Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 9/19/2001 2:02:59 PM EDT
i read a previous thread about 9mm ammo. 147grn. is considered the "widowmaker". i always thought that 147grn ammo was better than the lighter stuff and stocked up on it [rolleyes] i own Ranger xt's(and Black Talons), FED HI-shocks, and sub-sonic DP's. of these loads which is the most usefull? could someone explain why a heavier 9mm load is not as effective as a lighter grain? shooting wise, i've always had better accuracy results with the 147grain. my two 9mm are a CZ-75 and a FEG HI-POWER. the Feg is the best cheap pistol ($200) i have ever bought. it's better than the Beratta 92f that i used to have (which broke on me). i prefer a .45 lib
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 2:21:56 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 2:24:10 PM EDT
Too heavy and takes the "zip" out of it....hell, you might do better with a 38 special with that kind of wieght.......ok at 5-7 yds probably but otherwise.......[argue]
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 2:34:17 PM EDT
147 grain is great in suppersors *phut* *phut* *phut*
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 2:57:35 PM EDT
An unending argument! The two federal agencies best equipped to do ballistic research are the FBI and the Secret Service. The FBI carries the 147 grain subsonic 9MM; the Secret Service carries the 115 grain +P+ 9MM. Admittedly the Secret Service doesn’t want a really deep penetrating round due to the nature of its work. (Also, both agencies are getting away from the 9MM anyway.) Everyone agrees that the most important thing isn’t bullet weight - it’s bullet placement
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 3:12:22 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 5:17:20 PM EDT
FYI. I was surprised at the "kick" of the 147gr subsonic rounds compared to the 115gr rounds, in my new Beretta. I absolutely love it BTW! I found that light .357 rounds have quite a blast, and kick, compared to heavier 150gr subsonic loads; so the opposite, in the 9mm caliber, surprised me a little. I found it harder to control the recoil for good accuracy in rapid follow up shots. Might effect your decision if you try them both out. I'm sure after more practice with the Beretta, I will do better, but, something to think about. I'm used to heavy recoil from my .44mag, but wouldn't want to have to make quick follow up shots on a small target(thank goodness grizzly bears are large). After a similar discussion in the Ammunition forum, I think I am going to go with the 124-127gr range.
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 7:00:45 PM EDT
Forest- On what information do you base your assertion that the Marshal/Sanow study is a 'work of fiction' or a fraud?
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 8:41:53 PM EDT
I would call those "widowmakers" also, the only thing is, my wife would be the widow. They failed-to-feed [B]EVERY [/B]time. Always test your "carry" ammo, no matter how expensive you think that would be. --Texason "Come and take it!"
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 9:03:17 PM EDT
Sparky, See [url]www.firearmstactical.com[/url] and start digging into the site. You will find a gold mine of information, including a couple of articles debunking Marshal and Sanow. Texason, It was more likely your weapon or shooting style causing the problem. I've [b]never[/b] had any malfunction with any 147 grain ammunition that wasn't shooter induced (rag-armming), a magazine problem or a feed ramp that needed polishing.
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 11:05:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/20/2001 2:13:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Texason: I would call those "widowmakers" also, the only thing is, my wife would be the widow. They failed-to-feed [B]EVERY [/B]time. Always test your "carry" ammo, no matter how expensive you think that would be. --Texason "Come and take it!"
View Quote
the only 9mm i've ever had jam on me was a colt commander, but that was only because i had mated it to a .45 frame. improper ejector. my CZ-75 and Hungarian HI-Power have fed everything i've put in'em thus so far. the only thing i have'nt tried yet is +P's .358 shooting lib [pistol]
Link Posted: 9/20/2001 2:31:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_G: snip Texason, It was more likely your weapon or shooting style causing the problem. I've [b]never[/b] had any malfunction with any 147 grain ammunition that wasn't shooter induced (rag-armming), a magazine problem or a feed ramp that needed polishing.
View Quote
I know, it's the weapon/ammo combination, which is why I recommend extensive testing of both, [I]together [/I] before trusting your life to them.
