, but I do recall one of the Winchester engineers speaking about a widened expansion window being a feature of their updated Ranger-T line, to address this very issue..
But just how wide is that window. I bought a case of 127gr +P+, I think I may have to dedicate a box to some testing. I think that it will yield good results. I'm just, again, a "show me" type of person.
PA PATRIOT
08-25-11, 23:24
That's exactly why I ask. I am a "show me" type of person and there seems to be no clear answer to this question in sight, I've been looking pretty hard.
But just how wide is that window. I bought a case of 127gr +P+, I think I may have to dedicate a box to some testing. I think that it will yield good results. I'm just, again, a "show me" type of person.
That +P+ loading in a small light weight pistol is going to be a handful, please post a review once you have a chance to do so.
viperashes
08-26-11, 03:12
That +P+ loading in a small light weight pistol is going to be a handful, please post a review once you have a chance to do so.
Will do. It should be a couple of weeks before I get to. I'll do some side-by-side comparison with some other types of ammo too.
Will do. It should be a couple of weeks before I get to. I'll do some side-by-side comparison with some other types of ammo too.
Viperashes,
Did you ever get a chance to test out the different loads?
Thanks!
Beat Trash
11-11-11, 16:48
Surprising that there is not more official testing by major departments or the FBI that allow the use of small barreled back up guns on duty.
Now many say that the 147gr maybe a good choice but I have always been a "Show Me" type of person that likes to see solid, reliable testing results before making a defensive ammunition choice.
Would anyone know what the expansion window velocity wise for the Federal HST 147gr loading is?
My agency hosted a ballistics workshop today for ATK. In 9mm the three rounds tested were the following:
Federal HST 147 gr (P9HST2)
Speer 124 gr +P (53617)
Winchester 147gr JHP (WWB - Current issued duty load)
The test gun was a M&P9 (4" barrel). Bare Gel, 4 layer denim, wall board and auto glass tests were done.
After, that, bare gel tests were done with a M&P9c (3.5" barrel). The penetration of the HST round was exactly the same with the M&P9c as with the M&P9 (14.25").
I had a personally owned Kahr PM9 that I included. A bare gel shot of all three rounds was conducted. The penetration of the HST round only increased to 15". I don't have the other figures as the data sheet is at the range with our Range Master. But the minimum and maximum expansion, and retained weight of the HST round from the 3.5" M&P9c to the 3" PM9 wasn't enough to get excited about.
I am sure of the data as I was the one doing the measuring for this workshop. (ATK prefers to not have their personnel do the measuring.)
Bottom line, I personally would not worry about the 147 gr HST in a 3" PM9.
Other things I might mention: The Federal flight control 00Buck loading is amazing. Our current reduced recoil 00 Buck grouped 11" at 50'. The Federal flight control loading grouped 5.5" out of the same 870 at 50".
The Speer 38spc 135gr +P out of my S&W 642 went 11.5" in bare gel, and looked picture perfect in the uniformity of it's expansion.
Shooting a 9mm 147gr HST round and a 230gr 45 HST round into the same block of gel is an eye opening experience. Both rounds penetrated to exactly the same distance. Carrying 17 rds of 9mm vs 10 rds of 45? A no brainer for me...
Kent and Johann from ATK were a class act. Johann really knows what he's talking about and is an interesting guy to talk with. But after spending the day with him, I now feel the need to go buy a folding Strider knife!
Next week, Winchester is coming out. Will see how the 147gr Ranger loading performs out of the PM9.
Beat Trash,thanks for posting this info.I've been mulling over what load I was going to use in a PPS. Looks like I may just stick with my regular 147's.
Do you recall the penetration depths of the 45 and 9mm HST's that penetrated the same in the gel?
Shooting a 9mm 147gr HST round and a 230gr 45 HST round into the same block of gel is an eye opening experience. Both rounds penetrated to exactly the same distance. Carrying 17 rds of 9mm vs 10 rds of 45? A no brainer for me...
