Because I got a few boxes of 9BPLE (115gr +p+) and 124gr +p+ hydrashocks for $0.50/rd from a retired SS instructor who stacked it deep.

I use +p ammo because all .38 super is marked "+p".  It's really just standard pressure.  

Because I wanted to stock up on 9mm defensive ammo and I saw that a case of 1000rnds of 9BPLE is a bit less than $350.

Then I saw this video on youtube, 9mm +P+ Federal 115 Grain JHP 9BPLE Clothing and Gel Tests, and I was sold.

I figure later I may buy a case of HST but for now I think I'm good.

Having never fired +p ammo before this I didn't really notice too much of an increase in recoil or flash out of a 3.8in barrel XDM or a 3.3in barrel XDS though I do notice it is obviously louder. IMO I've experienced worse recoil and flash firing 9mm Nato than federal +P+.

+P+ will do things to body armor or cars that other stuff won't.

Same reason my wife's L-frame bedroom revolver is loaded with +P .38's instead of 'normal' .38's. Gives substantially increased performance, without getting up into the magnum-level loads that she's frankly not comfortable with.


Fwiw, the 1325-1330 from the full-size XDM jives with what I've experienced with this load. From my shorter-barreled glock 19's, I typically get 1300-1310fps.

Run I don't know how many of these over the years with no issues and no appreciable shooter trauma compared to 'normal' loads. I've read that the 9BPLE is actually loaded to only +P, but that one round out of however-many hundred slightly exceeds +P by a percentage point or two. Based on my experience, I'd say that's very likely; obviously I can't document it objectively.

How so?





Saami +p for .38 special is really, really, not that much of an increase in chamber pressure, and .38 spcl starts at black powder levels...



 

The only loads I use in my carry Glocks is Federal 9BPLE. I don't find the recoil or muzzle blast from this load much more significant than standard 9mm loads and definately less than any standard 40 S&W load out of my G23.

I'm not trying to be snarky, but if you're dealing with barriers, wouldn't the bonded JHPs be better suited for that task?

 








 

From the various ammo tests I've seen, +p is a better defensive load. JHP's expand better, and sooner, and because of the better/earlier expansion, it often times comes to a stop earlier, so less chance of over penetration. That said, the odds of needing to use them in a defensive situation is extremely small, so for my plinking/range rounds I just use standard pressure ball ammo.

The old (now-discontinued) nyclad +p runs 970fps from the 4" revolver. Definitely not a barn-burner power-wise, but better than the 820fps of the current-production non-plus-p version. (Both chrono'ed from my gun.) Put another way, 261 vs. 187 ft/lbs; a nearly 40% increase in muzzle energy. Neither one's what I'd consider phenomenal by any stretch, but a 40% jump qualifies as a substantial improvement imo.

I've only got a couple boxes of this old stuff left, but she doesn't shoot much (at all) and almost never shoots factory stuff from the gun. The revolvers get almost all their use with my reloads.

Depends on the barrier.

Don't forget this one of the same ammo: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W9iiaXoRaRY&itct=CB4QpDAYAiITCMmggsrOicICFVUQywodJHcAjTIHcmVsYXRlZEjHntui06GBmSE%3D

Quite simply nasty

One other point of interest is reliable functioning of your firearm.... if you are forced to fire your firearm with your "weak" hand or are yourself very weak from an injury... the +P will help your firearm cycle if you are "limp wristing" it.

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/night_of_the_living%20limp%20wrist.htm


and.....+P and +P+ ammo helped with the various expansion issues from some of the early JHP bullet designs.

Thanks…that's a good reason, never really thought about that.

 

Sure function of the firearm

I'm on the fence right now.   I have a stash of both 9BP and 9BPLE.    
I'm carrying the 9bP in my carry gun.     I think the LE would expand better than the standard velocity stuff.   But the standard stuff allows for a bit faster follow up shots in a lightweight carry gun.   I may switch to the LE stuff.

I know of 3 people shot with 9BPLE.

The round performed well and did what it was supposed to do.

Unless someone is using a cardboard vest, I don't think +P+ 9mm is going to make much of a difference. Any vest that stops .357 is going to stop any 9mm.

Because they don't make +P++

I've seen Winchester 127gr go through IIa.

Who wears a level II vest?

Me.  Because a IIIA isn't as concealable.

Unless you're working deep cover where any vest is going to get you noticed, I wouldn't wear a vest that doesn't stop half of what's out there. Just my opinion.

Max chamber pressure for 38 Special +P (20,000psi) is 17.6% higher than 38 Special (17,000psi).  That is fairly significant.  The difference between the two in practice are frequently even greater when you start comparing specification for available loaded ammunition.