Link Posted: 9/20/2001 7:46:25 PM EDT
Dave G- I read some of the anti-Marshall/Sanow articles on that website. Classic case of the Facklerites grinding their axe with M/S. They do raise some good points about statistical analysis and the fact that variables such as offender mindset are not taken into account (indeed, they cannot be, reliably). However, Marshall and Sanow's intent was merely to document how rounds have actually performed on the street, and they did the best job they could with the data they had available. Their books are valuable in the sense that they provide us with more information about how different handgun loads tend to perform on the street, rather than just shooting gelatin and making predictions. People who read the book and think "gee, if I shoot this guy with my Cor-bon 135-grain .40 load, there's a 96% chance he'll go down with one shot" have missed the point. The books are collections of data that show tendencies, nothing more. The perfect statistical analysis that the writers of these articles want to see are simply not possible, given the variables involved in deadly force encounters that are not recorded and are therefore not available to researchers. I think the Facklerites' objections to M/S raise some good points for thought, but they by no means 'debunk' their books entirely.
Link Posted: 9/20/2001 11:56:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2001 11:56:53 PM EDT by Dave_G]
Sparky, And what credible expert not involved in the sale of or the paid endorsement of light weight, high velocity handgun ammunition agrees with and supports the Marshall/Sanow work? Troy, The source of your statements concerning the performance of the 147 grain loads is...?
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 12:23:17 AM EDT
115gr +p (1350fps) I prefer [url]www.CORBON.com[/url] but others make good stuff. I think Triton's Hi Vel line is close. [url]www.triton-ammo.com[/url] 124gr +p's are good too.
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 1:06:07 AM EDT
I very much agree with the coments made by Sparky315. I prefer +P+ 115gr or 124gr loads. I do not like 147gr. loads. Palcement is the key - from .50AE to .22LR. Tyler
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 8:39:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_G: Troy, The source of your statements concerning the performance of the 147 grain loads is...?
View Quote
Many LE agency results and ballistics reports hold Troy's statements as true.
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 9:09:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/21/2001 1:51:56 PM EDT by Dave_G]
Kevin, The source for those reports is Ed Sanow himself, hardly an unbiased source, and soundly discredited after reporting in, I believe it was, a “Police” magazine article that the Michigan State Police shooting incidents showed poor performance of the 147 gr. 9mm rounds, and then having the individual responsible for examining Michigan State Police shooting results reporting that the 147 gr. 9mm rounds performed very well indeed. The editors of the magazine published a retraction of the article. Sanow and Marshall have since been essentially banned from credible law enforcement professional journals and relegated to the likes of “Guns & Ammo”, "American handgunner" and "Guns" where their spurious claims aren’t challenged by editors intent on selling magazines and advertising. Try this tidbit from FirearmsTactical.com [url]www.firearmstactical.com[/url]:
"The Firearms Training Unit of the FBI held a Wound Ballistics seminar from 19 through 22 January 1993 at the FBI Academy. "Thirty-seven forensic pathologists, trauma surgeons, law enforcement trainers, firearms examiners, and ordnance engineers met to discuss handgun bullet effects and bullet testing. This group unanimously affirmed the principles set down by the FBI workshop of 1987: primarily among these was that a bullet must possess the capacity to penetrate deeply enough to reach and disrupt vital body structures if it is to stand any chance of performing reliably in the variety of circumstances a law enforcement officer might meet in a gunfight. Since the 1987 workshop, most law enforcement agencies have adopted the more deeply penetrating heavier bullets. At the 1993 symposium, trainers from five large departments (California Highway Patrol, Indianapolis PD, San Diego PD, Louisiana State Police, and Amarillo PD) reported data showing excellent performance from bullets chosen using the FBI penetration criterion. Several of these trainers had polled their counterparts in other departments and found that their highly favorable observations and impressions of the heavier bullets were widely shared. "The findings of this symposium are especially timely since it appears that three gunwriters have recently attempted to trump up a 'controversy' by claiming that the heavier subsonic bullets used by the majority of law enforcement agencies have been turning in a poor record in 'street' shootings. The story of how several senior trainers exposed this attempted fraud by these gunwriter/bullet salesmen was the subject of IWBA Bulletin No. 1, which accompanied the third issue of the Wound Ballistics Review."
