# 9mm what has less recoil/muzzel flip



## gilfo

I ned to know which would have less recoil/muzzel flip faster bullets ie 90gr 115 gr 124 gr or 147 gr hollowpoints. Looking for a good SD round with least recoil/muzzel flip for better return to target.
thanks


----------



## fivehourfrenzy

Whichever generates the least amount of momentum at the muzzle would be the winner:

Momentum (ftlbs/sec) = Weight (grains) ÷ 7000 x Velocity (fps)

These are initial measurements as the bullet exits the muzzle, not terminal ballistics. The bullet with the lowest momentum should give the least muzzle flip.

But also keep in mind the following:

Playing with numbers- Energy, Velocity, Weight and Momentum.
The lighter something is, the easier it is to accelerate it to a high speed. By shaving a few grains off a bullet's weight, muzzle velocity can be increased, and this gives a big increase in muzzle energy, since

Energy = ½ x Mass x Velocity2

or 
Energy (ftlbs) = [(Velocity (fps))2 x Weight (grains)] ÷ 450,240

This looks good on paper but it is not how much kinetic energy a bullet has but how it puts it to use that is important.
Also, it is not how much energy the bullet has at the muzzle but how much it has at the target that is important. The same property that lets a light bullet be accelerated more readily (low inertia) also means that it can be more easily slowed by the air it is passing through. Most handgun fights take place at less than 6 metres, and light high velocity rounds are intended to give the best performance within this range. However, shots at longer ranges are by no means exceptional, and at these ranges lightweights often lack sufficient target effect.

A heavy bullet may have less energy at the muzzle, but will have a greater proportion of this energy retained by the time that it reaches the target.

This can be visualized by imagining a graph of energy plotted against distance. The lighter bullet will have a zero point much higher on the axis than the heavier one. However, the line plotted for the lighter bullet will have a steeper downward gradient than for the heavier one.

Muzzle energy can be deceptive, and is not really a good indicator of incapacitation capability. For example, a .38 Spl +P 115gr bullet at 1,250fps has 399 ftlbs of energy, while a 158gr at 890fps has only 278 ftlbs. Penetration of gelatin for both rounds is effectively the same (14.8-15.4"), and in actual shootings the 158gr has proven a more consistent manstopper. An interesting thing about these two rounds is they also have very similar momentum. Momentum is calculated by Velocity x Mass, which in bullet terms translates as

Momentum (ftlbs/sec) = Weight (grains) ÷ 7000 x Velocity (fps)

You seldom see momentum mentioned in the Gun press, and when it is it is often misunderstood. As this page on bullet physics nicely explains

"One can think of energy absorption (of a target) as Force x Distance, and momentum absorption as Force x Time. Hence, the heavier but slower bullet with the same energy will travel the same distance in the absorbing material, but because of larger momentum, will take a longer time doing it. It will therefore also impart a greater "kick" to the absorber object."

When talking about firearms, Kinetic energy is expressed in terms of "Foot-pounds". 200 ftlbs is theoretically the energy needed to move a one pound weight 200ft vertically off the ground, or a 200lb weight one foot, or a 100lb weight two feet, etc. However, the KE is a scalar quantity, with magnitude but no direction.

To illustrate this, lets consider a 150gr bullet impacting at 2700fps, giving a terminal energy of 2,428 ftlbs. If fired against a 400lb object it should move it 6ft off the ground, or a similar distance if hit from the side. A 200lb object should be thrown nearly 12ft. Obviously we don't see anything like this in the real world. Even if we allow for the friction of the ground and elasticity of tissue, a man or deer hit by such a bullet doesn't move anything like this distance. This is because the movement of an object hit by a projectile is determined by the momentum, not the kinetic energy.

^^ It's all right here: http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/terminal.html ^^


----------



## Mike Barham

I'll give it to you in plain English. :mrgreen:

The lighter bullets generally have less felt recoil in 9mm, but none of them kick hard. For defense, I prefer the deeper penetration of the 124 grain bullets versus the lighter 115s, and the difference in recoil is very marginal. The 147s have a little more push on the back end.