A no brainer if you only want to look at half the equation. Doc preaches penetration AND expansion. Remember, in handgun rounds the temporary cavity is not important... the permanent crush cavity is. An HST 230 +P expanded to .85" gives you better odds of striking a vital structure than does an HST 147gr 9mm expanded to .61 inches (based on the correctly measured data from Doc, not the incorrectly measured bullet diamters from ATK). In fact, if we assume a perfect circle and look at the area the .45 crushes (pi x r-squared), it is almost double at .567 in-sq vs. .292 in-sq for the 9mm. If we want to compare real mag capacity, I will take my 14 rounds of .45 (Glock 21SF) vs. your 18 rounds of 9mm. Finally, the fact that a heavier bullet will have more momentum is a proven scientific fact. The 230 grain bullet is much less likely to be swayed by bone and will retain more velocity over longer distances than the 147 will.
Gee I thought this was a 9mm thread.
Anyway whats wrong with Federal 115 +P+ 9BPLE? Many times it is available at near nato fmj prices. Also Winchester has the ranger +P that comes up reasonable at times also. Seems like once a year on of them pops up for cheap. I am just a believer that with your primary CCW you should practice with the same ammo you carry. You just never know as far as hollow points and jams and it takes a lot of rounds to have the confidence and natural reflex with a round that you want if God Forbid you ever actually need to use it. I guess I am willing to give up the slight ballistic handicap for using the same round I practice with.
Now if you can afford a few thousand rounds of the $1 a pop stuf, then by all means go for it but the rest of us? Eh I don't know.
Nephrology
11-12-11, 08:11
Finally, momentum is a proven scientific fact. .
haha, that's like saying "cells are a proven scientific fact." That doesn't really mean anything if you don't put it into context.
There is no point in abusing science to try to prove yourself right. If anything the only thing that 50+ years of formalized ballistic testing has shown is is that there is a lot that we still can't examine or quantify, and that nothing that we have come up with proves anything definitively.
The differences between the classic duty cartridges are minimal and not really worth fighting about. It is more important to examine the different options for JHPs within a given caliber and pistol to determine what will work best for you and not so much what you think should work best for others. This thread is better left to the discussion of what loads work best in 3" 9mm barrels as there is much more to be gained from that than a petty caliber war.
haha, that's like saying "cells are a proven scientific fact." That doesn't really mean anything if you don't put it into context.
There is no point in abusing science to try to prove yourself right. If anything the only thing that 50+ years of formalized ballistic testing has shown is is that there is a lot that we still can't examine or quantify, and that nothing that we have come up with proves anything definitively.
The differences between the classic duty cartridges are minimal and not really worth fighting about. It is more important to examine the different options for JHPs within a given caliber and pistol to determine what will work best for you and not so much what you think should work best for others. This thread is better left to the discussion of what loads work best in 3" 9mm barrels as there is much more to be gained from that than a petty caliber war.
While I appreciate your condescending comments, this is not a petty caliber war. My daily carry gun is a Kahr PM9 loaded with Winchester 127 gr +P+. I edited my comment for clarity above. It is a proven fact that a heavier bullet has more momentum. If you had read my post carefully, you would have noted the second part of the momentum comment that a heavier bullet, all other things being equal, will maintain its velocity longer. My point was of the post was not to bag on the 9mm, but to point out that there was another component to look at other than penetration, i.e, expansion. Mag capacity is another component. We need to remember that we are dealing with a platform that is less than ideal for the job at hand. A handgun is a trade-off of convenience versus firepower. I remember my firearms instructor in the academy asking us, "if you knew you would be in a gun fight this very afternoon, what gun would you take with you?" Some answers were M60 machine gun, 12-gauge shot gun, 300 Win Mag, etc. I carried a Glock 22 on duty for 10-years because the Glock 21 grip was just too fat for me until I finally got the slim frame.
Your comment, "nothing proves anything", wreaks of the current nihilistic attitude which has crept into the scientific community as of late.
Review Molon's chrono posts on this...basically 147's suffer less velocity loss out of short barrels. Federal sells both standard and +P 147gr HST loads that would be a good option.
Indeed:
http://i1229.photobucket.com/albums/ee465/scott19761442/9mmVelocityLoss.jpg
The 147gr standard pressure load suffers the least amount of velocity loss when fired out of shorter barrels. It is a far more efficient loading than +P or +P+.
