Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/8/2004 6:48:25 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/8/2004 6:48:25 PM EST by Paul]
I'd just like to know who makes the best round for the 9mm for two legged hunting? I was looking for some old Black talons but I can't find any place that sells them or know of any action places that would have them any info on that would help. But what do you guys think is the best round? Thanks for the help. I know I'd much rather have my 40 S&W or 45ACP but all I get is the 9mm.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 6:36:49 PM EST
I bought a couple of cases of Remington 115gr +p+ "Law Enforcement Only" () and I've been using those. I chrony 1280 to 1310 fps out of my Glock 26!
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 6:41:27 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 6:43:15 PM EST
federal , corbon, gold dots, golden sabers, all in a 124 grain are a good combo of speed and energy.

Test and see what your weapon likes and where it hits.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 5:43:44 PM EST
Me perfers the Hydra shock. But I have never put one in my fellow man trying to kill me.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 5:44:10 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 5:45:30 PM EST
You really should go to the Ammo page, or to the terminal effects page on www.tacticalforums.com

However, I will short cut for you and tell you to go to www.proload.com and get some Winchester Ranger SXT "LEO only" RA9T 147gr or RA9TP 127gr +P+
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 5:47:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By tayous1:
I'd just like to know who makes the best round for the 9mm for two legged hunting? I was looking for some old Black talons but I can't find any place that sells them or know of any action places that would have them any info on that would help. But what do you guys think is the best round? Thanks for the help. I know I'd much rather have my 40 S&W or 45ACP but all I get is the 9mm.



I read through this-->ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=16&t=162042 and found it very helpful.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 5:48:31 PM EST
I carry Speer 124gr +P GDHPs.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 5:49:02 PM EST
Speer Gold Dot for me. In any caliber, not just 9mm. I've seen what this shit can do personally (9mm vs. deer = massive hemorraging, deer wasn't even twitching 30 seconds later) and I'm a believer in the Gold Dot.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 5:51:46 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 5:53:31 PM EST
I use 147 grain Speer Gold Dot's
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 5:59:20 PM EST
For non +P I use Federal 115gr JHP ( a.k.a. 9BP).
For +P I use Remington 115gr JHP +P.
No special reason other than that they are available everywhere and pretty cheap.

Link Posted: 9/8/2004 5:56:20 PM EST
NIJ says 147 JHP Federal.

It performed the best on all their tests.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 6:03:12 PM EST
Remington Golden Sabres
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 6:04:08 PM EST
Please don't waste your money on Black Talons. You can get the exact same round (actually an improved round) for a lot less.

Link Posted: 9/8/2004 6:15:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

get some Winchester Ranger SXT "LEO only" RA9TP 127gr +P+

Link Posted: 9/8/2004 6:20:46 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/8/2004 7:58:40 PM EST by MAINEiac]
Quoting Massaad Ayoob quoting Col. Jeff Cooper: "There is a direct relationship between men shooting 9mm handguns and low testosterone levels. The only question is which is the cause and which is the effect."
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 6:24:10 PM EST
IMI 115g 9mm with the die-cut bullet.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 6:24:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/8/2004 6:26:31 PM EST by captainpooby]
How much do you need? I can spare a couple boxes of Ranger SXT, IM me.
ETA: You cover shipping.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 7:21:40 PM EST
corbon 115 grain. all 115-124 grain +p is pretty good. any 147 grain sucks ass big time.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 7:53:06 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/8/2004 7:53:17 PM EST by kensteele]

Originally Posted By occaar:
...any 147 grain sucks ass big time.

Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:17:00 PM EST
115 corbon
Might consider more conventional HydraShok, Gold Dots, Gsabers
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:34:16 PM EST

If you have access to LE ammo you have a world of choices. If not, Speer Gold Dots are tops in a wide array of tests. Some other rounds do just as well on bare gel, but put denim over the gel and they mostly turn into FMJ. Since you would most likely shoot people who are wearing clothes, stick with Gold Dots. If the nudist colony attacks you, hydrashocks and SXTs will work fine too.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 1:55:29 AM EST
Either of these 3:

1. Winchester Ranger 147 gr
2. Winchester Ranger 127 gr +P+
3. Speer (or Black Hills) 124 gr +P Gold Dot

If you want the BEST, get one of those 3, as they are consistently the 3 top performers in the tests I've seen. The Federal Tactical line also has some good offerings, but those aren't commonly available to non-LEO's like the other ones.

BTW, not to start a pissing match here, but there have been some recommendations of very poor performing loads mentioned in this thread. Some underpenetrate. Some don't expand very well. I'm not going to mention the brands but will just say this: Get one of the 3 loads I mentioned and you won't have to worry about your ammo not being adequate.