----------



## submoa

I prefer 147 JHP for my 9mm. Heavier bullet provides greater penetration and expansion (ie. greater soft tissue damage and bone trauma). 

Slower bullet affects performance at long range but not important at short self defense ranges. Similarly, effect of recoil on shot placement is reduced at shorter self defense ranges.

Range shooting at 25 yards is practicing marksmanship.

Range shooting at 7 yards is practicing self defense.:smt083


----------



## Mike Barham

submoa said:


> I prefer 147 JHP for my 9mm. Heavier bullet provides greater penetration and expansion (ie. greater soft tissue damage and bone trauma).


Usually deeper penetration, yes, but not always greater expansion. Tests at www.firearmstactical.com show that with the very popular Speer Gold Dot 9mm rounds, for example, the 124gr round penetrated 12.6" and expanded to .59". The 124gr +P dug to 13.2" and expanded to .62". The 147gr bullet went all the way to 14.8" and expanded to .57".

These are obviously relatively minor differences in performance, but if the differences are small, why not choose the round that recoils less and allows faster shooting while maintaining good accuracy?



> Slower bullet affects performance at long range but not important at short self defense ranges. Similarly, effect of recoil on shot placement is reduced at shorter self defense ranges.


That's true as far as it goes, but we also need to keep in mind that the closer the threat is, the more and faster we need to shoot. A guy who is right on top of us posing a lethal threat needs to go down as quickly as we can make him, and multiple hits are the best way to assure that. Lighter-recoiling rounds allow us to make more accurate hits in less time.


----------



## submoa

Mike Barham said:


> Usually deeper penetration, yes, but not always greater expansion. Tests at www.firearmstactical.com show that with the very popular Speer Gold Dot 9mm rounds, for example, the 124gr round penetrated 12.6" and expanded to .59". The 124gr +P dug to 13.2" and expanded to .62". The 147gr bullet went all the way to 14.8" and expanded to .57"..


The article you quote gelatin results http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs9.htm concludes:

We have no qualms about offering the following general personal defense recommendations for Speer's Gold Dot handgun ammunition:

*9mm*
If your handgun has a barrel length of 4 inches or longer, consider either the standard 124 grain Gold Dot JHP or the 147 grain Gold Dot JHP.

If your handgun has a barrel length less than 4 inches, consider the 147 grain Gold Dot JHP or the 124 grain +P JHP.​
I'm assuming civilian self defense handgun = conceal carry. I would not be comfortable trying to conceal a handgun with a barrel longer than 4 inches.

+P rounds should not be considered if you are worried about recoil.

With this criteria, www.firearmstactical.com supports the 147gr JHP round for Speer Gold Dots.


----------



## fivehourfrenzy

What are the differences between the regular Gold Dot JHPs and the short-barrel versions? From reading charts it looks like the short-barrel JHPs have both lower muzzle velocities and energies. Can't remember if they're offered in 180-grain. Would the differences be so that the muzzle flip would be reduced on a smaller gun and therefore make the gun more controllable?


----------



## Mike Barham

I agree that all the 9mm Gold Dots are good defense rounds. I was illustrating the rather minimal differences in performance between the three, and pointing out the error of the assertion that 147gr bullets expand more than 124gr. _Clearly, they do not_.

Obviously, Mr. Dodson at Firearms Tactical favors the slightly deeper penetration of the 147gr, and other people may also put a premium on the deepest possible penetration. I don't happen to think it is as important as the lighter recoil of the 124gr loads, since the 124s dig deep enough to meet the generally-agreed minimum.


----------



## submoa

Mike Barham said:


> I agree that all the 9mm Gold Dots are good defense rounds. I was illustrating the rather minimal differences in performance between the three, and pointing out the error of the assertion that 147gr bullets expand more than 124gr. _Clearly, they do not_..