Going with a higher pressure, higher velocity load is a matter of diminishing returns in shorter barrels. The faster the bullet travels, the faster it leaves the barrel and doesn't allow the charge to burn off inside the barrel and thus.....build up more pressure. Standard pressure ammo, particularly the 147gr load, stays inside the barrel longer allowing more powder to be burned and more pressure buildup. I've often found lots of unburned powder in +P and +P+ 9mm as well as .357sig. Not so with standard pressure loads or slower velocity .40 and .45. The same principle applies to rifle calibers. In 5.56, heavier, slower velocity loads suffer less velocity loss in SBRs and are better for those applications.
While I agree with this data, do you see a fallacy with looking at velocity loss as opposed to actually comparing the velocity of specific rounds out of a 3-inch barrel as it relates to their expansion threshold?
Nephrology
11-12-11, 14:19
Your comment, "nothing proves anything", wreaks of the current nihilistic attitude which has crept into the scientific community as of late.
Skepticism is healthy and a big part of the natural sciences, particularly skepticism in one's own methodology and the strength of its conclusions.
While I agree with this data, do you see a fallacy with looking at velocity loss as opposed to actually comparing the velocity of specific rounds out of a 3-inch barrel as it relates to their expansion threshold?
Yep, % velocity drop probably isn't a simple linear relation to change in expansion.
I think probably the smartest thing to do is find a reputable JHP round you can afford and control/shoot the best with. Get enough experience with that ammo in your pistol so it is routine. Loading your carry weapon with expensive ammo you rarely shoot cause it has better numbers on paper just doesn't seem wise.
While I agree with this data, do you see a fallacy with looking at velocity loss as opposed to actually comparing the velocity of specific rounds out of a 3-inch barrel as it relates to their expansion threshold?
Indeed. Each individual bullet design and weight is setup differently. A 124gr+P Gold Dot may have reliable exansion 75fps slower than what it was designed for, but a HST may be able to push that envelope from -100 to -150. Probably why Speer felt a need for producing short barrel ammunition for its Gold Dot line, while Federal didn't feel it necessary with the HST.
All that being said, you'll likely get good performance out of any of top three manufacturers......Federal, Speer, and Winchester in 3" barrels. The +P+ loads still work well, I just feel that the extra blast, flash, and recoil particularly out of a smaller barrel are unnecessary distractions to the shooter to slow down your shooting and alertness. Larry Vickers, Ken Hackathorn, and Gary Roberts seem to like the 147gr HST.
I broke down last night and ordered 150 rounds of Federal HST 147 gr +P's from Kyle's Gunshop. The 127 gr +P+, while not un-manageable, does have significant muzzle jump. Not sure when I can get to the range in the next week or two but I will post up my results with the PM9.
Gee I thought this was a 9mm thread.
Anyway whats wrong with Federal 115 +P+ 9BPLE? Many times it is available at near nato fmj prices. Also Winchester has the ranger +P that comes up reasonable at times also. Seems like once a year on of them pops up for cheap. I am just a believer that with your primary CCW you should practice with the same ammo you carry. You just never know as far as hollow points and jams and it takes a lot of rounds to have the confidence and natural reflex with a round that you want if God Forbid you ever actually need to use it. I guess I am willing to give up the slight ballistic handicap for using the same round I practice with.
Now if you can afford a few thousand rounds of the $1 a pop stuf, then by all means go for it but the rest of us? Eh I don't know.
Doc doesn't recommend the BPLE because the disadvantage is not "slight".
The various old school 115gr +P and +P+ loads typically over expand and fragment on bare gel tests, and often fail to expand through heavy clothing/4 layer denim tests.
The BPLE fails to expand like 20-25% of the time when shot through heavy clothing. OIS performance backs up these tests.
These loads also suck at getting through cover effectively.
I would carry BPLE over ball ammo (and in the past I have actually done so), but I would much rather carry any of Gold Dot, Ranger-T or HST loads.
FWIW, In real life I have noted that the 124gr +P Gold Dot works almost exactly the same, terminal ballistics wise, whether it is launched from a G26 or a G17.
PA PATRIOT
11-15-11, 16:48
The BPLE fails to expand like 20-25% of the time when shot through heavy clothing. OIS performance backs up these tests.