-CH
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 2:15:23 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:06:10 AM EST
147 grain good on paper not on the street. little expansion from low velocity. police departments quikly changed back to 115-124+p. all shootings data shows 115 +p is the best for 9mm with 124+p after that.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:12:47 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 7:00:42 AM EST
I carry the "LEO-only" Winchester 127+P+, both on-duty & off. It's marketed as LEO-only, but there's no legal restrictions (at least in my state, ymmv) on private citizens having "LEO-only" ammo.

You can get it at shows, mail-order, or several internet sites.

The old "Black Talon" version ran over 1,200 fps out of my Glock 19 when I clocked it several years ago; the newer "Ranger Talon" version is supposed to be even faster, they claim 1300 out of a Glock 26. I don't have a chrono anymore, so I haven't checked their claim.

The Federal 9BPLE 115+P+ is supposed to be very good also, but I've never used it.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 8:10:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By occaar:
147 grain good on paper not on the street. little expansion from low velocity. police departments quikly changed back to 115-124+p. all shootings data shows 115 +p is the best for 9mm with 124+p after that.



Bullshit!

What shooting data are you looking at? If 115 gr +P+ rates as the best in the data, then it sounds like your data is coming from Marshall and Sanow. I wouldn't even bother calling that data. Otherwise, I bet you came up with that from a Massad Ayoob article buried in some gun rag. If those are your sources, you need new sources.

You show me a recovered 147 gr Ranger bullet from a cube of gel or a perps body and I'll show you a well expanded, sharp edged bullet that penetrated to ideal depths.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 12:59:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By andrew:
Remington Golden Sabres



124 gn Golden Sabers for me!

Course I'm getting partial to .45 these days although I still use my USP 9mm Compact for my CCW.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 1:08:22 PM EST
i still say corbon 115 grain +p. i speak from my own data. while out camping i was robbed at gun point. i had a chance and took it. 1 round in the chest and he was DEAD before he hit the ground. you can use what works for you i will use what WORKED for me.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 1:30:55 PM EST
I'll jump on the Corbon 115gr JHP bandwagon. I clocked these rounds at 1320 FPS
with a low extreme spread out of my Glock 19.

It's all personal preference. If you like light and fast try the Glaser Safety Slug which use
a 90 or 95gr *bullet* that contains small buckshot. The wound cavity is rather large.

If you like big and slow, try the Federal 147gr Hydro-shock, which I believe was developed by or for the FBI.

I believe that if I had to defend myself using a 9mm round, the range would be 5-10 feet.
At that range, the lighter the bullet would allow more energy to be transferred to the target and
over penetration would be less than a 147gr bullet.

Spambo
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 1:33:38 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 1:41:30 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 1:41:58 PM EST by brouhaha]
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 2:10:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:

Originally Posted By kensteele:

Originally Posted By occaar:
...any 147 grain sucks ass big time.




Based on?



Not appropriate for this board. Go on over to Glocktalk, we can discuss there.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 3:39:05 PM EST

Originally Posted By occaar:
i still say corbon 115 grain +p. i speak from my own data. while out camping i was robbed at gun point. i had a chance and took it. 1 round in the chest and he was DEAD before he hit the ground. you can use what works for you i will use what WORKED for me.



I'm happy you survived your encounter. But had he not presented you a straight in shot to his chest, things might have turned out different. For example, if you'd been forced to fire at him from an angle (he's standing sideways facing you) and your bullet had to pass through the upper arm and across the chest to reach his vitals, that's where the shallow penetrating 115 gr +P can come up short. There have been documented cases where people died in gunfights because of such circumstances. Therefore it's important to have a bullet that will penetrate deep enough to be effective, regardless of angle.

Now as far as your case, that's really all it is. One case. One example is never enough to draw any worthwhile scientific data from. When Boeing designs a new passenger jet, do they take the protype up for one flight, say yup, it works, then land it and start up production without further testing? Nope. When you buy a weapon for self defense, do you take it to the range, fire one round through it and say, yup it works....then leave it at that? I would hope not!

In order to have data that really means something, you need a large sample of it. The larger the sample, the better. That will give you a really good idea of what it's capabilities are. I would be willing to bet that the Winchester Ranger 147 gr load is one of the most, if not the most frequently used rounds in law enforcement for 9mm weapons. It's been involved in numerous shootings. In the lab and on the streets, the 147 gr Ranger has proven superb.

So now who's data are you going to place the most faith in? The data with only one sample backing it up or the data supported by hundreds of examples? It's a no-brainer.