Again, quoting from the article http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs9.htm providing this data:

As you can see in the preceding article about Speer Gold Dot ammunition, the quality of the gelatin we used did not meet the 8.5 cm calibration standard.​
They explain further:

_*When gelatin is not calibrated it's impossible to determine the validity of the data*_. Keep this in mind the next time you read an article in which ordnance gelatin is used to study bullet performance. Look for evidence that the author calibrated his gelatin.​
So according to the authors, the data used to support your case is not valid. Therefore the thesis that for two JHP bullets having the same shape, the one that penetrates further will expand more (and you support 147gr bullets penetrate more than 124) has not been disproved.


----------



## submoa

fivehourfrenzy said:


> What are the differences between the regular Gold Dot JHPs and the short-barrel versions? From reading charts it looks like the short-barrel JHPs have both lower muzzle velocities and energies. Can't remember if they're offered in 180-grain. Would the differences be so that the muzzle flip would be reduced on a smaller gun and therefore make the gun more controllable?


Barrel length refers to the handgun the bullet was fired from. With a longer barrel, more of the propellant expansion occurs within the barrel resulting in higher muzzle velocities. Furthermore as the bullet travels farther within a longer barrel, the rifling imparts a greater spin on the bullet providing a more stable trajectory and greater accuracy. This is one of the reasons why a .45 carbine has a longer range and is more accurate than a .45 pistol even though they both use the same bullet.

Longer barrels weight plus the greater length giving levearge for more inertia reduces muzzle flip making it feel easier to control followup shots. Some people attach weights to the accessory rails of their handguns for this reason.


----------



## fivehourfrenzy

That all makes sense, but I think what I'm asking is why would you choose a short-barrel round versus a non-short-barrel round, and vice versa? My buddy with a 3" XDsc 9mm keeps his loaded with SB rounds. Mine's a 3.5", so I'm not really sure which would be better. The Speer Gold Dot SBs are tested out of 3" barrels, and the non-SBs are tested out of a 4" barrel.


----------



## Mike Barham

submoa said:


> Furthermore as the bullet travels farther within a longer barrel, the rifling imparts a greater spin on the bullet providing a more stable trajectory and greater accuracy.


Nonsense. In rifles, for example, shorter barrels are often more accurate because they are stiffer. An M4 is just as accurate as an M16A2. A 19" .308 is often more accurate than a 24". It is the rifling rate (e.g., 1 turn in 7", 1 turn in 12", etc.) that provides the desired rotation. A 6" revolver is very often no more mechanically accurate than a 4" revolver, though it may be easier for a human to shoot well due to the longer sight radius.

I used the Firearms Tactical source because it was handy and quick. But here's another more detailed source for expansion and penetration figures, from Zak Smith's web site: http://demigodllc.com/~zak/firearms/fbi-pistol.php. I assume you will trust the FBI to calibrate gelatin properly.

Averaging the 9mm expansion numbers for the 147gr in bare (calibrated!) gelatin, we get .555". Averaging the 115s, we get .59". And when we average in the 124s, we get .6275". So, the 147s expand, on average, the _least_ of the three bullet weights in question, and the 124s expanded the most. This makes good intuitive sense, since bullets that penetrate deeply, as the 147s generally do, usually do not expand as much as bullets that penetrate more shallowly. Expansion and penetration are at odds, ballistically.

I'm not going to bother to run the numbers on clothed gelatin, since I think four layers of denim is a difficult but not terribly realistic test.


----------



## submoa

Mike Barham said:


> Nonsense. In rifles, for example, shorter barrels are often more accurate because they are stiffer. An M4 is just as accurate as an M16A2. A 19" .308 is often more accurate than a 24". It is the rifling rate (e.g., 1 turn in 7", 1 turn in 12", etc.) that provides the desired rotation. A 6" revolver is very often no more mechanically accurate than a 4" revolver, though it may be easier for a human to shoot well due to the longer sight radius.