View Quote
Sanow and Marshall are endorsing, and effectively selling, the lightweight, high velocity ammunition. The people referenced in the excerpt above aren’t selling anything. Their concern was to identify the best ammunition for use by law enforcement. So who do you believe; the law enforcement professionals who’s main concern is the safety of all law enforcement officers, or two individuals who are making a living selling books and articles that encourage the purchase of ammunition that they also financially benefit from? The specific reference show above can be found at: [url]http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm[/url]. Edited to add this reference.
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 9:14:58 AM EDT
Since everything works great in my 92FS, I use both heavy and light bullets. 124grn corbon +p in the house and when light clothing will be encountered. When heavy clothing is encountered (i live in northern WI), I opt for 147grn SXT. I should note that I carry a lot of differant guns depending on the occasion (.357, .45, 9mm, .44mag.). Shot placement is key!
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 2:04:27 PM EDT
Hey Dave_G, Have you ever heard the phrase, "Get a Job"? You know there's more to Life then,..sitting around getting high,...reading gun magazines,...and surfin the internet!
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 5:07:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/21/2001 5:07:34 PM EDT by Dave_G]
I've got a job. I make six figures sitting in front of my computer all day. Getting high? Only a moron, or a moron in training "get's high." No time to read any books or magazines during the workday. Surf the Internet? Ten or fifteen minutes every hour or two, or when I hit a wall on a programming issue. Correct the english of some doofus who thinks it's OK to torque to spec, then back off to line up the barrel nut with the gas tube hole in the upper?
You know there's more to Life then,..sitting around getting high,...reading gun magazines,...and surfin the internet!
View Quote
Correction: You know[b],[/b] there's more to [b]life[/b] than[/b] sitting around getting high, reading gun magazines and [b]surfing[/b] the [b]Internet[/b]!
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 5:33:14 PM EDT
As an LE trainer, I've had contact with a number of agencies who have ditched the 147-grain 9mm due to poor performance. Many agencies who have gone to the .40 and .357 Sig have done so because they are unhappy with their subsonic 9mm ammo, and it's easier to sell a caliber change to the brass than an ammo change. The 147-grain 9mm was an interim load selected by the FBI in the wake of the Miami fiasco to get maximum penetration until they could find a better duty round (which they have now found in the 165-grain .40 golden saber). It was never intended to be the end-all LE duty round, and it is not. I'm not going to carry on a debate about whether or not Marshall and Sanow are frauds, idiots, etc. All I can say is that my experience and reports I have been privy to indicate that the lighter, faster bullets do indeed perform better against people. Dave G, if you choose to go with the Facklerites, that's your choice. I agree that shot placement is a far more important issue than small variations in bullet performance. I simply can't agree that Marshall and Sanow fabricated all their data just to sell ammo, nor can I agree that their study has absolutely no meaning. As far as 'credible experts' go, that's a matter of opinion. Also, as far as representatives of LE agencies being the ones whose primary concern is the safety of LEO's, I don't think so. Those are the guys who either believe Fackler wholeheartedly and aren't open to anything that contradicts him, or they are paid to defend their department's choice of ammo. Chiefs frown on it when their rangemasters badmouth their ammo choice, even if it's a bad one. And I've seen results change after staff got pissed at someone for saying the wrong thing in public. Bottom line is, if you think LE agencies will always give straight, unbiased information, you are being naive. Ubermensch, I think your slam on Dave G was off base and out of line. Just because you disagree with the man is no reason to call him a doper with no life. His arguments are actually very intelligent and well-spoken. If you disagree with him, state your opinions like an adult.
