New Duty Load

[The Fuzz]

During my career, I have worked three different agencies and been fortunate enough to meet a lot of liked minds locally and coast to coast. One the things I like to study is ballistics. Of the three cities I worked, two of them contained some of the roughest neighborhoods in my state. I've been to multiple shootings and homicides, talked to trauma doctors and coroners, and have been able to look at x-rays and pictures of autopsies. I have also been able to be part of ballistic shoots through cars, glass, and heavy clothing. When I left my last agency and came to my new home a year and half ago, I was in charge of our firearms program and was the lead instructor on a SWAT team I was on. While I was here I was able to make new friends and be part of our range staff. We have a full time armory that does the testing on weapons, ammunition, and so on.

I came from the area my state calls The Region. When I was raised up as an officer, the king of the hill caliber was the 40. Some agencies allowed the 45 acp and a couple issued them in the area. But just like in other places in the country, the 9mm was making a come back. When I left and went to a suburb next door, they had very beat up 40 caliber Glock 22's. I had a voice and was able to get us switched to 9mm's within six months of being there. During my 4 years there, we used the 127 +P+ Ranger T's until I saw issues with their ammo one of the Top 3 PD's were having. We then switched to the 124 +P Gold Dot due to the luck that Chuck Haggard had with it and NYPD. Being on a tighter budget, the extra $100 a case for it made me look for other options. Right before I left, I ordered 124 +P HST's. The price was the around the same as the Ranger ammo and the round did well in the testing I did.

When I came down here, we were issuing the 147 HST. I would have to say I'm not a fan and neither was the range staff due to some issues in shootings with it. When I helped out at the armory they were ready to look for a duty load. We decided to do some testing with the 127 +P+ Ranger T and the 124 +P Gold Dot. I brought some 124 +P HST's but at first they were not interested in it. After the testing they let me test it and found that it out preformed the other loads in heavy clothing and auto glass. We had Vista Outdoors come out to check our work and found that we were looking a solid performer. Currently we are switching over to the 124 +P HST and will have it fully issued by the middle of this month.

[WobblyPossum]

Would you be able to expand on what your agency found lacking with the 147gr HST? I’ve only heard good things about that loading.

[Suvorov]

During my 4 years there, we used the 127 +P+ Ranger T's until I saw issues with their ammo one of the Top 3 PD's were having. We then switched to the 124 +P Gold Dot due to the luck that Chuck Haggard had with it and NYPD. Being on a tighter budget, the extra $100 a case for it made me look for other options. Right before I left, I ordered 124 +P HST's. The price was the around the same as the Ranger ammo and the round did well in the testing I did.

When I came down here, we were issuing the 147 HST. I would have to say I'm not a fan and neither was the range staff due to some issues in shootings with it. When I helped out at the armory they were ready to look for a duty load. We decided to do some testing with the 127 +P+ Ranger T and the 124 +P Gold Dot. I brought some 124 +P HST's but at first they were not interested in it. After the testing they let me test it and found that it out preformed the other loads in heavy clothing and auto glass. We had Vista Outdoors come out to check our work and found that we were looking a solid performer. Currently we are switching over to the 124 +P HST and will have it fully issued by the middle of this month.

What issues were you seeing with the 127 +P+ Ranger?

[HCM]

What issues were you seeing with the 127 +P+ Ranger?

Winchester in general has had frequent QC issues the past few years.

[HCM]

During my career, I have worked three different agencies and been fortunate enough to meet a lot of liked minds locally and coast to coast. One the things I like to study is ballistics. Of the three cities I worked, two of them contained some of the roughest neighborhoods in my state. I've been to multiple shootings and homicides, talked to trauma doctors and coroners, and have been able to look at x-rays and pictures of autopsies. I have also been able to be part of ballistic shoots through cars, glass, and heavy clothing. When I left my last agency and came to my new home a year and half ago, I was in charge of our firearms program and was the lead instructor on a SWAT team I was on. While I was here I was able to make new friends and be part of our range staff. We have a full time armory that does the testing on weapons, ammunition, and so on.

I came from the area my state calls The Region. When I was raised up as an officer, the king of the hill caliber was the 40. Some agencies allowed the 45 acp and a couple issued them in the area. But just like in other places in the country, the 9mm was making a come back. When I left and went to a suburb next door, they had very beat up 40 caliber Glock 22's. I had a voice and was able to get us switched to 9mm's within six months of being there. During my 4 years there, we used the 127 +P+ Ranger T's until I saw issues with their ammo one of the Top 3 PD's were having. We then switched to the 124 +P Gold Dot due to the luck that Chuck Haggard had with it and NYPD. Being on a tighter budget, the extra $100 a case for it made me look for other options. Right before I left, I ordered 124 +P HST's. The price was the around the same as the Ranger ammo and the round did well in the testing I did.

When I came down here, we were issuing the 147 HST. I would have to say I'm not a fan and neither was the range staff due to some issues in shootings with it. When I helped out at the armory they were ready to look for a duty load. We decided to do some testing with the 127 +P+ Ranger T and the 124 +P Gold Dot. I brought some 124 +P HST's but at first they were not interested in it. After the testing they let me test it and found that it out preformed the other loads in heavy clothing and auto glass. We had Vista Outdoors come out to check our work and found that we were looking a solid performer. Currently we are switching over to the 124 +P HST and will have it fully issued by the middle of this month.

Ok. Reliability and shot placement are my biggest concerns.

We've issued Gold Dot in 9mm and HST in 40 for at the past 15 years or so. I don't think there would be much difference if the brands/calibers were reversed. Both have worked well in actual shootings.

US Customs issued the 124 grain Gold Dot beginning in 1999. This remained the authorized 9mm load for ICE after the merger until the transition to the +P version around 2009/2010.

Around 2015/2016 ICE conducted testing on 147 grain duty ammo as a possible replacement for the 124 +P GD as part of the transition from .40 to 9mm as general issue. The decision was to stick with the 124 +P GD.

[Suvorov]

Winchester in general has had frequent QC issues the past few years.

As in not going boom or inconsistent terminal performance?

I ask as I chose the 127 and 124 Rangers as my standard SD loads and would rather not feel compelled to buy another case or two?

I don’t want to get kilt in the streets.....

[The Fuzz]

Would you be able to expand on what your agency found lacking with the 147gr HST? I’ve only heard good things about that loading.

A few years back, I went to a Vista shoot and we were told that Federal redesigned the bullet to make it hold up better on auto glass. During that shoot I watched the 147 HST go through auto glass and lodge base first only a few inches into the gel. The original loading was known for opening to a very large diameter. The new version isn't opening as large or at all after heavy clothing. Something that seems to be happening on our streets as well. The 124 +P HST on the other hand expands to very well after heavy clothing. It also digs deeper than its big brother on auto glass shoots. We haven't had any shootings with it but there is an agency north of us that has. They told me it works as advertised.

[WobblyPossum]

A few years back, I went to a Vista shoot and we were told that Federal redesigned the bullet to make it hold up better on auto glass. During that shoot I watched the 147 HST go through auto glass and lodge base first only a few inches into the gel. The original loading was known for opening to a very large diameter. The new version isn't opening as large or at all after heavy clothing. Something that seems to be happening on our streets as well. The 124 +P HST on the other hand expands to very well after heavy clothing. It also digs deeper than its big brother on auto glass shoots. We haven't had any shootings with it but there is an agency north of us that has. They told me it works as advertised.

Thanks for clarifying. I’ve always been interested in terminal ballistics. My employer tells me what ammo to use but I enjoy learning about observations and testing done with other loadings. We are currently issued and required to use 124gr +P Gold Dot. All the formal testing data and informal anecdotal info I’ve seen has lead me to be comfortable with it.

[The Fuzz]

As in not going boom or inconsistent terminal performance?

I ask as I chose the 127 and 124 Rangers as my standard SD loads and would rather not feel compelled to buy another case or two?

I don’t want to get kilt in the streets.....

My woes with their ammo started with Bonded 5.56mm Bonded Rangers. The batch I got had about 10% of them without sealant on the primers. What was sealed looked like they gave me 2 year old a paint brush and had him apply it. The casings themselves were dented and weren't as clean and shinny. Then I took a field trip to my buddy's range, they showed me boxes of rejected ammo. Ammo with split casings, over sized casings, bullets with springs pressed into them, bullets that made it all the way through the loading process without a hollowpoint cavity punched in it. My buddy told me and I quote "The 124 Bonded Ranger works really well in shootings, that's when we can get the damn thing to go off." They actually have a 50 round case sizing die. They give an officer a live duty round on the range after they qualify them to load into a empty mag and chamber it. Then they walk out of the range and to a counter. The instructors opens a box of duty ammo and in a way that the rounds are bullet up to make sure they are all punched. The officer have to put each round into the sizing die and when they are done, the instructor checks the primers to make sure they are there and facing the correct direction. They run their hand across the loading die to make sure they are flush. They dumb the rounds onto the counter so the officer can load them into a magazine. Every round that goes out is inspected this way. They didn't have to do this when they had Speer ammunition.

I loved the 127 +P+ Ranger T and carried it for several years. I clocked it at 1280fps out of a Glock 17, could get it locally in 50 round boxes, and worked really well when I had to put down a dog that was all teeth. But after what I saw there and dealing with Winchester, I won't go back to their product any time soon. I would go with the 124 +P HST or 124 +P Gold Dot, both companies have great QC and good street creds.

[TC215]

My agency switched to 147gr HST from G2 a couple years ago. I’m not aware of any issues with it. It’s also recommended by DocGKR.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?20650-9-mm-147-gr-duty-load-testing

I’d be curious to know of any failures/poor performance in actual shootings.

[The Fuzz]

Ok. Reliability and shot placement are my biggest concerns.

We've issued Gold Dot in 9mm and HST in 40 for at the past 15 years or so. I don't think there would be much difference if the brands/calibers were reversed. Both have worked well in actual shootings.

US Customs issued the 124 grain Gold Dot beginning in 1999. This remained the authorized 9mm load for ICE after the merger until the transition to the +P version around 2009/2010.

Around 2015/2016 ICE conducted testing on 147 grain duty ammo as a possible replacement for the 124 +P GD as part of the transition from .40 to 9mm as general issue. The decision was to stick with the 124 +P GD.

The Federal ammo runs but we weren't happy with the terminal performance. If you don't worry about that stuff, I say rock whatever your weapon likes, but....I actually watched a Sig 320 that was dry during testing choke on 147 HST's and G2's. That same gun without being lubricated ran 124 +P Gold Dots and 9BPLE 100%. The little umph of a higher pressure round makes a difference when you have officers who don't clean and lube their weapons. In fact that is why Chicago and NYPD runs Plus P ammo. Got to make them run and work for those who don't take care of their weapons. People actually believe you never have to clean and lube a Glock.