For handguns, longer barrel is generally better in terms of practical accuracy because a longer and therefore heavier barrel (within reason) is easier to hold relatively steady from unsupported positions. And yes, the longer sight radius helps us humans shoot more accurately as well.



Mike Barham said:


> But here's another more detailed source for expansion and penetration figures, from Zak Smith's web site: http://demigodllc.com/~zak/firearms/fbi-pistol.php. I assume you will trust the FBI to calibrate gelatin properly.


*According to data on the same web site, 147gr bullets consistently expand and penetrate more than 124gr in clothed gelatin (calibrated by the FBI).*

Because you insist, I will agree with you that 124gr JHP bullets will expand more than 147gr JHP bullets _when shooting naked people._



Mike Barham said:


> A guy who is right on top of us posing a lethal threat needs to go down as quickly as we can make him, and multiple hits are the best way to assure that.


and... was the guy naked? :anim_lol:


----------



## fivehourfrenzy

submoa said:


> and... was the guy naked? :anim_lol:


If I wake up in the middle of the night and there's a naked guy on top of me, he's getting shot. End of story. Lol.


----------



## Mike Barham

> *According to data on the same web site, 147gr bullets consistently expand and penetrate more than 124gr in clothed gelatin (calibrated by the FBI).*
> 
> Because you insist, I will agree with you that 124gr JHP bullets will expand more than 147gr JHP bullets _when shooting naked people._


Cute, but shooting a guy in a t-shirt or a hoodie is a lot closer to bare gelatin than four layers of denim. Let me know the next time you hear of someone attacked by a guy wearing _four_ Levis' jackets, 'kay? :mrgreen:

Anyway, I am glad you concede that 147s do not expand more than 124s, which was the point.


----------



## submoa

Mike Barham said:


> Cute, but shooting a guy in a t-shirt or a hoodie is a lot closer to bare gelatin than four layers of denim. Let me know the next time you hear of someone attacked by a guy wearing _four_ Levis' jackets, 'kay? :mrgreen:


No. No single test can account for all the variations in clothing. A perp could be wearing a lined leather jacket, denim shirt and undershirt where the 4 denim scenario would underrepresent the resistance of clothing.

Quoting from the http://demigodllc.com/~zak/firearms/fbi-pistol.php source you rely on, *"It would seem more useful to compare the "clothed" gelatin results, since people usually wear clothes."*

And the 'clothed' results show 147gr rounds offer superior penetration/expansion vs 124.


----------



## fivehourfrenzy

Mike Barham said:


> four layers of denim.


I read that denim can really mess up a hollow point due to the fibers that can literally plug up the cavity and prevent expansion. Any validity to that?


----------



## submoa

fivehourfrenzy said:


> I read that denim can really mess up a hollow point due to the fibers that can literally plug up the cavity and prevent expansion. Any validity to that?


Bullets pushing cloth into a wound is more likely with lighter fabric than heavier. Realize the lighter fibers have to tear all at the same time, otherwise just a flap or only a cut in the fabric will happen.

If the guy dares to mess up your hollow point, I say, shoot em again.


----------



## fivehourfrenzy

submoa said:


> If the guy dares to mess up your hollow point, I say, shoot em again.


Oh I will. :mrgreen:


----------



## Mike Barham

submoa said:


> No. No single test can account for all the variations in clothing. A perp could be wearing a lined leather jacket, denim shirt and undershirt where the 4 denim scenario would underrepresent the resistance of clothing.


You have a point there, and possibly my opinion is colored by living in Phoenix, where an attacker would probably never be wearing such clothes (if we avoid biker bars). However, I would then like to see a penetration test with leather. After all, hollowpoints used in hunting seem to work very well after going through animal hide, essentially the equivalent of leather.

I will have the temerity to disagree with (the very knowledgeable) Zak Smith on the importance of the four-layer denim test, though. I just don't think it's a very realistic test.