Understand your reasoning and it's completely rational. But because of the way that armor is rated (at least soft armor IIIA and below), there's a lot of misunderstanding & confusion in most cases. Even a lowly IIA will 'stop' things up to .44 magnum and 12-gauge buckshot. I remember one incident of a small-statured female officer wearing a IIA vest, getting shot nearly point-blank with a .44 magnum Black Talon. Not only was she not dead, she wasn't even out of commission - she returned fire and killed her ambusher. The issue with (and main difference between) IIA, II, and even IIIA is that getting hit by a bullet hurts more when you're wearing a lower-rating vest due to excessive backface deformation (the effect of blunt force); the standard for which is a ridiculously arbitrary thing. Fwiw, my first vest was a IIA, and is actually thicker than my newer level-II vest.




Anything that causes more than 1.7" of backface deformation on impact is seen as a failure for armor. I always thought this was ludicrous, since CPR calls for "at least two inches" of compression depth, maintained at a rate of twice per second, or at least it did when I did first-responder training back in the previous millenium...  

I've never been able to wrap my head around that dichotomy - to save someone's life, I have to push in their chest "at least two inches", 100-120 times per minute. But having my chest - or side, or stomach - pushed in more than 1.7 inches means my armor 'failed'. Don't get it at all.

I don't see .17 HMR FMJ on that list.  I am betting it will go through at least the lowest rated vest.

Comparing CPR chest compressions to the blunt force trauma of a round impacting body armor and the resultant back face deformation isn't a useful exercise.  The severity of blunt force trauma is dependent on how much kinetic energy is imparted on the body, the surface area in which it's imparted, and the rate at which the KE is imparted.  That KE is what does the work to damage internal organs, such as bones or your liver, or your spleen.  Compressing someone's chest with your hands is in no way comparable to this.  But look at it from a different angle: you could conceivably perform CPR by hitting a guy in the sternum with a 15 lb sledge hammer, right?  But, you would absolutely kill the guy you were trying to save.  You may be imparting the same amount of overall KE to his chest, but you're also doing it much, much more quickly, over a much, much smaller area.  That's why back face deformation in body armor needs to be minimized.

I agree. I got to wandering & blabbering when really trying to simply point out the fact that what constitutes a 'failure' by the listing parameters, doesn't necessarily mean death, serious injury, or even temporary incapacitation. A small look into "saves" stories shows time and time again how officers have been saved by vests that weren't 'rated' for the rounds they took. I don't have a stake in the argument one way or another; I'm perfectly content with what I use. Just trying (hoping) to clarify the substantial difference between "what a vest is rated for" and "what it will save my old butt from"; because the difference is documentably substantial.

Here is another video of this round: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W9iiaXoRaRY&itct=CCQQpDAYACITCJmfj4jSksMCFQk1ywodljUALzIHcmVsYXRlZEjHntui06GBmSE%3D

Eta: double tap

+P+ pressure is not a SAAMI standard and is very cartridge dependent but you mention .38 Special specifically, and there is a lot of data out there for that cartridge.

As noted above, SAAMI maximum average pressure spec for the standard .38 Special load is 17,000 psi, while it is 20,000 psi for the .38 Special +P load - 117.6% of the pressure of the standard load.  New cartridges have been designed and produced to achieve less than that, as it is a significant increase in pressure.  

.38 Special +P+ loads do not have a SAAMI pressure specification, and testing done with various +P+ loads from the 60's and 70's suggested that the average pressures for various loads varied between 23,500 psi to 30,000 psi.   At 30,000 psi, it's 150% of the pressure of a .38 Special +P load and only 5,000 psi short of the .357 Magnum, making it effectively a .357 "Short" Magnum.

In terms of velocity it really depends what you are shooting it in.  In a 4" .38 Special, you can successfully argue that the standard load is enough, provided you're getting enough velocity for reliable expansion of either a hollow point or a soft lead semi wad cutter, but on the other hand I don't know many people who would turn down an extra 125-150 fps in a .38 Special.

The difference between standard load and +P loads in the .38 Special equates to about 2" of barrel length, which makes the +P load even more appealing as it will drag the sub standard performance of the 2" .38 Special up to a reasonable level of parity with standard loads in a 4" .38 Special.

The +P+ loads were developed primarily to enable a few federal agencies and a number of police departments to buy revolvers designed for the .357 Magnum, but chamber them in .38 Special so that they could get near .357 Magnum performance while still being able to claim they were using a .38 Special for political and press purposes.  And at 30,000 psi the .38 Special is going to deliver about 90% of the performance of the .357 Magnum.

 
 

It depends on the way it's cut and the material it is made with.

Law Enforcement in general  has moved away from concealable body armor worn under a uniform shirt, to more tactical style body armor worn over a BDU style uniform.  Since it is not concealable it can offer more coverage.  That increased coverage and reduced conceal-ability has bled over into some style of "concealable" body armor and you'll often see that on some police officers and security guards where it is still under the shirt, but with no real effort to conceal it.  