[The Fuzz]

Thanks for clarifying. I’ve always been interested in terminal ballistics. My employer tells me what ammo to use but I enjoy learning about observations and testing done with other loadings. We are currently issued and required to use 124gr +P Gold Dot. All the formal testing data and informal anecdotal info I’ve seen has lead me to be comfortable with it.

That's a solid load.

[The Fuzz]

My agency switched to 147gr HST from G2 a couple years ago. I’m not aware of any issues with it. It’s also recommended by DocGKR.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?20650-9-mm-147-gr-duty-load-testing

I’d be curious to know of any failures/poor performance in actual shootings.

Got a buddy who says it works well for California agencies and heard it does well in testing. Just hasn't been my experience.

[HCM]

As in not going boom or inconsistent terminal performance?

I ask as I chose the 127 and 124 Rangers as my standard SD loads and would rather not feel compelled to buy another case or two?

I don’t want to get kilt in the streets.....

Not going boom.

[HCM]

The Federal ammo runs but we weren't happy with the terminal performance. If you don't worry about that stuff, I say rock whatever your weapon likes, but....I actually watched a Sig 320 that was dry during testing choke on 147 HST's and G2's. That same gun without being lubricated ran 124 +P Gold Dots and 9BPLE 100%. The little umph of a higher pressure round makes a difference when you have officers who don't clean and lube their weapons. In fact that is why Chicago and NYPD runs Plus P ammo. Got to make them run and work for those who don't take care of their weapons. People actually believe you never have to clean and lube a Glock.

We've got 15,000 LEOs so we have the same bell curve as every other large organization.

[The Fuzz]

We've got 15,000 LEOs so we have the same bell curve as every other large organization.

Worked for a 25 officer PD and had the same issues. Had to stand over them and make them clean their weapons. Can't do that on this 1800 man PD though.

[HCM]

Worked for a 25 officer PD and had the same issues. Had to stand over them and make them clean their weapons. Can't do that on this 1800 man PD though.

We shoot quarterly and locally cannot clean guns at either of the ranges we use due to Hazmat/EPA issues as the used patches etc have lead and require appropriate disposal as hazmat.

Most clean after Quals but given the heat down here oil on guns lasts a month at best.

[The Fuzz]

We shoot quarterly and locally cannot clean guns at either of the ranges we use due to Hazmat/EPA issues as the used patches etc have lead and require appropriate disposal as hazmat.

Most clean after Quals but given the heat down here oil on guns lasts a month at best.

Off topic but kind of lube are you guys running?

[HCM]

Off topic but kind of lube are you guys running?

Mostly the G96 CLP off the current .MIL contract.

[The Fuzz]

Mostly the G96 CLP off the current .MIL contract.

I run Miltech TB25 Grease on the rails and Slip 2000 EWL 30 on the other moving parts that require lube. Seems to work well on my 17 in both the cold Midwest winters and hot humid summers. We don't get the Texas heat like you guys got there though.

[SWAT Lt.]

The Federal ammo runs but we weren't happy with the terminal performance.

How so? What specific issues did you have with the terminal performance of the 147 HST that you weren't happy with? How many shootings did you have with it?

[HCM]

I run Miltech TB25 Grease on the rails and Slip 2000 EWL 30 on the other moving parts that require lube. Seems to work well on my 17 in both the cold Midwest winters and hot humid summers. We don't get the Texas heat like you guys got there though.

When I'm buying I buy Slip 2000.

[The Fuzz]

How so? What specific issues did you have with the terminal performance of the 147 HST that you weren't happy with? How many shootings did you have with it?

We were seeing some them not expanding and pass throughs. We had several shootings with them since we switched to the 9mm. I don’t have an exact number. We wanted something more consistent.

[TC215]

We were seeing some them not expanding and pass throughs. We had several shootings with them since we switched to the 9mm. I don’t have an exact number. We wanted something more consistent.

Would you be willing to send any photos, reports, etc. to a gov't email address is I send you mine?

[Balisong]

How so? What specific issues did you have with the terminal performance of the 147 HST that you weren't happy with? How many shootings did you have with it?

I'm also really confused by this as it's wildly contrary to everything else I've read on here about it, including from DocGKR.

[Joe Mac]

I think the OP's point is that the 147 HST's stellar record of street results (and performance in gel tests) was established before the bullet was redesigned with shorter skiving a few years ago. I tend to think the engineers at ATK know what they're doing -- but I too would like to see some new results/testing.

[witchking777]

I think the OP's point is that the 147 HST's stellar record of street results (and performance in gel tests) was established before the bullet was redesigned with shorter skiving a few years ago. I tend to think the engineers at ATK know what they're doing -- but I too would like to see some new results/testing.
With the shorter skiving and double cannelure the newer design should be better in auto glass tests.

[Chuck Haggard]

I know the Fuzz personally, he's not a goober or an idiot. He's actually an extremely well trained, experienced shooter and street cop.

Ref the 147gr HST. This used to be my go-to recommendation for short 9mm pistols. For several years.

Now, not so much. I used to be able to do demo test shots in my small pistols class to show what we want to see from a good bullet design. Typically in Clear Gel, which I use just as an illustration, the HSTs and Gold Dots expand nicely through four layer denim, run the length of the block, and stop on the "clothing" I have on the back side to catch them.

Over the past year I've been seeing failures from the 147gr HST, as in they completely fail to expand, thus act like a FMJFP. This happened last year in my class in front of Cecil Burch, Lee, and Matt and Rob Haught. This first happened from a G43, so we tried Matt's Beretta for the longer barrel. Same thing happened.

I've learned over the years to "trust but verify". Do we recall Todd's blog on "Trust no one's gun"? Well, that applies to bullets as well IMHO.

The most glaring example is the Winchester Ranger-T line. The 147gr Ranger-T used to be a "rock star", to steal a term from an LAPD firearms instructor I know. Then, Winchester got lazy on QC, and bullets can't be counted on to expand. I've see the 127gr +P+ launched from a G34 fail to expand. That's a rather dramatic failure.

[Hambo]

I know the Fuzz personally, he's not a goober or an idiot. He's actually an extremely well trained, experienced shooter and street cop.

Ref the 147gr HST. This used to be my go-to recommendation for short 9mm pistols. For several years.

Now, not so much. I used to be able to do demo test shots in my small pistols class to show what we want to see from a good bullet design. Typically in Clear Gel, which I use just as an illustration, the HSTs and Gold Dots expand nicely through four layer denim, run the length of the block, and stop on the "clothing" I have on the back side to catch them.

Over the past year I've been seeing failures from the 147gr HST, as in they completely fail to expand, thus act like a FMJFP. This happened last year in my class in front of Cecil Burch, Lee, and Matt and Rob Haught. This first happened from a G43, so we tried Matt's Beretta for the longer barrel. Same thing happened.

I've learned over the years to "trust but verify". Do we recall Todd's blog on "Trust no one's gun"? Well, that applies to bullets as well IMHO.

The most glaring example is the Winchester Ranger-T line. The 147gr Ranger-T used to be a "rock star", to steal a term from an LAPD firearms instructor I know. Then, Winchester got lazy on QC, and bullets can't be counted on to expand. I've see the 127gr +P+ launched from a G34 fail to expand. That's a rather dramatic failure.

No es bueno. Are they plugging up? Have you tried single layer? Bare gel? Have you asked Federal about this? Based on your timeline, I've got some that is going to suck and some that's probably GTG.

[blues]

No es bueno. Are they plugging up? Have you tried single layer? Bare gel? Have you asked Federal about this? Based on your timeline, I've got some that is going to suck and some that's probably GTG.

I think most or all of mine is the older...but I also have some 124 standard (Gold Dot) and 124 +P (HST) on hand if a swap is necessary. Hope not, though.

[Suvorov]

The most glaring example is the Winchester Ranger-T line. The 147gr Ranger-T used to be a "rock star", to steal a term from an LAPD firearms instructor I know. Then, Winchester got lazy on QC, and bullets can't be counted on to expand. I've see the 127gr +P+ launched from a G34 fail to expand. That's a rather dramatic failure.

Out of curiosity - do you know the year that Winchester's QC went down? :confused:

[HCM]

Out of curiosity - do you know the year that Winchester's QC went down? :confused:

The year they moved production from Illinois to Missouri to bust the union. 2011 maybe ?

[RJ]

Also very interested in this thread.

I took Doc’s advice three years ago, verified 147 HST ran in my Glock 19, bought a bunch, and got on with focusing on shot placement.

Now, in 2020, I’m evaluating a swap to a shorter barrel pistol (P365/P365XL) for EDC and competition / training. This thread now gives me pause as to what to use in these two guns. So far, I’ve verified Speer 115 GD in the P365 and Federal 147 HST in the XL (no issues). I’d prefer to select one load for either/both for logistics ease. My options include Speer 115 GD, 124 GD, 124+p GD, Federal 124 HST, and 147 HST (that I’m familiar with. I’ll check Doc’s list for other options but these are the loads I can reliably purchase online and shoot POA in my limited experience.)

Any or all SME discussion on this is much appreciated.

[Wayne Dobbs]

Also very interested in this thread.

I took Doc’s advice three years ago, verified 147 HST ran in my Glock 19, bought a bunch, and got on with focusing on shot placement.

Now, in 2020, I’m evaluating a swap to a shorter barrel pistol (P365/P365XL) for EDC and competition / training. This thread now gives me pause as to what to use in these two guns. So far, I’ve verified Speer 115 GD in the P365 and Federal 147 HST in the XL (no issues). I’d prefer to select one load for either/both for logistics ease. My options include Speer 115 GD, 124 GD, 124+p GD, Federal 124 HST, and 147 HST (that I’m familiar with. I’ll check Doc’s list for other options but these are the loads I can reliably purchase online and shoot POA in my limited experience.)

Any or all SME discussion on this is much appreciated.

The Speer 124 +P GDHP just keeps on working. I like the Federal 124 +P HST a lot and have found it very effective and accurate. I would test any +P loads carefully in the short guns to make sure the functional reliability is there.

[Wondering Beard]

If I remember correctly, Hornady's 135gr +P Critical duty is also on Doc's list and is one of the rounds adopted by the FBI. How is it in short barrel guns?

[revchuck38]

The Speer 124 +P GDHP just keeps on working. I like the Federal 124 +P HST a lot and have found it very effective and accurate. I would test any +P loads carefully in the short guns to make sure the functional reliability is there.