----------



## forestranger

Have chronographed and wet pack tested(soaked newspaper covered with layer of denim and towel) a number of 9mm hps out of 3.1, 3.8 and 4 in. barrels. Gold dot 124+p and DPX 115+p seemed to have the best combination of velocity, expansion, penetration, energy, & accuracy from all three barrel lengths to me. From 15 yds, they shot to point of aim and I can't tell much difference in kick from 115 WWB. But I shoot a lot of 45acp, 357s and heavy loaded 45 Colts. Also tried Golden Saber+p, Black Hills+p, Win. and Rem standard jhp.


----------



## Old Padawan

I know I have said it before, I will say it again. Any quality ammo is good. Spend less money (and thought) on the magic bullet and more time on training. I would guess we exchange ideas regarding bullet wt vs expansion vs caliber on a 10 – 1 basis over training. Don’t buy into the high price UBER performance ammo. Save your money and buy lessons. Learn to make hits on multiple targets while on the move.
Buy ammo that functions well, and that you can afford to shoot. Shoot often with direction. Shoot your carry ammo out of the gun as it sits at least once every couple of months.


----------



## Mike Barham

I do agree with *Old Padawan*, of course, and normally I avoid discussions on the minutiae of ammo selection. All good modern loads will work perfectly well for defense, and choosing between them is of very little importance in the overall scheme of self-defense. But the OP asked specifically about 9mm rounds with the least recoil/muzzle flip, and someone recommended the heaviest-recoiling common 9mm rounds for reasons that are in dispute.

I will say that this has been a remarkably cordial and good-humored thread, and I congratulate all participants on that. These discussions often devolve to ugliness.


----------



## bl7205

Old Padawan said:


> I know I have said it before, I will say it again. Any quality ammo is good. Spend less money (and thought) on the magic bullet and more time on training. I would guess we exchange ideas regarding bullet wt vs expansion vs caliber on a 10 - 1 basis over training. Don't buy into the high price UBER performance ammo. Save your money and buy lessons. Learn to make hits on multiple targets while on the move.
> Buy ammo that functions well, and that you can afford to shoot. Shoot often with direction. Shoot your carry ammo out of the gun as it sits at least once every couple of months.


+1, Thank you Padawan... well put.


----------



## forestranger

As much as I enjoy testing ammo and finding the best round for each weapon, you're dead right. Use quality ammo that hits where you aim and practice so you'll hit where you aim.


----------



## submoa

Mike Barham said:


> .. and someone recommended the heaviest-recoiling common 9mm rounds for reasons that are in dispute.





Mike Barham said:


> The 124gr +P dug to 13.2" and expanded to .62".


hmmm


----------



## Mike Barham

I find the 147s to have more muzzle flip than the 124 +Ps. You don't?

In any case, I didn't recommend 124gr +P. I merely presented the data.


----------



## submoa

Old Padawan said:


> Any quality ammo is good. Spend less money (and thought) on the magic bullet and more time on training.


Yes, and thank you. Just because I like and train with 147gr doesn't mean its good for everyone. Likewise if you use and train 124gr, stick with it. Consistency between training and stress situations will ensure your results and more importantly help you control any problems with recoil and flip. Just train, train, train. "The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in combat."

Its been fun watching the confused naked shooter Jihad launched at me for liking my 147gr JHP rounds. 147gr 9mm is subsonic at standard loads and is actually softer shooting at standard loads than 115 and 124gr ammo. So, it does answer the original question seeking reduced recoil ammo.

I also shoot using a can. 147gr subsonic is the only round to use with suppressors, so in the interest of consistency its the only load I stock in 9mm.


----------



## Mike Barham

I fully understand using subsonics in a suppressed pistol. And far from this being a jihad, I thought it's been pretty civil as far as ammo discussions go. I mentioned that I seldom participate in these because I think ammo selection is at best a tertiary consdieration in the broad scheme of defense. Nonetheless, I have enjoyed the "jihad" and its resistance, and I've learned from the thread.