-CH
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 10:00:25 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 10:04:20 PM EST by urbankaos04]
KENSTEELE:

Here's an excerpt from TACTICAL FORUMS:

Handgun bullets, by their very nature, offer marginal performance. For every available load, single incidents can be found where they have failed. A scientifically valid analysis of a larger sample size is the best way to assess bullet field performance. For example, San Diego PD switched to the 9mm 147 gr JHP when their lighter weight, higher velocity 9mm 115 gr JHP bullets had several failures to penetrate deeply enough to create damage to vital organs in the torso and cause rapid incapacitation. The largest independently verified study of bullet penetration and expansion characteristics in living human tissue has shown the 9mm 147 gr JHP to offer acceptable performance in law enforcement lethal force confrontations. A senior criminalist with the San Diego P.D., Mr. Eugene J. Wolberg, has analyzed their 9 mm 147 gr JHP performance in 10% ordnance gelatin and compared the laboratory results with the actual terminal effects produced in human tissue in nearly 150 officer involved shootings with the San Diego Police Department. When I last spoke with Mr. Wolberg in May of 2000, the majority of their bullets had penetrated 13 to 15 inches and expanded between 0.60 to 0.62 inches in both human tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin. This appears to be ideal performance from a 9mm. Other large California agencies who have experience with the 9mm 147 gr JHP, such as
Los Angeles PD, Los Angeles SO, San Jose PD, Santa Clara PD, Santa Clara SO, San Mateo SO, and San Francisco PD have had similar results.
These and other California agencies which have successfully used the 9mm 147 gr JHP have thousands of officers with hundreds of officer involved shootings.

Sure doesn't seem that the 147 gr rounds suck, huh? Unless you have proof to the contrary, I'll still feel quite well armed with 13+1 rounds of RA9T in my BHP.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 10:11:33 PM EST
And here's a little bit more:

In general, the 9 mm 115 gr loads have demonstrated greater inconsistency, insufficient penetration, and failure to expand in denim testing than other 9mm bullets. See: http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum78/HTML/000149.html

For those individuals wanting to use lighter weight, supersonic 9 mm’s, I think a better alternative than the 115 gr loads is to use the slightly heavier 124 to 127 gr bullets--the Federal 124 gr JHP Tactical (LE9T1), Speer 124 gr Gold Dots in standard or +P pressure, Winchester 124 gr JHP Partition Gold (RA91P), or Winchester 127 gr +P+ Ranger Talon (RA9TA) have all proven more consistent and effective in testing than the 115 gr loadings. The Barnes 105 gr copper bullet is another lightweight alternative appears to have good terminal performance.

Heavier 9 mm loadings which offer effective terminal performance in both bare gelatin and denim testing include: Federal 135 gr +P JHP Tactical (LE9T5), Remington 147 gr JHP Golden Saber (GS9MMC), Speer 147 gr JHP Gold Dot (53619), Winchester 147 gr JHP Ranger Talon (RA9T
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 10:47:21 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 11:40:14 PM EST
I carry gold dot 124 +P if that counts for anything.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 8:44:08 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/10/2004 8:44:28 AM EST by MaverickMkii]
CCI/Speer Gold Dot HP 124gr +P
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 12:53:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/10/2004 12:58:38 PM EST by kensteele]
"Then dont post unsubstantiated BS if you arent going to even TRY to back it up with some facts."

I don't have to back it up.

All I did was repeat what someone else said. And I repeated it because it was exactly what I have heard/read/discovered, too.

It is neither unsubstantiated nor BS.

I never advocated the smaller round either. I personally use RA9TA 127gr.

So since I don't have time to go back and find/read all the information/evidence related to the 9mm round, I left it at that....on purpose. Doesn't mean there is no evidence or I'm not willing to back it up; it means I chose not to get into a pissing content over 9mm ammo in this particular thread, in this particular forum.

The offer still stands, if you want to discuss further, let's go to someplace else more appropriate (like glocktalk). I said I would TRY someplace else where it is more appropriate. If you decline....

Otherwise, just read my comments....then move on. It's just an opinion, not a fact.

Unless some other people on this board, I don't find it never to produce volumes of studies and research related to every single topic of discussion. Unless if I don't know something, I don't speak. But every now and again, I chime in with my opinion (when asked)...simply because I can. That ought to be enough for everyone.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 12:54:29 PM EST

CCI/Speer Gold Dot HP 124gr +P



I carry gold dot 124 +P if that counts for anything.


That's a very good load. You guys chose well.

-CH
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 1:00:54 PM EST
And if you look hard enough, you'll see I'm not the only one "making up this BS" on the 147gr. But like I said, I won't argue it here.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 1:02:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By kensteele:
"Then dont post unsubstantiated BS if you arent going to even TRY to back it up with some facts."

I don't have to back it up.

All I did was repeat what someone else said. And I repeated it because it was exactly what I have heard/read/discovered, too.

It is neither unsubstantiated nor BS.

I never advocated the smaller round either. I personally use RA9TA 127gr.

