"Modern 9mm Loads" not on "The List"

Printable View

05-11-10, 14:19
PrivateCitizen

"Modern 9mm Loads" not on "The List"

This is really more of an effort of clarification on my part. I know it can seem to be a bit of hand-wringing.

There are loads often discussed but not on "The List". Just trying to help out future searchers. Many of the loads on the list are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain.

The following seem to be acceptable alternatives but I'd love some input on these 9mm variations

Hornady TAP CQ 124Gr.
Hornady TAP CQ 147Gr.

Winchester PDX1 124Gr.
Winchester PDX1 147Gr.
Federal Tactical 124Gr NON +P (P9HST1)

If anyone has extended experience with these I appreciate some feedback.

Thanks!
05-11-10, 16:06
DocGKR

Hornady TAP CQ 124Gr. -- No, fails denim testing
Hornady TAP CQ 147Gr. -- No, fails denim testing

Winchester PDX1 124Gr. -- Not yet tested
Winchester PDX1 147Gr. -- Should be the same as (RA9B/Q4364)
Federal Tactical 124Gr NON +P (P9HST1) -- Not yet tested
05-11-10, 21:01
mourneblade

Sorry for straying from 9mm, but what about ...

Speer Gold Dot 185 grain in 45 acp
Speer Gold Dot 185 +p grain in 45 acp
Remington Golden Saber 230 grain in 45 acp

Thanks!
05-11-10, 22:29
DocGKR

Speer Gold Dot 185 grain in 45 acp -- No
Speer Gold Dot 185 +p grain in 45 acp -- No
Remington Golden Saber 230 grain in 45 acp -- No
05-12-10, 03:43
Aim Small

Is there any difference, ballistically speaking, between the Ranger-T 147gr JHP (RA9T), and the Ranger-T SXT 147gr JHP (RA9SXT) rounds??

I know that RA9T is an outstanding performer, but am I safe to go with the RA9SXT as well?

...What I'm guessing is that the SXT use a different bullet. Is this true?
05-12-10, 15:32
Aim Small

Ended up answering my own question.
05-18-10, 23:25
Aim Small

Once again, answered my own question...
02-24-12, 12:44
number9xd

Quote:

Originally Posted by DocGKR

Hornady TAP CQ 124Gr. -- No, fails denim testing
Hornady TAP CQ 147Gr. -- No, fails denim testing

Winchester PDX1 124Gr. -- Not yet tested
Winchester PDX1 147Gr. -- Should be the same as (RA9B/Q4364)
Federal Tactical 124Gr NON +P (P9HST1) -- Not yet tested

Has this been tested yet?

....
02-24-12, 13:07
DJK

Doc - how about Speer Gold Dot 124 gr NON +P JHP #23618?

Thanks
02-24-12, 22:20
Nightvisionary

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJK

Doc - how about Speer Gold Dot 124 gr NON +P JHP #23618?

Thanks

I was wondering the same thing. I got my first two boxes of 124 grn Gold Dot bullets a couple of weeks ago. Most of my load data was giving standard pressure velocities.

Luckily I was able to attain 1212 FPS average velocity using Universal Clays powder while staying below the max load. I believe that velocity is almost right on the money compared to the +P factory ammunition.
02-24-12, 23:47
DocGKR

http://www.lightfighter.net/forum/ba...le-performance

http://pistol-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?19-Ammunition

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/07/07/ju3u5ybu.jpg
02-25-12, 09:52
number9xd

Still haven't tested the Federal P9HST1?

Just asking cause there seems to be plenty of this round in stock and the P9HST2 has been out for a long time it seems.
....
03-05-12, 02:53
nml

Probably plenty in stock because no one wants it. What is your reasoning in not just using the venerable +P???

OP from 2010 if Doc has PDX1 147 same as RA9B then I think the 124 +P may be equivalent to the RA9BA that he did test. I have plenty plenty of PDX1 but no ballistic gel so my testing would be quite useless.
03-05-12, 08:12
tnedator

Doc, is RA9BA ok or not?

I've seen results of your tests on RA9BA in a few threads and it seems to have acceptable penetration. However, only the non bonded (I think) RA9124TP is listed in your recommended list, the RA9BA isn't listed.

Is RA9BA a recommended load?

Even if yes to the above, do you prefer the non-bonded Ranger T's to the bonded version in 124 +P?
03-05-12, 12:05
KCabbage

With all due respect. If it's not on the list he either hasn't tested it or its not recommended. Stick with a load on the list for best performance.
03-05-12, 12:53
globeguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCabbage

With all due respect. If it's not on the list he either hasn't tested it or its not recommended. Stick with a load on the list for best performance.