I ran some numbers based on the previous link to Zak Smith's site. Unfortunately, the velocities are all over the place. Some of the 115s kicked less than some of the 147s. Some of the 124s kicked less than the 147s. Some of the 147s kicked less than the 115s _and_ 124s.

My subjective impression is that the 147s aren't the softest shooting 9mm rounds, but rather that they have the more muzzle flip than 115s and 124s, and my split times bear this out. However, it is possible that I have dismissed them prematurely, based on the recoil numbers of _some_ of the lower-velocity 147s.

So, in the end...there's no magic bullet. :mrgreen:

I am sure the OP is now thoroughly confused and annoyed.


----------



## submoa

Mike Barham said:


> I ran some numbers based on the previous link to Zak Smith's site. Unfortunately, the velocities are all over the place. Some of the 115s kicked less than some of the 147s. Some of the 124s kicked less than the 147s. Some of the 147s kicked less than the 115s _and_ 124s.
> 
> My subjective impression is that the 147s aren't the softest shooting 9mm rounds, but rather that they have the more muzzle flip than 115s and 124s, and my split times bear this out. However, it is possible that I have dismissed them prematurely, based on the recoil numbers of _some_ of the lower-velocity 147s.


It beats the hell out of me how you read these websites and come up with the conclusions you do.

The only meaningful comparision of recoil vs. bullet weight is where you compare results from different bullet weights of the same product from the same manufacturer of ammo. The only allowable comparision by that standard on Zak's http://demigodllc.com/~zak/firearms/fbi-pistol.php website is:

9x19 CCI/Speer GD |[email protected], 18.9 mv, 314 E|BR 12.6", 0.59", 3.44cu|CL 17.5", 0.51", 3.57cu|avg 3.51, 2.96 re, 1.19
9x19 CCI/Speer GD |[email protected] 924, 19.4 mv, 278 E|BR 14.8", 0.57", 3.78cu|CL 14.7", 0.55", 3.49cu|avg 3.63, 3.11 re, 1.17

showing 1.17 recoil for 147gr and 1.19 recoil for 124 (and btw clothed bullet expansion was .55" for 147 vs .51" for 124). Unfortunately there is no other data on that list that allows a direct comparison of different weight bullets of the same ammo.

To make comparisions of data such as a 147gr Win Ranger Talon's recoil is 1.51 and a CCI/Speer GD 124gr is 1.19 to conclude all 124gr bullets have less recoil than 147 is worthless.

None of the sources you use in this thread have supported your attack on 147JHP:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs9.htm *"When gelatin is not calibrated it's impossible to determine the validity of the data.."* Useless data.

http://demigodllc.com/~zak/firearms/fbi-pistol.php *"It would seem more useful to compare the "clothed" gelatin results, since people usually wear clothes."* Clothed penetration/expansion stats better for 147

http://demigodllc.com/~zak/firearms/fbi-pistol.php When same ammo compared, 147gr has less recoil than 124.​
I just ask that when you use sources to support your argument, you actually read them and apply recognizable logic.


----------



## Mike Barham

Well, I guess one guy's "discussion" is another guy's "attack." ;-) It's not a jihad or an attack, and you're not being persecuted for liking 147gr bullets. It's just a discussion on the internet, and we've already agreed (I thought) that this is basically minutiae.

I wasn't "attacking" the 147s, just disputing your assertions about it, though you have presented an excellent rebuttal. I think 147s work fine for defense, and don't recall ever saying otherwise. I realize that 147gr fans are always on the defensive because people like Mas Ayoob, Ed Sanow and Evan Marshall deride the bullet weight.

Since the OP didn't ask about a particular brand of ammo, just bullet weights in general, I looked at all the velocities for the different bullet weights. They are, as I said, all over the place. _Some_ 147s kick more than _some_ 115s and 124s, based on the figures on Mr. Smith's site. Some kick less.