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 6:54:14 PM EDT
Sparky, I think we can agree to disagree and do so in the gentlemanly manner as we have done thus far. Your comments on departmental actions and attitudes pretty much mirror what I saw in my agency. But it is my experience that administrators will often make a significant change only when confronted with a high-profile shooting where an ammunition failure is loudly alleged, or when confronted with a loud, united front demanding change. I was a weapons officer with the CHP when we were using the 110 grain +P+ .38 Special. During my tenure with that agency, there were several shooting incidents that highlighted the poor performance of that lightweight, high velocity round. It was my actions in the background, creating the loud, united front demanding a change that provided the first hard kick that fairly quickly moved the CHP to field-test the 9mm. They then threw out the test results and directed that the department adopt the .40 Auto. The wags said it was because they wanted to be the first to adopt the new round. Sounds right to me. As for the alleged poor performance of the 147/9, you hit it on the head with your comment on shot placement. You stop a bad guy with one shot reliably only with a central nervous system hit. Otherwise you must rely on proper shot placement that allows a penetrating bullet to reach vital organs, causing massive blood loss and eventual unconsciousness. Pain and shock can put some down immediately, but you can't rely on it. One thing that you missed is that bullet design today is far more advanced that bullet design in 1987. Today's 147/9's are far better performers than those from 1987. Another thing is the fact that in 1987, the .40 Auto didn't exist and the .45 was too much gun for many officers or not available in a satisfactory double action format. They were looking for the best 9mm round because that was the weapon they had. They could make an ammunition change far quicker than they could a weapon change, and the vintage '87 147/9 did outperform the lightweights of the time. Using data from those old 147/9’s and applying it to today’s rounds is a mistake. It’s like comparing an F4B Phantom to an F15D Eagle. Sanow and Marshal have had their work picked to pieces and exposed, in some cases, as deliberate fraud through well documented efforts. Sure, they have some good ideas, but they are overshadowed by their faults and their data is scientifically and statistically invalid. Evidence of the failures with 147/9 is still only anecdotal, and they are fewer and fewer in number with more and more agencies moving to the new .40 Autos. By the way, any interest in comparing the 180 grain .40’s of 1990 to the 165’s of today? I buy my own 165 grain Golden Saber now that I’m retired.
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 8:41:47 PM EDT
Dave G- I agree, we shall have to agree to disagree in a gentlemanly fashion! :) I guess it all boils down to this- you need a reliable handgun in a decent (9mm or greater for me) caliber with good factory ammunition. After that, it's all about shot placement, and therefore about practice with that handgun. Everything else is academic. And no, don't wanna argue about 180-grain .40's vs. 165! I use 155-grain in mine because I feel it gives a nice balance between expansion, early energy release and penetration. The only .40 load I would be uncomfortable with is the mid-velocity 165-grain, which seems to be a relatively weak performer. I think any full-power .40 will pretty much get you through the night. I tend to favor the .40 and the full-power 10mm myself, reserving the 9mm for when I don't want to carry anything larger than my Kahr P9 (which isn't very often). The exception to this is my Beretta 92G, which is such a great gun I'll put up with the 9mm chambering.
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 10:03:31 PM EDT
-124gr. NATO -FMJ -1350 FPS -As much energy as a .45 hardball Need more be said?
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 11:17:02 PM EDT
Re. Dave_G I'm glad to see you remembered. I've read many of your posts here on AR-15.com, and it seems you Slam alot of people that don't agree with you, Right or Wrong. My point is, treat people the way you would like to be treated. Or maybe your Mom and Dad didn't teach you that?
Link Posted: 9/22/2001 8:05:09 AM EDT
Jewbroni, I can easily deliver as much energy with my fist as a .45 hardball, and I can guarantee 100% energy transfer, something no 9mm or .45 ACP can do without help. What matters in bullet performance is penetration, expansion, mass retention and overlying vital organs or vessels with the permanent wound channel. You can also read the last item as shot placement. Kinetic energy comes into play with penetration. It's important, but not the end-all, be-all measure of potential bullet performance. UM, If the phrase, "Ubermensch is wrong" was hurtful to you, even though it was a simple statement of fact as you were absolutely, completely, totally incorrect in that case, then you really need to withdraw into a hole and pull the opening in behind you. Instead of acting like an adult, which it is doubtful that you are, emotionally anyway, you chose to jump into a thread and toss an insult, a poorly written, rather childish one, but an insult none the less. You didn't even add a comment relevant to the thread. Grow up or continue to be verbally flensed.
Link Posted: 9/22/2001 10:04:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_G: Jewbroni, I can easily deliver as much energy with my fist as a .45 hardball, and I can guarantee 100% energy transfer, something no 9mm or .45 ACP can do without help.
