I've done no tests other than function and reasonable accuracy. I've seen the same videos and lucky gunner lab results you have.

I carry standard pressure 124gr HST in my 26 and 43.

 

I know this topic has been discussed at length, but after doing my own internet research, I am reading a lot of assumptions by posters/ballistics testers is that don't seem consistent with ballistics tests/data that I have seen.

Before anybody goes and recommends +P in either version, please don't because I am not interested. the 124 +P cycles great and is accurate, but it has significant recoil compared to the 147 and my 124 Winchester FMJ Nato practice ammo. From the ballistics tests I have seen, the extra 50 FPS is just not worth that amount of recoil. I am split between the 124 and the 147 HST standard pressure. I shoot a glock 19.

Two examples to illustrate my confusion, and it is related to penetration:

-Most posters make the assumption that 147 has better penetration, but the tests I have seen say otherwise!. Luckygunner ammo labs reports LESS penetration in the 147 HST, when compared to the 124 HST, several inches less.
-TNoutdoors in this review of standard pressure 9mm ammo (

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8gm7ZTkDxc&t=528s
), he asserts that the the heavier 147 in general, has GREATER penetration. However in his very own ballistics gel tests, the 124 HST has almost a inch deeper penetration than the 147 HST.

So although I consistently see people saying 147 is better for penetration, I haven't seen one single test or any data that supports this. From my own review of the evidence, it seems just the opposite.

If anybody can provide me any insight, it would be appreciated.

Go with the 124 grain standard pressure. It's my personal choice and works out great. I'd use 147s in my carbine (not a my handguns though) but there's no real reason to stock two different rounds.

No need for +P. If you're going to do that, or want a heavier bullet for your handgun, just step up to a .40.

 

While I believe either one will do the job, I carry the 124 gr HST in my Shield. Just a little less weight to tote around than 147 gr. I have a Magguts +2 which gives me 9 +1 in the chamber. 10 rounds 147 gr weigh 230 grains more than 10 rounds 124 gr. It's a slight, but noticeable difference.

 

OP, I think you are wise in not being interested in +P. I don't have wisdom to depart, but I choose 124 grain HST for my G43. My duty gun load is .40 HST.

 

I know this topic has been discussed at length, but after doing my own internet research, I am reading a lot of assumptions by posters/ballistics testers is that don't seem consistent with ballistics tests/data that I have seen.

Before anybody goes and recommends +P in either version, please don't because I am not interested. the 124 +P cycles great and is accurate, but it has significant recoil compared to the 147 and my 124 Winchester FMJ Nato practice ammo. From the ballistics tests I have seen, the extra 50 FPS is just not worth that amount of recoil. I am split between the 124 and the 147 HST standard pressure. I shoot a glock 19.

Two examples to illustrate my confusion, and it is related to penetration:

-Most posters make the assumption that 147 has better penetration, but the tests I have seen say otherwise!. Luckygunner ammo labs reports LESS penetration in the 147 HST, when compared to the 124 HST, several inches less.
-TNoutdoors in this review of standard pressure 9mm ammo (

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8gm7ZTkDxc&t=528s
), he asserts that the the heavier 147 in general, has GREATER penetration. However in his very own ballistics gel tests, the 124 HST has almost a inch deeper penetration than the 147 HST.

So although I consistently see people saying 147 is better for penetration, I haven't seen one single test or any data that supports this. From my own review of the evidence, it seems just the opposite.

If anybody can provide me any insight, it would be appreciated.

All things being equal, such as with FMJ ammo with identical bullet profiles, a heavier bullet will be longer in relation to it's diameter and therefore will have greater sectional density and will be capable of greater penetration.

But with controlled expansion projectiles differently constructed bullets will expand differently and the more and the faster a bullet expands the less it will penetrate and as it expands and decreases in length it also loses Sectional Density.

In my opinion 124 grains is the optimum bullet weight for the 9mm in achieving the right balance of expansion and penetration at velocities obtainable and standard pressures. The main advantage I see with the 147 grain bullets is for use as subsonic ammo.