These loads also suck at getting through cover effectively.
Can you post your source for this information? I would like to read up on the older loadings and how they faired in OIS's.
Can you post your source for this information? I would like to read up on the older loadings and how they faired in OIS's.
That info is straight from Doc.
The auto glass part I knew about years ago from debriefs coming from various OISs.
Ok, where are we at with this?
I got a Hellcat. Haven't fired it yet.
Reading up these 3 inch barrels are slow.
Many JHP's won't expand. Lightweight ones that will often are low on penetration. Basically a 3-inch standard pressure 9x19 is just one small step up from a 3.8 inch .380.
I don't want to use +P in this little gun because I want to train with it and not wear it out. Nor does it need any more recoil. (I also have a Shield 9mm for comparison)
Carry ammo? On my contender list are FMJ-FP, 124 gr Golden Sabre, and 124 gr Hornady XTP.
The Winchester Ranger was rated #1, followed closely by Federal HST 147, and then HST 124. Ammoquest.
ViperTwoSix
10-11-21, 21:46
As Georgib mentioned, ammo quest / ShootingTheBull410 did lots of testing on 9mm loads out of a 3 inch barrel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc5n_JsY3aw
Thanks guys.
Penetration is marginal. (My opinion) but not too bad.
I'll look through his tests and see if he tested any of the XTP or FMJ.
Thanks guys.
Penetration is marginal. (My opinion) but not too bad.
I'll look through his tests and see if he tested any of the XTP or FMJ.
If you really want to know, you have to chrono the loads through your gun. Some barrels are faster, or slower, than others. The trouble with 'best for a 3inch 9mm" is without testing your particular gun, you don't actually know what kind of velocities you are getting. In a lot of cases, the difference between a 3inch and a 4 inch gun is going to be pretty marginal, especially when you consider a standard deviation of 30-50fps between ammo lots is not uncommon. Throw in weather, elevation, and a bunch of other variables and you might find you are splitting hairs. 9mm is pretty efficient round, so it tends to lose a little less in a short barrel than a .45 or .38.
If you really want to know, you have to chrono the loads through your gun. Some barrels are faster, or slower, than others. The trouble with 'best for a 3inch 9mm" is without testing your particular gun, you don't actually know what kind of velocities you are getting. In a lot of cases, the difference between a 3inch and a 4 inch gun is going to be pretty marginal, especially when you consider a standard deviation of 30-50fps between ammo lots is not uncommon. Throw in weather, elevation, and a bunch of other variables and you might find you are splitting hairs. 9mm is pretty efficient round, so it tends to lose a little less in a short barrel than a .45 or .38.
I'll chrono it..
I'll chrono it..
Forgot about this.
I have a few more loads I can test but I did some Hornady 124 gr +P XTP's from my new HK P30SK V1.
They averaged about 1050 fps. Oh well, still probably better than the .32 & .380 fmj I'd been carrying in my Cheetah. (950 fps for the 95 gr .380 fmj, 1000 fps for the 73 gr .32 fmj, chronographed)
After watching MAC's video on Underwood Extreme Defense in 380, I was so impressed with how the round worked that the 9mm +p 68 grain Extreme Defender is now in my Glock 26 as well as all my 9mm guns.
Cagemonkey
02-03-22, 20:19
I use Sigs 365 9mm Ammo in my Sig 365. Its suppose to be calibrated/matched to the gun. https://www.sigsauer.com/9mm-115gr-elite-v-crown-365-jhp-1.html
After watching MAC's video on Underwood Extreme Defense in 380, I was so impressed with how the round worked that the 9mm +p 68 grain Extreme Defender is now in my Glock 26 as well as all my 9mm guns.
I ordered some to try out myself. (68 gr +P) Will chronograph from my HKP30SK 3.3 inch and Beretta Cx4 16 inch & report back.
Generally speaking the 147gr will lose less velocity than the lighter but faster loads when the barrel gets shorter. I use the 147gr +P HST for my 9mm handguns, regardless of barrel length. Once the +P version runs out (I think they stopped making them) I have the standard pressure 147gr HST's as next-in-line.