N=1, but 124-grain +P HST runs well in my P99c.

[HCM]

If I remember correctly, Hornady's 135gr +P Critical duty is also on Doc's list and is one of the rounds adopted by the FBI. How is it in short barrel guns?

They use the same round in G26s, 43s and 43Xs so I would not hesitate to carry it in a short barrel gun.

[The Fuzz]

The Speer 124 +P GDHP just keeps on working. I like the Federal 124 +P HST a lot and have found it very effective and accurate. I would test any +P loads carefully in the short guns to make sure the functional reliability is there.

Agreed, I had issues with a Glock Gen 3 26 with Ranger 127 +P+ ammo. I couldn't get through a single magazine without having several failure to extracts. I sent it back to Glock and then sold it when I got it back. At the time the 127 load was good to go and locally I could buy it by the box instead of the case. When I sold it, I went out and bought a 19 that fed the 127 Ranger without issues. With that being said, when we clocked this 124 +P HST we were getting 1260fps out of a Glock 17. Years back when I clocked the 127 +P+ Ranger T, it clocked at 1280fps out of a Glock 17. That torque is not a big deal out of larger guns but might run into the same issues out of the little ones like that Gen 3 26 loaded with the 127 ammo.

[jd950]

I am well aware of Doctor Roberts’ good advice about finding a load that works, stocking up and focusing on skills instead of chasing the perfect ammo. I think this thread illustrates, however, that there is also merit in keeping an eye on new developments.
I am one of those who basically settled on 147 HST several years back and have advocated that ammo for quite a while. In part, I like this weight in 9mm because I believe it retains its performance characteristics well in short barrel guns, and is also easy to shoot in such guns. The lighter bullet +p rounds seem to lose their edge more rapidly.

I began hearing these rumors of diminished HST performance a year or so ago and am wondering now about ammo choices. I supply my own carry ammo for personal use and my supply has dwindled over time and I really cannot say how new or old most of it is. I am approaching a need to restock in the not-to-distant future and this stuff isn’t cheap. I am also aware of the Winchester QC issues so am reluctant to consider it as a top contender. So, I am considering making my next caselot purchase Gold Dot or Gold Dot G2 or perhaps Critical Duty 135 or 135 +p, and would welcome informed opinions on these.

I understand and agree with the wisdom of not worrying too much about a specific ammo choice and instead focusing on skills and mindset, and perhaps the newer HST ammo is sufficiently similar to the old that it makes no real difference, but before plunking down several hundred dollars on a case of new ammo when prices and availability settle down, I would like to consider the options. Of course, I will buy a couple boxes first to check for performance in my guns. Perhaps I should add that although I am given a certain amount of 124 +p god dot ammo for free at various times, and I buy it in limited quantities for practice purposes, I am not very fond of that ammo in small guns so am not really considering it as an option for this purchase.

[The Fuzz]

I am well aware of Doctor Roberts’ good advice about finding a load that works, stocking up and focusing on skills instead of chasing the perfect ammo. I think this thread illustrates, however, that there is also merit in keeping an eye on new developments.
I am one of those who basically settled on 147 HST several years back and have advocated that ammo for quite a while. In part, I like this weight in 9mm because I believe it retains its performance characteristics well in short barrel guns, and is also easy to shoot in such guns. The lighter bullet +p rounds seem to lose their edge more rapidly.

I began hearing these rumors of diminished HST performance a year or so ago and am wondering now about ammo choices. I supply my own carry ammo for personal use and my supply has dwindled over time and I really cannot say how new or old most of it is. I am approaching a need to restock in the not-to-distant future and this stuff isn’t cheap. I am also aware of the Winchester QC issues so am reluctant to consider it as a top contender. So, I am considering making my next caselot purchase Gold Dot or Gold Dot G2 or perhaps Critical Duty 135 or 135 +p, and would welcome informed opinions on these.

I understand and agree with the wisdom of not worrying too much about a specific ammo choice and instead focusing on skills and mindset, and perhaps the newer HST ammo is sufficiently similar to the old that it makes no real difference, but before plunking down several hundred dollars on a case of new ammo when prices and availability settle down, I would like to consider the options. Of course, I will buy a couple boxes first to check for performance in my guns. Perhaps I should add that although I am given a certain amount of 124 +p god dot ammo for free at various times, and I buy it in limited quantities for practice purposes, I am not very fond of that ammo in small guns so am not really considering it as an option for this purchase.

I don't know if it has any added benefits but I have seen hundreds of people shot and over 70 homicides in my career. Most of this was done with handgun ammo and of that most of it was done with ball ammo. I noticed that with a Hornady Critical Defense and Critical Duty ammo that I've seen people shot with makes the same entry wound as a full metal jacket where the hollow points tend to cut a hole in the skin and muscle like someone used a tiny biscuit cutter. I assume he G2 would do the same as the Hornady stuff. I'm sure if you are going to run any of those, they will all give you similar performance. If you want to stay heavier, I would opt for a +P 135 over the other stuff just to make sure your weapon cycles in less than ideal shooting positions. I'm curious why you don't care for the 124 +P Gold Dot.

[Wayne Dobbs]

I don't know if it has any added benefits but I have seen hundreds of people shot and over 70 homicides in my career. Most of this was done with handgun ammo and of that most of it was done with ball ammo. I noticed that with a Hornady Critical Defense and Critical Duty ammo that I've seen people shot with makes the same entry wound as a full metal jacket where the hollow points tend to cut a hole in the skin and muscle like someone used a tiny biscuit cutter. I assume he G2 would do the same as the Hornady stuff. I'm sure if you are going to run any of those, they will all give you similar performance. If you want to stay heavier, I would opt for a +P 135 over the other stuff just to make sure your weapon cycles in less than ideal shooting positions. I'm curious why you don't care for the 124 +P Gold Dot.

Fuzz,

I'd guess he has a problem with the 124 +P over functional issues. I've seen quite a few of the compact 9mm pistols run very poorly on +P ammo, but run really well with standard pressure ammo, particularly the 147 grain loads. We have two G43s here at home (one mine and one belonging to the CEO) and both run much better on Federal 147 HST than on anything +P. In my G19s, G17s and VP9s, either 124 +P GDHP or 124 +P HST are the preferred load. Based on my armoring training and experience, I'd say that, with the +P loads, slide velocities start outrunning magazine springs and their ability to position a new round in time to be cleanly stripped and fed.

[jd950]

I'm curious why you don't care for the 124 +P Gold Dot.

My observations have been that 124 +p GD, when fired from 3” barrels, seems to have more flash and blast, and a “sharper” recoil impulse than 147 grain ammo. Being 9mm, it isn’t like the recoil is uncontrollable or painful, but in a polymer frame 3” gun, there is a noticeable difference and I prefer the recoil impulse and reduced flash of the 147gr. I also have a rather staggering amount of 147 grain ball ammo for practice purposes, so it is appealing to stick with that weight in serious ammo as well.

I also have this personal and unscientific general bias in favor of heavy bullets in most handgun calibers including 9mm, .40 and .45. As I said in my earlier post, I don’t feel compelled to run out and buy something new “just because,” and, if I had pretty much any quality 124-147 grain load or a 115 barnes copper load in the gun, and the load ran okay, I would not lose any sleep over it, but if it is time to buy a case of something, then I am interested in knowing more about options.

My strategy has always been to stick with HST 147 but would also pick up GD 147 if I found a good price or there were availability issues, and perhaps I should just stick with that approach, but then I hear about “issues” with the latest HST or see sources that have the G2 or Critical Duty 135 by the case, but nothing else, or at a decent price. There are some pretty well-informed people here and despite agreeing with “pick a load that works and focus on skills,” I am curious by nature and this is, after all, an ammunition forum, so why not talk about ammunition….

[Pit]

I'm mostly curious as to what issue(s) were identified by Federal that had them "update" a proven design?

JW

[TC215]

I was able to get some additional info on this, and it was eye-opening. Thank you The Fuzz for bringing it to everyone’s attention.

[jd950]

I was able to get some additional info on this, and it was eye-opening.

Care to share?

[TC215]

Care to share?

I would, but I was specifically asked not to repeat what I was told. I’m hoping that in the future some additional “official” information will be released.

[jd950]

I would, but I was specifically asked not to repeat what I was told. I’m hoping that in the future some additional “official” information will be released.

Understood.

[deputyG23]

Not going boom.

That is interesting. We have used 180 grain Ranger T for over ten years and I have not personally encountered or been informed about any defective rounds or failures to fire even with our very tired '05 gen 3 G23s..

[HCM]

That is interesting. We have used 180 grain Ranger T for over ten years and I have not personally encountered or been informed about any defective rounds or failures to fire even with our very tired '05 gen 3 G23s..

We had a “gap” during which our contract with Speer for Gold Dot 9mm and 38 duty ammo lapsed pending renegotiation. We wound up buying Winchester 147 grain bonded Ranger 9mm and federal .38 hydra shok 147 grain +P+ off the FBI /DOJ Contract.

We had multiple instances across multiple lot numbers of Ranger 147 which failed to fire. There was an LE safety bulletin put out to other LE about it. It was a frequent enough occurrence it was all restricted to training / practice use only.

Early in the DHS integration we briefly transitioned to Winchester Ranger .40 cal from Remington 155 grain JHP after failure to fire issues with the Remington. We went to HST, 155 then 180, about 15 years ago and haven’t looked back. In that time I’ve only seen two examples of defective HST across millions of rounds. One was a failure to fire as it had no flash hole in the primer pocket, the other was a case head separation which I posted in the “guns you have personally seen fail” thread. I think it’s post 94 or 294

57627

57628

[witchking777]

I'm mostly curious as to what issue(s) were identified by Federal that had them "update" a proven design?

JW

Talking to the ATK rep it was to help bring the core jacket separation from 1 in 100 to 1 in 1,000 in auto glass. They added a second cannelure with spacing between them and shortened the skives slightly. In my windshield test it went straight through with no deviation, through the driver seat,back seat,and ended up in the trunk. It reminded me of how Critical Duty ammo sheds bullet weight to drill through glass,leading to deeper and straighter penetration.

[witchking777]

I would, but I was specifically asked not to repeat what I was told. I’m hoping that in the future some additional “official” information will be released.

I would also like to know,as my soft tissue tests have been 100% successful in penetration and expansion. I bought 600 rounds as standard carry for my CCW piece after testing 100 rounds for accuracy and feedability.

[paherne]

I would, but I was specifically asked not to repeat what I was told. I’m hoping that in the future some additional “official” information will be released.

Thanks for the useless information.

[TC215]

Thanks for the useless information.