Personally, I think both concepts are pretty stupid as if you are advertising you have armor, you're inviting head shots.  The exception here is In a dynamic entry situation obvious body armor makes sense as you are moving and people tend to aim center of mass on moving targets anyway, and the point of the dynamic entry is to remove any time for the suspects to plan or execute any effective response.  But for an officer on the street dressed like they are on the SWAT team and wearing obvious body armor, you see things like the recent execution style shootings with intentional head shots from close range.  Armor works better in those situations when the suspect does not know you have it.

----

If you divide concealable body armor into the two categories of "wear it under your shirt, but don't worry if it's obvious" and "truly concealable" body armor you'll find the latter will have less coverage around the neck and shoulders to keep it from bunching up under your shirt, and with little or no overlap on the side.  If properly fitted it will just meet or very slightly overlap at the sides, giving maximum protection with maximum conceal-ability.  

Within that category, Level II armor will be thinner than Level IIIA - if they are made from the same material.  However, there are some newer materials out there that offer some significant advantages.

For example I now wear Level IIIA armor made from Spectra that is at thin as the Level II armor I used to wear.  The layers are also sealed so I don't have to worry about degraded performance if it is wet, and it holds up better over time.

Agree again. I was going on the presumption of 'all else being equal', then II will conceal better than IIIA.


Sorry for morphing a decent ammo-choice thread into a body-armor thread.  Fwiw, in the interest of thread-topic-related material, I do sometimes use +P+ in 9mm (in my glocks only), and sometimes use +P in 9mm and .38spl both. I rarely use +P in .45acp or .380acp.

I think we can all agree that any vest is better than no vest, and yes, I'll take excessive back face signature over penetration any day. The reality is that comfort and protection are direct inverses of each other when it comes to body armor, and everyone has their break even point.  If you can't bring yourself to wear a IIIA vest every day, day in and day out, then get a II or IIA.  A vest is worthless sitting next to you or in your trunk.  Fortunately, materials science improves every single day; even the grandaddy of them all, Kevlar, is many times lighter and stronger than when it first came out.

That’s worth repeating, and it’s a truism that I use with folks real often. When dealing with safety or security matters in general, there’s an almost-absolute inverse relationship between convenience and security. As security goes up, convenience goes down; as convenience is increased, security is decreased.
As you say, it gets less cumbersome with time and tech advances, but it’s still true. The more secure something is, the less convenient it tends to be.

If you plug Winchester RA45T and RA45TP into Winchester's comparison tool you'll see the latter expands better in every test and penetrates deeper in every test except wallboard.  That's good enough for me.  The recoil, blast and flash aren't that much greater, anyway.

I appreciate your in depth response...  but I'm aware of +p+ not being a saami spec.   I wasn't adressing +p+ and numbers on paper aren't what I was talking about.



 

And 38 Special +P still operates at 17.6% higher pressure than 38 Special, per SAAMI, and that is significant both in the numbers and the real world performance.

So how does that 17% translate into ANY significance?    



 

A .38 special +P load in a snub nose .38 stops assailants about as well as a standard .38 Special load in a 4" .38.  On the other hand a standard pressure .38 Special load in a snub nose .38 is hard pressed to stop assailants as well as a good load in a .380 ACP.

So if someone is thinking of carrying a snub nosed .38 he or she needs to be thinking about carrying a +P load.

How does it not.  Start comparing 38 Special to 38 Special +P

That 17% increase in peek pressure typically results in about a 17% increase in velocity and about a 40% increase in KE.  Its tough to find a lot of data because so few companies even bother to load self defense quality bullets to standard 38 Special pressures.

Wt  |   Vel. 38     |  Vel 38+P    |  % incr     |  KE 38         | KE 38 +P    | % incr
158                 |   755          |  890             | 18%                 | 199.9          |  277.8          | 39%
110                 |   951          |  1104           | 16%                 | 220.9          |  297.6          | 35%
158                 |   854          |  1027           | 20%                 | 255.8          |  370.0          | 45%

Top line is Winchester X38WCPV vs X38SPD
Second line 110 grain Barnes loaded by Buffalo Bore in both standard and +P
Bottom line 158gr SWC also Buffalo Bore in both standard and +P

Velocities from the Buffalo Bore was taken from a snub nose revolver.  Winchester did not list barrel length.

ETA:  making tables of data readable on this forum sucks huge hairy donkey balls.

The only real reason to use +p and +p+ are for self defense.





Bullet construction has more to do with that than a meager increase in velocity.  





