Posted: 3/29/2003 3:57:06 AM EDT
|
I know this isn't exactly a Glock question, but as both my .40 and 9mm are glocks, as well as one of my .45's, I thought I would post here. I have studied rifle ballistics, mainly from the standpoint of accuracy and drop, but Handgun Ballistics still confuse me. I know this is nit-picking, but what are the benefits, the pros and cons of the following weights used as hollow point in a carry gun? .40 - 155gr, 165gr, 180gr 9mm - 124gr, 147gr .45 - 185gr, 230 gr Any assistance would be great. Thanks. |
|
It really depends on if youre a momentum (Mass X Velocity) is the "thing" that makes bullets "neutralize threats" ie kills 'em or kinetic energy (.5Mass X Velocity squared)is the "thing" No one has yet totallly figured it out. 9mm - someone noticed that in ball ammo the 115 tended to over pentrate. This was a factor of both the velocity and the diameter of the round. Also the 357mag shooting a 125 gr bullet killed people well. In an effort to decrease velocity and retain momentum the bullet weight was increased. Problem was Nato was still forced to use FMJ (Geneva conventions), but the increase in weight did help with over penetration some but still had the problem of diameter which you can't fix and still be a 9mm. The 147 grain was designed along 2 threads: 1. its not supersonic which makes it quieter in suppressed weapons and 2. a little more mass should help to decrease over penetration and thereby deliver more energy to the target. (if a bullet passes thru the target all the energy that is left in the moving round doesnt get delivered to the target and is 'wasted'). The 124gr defensive hollwpoint loadings seem to have worked out to be the best compromise. 45 -- less than 230 grain bullets were developed initially for competition as they had less recoil and shot flatter. Defensively, manufactures wanted to add more velocity and the easiest way was to decrease the bullet weight. Now that everyone has +++++P++++... loadings they all kick the shit out of you, especially in smaller handguns. Personally I like a 185gr because the recoil plus and the preceived "kick" is not as bad and the defensive 230gr's. It also shoots flatter, but this is not really an issue at defensive shooting distances. 40. The wantabe 10 mm that couldn't. Efforts here have been to again to reduce recoil by decreasing bullet weight. Also they were quite a number of accuracy problems so some of the changes have been made to improve this as well. I think this really came from the wider variation in chambers and barrels between different manufactures than anything else. The 155 grainer may be the winner here, but there are several 'believers' in the 165 and 180 as well. Alot of this is largely irrelevant. Shoot a good modern defensive load that functions and is accurate in YOUR pistols and you'll be just fine |
|
I prefer the heavier weights in each caliber. My thought being that even if the bullet doesn't expand like it's supposed to, it'll still penetrate because of the extra weight. One note....the early 147 grain 9mm had problems. The current generation seems to be VERY effective. bc |