Really?

I took the time to follow up on the OP’s info with one of his contacts. I was asked not to share specifics, as it could get multiple people in trouble. To honor that confidentiality, I will have to do more legwork myself before going to my own agency to discuss issues about the ammo. The information provided was consistent with the post that Chuck Haggard made.

[jd950]

I have to be up a small agency in the mountains doing some training stuff next week. Think I will pick up some 147 GD and G2 and run it through the Kahr and a P239. All I can do is look at reliability, accuracy, etc. Any excuse to get some extra trigger time is good anyway.

[paherne]

Really?

I took the time to follow up on the OP’s info with one of his contacts. I was asked not to share specifics, as it could get multiple people in trouble. To honor that confidentiality, I will have to do more legwork myself before going to my own agency to discuss issues about the ammo. The information provided was consistent with the post that Chuck Haggard made.

Yes. Is it all current 9 mm 147 HST2? Is it only certain lots? Has Federal acknowledged there's a problem? I'm about to spend my $25k ammunition budget and make an order. If you want to PM me or get my GOV email address, I'd appreciate your off-line information. I can just as easily buy Hornady Critical Duty or Speer Gold Dot which we've done in the past during shortages.

[TC215]

Yes. Is it all current 9 mm 147 HST2? Is it only certain lots? Has Federal acknowledged there's a problem? I'm about to spend my $25k ammunition budget and make an order. If you want to PM me or get my GOV email address, I'd appreciate your off-line information. I can just as easily buy Hornady Critical Duty or Speer Gold Dot which we've done in the past during shortages.

If you’re about to spend $25k on ammo, you’d be better served by spending your time doing your homework like I did instead of criticizing my posts on p-f.

Again, I was asked not to share specifics, and I’m going to honor that. I would recommend contacting your Federal rep and asking them to set up an ammo/ballistics demo for your department.

If I was the one buying ammo, I would be looking at 124 gr +P Gold Dots or HST, or 135gr +P Critical Duty. Unfortunately for us, we issue G43’s as UC/BUG’s, and +P ammo doesn’t play well with those.

[jd950]

Yes. Is it all current 9 mm 147 HST2? Is it only certain lots? Has Federal acknowledged there's a problem? I'm about to spend my $25k ammunition budget and make an order. If you want to PM me or get my GOV email address, I'd appreciate your off-line information. I can just as easily buy Hornady Critical Duty or Speer Gold Dot which we've done in the past during shortages.

I am obviously not in the know on this, but FWIW, it appears your agency's duty ammo has been HST2. Reading between the lines, it appears that there are some significant issues with recent changes to this ammo. An ATK sales rep should know more about this and would likely be happy to sell you Speer instead. If 147 has been working for you, get the GD or G2 147 gr ammo. Your shooters will have a a similar round and the performance will be in the same ballpark as what you are happy with now, except that it may overcome some bad issue with the HST which is apparently somewhat confidential for the moment. Or get the +p 124 GD or 1+p35 Hornady, since it seems to have met the requirements of numerous local and fed agencies and is what all the cool kids like ;-).

By the time you need to spend next year's budget, the questions will probably be answered (and there will probably be some new wonder bullet). This is just my amateur, uninformed thought on this. I have no say in agency ammo decisions or any special knowledge.

Heck, we aren't supposed to be shooting at people anymore anyway, or at least only shooting them in the leg to slow them down.

[The Fuzz]

Fuzz,

I'd guess he has a problem with the 124 +P over functional issues. I've seen quite a few of the compact 9mm pistols run very poorly on +P ammo, but run really well with standard pressure ammo, particularly the 147 grain loads. We have two G43s here at home (one mine and one belonging to the CEO) and both run much better on Federal 147 HST than on anything +P. In my G19s, G17s and VP9s, either 124 +P GDHP or 124 +P HST are the preferred load. Based on my armoring training and experience, I'd say that, with the +P loads, slide velocities start outrunning magazine springs and their ability to position a new round in time to be cleanly stripped and fed.

That makes sense.

[The Fuzz]

Talking to the ATK rep it was to help bring the core jacket separation from 1 in 100 to 1 in 1,000 in auto glass. They added a second cannelure with spacing between them and shortened the skives slightly. In my windshield test it went straight through with no deviation, through the driver seat,back seat,and ended up in the trunk. It reminded me of how Critical Duty ammo sheds bullet weight to drill through glass,leading to deeper and straighter penetration.

I have shot a lot of auto glass in both testing and training. I have found that shooting one shot through glass isn't the best tactic. If you are going to engage, "P stands for plenty" as the guys who taught me would say. I don't count on my first two or three rounds to meet their marks. I have seen good ammo like the 124 +P Gold Dot veer off course so much that I had to actually aim for the hip area of an ISPC target a few yards off of the front bumper of the car I was in to get hits on target that were landing in the head box/upper shoulder area. Then I've seen rounds hit point of point of impact after auto glass. With that being said, I'm not to overly concerned with performance on glass. Then I look at the odds we shoot into glass. Most of our shootings as officers is open air shots. Civilians have a even lower odds of having to shoot through glass. Personally, I would prefer to take that 1 in 100 chance and have a good expanding 147 than have a 147 that does well in glass and not heavy clothing. Of course now that I say that, I will have Chuck Haggard's luck and we will have the next few shootings through glass.

[Bucky]

One thing I’ve learned in a vast amount of testing, not bullet effectiveness in gel or any of that, but reliability and velocities. What I’ve found is there really isn’t a one size fits all. Certain guns will exhibit certain behaviors with different rounds. For example, the 147 HST has chrono’d faster in my G43 than in my 92 Compact. The other side of the coin is running +P or +P+ in these micro-9mms. Aside from the excessive were on these little Gus, my experience shows the added slide velocity shows them more susceptible to reliability issues when combine with extreme limp wrist testing.

While I’m not going to have a different load for each and every gun, combining my experience of the physical intricacies along with the knowledge gained from those with such expertise regarding street performance (I’ve read the Doc’s post on this 15+ times), I’ve settled on 124 +P Gold Dot for the longer barreled, more robust guns, and the 147 HST for the micros.

Having just bought a case of 147 HSTs at elevated Covid pricing, the news of a possible change in design and effectiveness is disappointing.

[4given]

How can you tell if you have the "old" good to go 147gr HST or the "new" stuff? I replaced my 124gr +p Gold Dots for 147gr HST in my G19 a couple of years ago.

[TC215]

How can you tell if you have the "old" good to go 147gr HST or the "new" stuff? I replaced my 124gr +p Gold Dots for 147gr HST in my G19 a couple of years ago.

I'm waiting on a call back from Federal for more information, but from what I've gathered so far, the most recent design change to the 147gr bullet was 2016/2017.

[RJ]

I'm mostly curious as to what issue(s) were identified by Federal that had them "update" a proven design?

JW

Ditto.

And I appreciate that folks may not be able to share due to NDA. But to those who *are* aware, as someone who has a bunch of HST 147 for carry, as a regular .civ in a G19.5/P365XL, should I be worried about what that ammo manufacturer date is?

[blues]

I have three quarters of a case left of the HST 147 standard. It'd be disappointing to have to use it up as training ammo...but...will do what needs to be done.

I might opt for 124 Gold Dot (standard) in the G26...and 124 +P HST in the G19 and G17 as I have some of each round on hand. But I'll await further info.

Seems there's no escape. It started a couple years back with the Winchester Ranger RA38B issue, though mine have proven to be fine.

[4given]

How can you tell if you have the "old" good to go 147gr HST or the "new" stuff? I replaced my 124gr +p Gold Dots for 147gr HST in my G19 a couple of years ago.

Looks like it is a good time for me to change out my carry ammo. Not a lot available right now. I think I'll go back to 124gr +p Gold Dots. Tired & true ....

[jd950]

Ditto.

And I appreciate that folks may not be able to share due to NDA. But to those who *are* aware, as someone who has a bunch of HST 147 for carry, as a regular .civ in a G19.5/P365XL, should I be worried about what that ammo manufacturer date is?

I suppose I could be wrong about this, as I am not aware of details, but I highly doubt there is need to worry. This might very well warrant purchasing something else going forward but I doubt it is worth treating your HST as range-only ammo. I am sure you can tell manufacture date by lot number, but I have no idea how to decipher their code

[blues]

This is the HST 147 standard I have...forgive the poor phone image. I think they were purchased between 2016 and 2018 but I'd have to find the invoice.

57665

57666

[jd950]

Here is an example of a lot number:

57667


I could be wrong but I believe the code can tell the date and probably time the ammo was loaded, as well as the ID of the employee or robot that did it. FWIW, my most recently purchased 147 HST looks the same as the oldest stuff, but purchase date probably has only limited correlation to manufacture date.

Relevant to this discussion:

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?20188-Jacket-skiving-variations-between-different-lots-of-Federal-9mm-147gr-HST-(P9HST2)&highlight=hst2

[gruntjim]

The newer stuff is using a blue primer sealant.

Older is using red.

I can tell the difference, but I'm still overly cautious, and loading 124 +P.

[blues]

This is the flap from the box I shared an image from above:

57677

[Joe Mac]

Based on my armoring training and experience, I'd say that, with the +P loads, slide velocities start outrunning magazine springs and their ability to position a new round in time to be cleanly stripped and fed.


I'm not entirely convinced this is a problem -- but with a caveat, because my experience has not been trouble-free.

I have somewhere between 2500-3000 rounds of 124+P Gold Dot through my two G43s, and have had three (maybe four) failures to feed, nose-in to the ramp. These do suggest slide velocity vs. mag spring. However, all of these have occurred with factory pinky-extension mags, none with the flat baseplate. My working theory is that pinky pressure on the mag might tilt it *just* enough to increase the likelihood of such a malfunction. (Not even addressing the issues I've had with aftermarket extensions -- none of them are trustworthy!)

I no longer have the pinky extension on any of my G43 mags, which suits me fine because it's a pocket holster gun anyway. If I'm carrying on the belt it'll be something larger.

The above being said, now that I am recently retired and issuing my own ammo, I might add a stash of non- +P for use in the G43, although I haven't decided which load and whether it's worth the bother.

By the way, Wayne -- we met last year at the [range of a large northwestern PD] when you happened to be there while we had the advanced armorer class going. Great discussion of pistol optics, thank you. :)

[Wayne Dobbs]

I'm not entirely convinced this is a problem -- but with a caveat, because my experience has not been trouble-free.

I have somewhere between 2500-3000 rounds of 124+P Gold Dot through my two G43s, and have had three (maybe four) failures to feed, nose-in to the ramp. These do suggest slide velocity vs. mag spring. However, all of these have occurred with factory pinky-extension mags, none with the flat baseplate. My working theory is that pinky pressure on the mag might tilt it *just* enough to increase the likelihood of such a malfunction. (Not even addressing the issues I've had with aftermarket extensions -- none of them are trustworthy!)

I no longer have the pinky extension on any of my G43 mags, which suits me fine because it's a pocket holster gun anyway. If I'm carrying on the belt it'll be something larger.

The above being said, now that I am recently retired and issuing my own ammo, I might add a stash of non- +P for use in the G43, although I haven't decided which load and whether it's worth the bother.

By the way, Wayne -- we met last year at the [range of a large northwestern PD] when you happened to be there while we had the advanced armorer class going. Great discussion of pistol optics, thank you. :)

You may have a point there Joe Mac, although I've not ever isolated where what I call stack tilt has resulted in Glock 9mm malfunctions (don't get me going on Glock .40 issues). Thanks for the kind words about that armorer's course "presentation". I love what I do and the product that I sell, especially to the cops.

[TC215]

I just got a call from a rep at Federal. He initially denied (adamantly) that any changes had been made to the bullet design. After I pressed him a bit, he finally admitted that they changed the design to a double cannelure 3-5 years ago (this is consistent with other information I've been given). I told him that I'd heard rumors about under-expansion recently with the 147gr, and he said those rumors were false. This is obviously inconsistent with what has been posted in this thread, and also information received from members here via PM where Federal reps have admitted to limited instances of under-expansion.

The quality manager from Federal is supposed to call me tomorrow.


The newer stuff is using a blue primer sealant.

Older is using red.

I can tell the difference, but I'm still overly cautious, and loading 124 +P.

I asked about this-- he said the sealant can be red, blue, or clear. It depends on what machine they're using.

[ArgentFix]

Many big pictures warning!

Just my datapoints. In all pictures, left was purchased from Streicher's in October 2018, right from Target Sports July 2019. In short, the cases, boxes, sealant, and skiving are all different.

57686

57687

57688

57689

57690

Round on the left was chambered. Oddly, both of these skivings seem to have a length somewhere between the bullets in this post:

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?20188-Jacket-skiving-variations-between-different-lots-of-Federal-9mm-147gr-HST-(P9HST2)&highlight=hst2

Is there maybe just that much variation in skiving?

[ssb]

So what I'm gathering is that I'm sitting on 1500+ rounds of ammo that probably won't expand when fired through the 4LD test, despite all the consistent recommendation for this load from the SME types which continued even after the production change in 2017 or so?

[ST911]

I keep book on most of my guns, and find G43s to be reliable with the +P loads I've shot when using OEM mags without extensions. That includes some loads that are less inherently feed-friendly. Pressure is pressure, and doesn't always mean more velocity at bullet or slide. Cartridge OAL, bullet profile, and bullet length are also significant variables in play. Talking about pressure in isolation is like talking about bullet weight, i.e. "147s aren't reliable." It's just one variable in a complex equation.

I do believe that the G43 is slightly under-sprung, but likely needs to be for the anemic ammo many users will shoot through them.

[ST911]

Federal is somewhat notorious for undisclosed tweaks and the 147 HST is no different. Some folks there are super helpful with product tech and specs, some are not. Like other manufacturers, I think they can be a little quick to the dumb-customer/"another call about something on the internet" response pattern.

[Brian T]

Well shit. I have been a devotee to the Cult of the 147gr for over 15 years now. There's a Fat .50 can in my closet 28 boxes (50 rds each) of 147gr HST2. I bought most of that stuff from a department trade-in at GT Distributors. It came from a Sheriffs dept were the Sheriff wouldnt hear of his deputies carrying 9mm. It all got traded in for HST in .40 and .45. And here I was cocky as can be that I was ahead of an ammo crunch. Never would I have to buy defensive ammo at ever increasing prices. Fuck.

My thoughts re: auto glass as a Joe Citizen, I do care performance on autoglass and carbodies more than most other members of the citizenry. I drive a lot, doing my railroad thing. When I am out and about, and stopped, I find myself inside or around cars a lot!. My primary concern is still 4LD.

My second favorite load is 124gr+P GDHP. I have 500 rounds of it. I do not feel comfortable with switching SD loads with that quantity. I guess I'll stick with what I have.

BTW, Dallas PD was a long time user of the vaunted Winchester 147gr Ranger Talon (RA9T). They took care of bidness with that round. However Winchester QC/QA got 'em bad and they finally had enough. And right about that time Hornady stepped in as an all your depts ammo needs one stop shop.

Why oh why Ammo Gods, couldnt you have given me a plentiful supply of my favorite load, 135gr+P Fed Tac Bonded.

[jd950]

Well shit. I have been a devotee to the Cult of the 147gr for over 15 years now.

I suggest that we keep this in perspective. I suspect even the "bad" HST2 will perform no worse than a lot of the ammo out there that is relied upon by many. Although we all want to have a round that behaves in as close to an ideal manner as possible, none of these are magic bullets. A properly placed "bad" HST2 should still do what needs to be done, although perhaps slightly less reliably or with less margin for error. Most of the fatal and serious injury handgun wounds that occur in this country each year involve ball ammo or other "less than ideal" ammo.

I think this situation warrants consideration of other options when it is time to purchase new ammo, and as a duty round may be suspect, but it is not like the stuff won't go bang when it needs to. I also see no need to write a eulogy for 147gr 9mm. Gold Dot is available in that weight in two variations and is well-regarded, Hornady offers an XTP (although I cannot speak to its performance) and Federal may well "tweak" the HST this week or next. Winchester still makes 147 and if they were to get their quality control situation in hand, that is a round that performs well.

Would I buy a case of HST2 right now? No, but I am not throwing away what I have, or relegating it to range only. At least not at this point. Still, I will not likely be buying more unless and until I have more information. I still consider 147gr non +p the best choice in a small 9mm gun. I will probably buy GD as the need arises to replenish.

[Wayne Dobbs]

Well shit. I have been a devotee to the Cult of the 147gr for over 15 years now. There's a Fat .50 can in my closet 28 boxes (50 rds each) of 147gr HST2. I bought most of that stuff from a department trade-in at GT Distributors. It came from a Sheriffs dept were the Sheriff wouldnt hear of his deputies carrying 9mm. It all got traded in for HST in .40 and .45. And here I was cocky as can be that I was ahead of an ammo crunch. Never would I have to buy defensive ammo at ever increasing prices. Fuck.

My thoughts re: auto glass as a Joe Citizen, I do care performance on autoglass and carbodies more than most other members of the citizenry. I drive a lot, doing my railroad thing. When I am out and about, and stopped, I find myself inside or around cars a lot!. My primary concern is still 4LD.

My second favorite load is 124gr+P GDHP. I have 500 rounds of it. I do not feel comfortable with switching SD loads with that quantity. I guess I'll stick with what I have.

BTW, Dallas PD was a long time user of the vaunted Winchester 147gr Ranger Talon (RA9T). They took care of bidness with that round. However Winchester QC/QA got 'em bad and they finally had enough. And right about that time Hornady stepped in as an all your depts ammo needs one stop shop.

Why oh why Ammo Gods, couldnt you have given me a plentiful supply of my favorite load, 135gr+P Fed Tac Bonded.

You guys should stop worrying about this change. When it's all boiled down, ammo choice is probably no more than 5% of the factors in a shooting going well or not. YOU are the major factor in success or failure.

[HCM]

You guys should stop worrying about this change. When it's all boiled down, ammo choice is probably no more than 5% of the factors in a shooting going well or not. YOU are the major factor in success or failure.

I liked this then unliked it so I could like it again.

[Wayne Dobbs]

I liked this then unliked it so I could like it again.

:D

[ArgentFix]

You guys should stop worrying about this change. When it's all boiled down, ammo choice is probably no more than 5% of the factors in a shooting going well or not. YOU are the major factor in success or failure.

For Joe Gunowner who shoots 200 rounds a year, ammo choice probably makes no difference whatsoever. But if I, a moderately-skilled shooter who carries, can afford to change brands to gain 5% effectiveness while I continue actively training, why wouldn't I? I suspect for the more proficient shooters here, a 5% effectiveness increase may only be possible through gear/ammo choices.

I'm not dumping my HST2 supply and I agree 100% with your premise. One-Shot-Mega-Kill rounds are no replacement for skill but I see no harm in chasing a better round while continuing to train.

[ssb]

I understand the "training trumps all" angle. I have a few hundred hours of that myself. And yet, nobody reputable recommends carrying ball ammo when well-designed JHP is available... probably because there are good reasons for doing so (safety is the first that comes to mind for me - more likely to remain in the body due to expansion).

[Bucky]

You guys should stop worrying about this change. When it's all boiled down, ammo choice is probably no more than 5% of the factors in a shooting going well or not. YOU are the major factor in success or failure.

This is true, but still nothing wrong with stacking the deck in your favor.

[Hot Sauce]

I just got a call from a rep at Federal. He initially denied (adamantly) that any changes had been made to the bullet design. After I pressed him a bit, he finally admitted that they changed the design to a double cannelure 3-5 years ago (this is consistent with other information I've been given). I told him that I'd heard rumors about under-expansion recently with the 147gr, and he said those rumors were false. This is obviously inconsistent with what has been posted in this thread, and also information received from members here via PM where Federal reps have admitted to limited instances of under-expansion.

The quality manager from Federal is supposed to call me tomorrow.
Assuming Federal (outside of this rep) knows of the complaints... what's stopping them from going back to the previous design that earned the HST such high repute?

[TC215]

Assuming Federal (outside of this rep) knows of the complaints... what's stopping them from going back to the previous design that earned the HST such high repute?

FWIW, they never called me back or emailed me like they said they would.

[blues]

FWIW, they never called me back or emailed me like they said they would.

I'd like to say I'm surprised...but...

[0ddl0t]

How can you tell if you have the "old" good to go 147gr HST or the "new" stuff? I replaced my 124gr +p Gold Dots for 147gr HST in my G19 a couple of years ago.
Since the main problem with the new 147 seems to be unreliable expansion it is easy enough to test whether yours reliably expand by shooting some old jeans laid over some gallon water jugs (water is roughly the same density as the average human tissue). The SMEs look down on me for doing so, but aside from water I'll also shoot into a mixture of 3 parts water to 2 parts 70% rubbing alcohol - a concoction with about the same density as body fat (and a more difficult medium for bullet expansion).

This won't tell you precisely what kind of penetration you'd get in ordnance gel, but it is an easy pass/fail test of expansion.



Also very interested in this thread.