Note how many of the faster loads have lackluster penetration (a trade off of expansion) yet the slower heavier loads ten to penetrate better (as has been known since the 1800's when .44's trumped .38's).





http://www.brassfetcher.com/38%20Special/38%20Special%2010%25%20Gelatin%20Performance%20Results.pdf





Very first product tested is Buffalo bore with Gold dots and shows that without a substantial jump in velocity, in a well constructed bullet with a good velocity performance range, there isn't a substantial jump in penetration.




 
 

And yet in almost every case for a a particular bullet the faster it went the better it penetrated.  In only a few case did extra velocity result in less penetration for a given bullet and in most of those cases the extra velocity resulted in better expansion.

If 38 Special +P is not worth the performance increase over 38 Special then why are we not advocating 38S&W instead of 38 Special?  38S&W typical was loaded with even heavier bullets (200gr was common) at only slightly lower energy/velocity levels as 38 Special with less felt recoil and less muzzle flash.  Lets bring that cartridge back!  It'll be good enough and more pleasant to shoot.


Grant Cunningham thinks its worth it, especial in a snubby. http://www.gundigest.com/concealed-carry-news/concealed-carry-plus-p-ammo

With a few exceptions the bulk of what is considered "good penetration" happened by rounds traveling under 1000 FPS...





A better question, is why don't people design and build revolvers around modern small high pressure rounds instead of turn of the century blackpowder ammunition.



http://www.brassfetcher.com/327%20Magnum/327%20Federal%20Magnum%2010%25%20gelatin%20results.pdf





Or, even better, a revolver chambered in 9mm and sized accordingly instead of just a re-chambered .38.
 

Got me.  You could do a lot with either cartridge in a CCW size revolver.

A J-frame's, frame and cylinder could be cut down ~3/8 of an inch for 9mm.  You could have a J-frame with a 2.25 barrel in the same overall size with less weight and bulk than current 38/357 J-frames.  Ideally it would have a star like Charter Arm Pit-Bull so it could be used with or without moon clips.  But I suspect current demand for such CCW revolver can't support the required NRE and retooling to make it happen.

I think people don't trust anything under 0.355 caliber in a handgun for self defense even if fired at rail gun velocities, got me why.  Probably somewhat to blame would be IDPA/USPSA that won't let anything under 0.355 play.  The fact that they don't make more J-frame size revolvers in 327 is puzzling as the changes to traditional 5 shot 38/357 snubby to make it a 6 shot 327 is substantially less than making a new 9mm length frame.

A true 9mm sized revolver would be a sweet package, but it's just not practical from a marketing standpoint.  45 GAP is a really good example of what I like to call a shoehorn caliber, meaning they crammed a larger or more powerful round into a smaller gun or cartridge. There is nothing 45 GAP does that 40 S&W didn't already do, and the GAP never really took off in the market place.

There is nothing that 9mm does that can't be done in a 38\357 caliber revolver with the two exception of capacity.

It's...  not shoe horning anything.  Its form following function.



9mm is a high pressure low volume cartridge. It functions better out of shorter barrels than .38 special or .357.    





A 9mm specific revolver could be smaller than a J frame, hold another round, and have a longer barrel with the same OAL...









Imagine a revolver the size of the LCP.... the Semi has a longer barrel to boot.
Especially for SD, .38 special is a bottleneck for development.



Heck just bring back 9mm rimmed...





 

9mm and 357 Mag are both the same max pressure, 35ksi.  9mm and 357 mag are going to be pretty similar performance with light bullets but 9mm will be more efficient (ie less powder for the same velocity) with lighter bullets due to it smaller case capacity.  357 mag will out perform 9mm with heavier bullets simply because 9mm will run out of case volume.  This is going to be true pretty much independent of barrel length.

This. I'd even be intrigued by the new little .327 revolver round if I were looking for a new caliber.

I love shooting my .45Colt guns, but when it comes to shooting for pure function, a smaller-capacity, higher-pressure cartridge is much more efficient imo.

You will never see a revolver the size of the LCP. The reason is the design of a J Frame\LCR  is about as small as you can get in terms of frame size. Yes, you can make the cylinder shorter to take advantage of the shorter 9mm cartridge, but the frame is not getting any smaller due to how a revolver works in terms of mechanics.

Your statement that 'a 9mm specific revolver could be smaller than a J frame and hold another round' is questionable. If you mean shorter overall then it's possible, but the cylinder for a K frame revolver is going to be larger than J frame, no matter how you slice it.

9mm Federal, still sort of lives.  A lot of guys shooting USPSA Revolver division (with the rule change last year) and Steel Challenge  are running S&W 627s with 38 Short Colt cases (dimensionally nearly identical to 9mm Federal except for 0.357 bullet rather than 0.355) although not quite to 9mm pressures as they only have to make 125PF. Well above the original 38 Short Colt pressuresand probably north of 38 Special +P.