115gr 9mm seems to be a pretty common weight for range use in FMJ form but no often carried for self defense. I'm aware there are better loads out there and I carry 147gr Gold dots or Win Ranger.



Mostly see hornady and cor bon with these offerings. (to name a few)

That's what I carry on the streets of the Big City.   Federal 9BP or Remington R9mm1.  Standard pressure hollow points, about $17 per 50 round box.    I'll pass on the latest expensive uber-bullets.  Where you put it is much, much more important than how much you paid for it.

Although I do have a stash of Federal 9BPLE +p+ loads.   I might get into them for my carry 1911 some day.

My P09 seems to like 115's best so that is what is in it.  I tried 124 and 147 HPs but the best groups by far are with the 115 HPs.

With the P09, that's 20 of them.  With another 19 in the magazine in my pocket.  Love those cargo pockets.

I carry Federal's 115JHP+P+ (9BPLE) exclusively in my Glocks.

That's what I usually carry in my Glock 17, seventeen rounds of ball ammo is good and plenty.

He is talking about 115gr JHP.


Gold Dot has some in that weight as well.

Dude I shot that in the military and I can tell you; IT IS NOT VERY EFFECTIVE (except for over penetration) on people not wearing some cheap non-effective body armor. It is good for car to car combat due to the penetration but face to face encounter 9mm needs some terminal performance if fact all you can get.

Dude, have a Bud. If the perp gets up after seventeen rounds between the chest and head, I'll call in an air strike.

 

Effectiveness concerns aside, there are (imo, anyway) other concerns, chiefly imo the concern about 9mm ball's tendency to hugely over-penetrate. Some folks want to maximize expansion, some want to maximize 'energy dump', and some want to maximize penetration. Me personally, for personal defensive use I don't want a round that will penetrate 2 or 3 people per shot.

Don't want to turn this into another ball v JHP thread (which has an obvious answer...) so I'll just say this:


I carry Buffalo Bore's 115 +P+ Barnes load in my primary EDC. It shows no signs of excessive pressure through my Sig P239 and performed nearly as well as some .357 mag rounds into calibrated ballistic gel.

You're right; sorry for adding to the drift above. To answer the original question, my glocks are almost always, and almost exclusively, loaded with 115-grain 9BP-LE. Only exceptions are when shooting generic rounds at plates, or when shooting 147's & 158's suppressed.

I used to carry Federal 115 JHPs and was not concerned with my ammo at all.

Many - maybe most - don't, but some do.

+ 87

No need for smarminess or sarcasm. As requested:

Gold Dot 115 - 4 layers denim, 17.5" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2s82NCLKQI
Gold Dot 115 - bare gel 12.7", 4 layers denim 16.4" (1 bullet overpenetrated & unrecovered) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd_1ymLzl6A
Gold Dot 115 - bare gel 12.5" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTJ4VxY8Su4

XTP (by HPR) 115 - bare gel 17.5", 4 layers denim 17.8" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBPREaj9xF0

Federal 9BPLE 115 - 4 layers denim 13.25"  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9iiaXoRaRY
Federal 9BPLE 115 - 4 layers denim 12.5", bare gel 15.3" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITIFDTRWz0c

Even plain old WW-USA, generic white-box 115 - bare gel 14.35", 4 layers denim 14.38" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVQNJoo08a0

While a lot of those bare-gel numbers are uncomfortably close to the 12" minimum, we have to remember that bare gel shots tend to be the least penetrative; not always, but in general they tend to be. So most loads that will do >12 in bare gel, tend to penetrate even more in denim-covered gel.

Fwiw, your basic premise that heavier bullets tend to penetrate more is completely correct. Not arguing that at all. It just doesn't inherently mean that "heavy = universally good" and "light = universally bad". (Firearms Tactical Institute shows the 147 XTP penetrating 22" from a pistol; to me that's erring on the side of overpenetration.) There are good choices and poor choices in most bullet weights; at least most normal bullet weights, some of the ultra-light or ultra-heavy stuff is probably beyond help.

