9mm Carry Ammo: Federal HST vs. Speer Gold-Dot vs. Underwood Gold-Dot

[Symmetry]

I would avoid the small companies that use the higher powered ammo. For one thing, many of them are not willing to purchase the $10k pressure testing equipment to get accurate pressure readings from a wide variety of firearms. For years, Double Tape tested their high power loads in 1911 chambers, and when customers were getting dangerously bulging cases in firearms with less chamber support they initially said that the customer shouldn't use their ammo then.

The major manufacturers such as Federal, Remington, Speer, and Winchester actually use the proper pressure testing equipment and make their loads versatile enough to be used in everything from short barrels to carbines. Certain powder and primer combinations will allow for this, while some combinations will rupture a case in longer barrels even though the two loads have the same muzzle velocity from a 4" test barrel. They also take into account atmospheric pressure and temperature variations, which can cause spikes in pressure............something also not seriously considered by small ammo makers.

For me, I believe the HST to be the best bullet design currently available. It has a VERY thick jacket, and a harder lead core than most swaged bullets. This makes it great for barrier penetration. The HST design also expands more than any other design out there. I prefer 147gr standard pressure, or 147gr+P as it expands to larger diameters and longer lengths than the 124gr variants. Just a bigger overall hole. My second choice would be the Speer Gold Dot in 124gr+P.

[bzdog]

I apologize I did not read the "ONLY off this list statement." The Speer 124gr +P is what I buy if there is no critical duty to purchase. I like it quite a bit, but for some reason it's more than Hornady here locally.

Since "the list" isn't comprehensive (not all ammunition has been tested and he doesn't post a "list" of ammunition found wanting) you can't say that something not on the list is not a good choice unless you can find specific posts or comments about the round in question. That said, I'm not sure why you'd bother with one of the non-vetted rounds.

In this case however, Hornady Critical Duty was tested and specifically didn't make it onto the list. As are rounds like the ancient Hydroshock (no surprise there).

Of course even ball ammunition can get the job done, and all handgun ammunition is fairly ineffectual, so.. *shrug*.

-john

[bzdog]

Not one of his selections.

Oops. When I read that, I was thinking the reference was to Dr. Robert's list, but I see you might have meant Badger89's list.

Of course, if the OP is serious about getting the best advice, I'd suggest we not limit this to his list. *shrug*

I do want to note that the ammunition on Robert's list have proven effective at reliably penetrating to an optimal window and reliably expanding to an optimal size in a variety of circumstances (bare, heavy clothing, barriers). Taking the same bullet and tweaking the loads isn't likely to help, and may well degrade performance. Why mess with it?

-john

[Badger89]

Thank you for all the replies. Sorry it has taken me so long to reply, I've been extremely busy the last week or so.

Why choose some small ammo company with potentially dangerous pressures over 2 proven companies with LE contracts? I have carried both 147gr HST and 124gr +P and would not hesitate to carry either though I prefer the 147gr HST over the Gold Dot by a very small margin.

The simple answer is because their ammo generally seems to be in stock, and the others aren't - at least not anywhere I'm looking. Feel free to point me to a good deal on Federal HST 147 grain.

The more complex answer is because I am intrigued by how well the Underwood 147 grain +P+ load in particular seems to attain the best features of both the HST and Speer Gold-Dot loads. You still get the same proven bonded bullet made by Speer with even more outrageous expansion than the federal HST and more energy behind it than either. The performance downsides to this combination seem to be minimal (~1" less penetration in tests) and the test results are quite impressive. From what I've been able to gather from online reviews Underwood Ammo also seems to have an excellent reputation.

I carry Hornady critical duty 124 Gr. 9mm in all of my handguns.

I looked long and hard at the Critical Duty 135 grain +P load, but eventually decided to pass over it because of its minimal, although consistent, expansion. I believe this was also the reason it did not make it onto Dr. Roberts list. I would not hesitate to use it if I had to, and I'd actually probably take it over some of the other loads on Dr. Roberts list, such as the Remington Golden Saber or the Winchester Ranger loads, but I don't see myself stockpiling it anytime soon. Just my opinion, YMMV.

Oops. When I read that, I was thinking the reference was to Dr. Robert's list, but I see you might have meant Badger89's list.

Of course, if the OP is serious about getting the best advice, I'd suggest we not limit this to his list. *shrug*

I do want to note that the ammunition on Robert's list have proven effective at reliably penetrating to an optimal window and reliably expanding to an optimal size in a variety of circumstances (bare, heavy clothing, barriers). Taking the same bullet and tweaking the loads isn't likely to help, and may well degrade performance. Why mess with it?

-john

If there are better 9mm loads out there than the Federal HST and Speer Gold Dot, I'm all ears. However, the point of this thread was to compare the Underwood ammo specifically to two of what I believe to be the best options for 9mm defensive loads currently available. As mentioned earlier in my response to WickedWillis, I'm not a huge fan of everything on "The List". I've run across multiple accounts of Remington Golden Sabers and Winchester Ranger Ts failing to expand.

As for whether the Underwood ammo may experience performance anomalies under certain conditions compared to the Gold Dots loaded by Speer, that is exactly what I would like to discuss. Can you think of a specific situation where the Underwood ammo may fail to perform as well as the Speer due to it's increased velocity, or are you just not a fan of new ammo?


Anyway, I do understand the concerns about small name ammo, but I think this is slightly different than buying reloads from some random guy at a gun show. Glock also specifically rates their barrels for +P+ ammo, and I would definitely run a bunch of ammo down the pipe to test it before relying on it as a carry load. Is there really that much risk involved here? They seem to sell quite a bit of ammo, and it seems just about everyone is incredibly happy with it. I know people that say "Never shoot hand loads/reloads" and I know people that only shoot hand loads/reloads. I guess I wasn't expecting such a stark opposition to the Underwood loads, can someone better explain what the fuss is about?

[yoni]

Don't worry about it carry what you can shoot the best. I have never seen ammo selection determine the result of a gun fight

[ABNAK]

I carry 147gr +P HST's in my Glock 19. To me it is the best thing going in 9mm (hell, just about any caliber for that matter).

[ggammell]

I remember, I think it was DocGKR saying that the 147 +P offered no real benefit over the standard 147. Added wear from the higher pressure is a negative. If you're okay with the increased wear and you can shoot it spot on, rock it. But that thing must kick like a mule. 147 is a thumper to begin with. The increased pressure can't help.

[GunBugBit]

My observation from informal testing is that Gold Dot bullets expand more consistently, though not as dramatically as HSTs sometimes do. More penetration on average with Gold Dot.

I would carry either and know I've got a good self defense round in my 9mm gun.

[ABNAK]

I remember, I think it was DocGKR saying that the 147 +P offered no real benefit over the standard 147. Added wear from the higher pressure is a negative. If you're okay with the increased wear and you can shoot it spot on, rock it. But that thing must kick like a mule. 147 is a thumper to begin with. The increased pressure can't help.

In a Glock 19 the difference (IMO) is negligible, almost beyond notice. The "wear" per se is not really an issue at those velocities/pressures.

[BufordTJustice]

My first choices in order of preference: 147gr +P HST, 147gr Gold Dot +P+ as loaded by Underwood ammo.

Check out the ridiculously good Underwood stuff at the tnoutdoors9 channel on YouTube. Foocking amazing and no pressure signs.

Edit: I own both and they both run fine in my g26.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk