Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Forum at

Why should YOU join our forums?

  • Reason #1
  • Reason #2
  • Reason #3

Site Description

147 grain questions

Discussion in 'Caliber Corner' started by .50 cal, Apr 12, 2011.

  1. .50 cal

    .50 cal

    Jan 4, 2011
    I carry Gold Dots 124+P right now for my G19, I want to try some 147 weight bullets and see if I'm able to shoot them much better, it seems the HST is popular for this weight, I'm curious why Gold Dots in 147 don't seem so popular, thoughts? also why isn't +p popular with 147? thanks
  2. collim1

    collim1 Shower Time!

    Mar 14, 2005
    I was not aware 147g GD's weren't popular. My dept issues them for any officers that carry a 9mm. I carry them in my G26. And if I had another in a full size gun that would me my carry load as well.

    I would I guess that 147g for 9mm is not loaded in +p because it is heavy for the caliber. Only way to add weight is to have a longer bullet, that would prolly increase pressure.

  3. TSAX


    Jun 5, 2010
  4. The Retired Sarge

    The Retired Sarge "The Sarge"

    Feb 23, 2010
    Pittsburgh, PA

    Private message sent. Bill
  5. Ray26


    Mar 17, 2006
    Daytona Beach
    147 grain has greater sectional density wich usually means greater penetration and penetration is king.. Same for 180 grain for the 40 cal and 230 grain for 45 acp.. For self defense, I only use 147 grain in 9mm
  6. Merkavaboy

    Merkavaboy Code-7A KUZ769

    Speer 147GDHPs are very popular for LE. My county sheriffs dept issues this load, along with the .40/180GDHP and the .45/230GDHP. But then again the 124+P GDHP is also popular and is being used by the largest LEA in the U.S.; New York City PD.

    Federal also makes a 147+P HST.

    Back when Federal introduced the Hydra-Shok design, they actually labeled their 147HSHP as a +P+ loading until they figured out that the pressure of this load didn't require it to be labeled as a +P+.
  7. cowboy1964


    Sep 4, 2009
    I wouldn't count on changing ammo making yourself a better shooter. Are you having a flinching problem or something?

    I always chuckle when someone wants 147gr in a 9mm because of "sectional density". Momentum is still pretty low, is it not, relative to say a 230gr .45.

    I'd prefer not to give up 250 fps to gain 23 grains.
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2011
  8. .50 cal

    .50 cal

    Jan 4, 2011
    I don't flinch unless someone points their firearm towards me at the range, I try to avoid the busy hours now, I actually couldn't be happier with how I shoot the 124+p but think maybe follow up shots could be faster and more accurate with a heavier weight, I'm just curious what people thought before I spend a bunch of money on some rounds I might not like more
  9. statistic6


    Apr 3, 2011
    San Antonio
    I carry 147 gr Speer in my G19 and G26. But usually I carry my G37 with 185 gr Speer. Don't get me wrong, the 147 gr Speer is an outstanding round. I just prefer my 45 is all.
  10. cole

    cole Millennium Member

    Dec 25, 1999
    I use 147gr Gold Dots, because they are 147gr, I got them cheap, LE use them and they are bonded. That's about it.
  11. unit1069


    Oct 10, 2007
    So. Central US
    It really only marginally matters regarding bullet weights and pressures as long as whatever ammo you're carrying is 100% reliable in the particular pistol you're packing.

    All other factors being equal, of course.
  12. easyg


    May 29, 2007
    I disagree.

    If penetration was king then everyone would stick to ball ammo and avoid hollow-points altogether.
    9mm ball ammo often over-penetrates the human body, causing a rather small wound channel and fails to dump all of its energy in to the target.

    In the olden days, 147g ball performed dismally as a man-stopper, even though it provided tons of penetration.

    This is why hollow-points are generally more effective...
    We want adequate penetration, but not over-penetration.
    We want a larger wound channel, but we want the bullet to stay inside the target, dumping all of its energy in to the target.

    IMO, 124g or 125g is about the perfect weight for 9mm
  13. DocKWL


    May 15, 2009
    Two misnomers:

    1. Over-penetration. A bullet that passes through it's intended target creates more permanent wound trauma than one that does not. Where the bullet eventually comes to rest is a matter of morality or legality not wound ballistics.

    2. Energy dump. Junk science terminology. When a bullet comes to rest in it's intended target, there is no left over energy to "dump".
  14. We decided on 147gr Federal HST for my Frau's carry G19. We tested 10 different loads and some had too much flash and some too much snap/recoil. But the HST was just right...kinda like Goldilock's porridge...:supergrin:
  15. easyg


    May 29, 2007
    Not necessarily.
    Especially if the bullet that passes totally through the target does not expand while the bullet that does not exit the body does expand.

    Not true at all.
    How a bullet performs is greatly dependant upon the medium it encounters (bone vs soft tissue for example).

    Not junk science at all.
    A bullet that comes to "rest" inside the target has dumped its energy inside that target.
    A bullet that passes out of the target, travels 30 yards down the street, punches through the wall of the neighbor's home and hits the neighbor's kid, clearly did not dump all of its energy inside the intended target.

    Energy matters...

    If I gently underhand toss a golf ball at you and it hits you in the head, it will not kill you.
    This is because it has very little energy to dump in to your head.

    But if I tee up a golf ball, take my driver and connect pure with a full swing, and that golf ball hits you in the head, it couild easily kill you.
    This is because it has lots of energy to dump in to your head.
    And the golf ball doesn't need to penetrate your skull or expand in order to kill you.
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2011
  16. Are you serious?

    With service caliber handguns, there is no such thing as 'energy dump'. The damage which is created by a projectile is caused by three different mechanisms. The first is laceration and crushing which is the sole method by which low-velocity handguns cause damage to tissue.

    A JHP bullet that expands and stops short causes less tissue destruction (crush cavity) and laceration, that's only common sense.

    A more scientific explanation comparing a high energy 10mm/180gr GS and a standard velocity .45auto/230gr PDX;

    Bob :cowboy:
  17. The 147gr Gold Dot is a very tough bullet and it doesn't need +P velocities to perform well. I carry 147gr Ranger bonded (RA9B) in my G17 and it also performs well, 147gr HST should also perform well, IMO.

    Bob :cowboy:
  18. DocKWL


    May 15, 2009
    Energy does matter but any attempt to assign a projectile's wounding ability based on kinetic energy is destined for failure.

    Using your analogy as an example:

    Your same perfect tee shot results in the ball striking my abdomen and "dumps" the same quantity of energy to my body. Now instead of dead, I am merely upset you did not yell, "FORE"! Why is that? Have you not seen the old circus act of the man being hit with a cannon ball? Far more KE than your golf ball and the act has been performed for decades.

    "Cannonball" Frank Richards

    Another example:

    Our hero is wearing IIIa body armor and receives a contact shot center mass with an expanding 125gr. .357 Magnum bullet from our bad guy which the armor stops. Our hero absorbed almost all of the bullet's KE and momentum but is released from the hospital later that day. If "energy dump" "matters" and "kills", how did this happen?
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2011
  19. 481


    Feb 20, 2009
    Good point.

    Taken from page 15 of MacPherson's book, "Bullet Penetration":

    "The reason that kinetic energy and damage are not always correlated is that dynamic damage is not due to energy absorption, but to stress (force per unit area)."

    In short, while it can be done, an energy based analysis of terminal ballistic phenomena would offer an unnecessarily and enormously complicated technical task and offer nothing over a momentum based analysis of the same phenomena which will provide the same results, albeit more efficiently.