Ranger +P+ 9mm a question

[Scouse]

Many years ago, 20? I introduced the 127g WW Ranger +P+ to City Police Firearms Instructor, he looked into the studies of this, and other 9mm hollow points.

They went to this round, for their Sig226 pistols, and their MP 5 Sub Guns. After failures in the MP 5s, knocking them to bits! Changed the sub gun ammo.

I have carried this self same round, and still do. Now I find it difficult to find, but did pick up the same cartridge, but in 147g, 150 rounds.

Question, is one as good as the other? Or stay with 127g? If I can chase it down. Or use the 147g Ranger, which I can get.

[KhanRad]

My agency used 127gr+P+ for a while. It seemed to really wear out our Sigs fast, and we had to bump up the regular service schedule to 3000rds. I prefer 124gr+P Gold Dots, 147gr Ranger Talons, or 147gr HSTs.

From a ballistics study standpoint, there isn't much point to it. The only real difference between a standard pressure load , and a +P+ load is its impact energy which is relatively small. They both make similar sized holes, and have similar penetration levels depending on the weight of the bullet. The only measurable difference from an energy standpoint is in the temporary stretch cavity which surrounds the bullet. Martin Fackler has demonstrated in IWBA publications that it takes a cartridge similar to rifle ballistics for the temporary stretch cavity to have any incapacitating effects. Another factor is the diameter of the projectile which makes a "wake" in its path. Larger calibers do more. Even the .357magnum has had spectacular failures to stop in OISs. The reason the .357mag got such a good reputation in the 1970s and 1980s is that it had the impact energy to open up early hollow point designs reliably. Now days, JHPs are engineered much better and all that extra velocity isn't needed.

[Scouse]

My agency used 127gr+P+ for a while. It seemed to really wear out our Sigs fast, and we had to bump up the regular service schedule to 3000rds. I prefer 124gr+P Gold Dots, 147gr Ranger Talons, or 147gr HSTs.

From a ballistics study standpoint, there isn't much point to it. The only real difference between a standard pressure load , and a +P+ load is its impact energy which is relatively small. They both make similar sized holes, and have similar penetration levels depending on the weight of the bullet. The only measurable difference from an energy standpoint is in the temporary stretch cavity which surrounds the bullet. Martin Fackler has demonstrated in IWBA publications that it takes a cartridge similar to rifle ballistics for the temporary stretch cavity to have any incapacitating effects. Another factor is the diameter of the projectile which makes a "wake" in its path. Larger calibers do more. Even the .357magnum has had spectacular failures to stop in OISs. The reason the .357mag got such a good reputation in the 1970s and 1980s is that it had the impact energy to open up early hollow point designs reliably. Now days, JHPs are engineered much better and all that extra velocity isn't needed.

KahnRad,

I absolutely agree with your post! I would add one thought, the only way plus P plus might have an advantage in most likely the case, 127g,weight IMHO, penetration of a windshield? But again, it would have to be slight, and so much would depend on the angle of the shot.

Did your Agency jump on to the .40S&W band wagon? And as a dedicated GlockOholic! The +P+ would not have increased the wear factor shooting +P+ 127s,, as it did in your 226s, polymer frame flexes, the unique bore configuration, and cold hammer forging that giver's a denser, stronger steel, of the barrel... OK enough already!

If your Wife sat you down to watch the Royal Wedding, you might have herd reference to Harry promising "Bacon Buttys" to all, for breakfast!

I just had one, with brewed coffee!

Watch your six.

[KhanRad]

Did your Agency jump on to the .40S&W band wagon? And as a dedicated GlockOholic! The +P+ would not have increased the wear factor shooting +P+ 127s,, as it did in your 226s, polymer frame flexes, the unique bore configuration, and cold hammer forging that giver's a denser, stronger steel, of the barrel... OK enough already!

We have a choice between 9mm, .40, and .45. Most officers are using .40, but in the Sig I prefer 9mm. I'm a better shooter with the P220 .45, so I've been using that lately.

The wear factor has more to do with abuse on small parts. When the slide cycles, it slams harder to the rear putting greater impact on the frame insert and slide rails. This in turn puts more stress on the take down lever, roll pins, frame, and wears out the locking lugs of the barrel. So, even if you replace the small parts over time, the mating surfaces of the pistol will open up and cause function and accuracy problems. Even on a Glock, this would put additional stress on the frame rail inserts(flex or not), and greater impact on the barrel and frame insert surfaces. You are right though that in general the Glock handles it better.