However, many perceive the recoil impulse to be lower with the heavier bullets, which would seem to be counter-intuitive. But I've never found recoil to be a factor in any 9mm handgun except for a Keltec PF9 which weighs only 12.7oz as opposed to a G19 which weighs 24 ounces. For that matter, I can't tell the difference in recoil between a 9mm G19 and the same size and weight G23 in 40 caliber.

The Glock 19/23 with it's polymer frame, flexes to absorb recoil and the wide doublestack grip disperses the recoil over a larger area. It also helps with recoil to shoot with your elbow's unlocked and allow your arms to flex and absorb recoil. Anyone who's shot magnum revolvers instinctively learns to do this.

 

I always gravitate towards the lighter faster rounds because my common sense tells me they have a better chance of expanding fully.

.45 acp is my exception. 230 gr all the time in this caliber.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Thread moved!

 

here is a test to compare.. not sure if you can zoom and read but its easy to find by google.. tests were done with full size glocks.. the 124 and 147 perform pretty much the same

 

On the extremely rare occasion I carry a 9MM, it is loaded with 124 grain standard pressure.
I didn't know 147 even existed until a couple of years ago, and the reasoning for it seems to be softer shooting.
I'm not an expert on the topic, so those folks can chime in. I'll still be carrying a .40 99.99% of the time with 165 grain ammo, BUT when the 9MM comes out it will be sporting 124, no matter the expert opinions.

 

After looking at the Lucky Gunner tests I too purchased the Federal 124 grain HST for my 19 and 43. I have several boxes of the 147 HST but I prefer the feel of the recoil from the 124 HST (both standard pressure).

Both rounds are undoubtedly highly effective SD rounds so the choice for me hinged on my ability to deliver fast followup shots. Based on my shot timer, I am faster with the 124 grain HST.

 

i believe the reason the 147 is so popular esp with law enforcement is because of its superiority in the auto glass area. winshields are of the toughest barriers to overcome and still have a single unfragmented bullet that still penetrates the target enough to stop the threat

 

Not sure about the reality of this one since the Gold Dot 124 grain has been the gold bar standard for quite a wile in LE.
Not saying you are incorrect, but,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

I always gravitate towards the lighter faster rounds because my common sense tells me they have a better chance of expanding fully.

.45 acp is my exception. 230 gr all the time in this caliber.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"I always gravitate towards the lighter faster rounds because my common sense tells me they have a better chance of expanding fully.

.45 acp is my exception. 230 gr all the time in this caliber."

Lighter faster bullets that expand rapidly will penetrate less. And trading velocity for mass doesn't always result in any net gain, because it's basically a trade-off. And when things work differently in reality than what "Common Sense" tells us, that's when something is counter-intuitive to what our pre-conceived notions tell us they should be.

The 230 grain 45 needs that extra mass to be effective at lower velocities. Trading mass for velocity with the 45 does not increase it's effectiveness. And as far as expansion, the federal HST ammo seems to expand very well.

That's why I say the 124 grain is the optimum bullet weight for the 9mm. and like the 45, with the federal HST ammo has no problem expanding and Plus+P loads are available in both calibers which give better expansion AND penetration.

 

I always gravitate towards the lighter faster rounds because my common sense tells me they have a better chance of expanding fully.

.45 acp is my exception. 230 gr all the time in this caliber.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So-called modern JHPs have expanded (no pun intended) the velocity window necessary for expansion and heavier JHPs generally require less stagnation pressure to expand than somewhat lighter but faster JHPs do. So, whether a JHP is light or heavy it should expand about equally likely, as major JHP manufacturers have made necessary adjustments in design to accommodate different but expected stagnation pressures.

 

I am sure penetration numbers would vary from lot to lot, 1" isnt much diff.
Me, in 9mm, I am a +p guy. Recoil diff is negligable imo, but then I am used to shooting 45, so any 9mm feels soft.

 

This^^^.

 

I know this topic has been discussed at length, but after doing my own internet research, I am reading a lot of assumptions by posters/ballistics testers is that don't seem consistent with ballistics tests/data that I have seen.

