Heavy for calibre, in duty handgun ammunition?

[flux]

In hunting rifles, heavy for calibre, eg 180gr .308 loads do exceptionally well in terms of penetration and performance compared to lighter loadings.But in handguns, Looking at test results for 9mm 124gr vs 147gr, i dont see much of a difference in penetration for common duty loads, so would the only advantage be the lower percieved recoil? Or do the 147gr offerings bring something else to the party?

[RJ]

Interested in the responses.

I did the math for my carry gun (P30SK) and the difference in weight of 10+1 of 147 gr ammo and the same load of 124 gr is about 0.6 oz, assuming I did the math right. I suppose every little helps, as they say. Since both 147 HST and 124 GD +p are on Doc's list, and they both run for me, I'll likely swap to the GDs next annual carry ammo order.

[SJC3081]

Really I find 308 180 grain loads suck compared 150/165 loads on deer. I chrono Rem 180 CoreLok
And they only did 2408 out of 22" bolt gun.

[LtDave]

In hunting rifles, heavy for calibre, eg 180gr .308 loads do exceptionally well in terms of penetration and performance compared to lighter loadings.But in handguns, Looking at test results for 9mm 124gr vs 147gr, i dont see much of a difference in penetration for common duty loads, so would the only advantage be the lower percieved recoil? Or do the 147gr offerings bring something else to the party?

Accuracy. In testing lots of loads in lots of guns, I have found best accuracy usually with either a hot 115 grain or the 900-1000 fps 147 grain loads. The heavier loads may also shoot POA/POI if the lighter loads shoot lower. Only way to know is to test them in your gun.

[deputyG23]

Accuracy. In testing lots of loads in lots of guns, I have found best accuracy usually with either a hot 115 grain or the 900-1000 fps 147 grain loads. The heavier loads may also shoot POA/POI if the lighter loads shoot lower. Only way to know is to test them in your gun.
I concur. The old Winchester subsonic 147 grain duty ammo we had in the early '90s was very accurate and was the cleanest burning ammo I have ever fired. Ditto the 115 grain XM9001 ammo from Federal, which is a +P load not marked as such and shoots tight groups in my son's P228 and my G19.

[Robinson]

I stick with 147gr HST because the ammo is reliable in my 1911s and is subsonic, which makes it a little easier on my damaged ears at the range. I read about its performance here in this section about when I was making the switch to 9mm. So just for me, the combination of reliable cycling, subsonic velocity, and good terminal performance rating makes it a good choice.

[mtnbkr]

Really I find 308 180 grain loads suck compared 150/165 loads on deer. I chrono Rem 180 CoreLok
And they only did 2408 out of 22" bolt gun.

In my 308, my 180gr handloads are more accurate than the lighter bullet loads (1:10 twist). Also, with RL17, I get an honest 2700fps with a non-max load.

I haven't tried them on deer yet, but my motivation for using 180gr bullets was to have a good bear-friendly load in that gun.

Chris

[txdpd]

i dont see much of a difference in penetration for common duty loads,

Most duty ammunition manufacturers for handguns are trying to meet FBI standards. Regardless of what a duty round might be capable of doing, they all end up doing about the same, because they are all built to a meet a standard.

Point of impact will also be a little bit higher with heavier bullets. When we were issuing 147gr Rangers, my POA/POI was dead center of the dot on the front sight at 25yards. With the 135+p Hornady critical duty, it's POA/POI is top of the dot. Annoys the bejesus out of me.

[flux]

Really I find 308 180 grain loads suck compared 150/165 loads on deer. I chrono Rem 180 CoreLok
And they only did 2408 out of 22" bolt gun.

Can't tell you about deer, but here with the bigger African game the 180s definitely are the preferred choice. For "bush veld" hunting, that is not open plains, shots will be taken between 50-150 meters, the 180gr going at a sedate 2450fps, does very well, good expansion and excellent penetration, using standards. With bonded bullets it may make sense going lighter as they may need more speed to expand sufficiently.

Thanks for the replies, so basically terminal performance would be around the same, but other factors such as accuracy and point of impact may differ.

[txdpd]

Point of impact will also be a little bit higher with heavier bullets. When we were issuing 147gr Rangers, my POA/POI was dead center of the dot on the front sight at 25yards. With the 135+p Hornady critical duty, it's POA/POI is top of the dot. Annoys the bejesus out of me.

I got those mixed up, they are the other way around, I can't proof read.

[bfoosh006]

txdpd said it all...

"Most duty ammunition manufacturers for handguns are trying to meet FBI standards. Regardless of what a duty round might be capable of doing, they all end up doing about the same, because they are all built to a meet a standard."

Change the design specs, or desired parameters... and you will see different results.

[SamAdams]

I stick with 147gr HST because the ammo is reliable in my 1911s and is subsonic, which makes it a little easier on my damaged ears at the range. I read about its performance here in this section about when I was making the switch to 9mm. So just for me, the combination of reliable cycling, subsonic velocity, and good terminal performance rating makes it a good choice.

I prefer lower pressure rounds, for the reason you mentioned. I experienced a little bit of high frequency hearing loss a few years back (while waterfowl hunting my wool cap interfered with the seal on the electronic earmuffs I was wearing). The ear doc said everyone is different in terms of their sensitivity to muzzle blast. I may be more susceptible to damage than other people. Hearing damage is permanent, so I do what I can to prevent it. - - For field rounds I like the 44 Special, 45LC, and 'lowly' 38 Special for this reason. There may not be the time to don hearing protection in a fast developing situation. In self defense pistol rounds, I prefer lower pressure & muzzle blast. But, if a situation is so serious that I have to use my firearm to defend myself, I'll just (hopefully) deal with the hearing consequences afterwards.

[GAP]

147gr HST without a doubt has less recoil than 124gr +p Gold Dots out of a Glock 26.

Those are my two 9mm carry loads.

I find the 124 +p GD to be a bit more accurate out of my Glock 19s, but largely prefer the 147gr HST out of my Glock 26s. Extensively tested several hundreds of each round with both speed based Drills and 25-50 yard accuracy tests.

[blues]

147gr HST without a doubt has less recoil than 124gr +p Gold Dots out of a Glock 26.

Those are my two 9mm carry loads.

I find the 124 +p GD to be a bit more accurate out of my Glock 19s, but largely prefer the 147gr HST out of my Glock 26s. Extensively tested several hundreds of each round with both speed based Drills and 25-50 yard accuracy tests.

Good and timely to read this, GAP. I've had 124gr standard pressure GD on hand for some time and just last week received a couple boxes of the HST 124gr +P, and a case of the 147gr standard pressure to test out in my Glocks. Maybe I'll follow your preference when I start testing for my own carry usage.

[GAP]

Good and timely to read this, GAP. I've had 124gr standard pressure GD on hand for some time and just last week received a couple boxes of the HST 124gr +P, and a case of the 147gr standard pressure to test out in my Glocks. Maybe I'll follow your preference when I start testing for my own carry usage.

Every little bit helps especially with the two finger G26 grip, just glad to have access to a non +p option that performs as well or better.