View Quote
Actually, most thrown fists aren't even half of what a bullet's energy is. Plus, take into account the increased area of the face of the fist, and you've brought PSI into the deal, and when the smoke is cleared, a fist neither expands nor penetrates, making a 9mm or .45 the preferred choice for lethal attacks [;D] But anyway, 125gr. NATO is the best choice for center mass shots. The penetration factor of this round is extremely high (one of the highest in general handgun ammunition), making a pierced lung, stomach, windpipe, major artery, or heart easily performed. The only problem, of course, is expansion - this obviously comes into play when a shot just misses a vital organ, and instead does trauma damage to the body instead of a vital area. Simply enough, I like 125gr. NATO because it's cheap enough to be a self-defense and a range load, has plenty of penetration, and is extremely accurate with a dropout range of about 100yards. It's really hard to go wrong with this round (and the military uses it for that reason).
Link Posted: 9/22/2001 10:20:39 AM EDT
Hey Jewbroni, Where do you get your 9mm NATO? How much is it? I have seen Olympic 124gr for about 10 cents a round, with muzzle velocity listed at 1251 fps. Thx, -Ngog
Link Posted: 9/22/2001 10:30:12 AM EDT
Jewbroni, Penetration is important, but overpenetration is a very bad thing unless collateral damage is not an issue. The lack of expansion of a 9mm NATO ball round is intentional. The bullet is designed to cause "humane" wounds. As for the fist vs. .45 energy issue, neither the .45 nor the 9mm bullets transfer anywhere near their full measure of kinetic energy as they pass merrily through the "target." My fist, properly aimed and with the full force that I can place behind it, will deliver more energy, and 100% of that available, than the amount of energy "transferred" by the bullets. No holes, but a really nice bruise and a broken rib or two. I know of no credible expert in the firearms field that recommends the use of Ball-type rounds for anything but military applications where the use of Ball-type ammunition is mandated by international treaty.
Link Posted: 9/22/2001 2:07:52 PM EDT
Re.Re. Dave_G If you think your sarcastic comments and your insulting attitude in all your post, makes you feel intelligent. You are definitely a hopeless mental case. I will say this, You slam me, I will slam you back. It's just that simple! One more thing, I don't care who you are. I don't care how many posts you have on AR-15.com. I don't care how much money you claim you make a year. I don't care what jobs you claim you have had. I don't care how many gun magazines and gun manuals you have read. You will always be a Ass. So go ahead and write a paragraph, or two,or three,..Oh ya,throw in a few web links too, and show everyone how smart you are. P.S. sorry all you other guys on this thread, but this is where I found Dave_God.
Link Posted: 9/22/2001 2:50:33 PM EDT
Ubermensch, You really were very wrong with that advice you gave on the other forum, and when you grow up, in order to fit in with polite society, you really need to understand that when someone says “Ubermensch is wrong,” they are simply pointing out an error, not insulting your heritage. Also when you jump in and toss an insult, you must be prepared to receive one in return and take it like a man, something your Dad should have taught you. Then again, maybe he’s waiting until after your Bar Mitzvah. I don’t slam people simply because they don’t agree with me. I slam people when they need a lesson in the civilized exchange of ideas and information. I don’t consider myself the arbiter of all things civilized, nor do I consider myself to be any form of deity. I just get a kick out of jacking up people who desperately need it. I couldn’t care less about what you think of me, but it is a bit fun helping you expose what [b]you[/b] are.
Link Posted: 9/22/2001 7:39:27 PM EDT
Ubermensch, you initiated the slams/insults & then when Dave_G shot back you cried foul?!? What's up with that??? If you don't like the verbal(typed:) sparing then don't intiate it or don't complain when you provoke a response. Dave_G is knowledgable & has LE career background so I think he has a little experience to draw on! In addition to all his other firearms experience! More so than an average guy on this board. As far as FMJ ammo for self defense in a civilian scenario, bad idea! .45ACP 230FMJ & 124gr 9mmFMJ are notorious over penetrators. Ideally a bullet should stop in it's intended target & deliver all it's energy to that target.
Link Posted: 9/22/2001 9:21:11 PM EDT
Dave_G, You think too much. Stop please. You'll save yourself and us a lot more time and energy - and apparantly you're an expert at "conserving energy", ha ha ha. BTW, I'm a much better fighter than I am a shooter, and I'd still take a 9mm or .45 hardball over my fists in a life and death situation. Let's not overanalyze here, bullets beat fists. Case closed [:)]
Top Top