The 127gr load doesn't do any better than any other 9mm loads against windshields. The problem is that the hard windshield materials rips apart the bullet and turns it into fragments causing shallow penetration. Usually, the faster the bullet travels the more violent the bullet breakup. A 147gr Ranger Talon tends to do a little better against windshields than the 127gr load because it has greater momentum and mass to keep it penetrating. The only way to really make the bullet do better is to make its construction more robust so that it stays together better. Bonded bullets are an improvement.

Check out Winchester's "Launch Testing Comparison Tool" and you will get a better idea of how each load performs:
http://www.winchester.com/Products/l...n-testing.aspx

[Scouse]

We have a choice between 9mm, .40, and .45. Most officers are using .40, but in the Sig I prefer 9mm. I'm a better shooter with the P220 .45, so I've been using that lately.

The wear factor has more to do with abuse on small parts. When the slide cycles, it slams harder to the rear putting greater impact on the frame insert and slide rails. This in turn puts more stress on the take down lever, roll pins, frame, and wears out the locking lugs of the barrel. So, even if you replace the small parts over time, the mating surfaces of the pistol will open up and cause function and accuracy problems. Even on a Glock, this would put additional stress on the frame rail inserts(flex or not), and greater impact on the barrel and frame insert surfaces. You are right though that in general the Glock handles it better.

The 127gr load doesn't do any better than any other 9mm loads against windshields. The problem is that the hard windshield materials rips apart the bullet and turns it into fragments causing shallow penetration. Usually, the faster the bullet travels the more violent the bullet breakup. A 147gr Ranger Talon tends to do a little better against windshields than the 127gr load because it has greater momentum and mass to keep it penetrating. The only way to really make the bullet do better is to make its construction more robust so that it stays together better. Bonded bullets are an improvement.

Check out Winchester's "Launch Testing Comparison Tool" and you will get a better idea of how each load performs:
http://www.winchester.com/Products/l...n-testing.aspx

Thank you, will do.

I use the same system with bullets, as I do with fighting without guns, hit/hit/ and hit again. Incapacitate the closest, strongest, move on.

But now as a nice old granddad, smile, and watch.

[Paul45]

Forgeting about wear and tear, is the 127 +P+ a better personal defense round that the 124 +P? If so why, if not why?

[DocGKR]

Why don't you do this and let us know what you find:

"Check out Winchester's "Launch Testing Comparison Tool" and you will get a better idea of how each load performs: http://www.winchester.com/SiteCollec...law_bullit.swf"

[DocH]

Good chart,and confirms exactly what I discovered.I carried the 127+P+ for a number of years until I saw firsthand how the 147's were performing. Now it's RA9T and HST 147's exclusively for defense loads.

[mark5pt56]

Many years ago, 20? I introduced the 127g WW Ranger +P+ to City Police Firearms Instructor, he looked into the studies of this, and other 9mm hollow points.

They went to this round, for their Sig226 pistols, and their MP 5 Sub Guns. After failures in the MP 5s, knocking them to bits! Changed the sub gun ammo.

I have carried this self same round, and still do. Now I find it difficult to find, but did pick up the same cartridge, but in 147g, 150 rounds.

Question, is one as good as the other? Or stay with 127g? If I can chase it down. Or use the 147g Ranger, which I can get.

I do know that the locking piece needs to be changed on MP5's relative to the ammo utilized. I don't have specifics, but others may.

We have used the 127+p+ for a long time and zero issues with the Glocks, NATO pressure ball is used on all practices also. The NATO pressure ball did beat the old SW's to death in short order.


I'm sure this depends on unit practices, etc. But the famed durability of the P226 isn't what some may think it is. I've been through some schools with certain units and have seen first hand parts, including slides being replaced every 3-5k on them. This applied to the stamped ones, not the solid ones that have been about for a while. Of course as with any platform, recoil springs are a highly neglected item which doesn't help when not replaced.

http://www.hkpro.com/index.php?optio...opics&Itemid=5

[Paul45]

Why don't you do this and let us know what you find:

Looks like the +P+ has a slight advanage to the 124 +P. The 147's are up further. My issue is that I have feeding problems with all147 gr I have tried in my PPS. They work well in my G17 and G34 but not the PPS or the HP's.
Thanks for the info. Any other MFG charts like this?