I took Doc’s advice three years ago, verified 147 HST ran in my Glock 19, bought a bunch, and got on with focusing on shot placement.

Now, in 2020, I’m evaluating a swap to a shorter barrel pistol (P365/P365XL) for EDC and competition / training. This thread now gives me pause as to what to use in these two guns. So far, I’ve verified Speer 115 GD in the P365 and Federal 147 HST in the XL (no issues). I’d prefer to select one load for either/both for logistics ease. My options include Speer 115 GD, 124 GD, 124+p GD, Federal 124 HST, and 147 HST (that I’m familiar with. I’ll check Doc’s list for other options but these are the loads I can reliably purchase online and shoot POA in my limited experience.)

Any or all SME discussion on this is much appreciated.

Not an ammo SME, but I've shot over 15,000 rounds through a P365 and have done a bit of backyard ballistics testing with it. I wouldn't hesitate to use 147 HST in a P365 that reliably feeds it (some examples don't - Sig has a couple different P365 feed ramp designs). 147 HST wouldn't be the defense ammo that I'd go out of my way to purchase, but I wouldn't throw away a case I already had.

Personally I went with 124 +p HSTs when my sole focus was reliable expansion, but if I had it to do again I'd get 124 +P Gold Dots for a bit more penetration (at the expense of just a tiny bit of expansion).


The Speer 124 +P GDHP just keeps on working. I like the Federal 124 +P HST a lot and have found it very effective and accurate. I would test any +P loads carefully in the short guns to make sure the functional reliability is there.
^This


If I remember correctly, Hornady's 135gr +P Critical duty is also on Doc's list and is one of the rounds adopted by the FBI. How is it in short barrel guns?
Critical Duty doesn't always expand in 3" barrels (Hornady created the critical "defense" line to fill that niche, but I don't believe it was intended for barriers like autoglass).

[4given]

Since the main problem with the new 147 seems to be unreliable expansion it is easy enough to test whether yours reliably expand by shooting some old jeans laid over some gallon water jugs (water is roughly the same density as the average human tissue). The SMEs look down on me for doing so, but aside from water I'll also shoot into a mixture of 3 parts water to 2 parts 70% rubbing alcohol - a concoction with about the same density as body fat (and a more difficult medium for bullet expansion).

This won't tell you precisely what kind of penetration you'd get in ordnance gel, but it is an easy pass/fail test of expansion.




Not an ammo SME, but I've shot over 15,000 rounds through a P365 and have done a bit of backyard ballistics testing with it. I wouldn't hesitate to use 147 HST in a P365 that reliably feeds it (some examples don't - Sig has a couple different P365 feed ramp designs). 147 HST wouldn't be the defense ammo that I'd go out of my way to purchase, but I wouldn't throw away a case I already had.

Personally I went with 124 +p HSTs when my sole focus was reliable expansion, but if I had it to do again I'd get 124 +P Gold Dots for a bit more penetration (at the expense of just a tiny bit of expansion).


^This


Critical Duty doesn't always expand in 3" barrels (Hornady created the critical "defense" line to fill that niche, but I don't believe it was intended for barriers like autoglass).

Thanks for the detailed reply. I have decided to move on and go back to the Speer 124gr + P Gold Dot in my G19. Tried and true. I have several boxes on backorder and will change out my ammo when it arrives.

I use 124 gr HST standard pressure in my P365. I'll stick with that for the forseeable future.

[Velo Dog]

So what I'm gathering is that I'm sitting on 1500+ rounds of ammo that probably won't expand when fired through the 4LD test, despite all the consistent recommendation for this load from the SME types which continued even after the production change in 2017 or so?



Since the main problem with the new 147 seems to be unreliable expansion it is easy enough to test whether yours reliably expand by shooting some old jeans laid over some gallon water jugs (water is roughly the same density as the average human tissue). The SMEs look down on me for doing so, but aside from water I'll also shoot into a mixture of 3 parts water to 2 parts 70% rubbing alcohol - a concoction with about the same density as body fat (and a more difficult medium for bullet expansion).

This won't tell you precisely what kind of penetration you'd get in ordnance gel, but it is an easy pass/fail test of expansion.

This is the reason why I'm less critical of amateur ballistic testing than many knowledgeable posters.

Good service caliber handgun ammo tends to work as expected almost regardless of the test medium.

This 2018 test of the redesigned 147 grain HST was done with Clear Ballistics Gel.

https://www.ammunitiontogo.com/product_info.php/pName/20rds-9mm-federal-personal-defense-147gr-hst-jhp-ammo#gel-test

Although 10% ordnance gelatin would be more definitive, I found the inconsistent expansion troubling.

This less-than-perfect test protocol result combined with reports of lower velocity than past loadings were enough for me to question whether the current offering would still expand reliably from a short barrel.

[the Schwartz]

Since the main problem with the new 147 seems to be unreliable expansion it is easy enough to test whether yours reliably expand by shooting some old jeans laid over some gallon water jugs (water is roughly the same density as the average human tissue). The SMEs look down on me for doing so, but aside from water I'll also shoot into a mixture of 3 parts water to 2 parts 70% rubbing alcohol - a concoction with about the same density as body fat (and a more difficult medium for bullet expansion).

This won't tell you precisely what kind of penetration you'd get in ordnance gel, but it is an easy pass/fail test of expansion.

That (the determination of penetration depth in a human soft tissue simulant) is kind of the point, is it not? Sure, anyone can assign an arbitrary pass/fail value in any material that you choose, but other than what happens in that unknown/unproven test medium, what significance does it have to how it will expand and penetrate in the human body?


This is the reason why I'm less critical of amateur ballistic testing than many knowledgeable posters.

Good service caliber handgun ammo tends to work as expected almost regardless of the test medium.

This 2018 test of the redesigned 147 grain HST was done with Clear Ballistics Gel.

https://www.ammunitiontogo.com/product_info.php/pName/20rds-9mm-federal-personal-defense-147gr-hst-jhp-ammo#gel-test

Although 10% ordnance gelatin would be more definitive, I found the inconsistent expansion troubling.

This less-than-perfect test protocol result combined with reports of lower velocity than past loadings were enough for me to question whether the current offering would still expand reliably from a short barrel.

By admitting that one is relying upon a test protocol (and an absolutely unproven test medium) that has no basis in scientific rigor, how can anyone expect to see anything other than inconsistent expansion?

At this time, there are two—and only two—valid test mediums that have proven to correlate to terminal ballistic performance in human soft tissue; BB-validated 10% ordnance gelatin and H2O. Relying upon upon an unknown/uncorrelated test medium produces data that is comparable only within that unknown/uncorrelated test medium and has NO predictive value for performance in human soft tissues.

In other words, anything worth doing is worth doing right.

[0ddl0t]

That (the determination of penetration depth in a human soft tissue simulant) is kind of the point, is it not? Sure, anyone can assign an arbitrary pass/fail value in any material that you choose, but other than what happens in that unknown/unproven test medium, what significance does it have to how it will expand and penetrate in the human body?

It relies on the assumption that *if* it expands in water or alcohol/water, a "good to go" bullet from Doc's list will probably perform as expected and penetrate a reasonable amount in human tissue. If it doesn't expand, it probably won't perform as expected and you should probably pick something else given that plenty of other options do expand (unless motivated to go through the hassle and expense of verifying with ordnance gel).

For example, if you shoot some "good to go" critical duty from a Kahr PM9 or Sig P365 into 4 layers of denim over water or alcohol/water you'll find that it often fails to expand (or just barely expands). That is useful information inexpensively obtained, no?

Surely you wouldn't declare totally worthless a layman's function test of shooting a box of carry ammo into a paper target, so why not have him expend 5 or 10 of those rounds into inexpensive, widely available media approximating human tissue density to check if the ammo is reasonably likely to expand at the velocities obtained from his carry gun? Just consider it 1 additional function check almost any layperson can perform - not an end all, be all, test of terminal performance.

[JAD]

That doesn’t make any sense. If something is properly tested and you have results, testing it improperly yourself has no value and is in fact negative if results contradict appropriate test results. If something isn’t properly tested and you don’t have the means and experience to properly test it yourself, don’t use it.

[the Schwartz]

It relies on the assumption that *if* it expands in water or alcohol/water, a "good to go" bullet from Doc's list will probably perform as expected and penetrate a reasonable amount in human tissue. If it doesn't expand, it probably won't perform as expected and you should probably pick something else given that plenty of other options do expand (unless motivated to go through the hassle and expense of verifying with ordnance gel).

For example, if you shoot some "good to go" critical duty from a Kahr PM9 or Sig P365 into 4 layers of denim over water or alcohol/water you'll find that it often fails to expand (or just barely expands). That is useful information inexpensively obtained, no?

Surely you wouldn't declare totally worthless a layman's function test of shooting a box of carry ammo into a paper target, so why not have him expend 5 or 10 of those rounds into inexpensive, widely available media approximating human tissue density to check if the ammo is reasonably likely to expand at the velocities obtained from his carry gun? Just consider it 1 additional function check almost any layperson can perform - not an end all, be all, test of terminal performance.


That doesn’t make any sense. If something is properly tested and you have results, testing it improperly yourself has no value and is in fact negative if results contradict appropriate test results. If something isn’t properly tested and you don’t have the means and experience to properly test it yourself, don’t use it.

JAD hits it outta the park!

[Velo Dog]

If something is properly tested and you have results, testing it improperly yourself has no value and is in fact negative if results contradict appropriate test results.

I mostly agree with your sentiment, but consider an "improper" test that is now widely regarded as equal or superior to the proper test - the IWBA 4-layer denim test.

The FBI heavy clothing test is still the standard and represents typical clothing layers that actual people are likely to wear. The 4-layers of denim test was a cheap and easy way to test the potential for robust hollow-point expansion, but does not represent the simulation of specific clothing. The 4 layers of denim are more apt to plug a hollow-point cavity, therefore, ammo that does well in the 4-layer denim test should also perform well in the FBI heavy clothing test. The IWBA test was devised because an excessive number of "good" hollow points were not expanding in real shootings.

I would not choose to rely solely on unprofessional testing, but I have noticed that the best modern hollow points tend to expand well in both organic and synthetic gel blocks, as well as, water jugs, watermelons, wet newsprint, etc. When that no longer happens, more proper testing may reveal a design change or poor quality control.

[the Schwartz]

I mostly agree with your sentiment, but consider an "improper" test that is now widely regarded as equal or superior to the proper test - the IWBA 4-layer denim test.