I agree that the Gold Dot 147s produce very slightly less recoil energy than the 124s, though I have shot them both and the 147s seemed to recoil harder to me. Maybe it was just the difference in recoil sensation, though, since the 124 recoil _seems_ a little quicker, while the 147 has a slower, more even recoil. I can get the front sight back on target faster with the 124s, according to my shot timer (though the difference is obviously very slight).

Maybe my technique is flawed. I can also shoot a 3" 1911 faster than a 6". :mrgreen:



> http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs9.htm *"When gelatin is not calibrated it's impossible to determine the validity of the data.."* Useless data.​




I'm not sure it's entirely useless, but I agree that it is not the best data. Not sure why Mr. Dodson has it on his site if he thinks it is completely useless.



> http://demigodllc.com/~zak/firearms/fbi-pistol.php *"It would seem more useful to compare the "clothed" gelatin results, since people usually wear clothes."*


I didn't run any averages on the clothed gelatin, and will take your word for the results. But you and I just differ on the usefulness of the four-layer denim test. I think it is an unrealistic test, and don't consider those numbers terribly useful. I think the results of the bare gelatin are more useful. Yes, I realize that people normally wear clothes, but I don't think the clothes they typically wear have much in common with four layers of denim (unless someone lives in a biker bar).



> http://demigodllc.com/~zak/firearms/fbi-pistol.php When same ammo compared, 147gr has less recoil than 124.


See above. Some 147s kick more than some lighter bullets, some less. This statement is true with Gold Dots, I concede, though the difference is slight.

This thread has persuaded me to do some more experimentation with 147s when I get back to the States, especially since I like Gold Dot ammo, so I thank *submoa* for correcting some of my assumptions. I now think the OP should try all bullet weights and not dismiss the 147s.​


----------



## submoa

First, I'd like to thank you for what you are doing in Afghanistan. I thoroughly respect your efforts there and only wish you were able to use the JHP rounds these bad guys deserve. God bless, good luck and come home safe. :smt1099

I haven't personally seen a wide enough variety of 9mm loads shot into people to rule out any 9mm round in a defensive situation. YMMV. I firmly subscribe to the axiom: There is no replacement for shot placement. And train to that result.

I listen to the opinions of those that I consider experts. Slow heavy bullets are favored by Jeff Cooper, the International Wound Ballistics Association (IWBA Handgun Ammunition Specification aka Agency Purchasing Bible), Fackler and at various FBI Wound Ballistics Seminars. In fact, 147gr is 9mm standard issue at the FBI (bigger calibers also in use today).



Mike Barham said:


> I realize that 147gr fans are always on the defensive because people like Mas Ayoob, Ed Sanow and Evan Marshall deride the bullet weight.


I have read publications by Ayoob, Sanow and Marshall. Entertaining, but more on the level of Popular Science compared to Scientific American. On the other hand its not in my interest that bad guys improve the effectiveness of their rounds.

A few years ago, Sanow wrote several articles critical of the 9mm 147 grain JHP cartridge, and listed a number of police agencies that were allegedly dissatisfied with its "dismal" performance after officers shot criminals with it. Several law enforcement firearms trainers were so alarmed at Sanow's reports that they contacted the agencies identified by Sanow to verify his claims. What these trainers learned was that Sanow deliberately misrepresented the circumstances and facts of these shootings to make the 147 grain JHP look bad. As a result, Sanow lost what little credibility he had remaining with law enforcement.

Your opinion of Ayoob, Sanow and Marshall may pale after reading critques republished in firearmstactical (a source you've quoted in this thread):

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs8.htm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/afte.htm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/2006/04/03/0604-03a.htm



Mike Barham said:


> But you and I just differ on the usefulness of the four-layer denim test. I think it is an unrealistic test, and don't consider those numbers terribly useful. _I think the results of the bare gelatin are more useful_. Yes, I realize that people normally wear clothes, but I don't think the clothes they typically wear have much in common with four layers of denim (unless someone lives in a biker bar).


