Speer Gold Dot G2 147 grain PT 9mm

[El Cid]

Keisler has their sku listed as 54226 for the product number, so I would bet that's what it's going to be.

I expect you are correct. Now I just need to find a friend with a chronograph and.compare the two.

[Handgun Planet]

Great idea. Since the Winchester service load portion of the contract lists Q4392, which is sold to other agencies as Ranger RA9B, I would bet that this is another example of the FBI contract getting a specific product number for the same ammo, but verifying is always good. Always.

Can't wait to see what you find. I expect to run some gel tests with mine in the next couple of weeks, but all of the G2 I have right now is 54226.

[El Cid]

I shot some of the new G2 (54227) with my G26 today. It impacted very high. At 25, lollipopping the bullseye, it was about 10" high. That was with the standard Trijicon3 dot sights. Didn't have any other 9mm's to test. Was planning to upgrade to HD's anyway so I'll try them next.

[JHC]

I shot some of the new G2 (54227) with my G26 today. It impacted very high. At 25, lollipopping the bullseye, it was about 10" high. That was with the standard Trijicon3 dot sights. Didn't have any other 9mm's to test. Was planning to upgrade to HD's anyway so I'll try them next.

Whoa. My Gen 4 G26 is VERY accurate but impacted high also so I use 10-8s on it because it was easier to get a taller front. HD fronts in taller sizes are available but pricey of course. I've tried standard HD sets on a couple of our high impacting Glocks (the aforementioned G26 included) and the POI was very high, close to what you described. So if it were me, knowing that, and really wanting this load, I'd seek out the .235 HD front or something.

[5pins]

Pretty much my experience with all 147gr 9MM ammo in any pistols I’ve used it in. Either a taller front or shorter rear sight needed. One of the reasons I stayed with the 124gr stuff. I hope there are plans to bring this new design to market with a lighter bullet.

[Rich]

Will ATK/Speer offer the G2 load to the public . Also does anyone know if they have a 180gr loading for the 40cal.

I doubt I will ever buy any 9mm unless they make it in 124gr.

[DocGKR]

If the 147 gr performs better, then why would someone want a 124 gr?

[Fire-Medic]

If the 147 gr performs better, then why would someone want a 124 gr?

Doc,

I'm assuming they're alluding to the change in POA/POI between the different weight projectiles........

[GRV]

10 inches? That doesn't sound like it's just due to the round. That's the sort of drop you'd see out at 100 yards with 9mm zeroed at 25, so it seems pretty drastic to see that much rise at 25. I haven't shot 147gr before, but I've read the recoil characteristic is different, and I'd wager that's whats going on. I wonder if that's something that can be fixed with more training with the round, or if it's unavoidable physics. Changing sight heights on a handgun is something I'm hesitant to do in general.

[Wayne Dobbs]

If you do have a true 10" error then you need a front sight that's 0.06" taller to get the correction to POA/POI. That's based on the formula of: Impact error x Sight radius divided by Range. So to keep all the dimensions in inches you have this:

10" (impact error) X 5.39" (G26 sight radius)/900" (25 yards converted to inches) = 0.059888 (~0.06")

That's a huge change and even the tallest normally available front sight for Glocks is .250" which is 0.035" taller than the standard .215" stock front sights by most makers.