THIS!!

Is Your Life or the Lives of Your Loved Ones worth saving a few bucks on your bullets??   Consider how much you spent on the gun, your license to carry and holster, going cheapo on ammo = Loco

Shoot the cheap stuff all day at the range, and use the Good Stuff to help your 9mm help you when failure is NOT an option.

Federal HST 147 are in each and every of my Serious Use Guns & Magazines...

BIGGER_HAMMER

Genuinely interested - whose testing do you go to? Not baiting & not a setup question; honestly curious.

On the XTP, you're correct, you didn't mention it. I was simply continuing my point that weight isn't a sole, or even primary, determiner or indicator of performance.

Not sure that anyone's talking about "saving money on defensive ammunition"; it's about "is there such a thing as a good 115-grain bullet".

Disclaimers & disclosures - I'm an old 1911 and revolver guy at heart. My main carry guns thru the 80's & 90's were colt and detonics .45's, and my secondary guns at that time were L-frame and J-frame .357 revolvers. My carry loads at the time were primarily federal 185's and 230's in the .45's, and federal & remington 125's in the .357's.

I switched to 9mm in the late 90's due to wanting something with higher capacity, lower maintenance, and lighter weight for uniform carry than my old 7-round colt 1911. While I'm a fan of advances, improvements, and carrying the best available, I also believe that carrying a bigger hammer won't necessarily make me a better carpenter. To some, a given bullet weight is going to be seen as inherently 'acceptable' or not, just as (to some) a handgun in 9mm will never be considered "acceptable", regardless of loading. Even people who consciously try to be objective are going to have their own variances in comfort level and definitions of what is 'acceptable'. I have this trait, as does everyone who ever lived.

The 9mm has been around so long with so many poor bullet options, that it's gained some of the same 'varmint' reputation as the 5.56 round has. The key - with any caliber - is to use a bullet that makes appropriate use of its energy. Using a bullet that punches a minimally-traumatic clean hole thru the target (ie, mil-type loads) is going to yield less-than-stellar results in an individual defensive situation. Using a bullet that 'splats' (too-light bullets and the perennial new & improved "uber bullets" such as RIP, etc) and penetrates too little will often give even worse results.

Bullet choice must be made in a way that makes the best use of the available power. A handgun bullet wisely chosen for use against vehicle-borne attackers could be very inappropriate for use by an airplane-riding air marshal. As much as we hate the word 'compromise', our choice of handgun load (just as with handgun caliber) is unavoidably that. The gun/load I'm carrying - and the gun/load you're carrying - is the culmination of the attributes that combine to what we individually deem 'acceptable' in our situation. If we were unwilling to compromise on capacity in our carry guns, we'd all be carrying PMR-30's. If we were unwilling to compromise on bullet mass, we'd all be carrying .577 Webleys. If we were unwilling to compromise on muzzle energy, we'd all be carrying Wildey autos or Casull revolvers. Similarly for us 9mm carriers, if we were unwilling to compromise on maximum muzzle energy, we’d all be carrying ultralight bullets loaded to +P pressures. If we were unwilling to compromise on maximum penetration, we’d all be probably carrying M882 ball. As much as we all hate that word, compromise is inevitable. No single attribute lives in a vacuum, and it’s not possible to maximize every one of them. I personally like the 12-18 inch bare-gel and denim test guidelines, but much like the “recommended ammo list” here, I don’t think it’s gospel. If I’m in a combat zone or working a truck weigh station, I want more penetration than some folks would. But if I’m in church or on a bus, I then want less penetration. Another example - if my grandkids’ school bus driver had to engage a threat on the bus while there were kids on the bus, I’d want the driver’s ammunition to be toward the lower-end of the penetration scale. One-size-fits-all solutions are usually less than ideal imo.

Just the ramblings & pontifications of a cranky-yet-friendly old man, provided free of charge...