I remember back in the 90's and early 2000's when 9mm 147gr loads flat-out sucked. With the advancements in bullet technology, IMHO the 147gr is the way to go. HST's and Ranger's have the weight and sectional density to penetrate deeply yet still expand well. The best of both worlds. Then you factor in less recoil (not as "snappy") and it's win-win.
I ordered some to try out myself. (68 gr +P) Will chronograph from my HKP30SK 3.3 inch and Beretta Cx4 16 inch & report back.
I tried out the Underwood Defense 68 gr +p ammo.
No over pressure signs. Fed fine through the HK P30SK.
I ran ten rounds over my Pro Chrony at about 10-15 ft. It was about 65 degrees.
High: 1749
Low: 1707
Avg: 1726
ES: 42
Sd: 14
Pretty damn good, huh!?
Point of impact didnt seem to be any different than 124 gr fmj ammo. Hows that? I dunno. Accuracy was fine. Recoil & blast not notable.
Edit:
Oh, I tried to feed some through my new AP-5. Nah, it fed a couple and chocked on a couple more. I expect my CX4 carbine to feed them fine.
But the four I measured through the 9 in? Barrel were just over 2000 fps. Nice.
The AP5 ran perfectly on fmj and 147 gr Fiocchi JHP. Even Win USA white box.
Gold dot 147gr
Hst 147 gr
I use Sigs 365 9mm Ammo in my Sig 365. Its suppose to be calibrated/matched to the gun. https://www.sigsauer.com/9mm-115gr-elite-v-crown-365-jhp-1.html
sig's v crown ammo is sub par
they expand poorly if they even expand at all
Generally speaking the 147gr will lose less velocity than the lighter but faster loads when the barrel gets shorter. I use the 147gr +P HST for my 9mm handguns, regardless of barrel length. Once the +P version runs out (I think they stopped making them) I have the standard pressure 147gr HST's as next-in-line.
I remember back in the 90's and early 2000's when 9mm 147gr loads flat-out sucked. With the advancements in bullet technology, IMHO the 147gr is the way to go. HST's and Ranger's have the weight and sectional density to penetrate deeply yet still expand well. The best of both worlds. Then you factor in less recoil (not as "snappy") and it's win-win.
federal recently changed the design of the 147gr HST, and the new lots are seeming to have expansion issues in real life shootings
the 124 and 124gr +p HST are the new gold standard
Generally speaking the 147gr will lose less velocity than the lighter but faster loads when the barrel gets shorter. I use the 147gr +P HST for my 9mm handguns, regardless of barrel length. Once the +P version runs out (I think they stopped making them) I have the standard pressure 147gr HST's as next-in-line.
I remember back in the 90's and early 2000's when 9mm 147gr loads flat-out sucked. With the advancements in bullet technology, IMHO the 147gr is the way to go. HST's and Ranger's have the weight and sectional density to penetrate deeply yet still expand well. The best of both worlds. Then you factor in less recoil (not as "snappy") and it's win-win.
federal recently changed the design of the 147gr HST, and the new lots are seeming to have expansion issues in real life shootings
the 124 and 124gr +p HST are the new gold standard
Of the Ranger line, which is best for a 3-3.3 in barrel: 147 gr RA9T or 127 gr +p+ RA9TA?
Will the 147 gr RA9T expand from such a short barrel?
Of the Ranger line, which is best for a 3-3.3 in barrel: 147 gr RA9T or 127 gr +p+ RA9TA?
Will the 147 gr RA9T expand from such a short barrel?
RA9T will expand from a 3” barrel.
federal recently changed the design of the 147gr HST, and the new lots are seeming to have expansion issues in real life shootings
the 124 and 124gr +p HST are the new gold standard
Do you have a source for this? Or info on what lots have been affected?
I'm going with the Underwood 68 gr. They shoot fine from my P30SK and I dig the velocity.
When I prove them out in my CX4 9mm its getting them, too.
They are a low-flash, quality load, offer good penetration without the over penetration risk / waste like fmj, can't be clogged by clothing, cut tissue better than a round bullet, shoot a typical POI from my pistol, are lighter to carry, might hurt a BG more should he have armor, and are less deadly far down range.