The FBI heavy clothing test is still the standard and represents typical clothing layers that actual people are likely to wear. The 4-layers of denim test was a cheap and easy way to test the potential for robust hollow-point expansion, but does not represent the simulation of specific clothing. The 4 layers of denim are more apt to plug a hollow-point cavity, therefore, ammo that does well in the 4-layer denim test should also perform well in the FBI heavy clothing test. The IWBA test was devised because an excessive number of "good" hollow points were not expanding in real shootings.

I would not choose to rely solely on unprofessional testing, but I have noticed that the best modern hollow points tend to expand well in both organic and synthetic gel blocks, as well as, water jugs, watermelons, wet newsprint, etc. When that no longer happens, more proper testing may reveal a design change or poor quality control.

I can't help but wonder, Velo Dog, but why would anyone—including an ammunition manufacturer—care about what a JHP design would do in any non-standardized/uncorrelated terminal ballistic test medium so long as it performs correctly in the two known valid terminal ballistic test mediums?

[Velo Dog]

I can't help but wonder, Velo Dog, but why would anyone—including an ammunition manufacturer—care about what a JHP design would do in any non-standardized/uncorrelated terminal ballistic test medium so long as it performs correctly in the two known valid terminal ballistic test mediums?

The question I would ask is "Does that JHP still perform correctly in the two known valid terminal ballistic test mediums?"

If the answer is "yes" then the ammo should still perform as designed in actual shootings.

If the answer is "no" then some non-standardized testing also indicated a change in performance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrIiclxyKKI

[the Schwartz]

The question I would ask is "Does that JHP still perform correctly in the two known valid terminal ballistic test mediums?"

Well, that was the predicate (underlined below) of the question that I asked here, in my prior post above:


I can't help but wonder, Velo Dog, but why would anyone—including an ammunition manufacturer—care about what a JHP design would do in any non-standardized/uncorrelated terminal ballistic test medium so long as it performs correctly in the two known valid terminal ballistic test mediums?

So, all you've done is rephrase the question that I posed above.

The answer to the question that I posed to you is really quite simple.

There is no need to confirm the improper (or proper) terminal ballistic performance of ammunition in an uncorrelated, non-standard test medium—as you suggest below—



If the answer is "yes" then the ammo should still perform as designed in actual shootings.

If the answer is "no" then some non-standardized testing also indicated a change in performance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrIiclxyKKI

—because any data obtained through testing in any uncorrelated, non-standard test medium is incomparable to data obtained in existing correlated test mediums. Accordingly, data obtained through testing in any uncorrelated, non-standard test medium is also incomparable to data taken from actual shootings where human soft tissue(s) is involved.

[blues]

This calls for a philosophical discussion of epistemology.

How we know what we know, and how we know we know it.

[Robert Mitchum]

Target Sports' USA has them in stock.
Speer Gold Dot LE Duty 9mm Luger Ammo 124 Grain +P Jacketed Hollow Point
https://www.targetsportsusa.com/9mm-luger-ammo-c-51.aspx

[the Schwartz]

This calls for a philosophical discussion of epistemology.

How we know what we know, and how we know we know it.


Whoa, blues, that is one helluva a tangent from the OP's first post (which related to testing proposed issue ammunition) and in a technical forum, no less. :D

I am sure that a profound philosophical discussion of a priori and a posteriori knowledge will clarify all of this.*










*Not!

[4given]

Thanks for the detailed reply. I have decided to move on and go back to the Speer 124gr + P Gold Dot in my G19. Tried and true. I have several boxes on backorder and will change out my ammo when it arrives.

I use 124 gr HST standard pressure in my P365. I'll stick with that for the forseeable future.

Well, it turns out the back order is an estimated 3 months or more. Fortunataly I found 50 round boxes of factory fresh 124gr +P HST in stock at a local shop. That works too!

Thanks for the heads up on the 147's folks.

[witchking777]

So,have we received any actual yay/nay definitive evidence from either Doc,Federal,etc? I'd hate to dump perfectly good ammo on what is mainly unsubstantiated hearsay? If there were pictures that would go a long way towards easing my mind,especially since EVERY single round I've fired through animals and 4 layer denim/water has expanded every time,albeit not perfectly.

[BehindBlueI's]

So,have we received any actual yay/nay definitive evidence from either Doc,Federal,etc? I'd hate to dump perfectly good ammo on what is mainly unsubstantiated hearsay? If there were pictures that would go a long way towards easing my mind,especially since EVERY single round I've fired through animals and 4 layer denim/water has expanded every time,albeit not perfectly.

I've asked around with some folks that I think would know and haven't nailed anyone down on anything, but it seems like there's always rumblings and rumors. So at this point no fire but some smoke. I'm not dumping mine, FWIW.

[TC215]

So,have we received any actual yay/nay definitive evidence from either Doc,Federal,etc? I'd hate to dump perfectly good ammo on what is mainly unsubstantiated hearsay? If there were pictures that would go a long way towards easing my mind,especially since EVERY single round I've fired through animals and 4 layer denim/water has expanded every time,albeit not perfectly.

I don’t think it’s unsubstantiated hearsay when Chuck Haggard is posting here with what he’s seen first hand.

I’ve also been able to confirm what the OP posted with a different individual.

[ldunnmobile]

Target Sports' USA has them in stock.
Speer Gold Dot LE Duty 9mm Luger Ammo 124 Grain +P Jacketed Hollow Point
https://www.targetsportsusa.com/9mm-luger-ammo-c-51.aspx

Is the 124gr still considered a top option?

[revchuck38]

Is the 124gr still considered a top option?

Yup. It's on Doc's list, and those of us who don't carry the 147s are using 124s in either standard or +P in Gold Dots or HST.

[witchking777]

I've asked around with some folks that I think would know and haven't nailed anyone down on anything, but it seems like there's always rumblings and rumors. So at this point no fire but some smoke. I'm not dumping mine, FWIW.
Alrighty. I'll keep carrying it,it's super accurate,has fed 100% reliably,and has been one shot stops on coyotes and jackrabbits.

[witchking777]

I don’t think it’s unsubstantiated hearsay when Chuck Haggard is posting here with what he’s seen first hand.

I’ve also been able to confirm what the OP posted with a different individual.

Can you IM me some more info please? I respect Chuck a lot,it's my skepticism rearing it's ugly head without photographic or first hand evidence to support said claims.

[RJ]

Is the 124gr still considered a top option?

I sure hope so, I’ve got a few boxes of Gold Dot 124+p on the way to supplement my stash of Federal HST 147. I’m confident either will get the job done, but it’s good to have options.

[TC215]

Can you IM me some more info please? I respect Chuck a lot,it's my skepticism rearing it's ugly head without photographic or first hand evidence to support said claims.

I’ve talked to Chuck, he said he would take some pictures next time he shot gel.

I’ve had several people ask for me to message them more info— and I definitely want to— but I gave my word that I would not repeat the info I received. I don’t want to get anyone in trouble at work.

[witchking777]

I sure hope so, I’ve got a few boxes of Gold Dot 124+p on the way to supplement my stash of Federal HST 147. I’m confident either will get the job done, but it’s good to have options.
I agree. While 9mm fmj has gone pants on head you know what,the 124 +p Gold Dot and HST are still available. I'll grab a few boxes of each and test for function accuracy etc.

[witchking777]

I’ve talked to Chuck, he said he would take some pictures next time he shot gel.

I’ve had several people ask for me to message them more info— and I definitely want to— but I gave my word that I would not repeat the info I received. I don’t want to get anyone in trouble at work.
Thanks,I appreciate it and agree 100%.

[Navin Johnson]

Thanks,I appreciate it and agree 100%.

What is it that you're hoping the pictures will prove or disprove?

[RJ]

I agree. While 9mm fmj has gone pants on head you know what,the 124 +p Gold Dot and HST are still available. I'll grab a few boxes of each and test for function accuracy etc.

I got mine from targetsportsusa at $39.99/50. Still showing in stock. I figured I’d buy it while I could.

https://www.targetsportsusa.com/speer-gold-dot-law-enforcement-duty-9mm-luger-ammo-124-grain-jhp-53617-p-58577.aspx

[witchking777]

What is it that you're hoping the pictures will prove or disprove?

That I don't need to dump a vetted round that I have a bunch of...that is accurate and has performed for me personally 100%.

[Navin Johnson]

That I don't need to dump a vetted round that I have a bunch of...that is accurate and has performed for me personally 100%.

Post number 80 is your huckleberry.

Yes I know the quote is Huckle bearer

[DacoRoman]

I have three quarters of a case left of the HST 147 standard. It'd be disappointing to have to use it up as training ammo...but...will do what needs to be done.

I might opt for 124 Gold Dot (standard) in the G26...and 124 +P HST in the G19 and G17 as I have some of each round on hand. But I'll await further info.

Seems there's no escape. It started a couple years back with the Winchester Ranger RA38B issue, though mine have proven to be fine.


Have there been any issues with running 124 +P ammo in G26's?

[Joe Mac]

Have there been any issues with running 124 +P ammo in G26's?

Nope! :)

[blues]

Have there been any issues with running 124 +P ammo in G26's?

Neither the HST 124 +P, nor the Gold Dot 124 Standard have had any issues running in my G26's.

[WobblyPossum]

Have there been any issues with running 124 +P ammo in G26's?

NYPD and ICE, among other large agencies, issue the 124 +P Gold Dots and mandate the round for all issued/approved handguns so there are a lot of G26s running that round out there. I have neither seen nor heard of any issues.

[Detmongo]

i have put in excess of 25,000 rds of 124 +p Gold Dot thru a Glock 26 with no isuues.

[witchking777]

This is odd....the last time I saw something like this is when the first gen Speer G2 Gold Dot had failures to expand....https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1022702516?pid=768843&utm_medium=shopping&utm_source=ammo-seek&utm_campaign=768843

[the Schwartz]

This is odd....the last time I saw something like this is when the first gen Speer G2 Gold Dot had failures to expand....https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1022702516?pid=768843&utm_medium=shopping&utm_source=ammo-seek&utm_campaign=768843

Recently, I happened across that very same page. That sort of packaging (denoting the ammunition as being for "training") is pretty suggestive that the ammunition contained within is not necessarily defective, but deficient in it's performance some way...perhaps 'factory seconds' due to some sort of error in the manufacturing process.

[Moonshot]

Its been a couple of years now since the 147gr HST has been revised, and questions about the new version’s effectiveness continue. I’ve got some of the old and some of the new. I’m not ready yet to swap this out for something else, particularly with the current shortage, but when people like Chuck Haggard are raising concerns, I start to listen more closely.

Is there any likelihood that the doctor will be testing this new version and reporting on it, particularly out of a short barrel? I suppose I could PM him myself, but he is a busy man and I’m a nobody. Just hoping he can put this discussion to rest.