Where can I find this "list"?
03-05-12, 12:57
Microalign

Quote:

Originally Posted by globeguy

Where can I find this "list"?

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887
03-05-12, 15:38
DocGKR

RA9BA is fine and is on the list.
03-06-12, 00:23
tnedator

Quote:

Originally Posted by DocGKR

RA9BA is fine and is on the list.

I looked at your stickied duty rounds thread twice, because I was sure when I decided on that being my current carry round that it was based on your list. Twice I looked yesterday and this morning, before posting the question. Note to self, don't try and tasks more complicated than tying my shoe when I have a two day long headache...

Doc, one other question. I know bonded is better for barrier penetration, and even in a home defense situation you and others have discussed the possible need to shoot through a barrier if a intruder is behind a wall.

That said, we all know penetration of walls (bullet leaving the house) in a home defense situation is a concern. Is there any 9mm or .40 pistol round that has adequate gel penetration but is less likely than others to penetrate walls? I'm pretty sure from what I've read, the answer is no, but figured I would ask.

Also, in terms of over-penetration of walls, is either bonded or non-bonded better than the other (for lack of penetration through walls)?
03-06-12, 08:14
tnedator

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCabbage

With all due respect. If it's not on the list he either hasn't tested it or its not recommended. Stick with a load on the list for best performance.

With all due respect -- I love when people say that, because it typically is meant with ANYTHING but respect -- RA9BA is clearly on "the list", based on Doc's post.

Ironically this morning I noticed that I had a browser tab opened from when I DOUBLED CHECKED Doc's stickied thread "Thoughts on Service Pistols, along with Duty and Self-Defense Ammo Recommendations", looking for RA9BA, BEFORE posting my question in this thread. That tab still had the "Thoughts on Service Pistols, along with Duty and Self-Defense Ammo Recommendations" thread open with how it looked yesterday morning.

To my surprise, and realizing it wasn't my headache affecting my eyesight, RA9BA was NOT listed in that sticky yesterday morning when I asked the question. I asked the question, because as I indicated, I had remembered it being a recommended round and had seen Doc post gel data on it several times.

With all due respect, rather than making snide comments by people asking questions that will help themselves and others, maybe next time you should consider NOT clicking "Submit Reply" if you don't have anything constructive to add and just want to take a veiled shot at someone.

See the attached image of the the sticky without RA9BA in it yesterday.

Doc, sorry for polluting your forum with this and THANK YOU for your response and updating the sticky with RA9BA and for all the info you share with us. You are one of the best and most generous resources on the web when it comes to ballistics and home defense.
03-06-12, 08:58
KCabbage

Simmer down. It wasn't on the list when you asked. It looks as if he added loads since then. I say what I mean but, if you feel disrespected when I say, "With all due respect", then you twist it up however you like.

I see people ask him these types of questions over and over. You said yourself that at the time that particular load wasn't on the recommended load list but you went ahead and asked if it was a recommended load. It didn't make sense. I assume Mr. Roberts is a busy man so I figured I would save him the time and effort.
03-06-12, 15:30
tnedator

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCabbage

Simmer down. It wasn't on the list when you asked. It looks as if he added loads since then. I say what I mean but, if you feel disrespected when I say, "With all due respect", then you twist it up however you like.

I see people ask him these types of questions over and over. You said yourself that at the time that particular load wasn't on the recommended load list but you went ahead and asked if it was a recommended load. It didn't make sense. I assume Mr. Roberts is a busy man so I figured I would save him the time and effort.

I had a reply typed, but just don't feel right doing it in Doc's threads/forum. Needless to say, I'm glad I asked the question as it was missing from the list and was clearly a round Doc tested and previously posted results on and intended to have in his list.

Let's leave it at that.
03-10-12, 12:27
number9xd

Quote:

Originally Posted by nml

Probably plenty in stock because no one wants it. What is your reasoning in not just using the venerable +P???

OP from 2010 if Doc has PDX1 147 same as RA9B then I think the 124 +P may be equivalent to the RA9BA that he did test. I have plenty plenty of PDX1 but no ballistic gel so my testing would be quite useless.

Just not interested in +P loads. I found some P9HST2 a couple days after my post, so I'm good now.

I still look forward to Doc's findings on the 125gr when / if he is able to test it though.

..