The modern world has given us the miracles of Air Conditioning, Polio Vaccination and 9mm Bullets that work.

the 115 is the light bullet going real fast.  Problem is that velocity often causes it to open too quickly too soon and thus not enough penetration to reach and puncture the vitals (the reason for all that 12" penetration minimum guideline)   Reference the Great Miami Shootout.   Winchester Silvertip 115 was on target, but just did not penetrate far enough.

The modern "heavy" 124 & especially 147 has the density to penetrate deep enough, and to still expand with consistent results which is what you need in Defensive Ammo.

People who get all fired up about 115 +p ammo are going off box top ballistics showing more Energy (the V plays a bigger part in that number than the weight of the bullet).  But Energy doesn't mean anything if the bullet doesn't reach deep enough to damage the vitals.  (Reference the Shotgun Bird Shot Vs. Buck Shot).   I'll shoot a bad buy with Buckshot every time because it will penetrate deep enough to be effective.

BIGGER_HAMMER

Been busy last couple days, but wanted to revisit this poor dead horse one more time...

Best way I can put is that I don't disagree at all that it's more common to find a load that passes test criteria, and likely is easier to make a load that meets test criteria, in the 124-147 grain weights than in 115-grain weight. Most of the loads that pass both the bare gel and denim-covered gel tests are in the heavier range. I'm not a 115-devotee myself, my pocket CM9 carries 124HST. My point is simply that it defies historical reality to equate a test-passing 115 with unicorn-status. They're not particularly common, but they do exist.

Even the simple, old 115 Gold Dot load (that's not even +P) showed penetration that meets or exceeds test criteria and expansion from .40 to .67 - (between 1/3 & 1/2 way down: http://www.firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/9mm.htm ) Since it was reality in 1997, I don't see how it's become an impossibility 18 years later. Frankly, while it's bare-gel performance was fine, it's one weakness was 23% overpenetration thru denim-covered gel; the opposite 'problem' from the "don't meet the minimum 12-inch penetration standard" and "not enough penetration to reach the vitals" failings commonly cited about 115's.

This is another one of those ameteurs with the same 115 gold dot; 4 layers of denim, 17.5" penetration, .51 avg expansion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2s82NCLKQI

Once again - no question that the 124's and up are more likely to pass muster. If a person is starting from scratch & looking at defensive loads, those are the bullet weights that have a higher percentage of rounds that pass muster Also once again (as I've said from the start), most 115's don't pass muster. But "most don't" does not equate to "none can".



Still curious.

I do. All the testing I've seen with 115gr gold dots has been positive.

Other than DocGKR's list (which imo gives very good options), still curious what other "professional testing" you're citing.

Does anyone read the ammo FAQ anymore?

http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm

Yes. It's a good list and referenced in this thread more than once. Per "the list":

and I don't think anyone here has disputed that.

The list also says,


The article doesn't use the blanket anti-115 denouncements that some seem to attribute to it. According to that list, the caution is "in general", regarding "most" 115-grain loads. For whatever reason, that gets reflexively translated into "there are no good 115-grain loads".

A lot of folks seem to ignore the text of the actual article, instead looking only at the tiny segments of it; the segments that show the 'cool' stuff, the ammunition lists.

Now for some reality:

1. 9mm and 5.56 "varmint" reputation is a myth.  The 5.56 is devastating when you put it in the right place.  The 9mm is as effective as .45 or any of the other service-level handgun calibers on the street.  The ME's office can't tell the difference between .40 and .45 and 9mm and neither can you, or the guy that gets shot.

2.  The key-- with any caliber--- is to put the bullet in the relatively small spots that result in quick--but not usually instant--incapacitation.  An attacker shot through the aorta won't be able to tell the difference between ball, HST, Hydra shock, Golden Saber, or anything else.   An attacker shot through the aorta won't be able to tell the difference between 9mm, .38, .40, .45.  Any way you cut it, a man shot through the aorta will stick around 10-15 seconds and then die.   A man shot not in the aorta will keep on going and empty his magazine into you.  No matter what you don't hit him in the aorta with.