Before anybody goes and recommends +P in either version, please don't because I am not interested. the 124 +P cycles great and is accurate, but it has significant recoil compared to the 147 and my 124 Winchester FMJ Nato practice ammo. From the ballistics tests I have seen, the extra 50 FPS is just not worth that amount of recoil. I am split between the 124 and the 147 HST standard pressure. I shoot a glock 19.

Two examples to illustrate my confusion, and it is related to penetration:

-Most posters make the assumption that 147 has better penetration, but the tests I have seen say otherwise!. Luckygunner ammo labs reports LESS penetration in the 147 HST, when compared to the 124 HST, several inches less.
-TNoutdoors in this review of standard pressure 9mm ammo (

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8gm7ZTkDxc&t=528s
), he asserts that the the heavier 147 in general, has GREATER penetration. However in his very own ballistics gel tests, the 124 HST has almost a inch deeper penetration than the 147 HST.

So although I consistently see people saying 147 is better for penetration, I haven't seen one single test or any data that supports this. From my own review of the evidence, it seems just the opposite.

If anybody can provide me any insight, it would be appreciated.

When looking for SD ammo for my Sig P938, I used these tests:

...and went w/ the 147 gr. std. pressure.




Nutter

 

I run 147gr bonded defense (a Gold Dot bullet, I believe) from DoubleTap. Claims 1300ish fps from a 4" barrel.

 

Double Tap advertises their bonded 9mm 147 gr round at 1135 fps velocity out of a....4.5 inch barrel. The 1300 fps velocity round is their 357 Sig 147 gr bonded offering out of a 4.5 inch barrel.

 

I know this topic has been discussed at length, but after doing my own internet research, I am reading a lot of assumptions by posters/ballistics testers is that don't seem consistent with ballistics tests/data that I have seen.

Before anybody goes and recommends +P in either version, please don't because I am not interested. the 124 +P cycles great and is accurate, but it has significant recoil compared to the 147 and my 124 Winchester FMJ Nato practice ammo. From the ballistics tests I have seen, the extra 50 FPS is just not worth that amount of recoil. I am split between the 124 and the 147 HST standard pressure. I shoot a glock 19.

Two examples to illustrate my confusion, and it is related to penetration:

-Most posters make the assumption that 147 has better penetration, but the tests I have seen say otherwise!. Luckygunner ammo labs reports LESS penetration in the 147 HST, when compared to the 124 HST, several inches less.
-TNoutdoors in this review of standard pressure 9mm ammo (

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8gm7ZTkDxc&t=528s
), he asserts that the the heavier 147 in general, has GREATER penetration. However in his very own ballistics gel tests, the 124 HST has almost a inch deeper penetration than the 147 HST.

So although I consistently see people saying 147 is better for penetration, I haven't seen one single test or any data that supports this. From my own review of the evidence, it seems just the opposite.

If anybody can provide me any insight, it would be appreciated.

You are correct the heavy bullets in the service calibers do penetrate as much as the mid weight bullets because the heavy rounds lack the velocity and energy to push into flesh that the mid weights have. The exception to this is the 357 Sig 147gr XTP round from Hornady and Underwood. These 357 Sig heavy for caliber rounds have the same sectional density as the other service calibers heavy for caliber rounds but as much or more velocity as the others light and mid weight rounds. The 357 Sig 147 gr round has the sectional density, velocity and energy to get the deep penetration in a heavy weight that the others wish they could get, usually 16 to 18 inches of penetration. Also the next time you are at a range rent a 357 Magnum and find out what recoil is!

 

In 9mm and .40, standard pressure HST is my preference. In 9mm, my first choice is 147 gr, but I have no doubts regarding the effectiveness of 124 gr. I stock both in the safe.

 

another thing to keep in mind is when these videos or tests were performed on the 124 and 147 hst as federal has tweaked the design a little where the skives are now not as pronounced as they used to be and im sure it affects penetration/expansion in some degree

 

In my Shield I have loaded the standard pressure 124-grain HST, with the backup magazine stoked with standard pressure 115-grain Gold Dot. Most self-defense encounters involve 3 to 5 rounds expended in mere seconds at a range of less than 15 feet.