Come on. All these tests are simulations. People aren't made of gelatin.

The US is a big country. Florida to Alaska. 4 seasons from winter to summer. Indoor and outdoor clothing. In the real world there is wind, smoke, a/c flow and different angles of incidence in the flight of a bullet. The bad guy might not be out in the open, but could be shooting at you from cover: behind drywall or furniture. If you had to risk your life on a comparative clothing penetration test, would you have more confidence in a test using 4 layers of denim or 1 layer of t-shirt material? Even shooting someone in the @ss you have to go through a layer of denim, underpants, hair and sh^t.

Bottom line, clothing will have an effect on wound penetration. Four layers of denim will have a greater effect than one. Comparing naked gelatin against the 4 layer denim results will certainly show how bullet wound characteristics are affected by clothing. You could adjust your ammo load to the percieved thickness of clothing where you are or you could take a conservative approach and let the "exaggerated" effects of the 4 layer test results guide you on their own. For me, there are too many variables in the real world not to be conservative.

Again, actual differences in the defensive properties of various quality 9mm is infinitesmally small compared to shot placement and extensive training.


----------



## BrokenArrow

Recoil energy of Federal's Hydra-Shok from a Walther P99:

124 HS 5.13 ft lbs
135 HS 5.37
147 HS 4.75

In this case, the 124s avg velocity was right at the specs (1120 fps), the 135 a little higher (1067), and the 147 a little lower (925). Other lots of ammo may give other results.

Terminal ballistic testing is fun, but the stuff can drive ya crazy...

5 round avg through denim:

115/9 +P+ Speer GD 15.9/.53
124/9 GD 16.6/.51
124/9 +P GD 15.9/.56
147/9 GD 16.9/.54

Avgs for the entire 40 shot/8 event FBI test:

115/9 Speer GD 17.9/.49
124/9 GD 17/.48
147/9 GD 14.9/.51

115/9 Win ST 11.4/.54
145/357MAG Win ST 13.8/.50
147/9 Win JHP 14/.46

115/9 +P+ Fed JHP 11.5/.50
125/357MAG Fed SJHP 11.5/.52
124/9 Fed HS 14.7/.48
147/9 HS 14.4/.50
147/9 HS 17.2/.51 (diifferent lot)

Various lots of Speer 155/40 GD tested by folks who know what they are doing showed a 5 round avg that varied from 10.8/.84 to 13/.65 in bare gel over time. The 5 round avg of the Speer 124/9 +P GD in gel through glass from 11.5/.52 to 13/.55 to 14.9/.54...

People and their clothes (or lack of) are not as consistent as calibrated gel blocks. Something that avgs 13 inches in bare gel w a range from 12-14 can avg the same 13 inches in real people wearing real clothes (or not) over years of many real shootings but range from 10-17 inches.

The feds do lottsa testing and have access to oodles of real shooting results. Even they can't agree on what's best. The DOJ thinks 12 inches of penetration is the minimum necessary, has issued 165 HS, 165 GD, and now 180 Ranger Bonded that avg 13 inches in bare gel in their 40s. The DHS has more armed agents who get in more real shootings and they think 9 inches is plenty, have issued various 155/40s over the years that avg 10 inches in bare gel... both are very happy w their actual results.

http://www.govexec.com/features/0604-15/0604-15s1s1.htm

Nobody really knows what your lot of ammo is gonna do from your gun in your bad guy. The local cops tested some premium ammo, loked great, the stuff delivered did not expand at all in several shootings and one accident. Ammo company took it back and gave them some new stuff that worked better...

Is premium ammo worth the premium price? It appears to be more consistent in testing. So decide what ya want it to do, shoot, measure, score, and cut the check. Hope for the best.

Or just get what ya like, or flip a coin and like what ya get. How you shoot whatever it is is way more important.


----------