3.  Ball loads work about as well as hollow point in handguns, in the real world.  An ME can't tell if it's ball or HP if he doesn't recover the bullet;  can't tell by examination of the entrance, exit or wound track.  The highest-touted Premium Hollow Point Bullets usually exit the body even if they travel through much tissue.   So do ball.  

4.   We concentrate far too much on the hardware, i.e. bullets and calibers, and not nearly enough on the software, i.e. are we good enough to  put rapid multiple hits in the vitals.  

Best way I've heard it put was in one of the constant caliber war threads on one of these forums some time back: "If you can hit what you're shooting at, it doesn't matter if you're using a .45 or a 9mm. If you can't hit your target, it still doesn't matter." I can't bring myself to disagree with that.



I agree as long as we're talking about perfectly placed shots (which we should certainly strive for), but I've accepted that I won't always achieve perfect shot placement. It's on me to do what I can, but I'm imperfect. (Just ask my wife... ) We're in an extremely rural area, and over the years I've had to dispatch a lot of nuisance & destructive animals; and there's been a substantial difference in the effectiveness of ball handgun ammo and jhp/jsp handgun ammo. There's also been differences in effectiveness between Hollowpoint "A" and Hollowpoint "B". Or I guess I should say 'a difference in the speed of the effectiveness...', none of them ended up any less dead, but some ammo (and to be honest, some shots on my part) have had a very different speed of effectiveness.

We lost a couple small animals to a feral dog (a lab, of all things), and when I finally got a shot at him it was only 15-18 yards or so. Caught him full broadside in the ribcage, so while it may have been an imperfect shot, it wasn't a bad hit by any means. Load was Federal's 147 Hi-shok from a glock 19. For a second I thought I'd somehow missed him as he kept on trotting for probably another 4-5 steps; seemingly undisturbed by the gunshot, and certainly not seeming like he'd just caught a 9mm HP in the ribs. As I was about to shoot again, he stopped, sat down, and looked at me. Still didn't 'seem' shot, but at that point, I was caught up in just watching him and didn't shoot a second round. Finally, after sitting there looking at me a few seconds (5, maybe 10, I really don't know) he laid down like he was tired or bored. At that point I shot him in the head, to be sure he was dealt with and frankly to end his hurting.

That incident really struck me. This was only  a medium-size dog, a breed that's not particularly aggressive to begin with. He wasn't excited, agitated, or on any kind of adrenaline rush at the time; he came merrily trotting around the corner of a building, not knowing I was close by. Yet even with all that, the effect of a good hit with a heavy JHP load was less than dramatic.

There will be some that will automatically say, "that's what you get for using a 9mm", but that's puckey. With good loads, my 9mm glock is more powerful than some of the deer carbines my family used a generation ago. (Yes, literally; check out .32-20 and .25-20 ballistics). My response to the caliber-war mongers is much like the bullet-weight mongers - there's no magic bullet, there's no magic caliber, and heavier is not always better. I've taken other animals with lighter, faster HP ammo of the same diameter (9mm +P and 357 both), that responded very differently.

I concede that it my experiences are absolutely, strictly anecdotal, and not a large-enough sample size to 'statistically valid'. But everything personally experienced is inherently anecdotal, and I have to trust my own personal experiences more than things read on the internet or in a gun magazine. Just as everyone should. For someone to take my observations as gospel would make no more sense than for me to do so with theirs.

I wouldn't have a problem carrying the Gold Dot 115 gr +p+.

I have carried 115 grain JHP on duty. My brother carried the BPLE load also many moons ago in USBP.
I have great confidence in the loads.

Currently, I carry Ranger 147 RA9T by policy. I know they are good, but like lighter and faster.
My wife's SD9VE is loaded with Federal 9BP and the rounds we carry out at the ranch are either Winchester or Remington 115 JHP loads. All the times we have used them, they have gone bang.
I have a small stash or 124 Gold Dots, but those are harder to find so get stashed.
The 115s run great thru the Glocks, SiG 250 and S&W pistols we have.