For carried spare magazine (s) I lean toward standard weight projectiles for better performance through barriers / cover.
Do you have a source for this? Or info on what lots have been affected?
Yes, very interested to read the source. The newest HST's I have are at least a year+ old, and that's the 147gr standard pressure ones. All the other ones are even older.
Yes, very interested to read the source. The newest HST's I have are at least a year+ old, and that's the 147gr standard pressure ones. All the other ones are even older.
I got curious and did a quick google search on the subject. Found a few discussions on the topic, but little actual info. Several people repeat the same claims of failures in real-world shootings, but offer no details or info. Closest to anything useful I found was a test of "new" 147gr HST by TNoutdoors9, which showed slightly reduced expansion. According to him, the change was several years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQg_D7mcVRw
I'm going with the Underwood 68 gr.
For carried spare magazine (s) I lean toward standard weight projectiles for better performance through barriers / cover.
Actually, it depends on the cover. All my ready-mags getting the Lehigh bullets.
Really lightens up a 20-rd mag, too.
Yes, very interested to read the source. The newest HST's I have are at least a year+ old, and that's the 147gr standard pressure ones. All the other ones are even older.
The design definitely changed and you can find pictures showing the difference. It's been a while since I have read anything about it, but IIRC anything in the new box shown in the video is the new bullet. You can verify new or old load by pulling a bullet. New bullet 2 cannelure, and the old bullet has 1.
I have no info on real world shootings, but the design has definitely changed. Increased barrier penetration at the cost of a little expansion. Pistol forums has a short thread about it. You can also find info scattered among the interwebs.
I got curious and did a quick google search on the subject. Found a few discussions on the topic, but little actual info. Several people repeat the same claims of failures in real-world shootings, but offer no details or info. Closest to anything useful I found was a test of "new" 147gr HST by TNoutdoors9, which showed slightly reduced expansion. According to him, the change was several years ago.
Why does the desire to "fix it if it ain't broke" seem to permeate society in general? SMH
The design definitely changed and you can find pictures showing the difference. It's been a while since I have read anything about it, but IIRC anything in the new box shown in the video is the new bullet. You can verify new or old load by pulling a bullet. New bullet 2 cannelure, and the old bullet has 1.
I have no info on real world shootings, but the design has definitely changed. Increased barrier penetration at the cost of a little expansion. Pistol forums has a short thread about it. You can also find info scattered among the interwebs.
Happen to have a link to the pistol forums thread?
Does anyone know why this ammo was discontinued, or where to get any? It's 150 gr HST "micro" 9mm, it's designed for short barrels. Also I'm interested in the 38 spc HST micro, it's discontinued also. I have some Buffalo Bore 158 gr 38 spc +p LSWCHP 1000 fps, but I think the recoil would be a bit much for an airweight J frame.
https://i.imgur.com/oxW43I0.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/9ofdcHV.jpg
I run garden variety 124 HST +P in couple 3” P365s and couple Staccato carry guns.
“Heavy Clothing” gel test with the 3” barrels was 14”+ penetration, 1140 FPS Velocity and around .6” expansion.
As you’d expect, the 4” barrels yielded higher velocity/better expansion, but around 3/4” less penetration.
Accuracy was 1 3/4” @ 25 yds (benched) with P365s (relatively shit triggers) and closer to 1 1/4” with Staccato’s.
5 rd. groups.
I can live with that.
vicious_cb
07-22-23, 21:39
Does anyone know why this ammo was discontinued, or where to get any? It's 150 gr HST "micro" 9mm, it's designed for short barrels. Also I'm interested in the 38 spc HST micro, it's discontinued also. I have some Buffalo Bore 158 gr 38 spc +p LSWCHP 1000 fps, but I think the recoil would be a bit much for an airweight J frame.
Probably because it didnt do anything better than a 147gr HST. The 147gr HST already has fantastic performance from short and long barrels so Im not sure why the 150gr even needed to exist.
Probably because it didnt do anything better than a 147gr HST. The 147gr HST already has fantastic performance from short and long barrels so Im not sure why the 150gr even needed to exist.
There is a .38 spl +p 147 gr HST?
Oh, never mind. You were referring to the 150 gr 9mm hst.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.