The Shield is a small, light pistol and it cycles standard pressure without a single hitch. (In fact, it's been perfect with all ammo from the day I bought it)

My sub-compact Steyr S9-A1 has 124-grain HST +P loaded with 124-grain Golden Saber Bonded +P in the second magazine. So why different pressure ammos are loaded if the self-defense scenario is a constant?

The Steyr pistol is built around a .40S&W frame design with a steel sub-structure underneath the polymer frame. It has a definite build heft to it uncommon for a lot of 9mm pistols and the added +P equation lends itself to reliable cycling of the heavier slide/frame design. The +P loads in the Steyr lend a measure of confidence that the heavier gun will perform as required.

I just try to match the optimum ammo to each specific pistol, although in both pistols mentioned I'm confident each can reliably function with standard as well as +P ammo.

I've never shot 147-grain ammo in any 9mm pistol I've owned. The caliber was built around a 123-grain cartridge and that bullet weight has performed as designed for over 100 years.

 

According to the LuckyGunner test graph, the 9mm Winchester Ranger T series, 147g, averages 16.5" of penetration, which is very good per FBI standards and averaged .74" expansion. Isnt that the clear best performer in every category?

Maybe I have a non-sensitive hand, but I cannot detect a differance in recoil between 124g and 147g.

 

Another bonus of the HST rounds is that the projectile sits right on the powder in the case, so we don’t have to worry about setback, so I’ve been told. Someone here explained that in the miles long bullet setback thread. I carry the 124 grain Fed 9mm +P. It adds approx 50 FPS to the round. I got the suggestion from Lucky Gunner as well.

Someone mentioned not using +P rounds, only the Winchester NATO rounds. I thought the NATO rounds were loaded to +P pressures but not marked?

 

I always gravitate towards the lighter faster rounds because my common sense tells me they have a better chance of expanding fully.

.45 acp is my exception. 230 gr all the time in this caliber.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My sense tells me that penetration to a vital organ or spine...through bone possibly is more important than a 1 inch diameter flesh wound.

 

At the end of the day everyone looks into this way more than they should. Flip a coin, it doesn’t matter.

 

I've done no tests other than function and reasonable accuracy. I've seen the same videos and lucky gunner lab results you have.

I carry standard pressure 124gr HST in my 26 and 43.

OP, I think you are wise in not being interested in +P. I don't have wisdom to depart, but I choose 124 grain HST for my G43. My duty gun load is .40 HST.

The same here....HST is the best new ammo on the market!

 

I shoot about 10,000 rounds a year with my Glock 17 Gen 4. I shoot in GSSF matches both indoor and outdoor.
I reload my ammo and have worked up a load that using X-tree 147 gn RN plated bullets. I use Blazer cases because I have an almost unlimited supply from a club I'm a member of. Depending on the time of the year based on the temperature my loads Chrony between 888 fps to 942 fps. The Std Dev is consistently 5.
I only have to worry about punching holes in paper or knocking over plates. I have sel acted 147 gn bullets because of the recoil. Shooting 147 gn bullets produces more of a push. When I shoot 115 gn or 124 gn bullets the recoil tends to be more of a snap Than a push.
As for penetration tests, does a difference of one inch a big deal? For me no, for someone else the answer could be different. Another reason I choose 147 gn bullets is I prefer to keep my loads subsonic.
Having never shot anyone with a 9 mm bullet I have no first hand experience on the results of what various wounds have on stopping someone.
I have a friend that is a retired special forces officer. He told me that he would load alternate FMJ and JHP rounds. He explained that heavy clothing can prevent proper expansion of JHP bullets.
There are new bullet designs that seem to be coming to the market place every month. Firearm publications show tests and in most case state the new bullet designs are superior to the old standbys.
When I carry my Glock 17 for self defense, I load Sig 147 gn rounds with a MV of 985 fps. I feel confident I can hit a human target in center mass 10 shots out of 10 shots at ranges up to 15 yards. Now shooting under stress may change that, but I still feel I can stop a target with any 9 mm round I end up shooting.

The same here....HST is the best new ammo on the market! View attachment 368455