So since I don't have time to go back and find/read all the information/evidence related to the 9mm round, I left it at that....on purpose. Doesn't mean there is no evidence or I'm not willing to back it up; it means I chose not to get into a pissing content over 9mm ammo in this particular thread, in this particular forum.

The offer still stands, if you want to discuss further, let's go to someplace else more appropriate (like glocktalk). I said I would try someplace else where it is more appropriate.

Otherwise, just read my comments....then move on. It's just an opinion, not a fact.



So it took you 5 paragraphs just to say what Lumpy said in one sentence......your data about the 115 gr is just unsubstantiated BS. I don't know how you fellas do things over at "Glocktalk", but over here if we make claims, we have to have some solid evidence to back them up, else we call BS. Weapons and ammo that may be used in life or death situations is a very serious subject with no room for heresay and myth. So when we see myths and heresay, we challenge it. We don't do it to be assholes, but it's to make sure bad information isn't passed along as fact. In other words, it's done to protect the members on this board.

-CH
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 1:10:55 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/10/2004 1:13:41 PM EST by kensteele]

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:

Originally Posted By kensteele:
"Then dont post unsubstantiated BS if you arent going to even TRY to back it up with some facts."

I don't have to back it up.

All I did was repeat what someone else said. And I repeated it because it was exactly what I have heard/read/discovered, too.

It is neither unsubstantiated nor BS.

I never advocated the smaller round either. I personally use RA9TA 127gr.

So since I don't have time to go back and find/read all the information/evidence related to the 9mm round, I left it at that....on purpose. Doesn't mean there is no evidence or I'm not willing to back it up; it means I chose not to get into a pissing content over 9mm ammo in this particular thread, in this particular forum.

The offer still stands, if you want to discuss further, let's go to someplace else more appropriate (like glocktalk). I said I would try someplace else where it is more appropriate.

Otherwise, just read my comments....then move on. It's just an opinion, not a fact.



So it took you 5 paragraphs just to say what Lumpy said in one sentence......your data about the 115 gr is just unsubstantiated BS. I don't know how you fellas do things over at "Glocktalk", but over here if we make claims, we have to have some solid evidence to back them up, else we call BS. Weapons and ammo that may be used in life or death situations is a very serious subject with no room for heresay and myth. So when we see myths and heresay, we challenge it. We don't do it to be assholes, but it's to make sure bad information isn't passed along as fact. In other words, it's done to protect the members on this board.

-CH



I agree. But you know just like I know, there are no FACTS that makes one 9mm round better than the other. Just like with 223 cal ammo. Everything is just one person's data vs another. One person's interpretation of the data vs. the other.

A person shot and killed another person with a particular round right here on this board, it's a fact. And he still caught flak on his comments.

So just because I choose not to engage in a pissing match over something that I said/repeated and never claim it to be fact, doesn't mean I refuted anyone else's claim either.

Can I go out and reprint and republish everything I read about the 147gr bullet here? I could. But I don't have to, it's all on the Internet or else (like a Glocktalk). You read it, you interpret it the way you want, and then you carry the load that works best for you. That's the way it work with any round, same thing happened in the GD shotgun forum, too.

The OP asked a simple question. Maybe I would have been better off saying something like "not too light, not too heavy" but I guess that would have drawn some heat, too.

I'm still pretty new, I didn't think unless you published a book, what you said was automatically BS. If that's the case, there's a lot of BS here. But I don't believe that. I think he took a cheap shot at me in a thread where everyone was simply expressing their opinions, likes/dislikes, and some facts.

Can we forget about this and stay on topic?
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 1:15:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:

Originally Posted By kensteele:

Originally Posted By occaar:
...any 147 grain sucks ass big time.




Based on?



reading and article thats 15+ years old
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 1:48:41 PM EST
Ayoob and Cooper vs SEALs on testosterone tests - Who do you think would win? Is 9mm out of a carbine or submachine gun also suspect? IDF uses 9mm hi powers - are they wrong too? SAS, yep them too.

I am not a 9mm fan, but that statement is just stooooopid.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 1:51:19 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/10/2004 1:52:16 PM EST by urbankaos04]

Originally Posted By kensteele:
And if you look hard enough, you'll see I'm not the only one "making up this BS" on the 147gr. But like I said, I won't argue it here.



Then I guess the 150 involved officer shootings involving the 147 gr is still "BS" to you? There is A LOT of data regarding the CURRENT 147 gr designs that show it to be a good performer. What ARE you basing your OPINION on? I'd really like to know, Ken. Seriously, I'm not trying to be a smart ass. I just want to see the information that warrants your criticism of the 147 gr round.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 2:53:19 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/10/2004 2:56:33 PM EST by kensteele]
The only statement I have ever repeated here is that the 147gr sucks.

I voted in the poll.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top