[4given]

Its been a couple of years now since the 147gr HST has been revised, and questions about the new version’s effectiveness continue. I’ve got some of the old and some of the new. I’m not ready yet to swap this out for something else, particularly with the current shortage, but when people like Chuck Haggard are raising concerns, I start to listen more closely.

Is there any likelihood that the doctor will be testing this new version and reporting on it, particularly out of a short barrel? I suppose I could PM him myself, but he is a busy man and I’m a nobody. Just hoping he can put this discussion to rest.

Due to the current shortage, I did not find it difficult to sell my HST 147 in order to help fund my purchase of HST 124gr +P.

[Navin Johnson]

Its been a couple of years now since the 147gr HST has been revised, and questions about the new version’s effectiveness continue. I’ve got some of the old and some of the new. I’m not ready yet to swap this out for something else, particularly with the current shortage, but when people like Chuck Haggard are raising concerns, I start to listen more closely.

Is there any likelihood that the doctor will be testing this new version and reporting on it, particularly out of a short barrel? I suppose I could PM him myself, but he is a busy man and I’m a nobody. Just hoping he can put this discussion to rest.


If it goes bang and is accurate your skill set will mean more than it's TP.

[parishioner]

147 HST has been my go to, however in light of the info presented I attempted to run the speer 124 +p load in my 43x this morning despite reports that this combo did not work well and can confirm.

FTF on round 9 of the first magazine. I didn’t attempt anymore.

I won’t be getting rid of my stash of HST 147 but I do hope this gets sorted. I’ll be on the look out for 147 G2 in the meantime to test

[jd950]

If it goes bang and is accurate your skill set will mean more than it's TP.

That is true. On the other hand, this is the ammunition forum, so it would seem to me that discussing ammo performance and characteristics, and changes in a particular brand's performance over time is an appropriate topic here. I feel it is reasonable and worthwhile to discuss a particular loading when knowledgeable start talking about a load that has been well-regarded for years and is "on the list" and say things like:

"I'm not a fan and neither was the range staff due to some issues in shootings with it"

"I watched the 147 HST go through auto glass and lodge base first only a few inches into the gel. The original loading was known for opening to a very large diameter. The new version isn't opening as large or at all after heavy clothing. Something that seems to be happening on our streets as well."

"We were seeing some them not expanding and pass throughs. We had several shootings with them since we switched to the 9mm. I don’t have an exact number. We wanted something more consistent."

"This used to be my go-to recommendation for short 9mm pistols. For several years. Now, not so much. I used to be able to do demo test shots in my small pistols class to show what we want to see from a good bullet design. Typically in Clear Gel, which I use just as an illustration, the HSTs and Gold Dots expand nicely through four layer denim, run the length of the block, and stop on the "clothing" I have on the back side to catch them. Over the past year I've been seeing failures from the 147gr HST, as in they completely fail to expand, thus act like a FMJFP."

So, yes, it is the shooter that matters more than the ammo, but if a "recommended" load has been changed by the mfr and now is likely to fail to expand in real world scenarios, then that is a discussion well-suited to the forum.

Besides, many people have to spend their own money on ammo, and if a shopper is standing in the store with a box of brand X in one hand and brand Y in the other and they both are going to cost that shopper something like $.80 per round, and one of those brands now sucks, then I suspect that shopper would like to know this stuff, and if he or she is going to make a decision based on Doc's "list" and one of those rounds really should not be on that list anymore, then we are doing a disservice to that person by not discussing the situation.

[Navin Johnson]

That is true. On the other hand, this is the ammunition forum, so it would seem to me that discussing ammo performance and characteristics, and changes in a particular brand's performance over time is an appropriate topic here. I feel it is reasonable and worthwhile to discuss a particular loading when knowledgeable start talking about a load that has been well-regarded for years and is "on the list" and say things like:

"I'm not a fan and neither was the range staff due to some issues in shootings with it"

"I watched the 147 HST go through auto glass and lodge base first only a few inches into the gel. The original loading was known for opening to a very large diameter. The new version isn't opening as large or at all after heavy clothing. Something that seems to be happening on our streets as well."

"We were seeing some them not expanding and pass throughs. We had several shootings with them since we switched to the 9mm. I don’t have an exact number. We wanted something more consistent."

"This used to be my go-to recommendation for short 9mm pistols. For several years. Now, not so much. I used to be able to do demo test shots in my small pistols class to show what we want to see from a good bullet design. Typically in Clear Gel, which I use just as an illustration, the HSTs and Gold Dots expand nicely through four layer denim, run the length of the block, and stop on the "clothing" I have on the back side to catch them. Over the past year I've been seeing failures from the 147gr HST, as in they completely fail to expand, thus act like a FMJFP."

So, yes, it is the shooter that matters more than the ammo, but if a "recommended" load has been changed by the mfr and now is likely to fail to expand in real world scenarios, then that is a discussion well-suited to the forum.

Besides, many people have to spend their own money on ammo, and if a shopper is standing in the store with a box of brand X in one hand and brand Y in the other and they both are going to cost that shopper something like $.80 per round, and one of those brands now sucks, then I suspect that shopper would like to know this stuff, and if he or she is going to make a decision based on Doc's "list" and one of those rounds really should not be on that list anymore, then we are doing a disservice to that person by not discussing the situation.


I feel ya you obviously have real world experience and are not basing your ramblings on second hand information. My response would not have been the same to you.

There are many people asking finite ammunition questions that have probably never put an entire box of that ammo through their gun.

It's amazing they survived 10 or 15 years ago when HST was not available.

also amazing how quickly the average consumer who does pay a lot for the ammo abandons for instance gold dots which work really really well for something that might be slightly better.

I'm curious at the concerned contacted the manufacturer yet.

please keep us updated as this may be an ammunition I would look at using someday in the future when my 3000 rounds of gold dots run out.

[the Schwartz]

That is true. On the other hand, this is the ammunition forum, so it would seem to me that discussing ammo performance and characteristics, and changes in a particular brand's performance over time is an appropriate topic here. I feel it is reasonable and worthwhile to discuss a particular loading when knowledgeable start talking about a load that has been well-regarded for years and is "on the list" and say things like:

"I'm not a fan and neither was the range staff due to some issues in shootings with it"

"I watched the 147 HST go through auto glass and lodge base first only a few inches into the gel. The original loading was known for opening to a very large diameter. The new version isn't opening as large or at all after heavy clothing. Something that seems to be happening on our streets as well."

"We were seeing some them not expanding and pass throughs. We had several shootings with them since we switched to the 9mm. I don’t have an exact number. We wanted something more consistent."

"This used to be my go-to recommendation for short 9mm pistols. For several years. Now, not so much. I used to be able to do demo test shots in my small pistols class to show what we want to see from a good bullet design. Typically in Clear Gel, which I use just as an illustration, the HSTs and Gold Dots expand nicely through four layer denim, run the length of the block, and stop on the "clothing" I have on the back side to catch them. Over the past year I've been seeing failures from the 147gr HST, as in they completely fail to expand, thus act like a FMJFP."

So, yes, it is the shooter that matters more than the ammo, but if a "recommended" load has been changed by the mfr and now is likely to fail to expand in real world scenarios, then that is a discussion well-suited to the forum.

Besides, many people have to spend their own money on ammo, and if a shopper is standing in the store with a box of brand X in one hand and brand Y in the other and they both are going to cost that shopper something like $.80 per round, and one of those brands now sucks, then I suspect that shopper would like to know this stuff, and if he or she is going to make a decision based on Doc's "list" and one of those rounds really should not be on that list anymore, then we are doing a disservice to that person by not discussing the situation.

There's always the option of water-testing a small amount of whatever you happen to have on hand.

Even if it is just verify that the ammunition that you have will expand, running a small sample of your EDC/SD inventory into water jugs/baggies should provide confirmation of their ability to perform. Water is a strong discriminant for expansion. If a JHP won't expand when it strikes a water test medium, it probably won't expand in other heterogeneous mediums—like soft tissue—either. Water-testing can include any barrier that you want; there are no limitations.

[Naphtali]

If 147gr HST was relevant to you before they screwed it up, then just switch to 147gr Gold Dots. Terminal performance is outstanding in all FBI and IWBA gel tests. And Speer has the best pistol ammo QC in the world for many years now.

If you're not running suppressed, the supersonic Gold Dots mentioned previously are also excellent.

Google the slightly old but still very relevant Self Defense Ammo FAQ. If your carry / duty ammo isn't on it, there's a near-100% chance that you should change your ammo.

[0ddl0t]

If 147gr HST was relevant to you before they screwed it up, then just switch to 147gr Gold Dots. Terminal performance is outstanding in all FBI and IWBA gel tests.

All except from short barrel:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCmxakFAFRo

(Yes the bare gel test used clear ballistics gel, but the IWBA denim test used ordnance gel)

[Naphtali]

All except from short barrel:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCmxakFAFRo

(Yes the bare gel test used clear ballistics gel, but the IWBA denim test used ordnance gel)

ATK's testing for years has never shown this, though I don't think they've used barrels under 4" (they've put on an enormous number of ballistic gelatin workshops over the years). I didn't see any methodology flaws in this vid, but I was just taking their word for it that they did everything as correctly as they claimed to, so that doesn't mean they performed the testing properly. There's an enormous amount of prior testing of this round including 4-layer denim since the early 2000s that did not demonstrate this issue - again, 4+ inch barrels.

I'm going to ask Speer about this vid and will post their response. If true, then I'd say the "don't use 147gr Gold Dots in 3" barrels" concern is probably relevant to a very small percentage of 9mm users, though would certainly be important to know.

[revchuck38]

^^^^^I’m not sure the numbers of 9x19 users who prefer 147s in their compact pistols could be considered “very small”, at least on this forum. The combination of 147s and G26s, Shields, and 365s seems to be pretty popular around here.

[Naphtali]

^^^^^I’m not sure the numbers of 9x19 users who prefer 147s in their compact pistols could be considered “very small”, at least on this forum. The combination of 147s and G26s, Shields, and 365s seems to be pretty popular around here.

Perhaps. Obviously would be relevant for all of them. It gets very hard to find loads that pass FBI testing protocols in short barrels - e.g. nothing does in .380. And for .38 special there is only one round that passes barrier testing - the 135gr +P Gold Dot.

http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/self_defense_ammo_FAQ/#mozTocId634569

[Navin Johnson]

Perhaps. Obviously would be relevant for all of them. It gets very hard to find loads that pass FBI testing protocols in short barrels - e.g. nothing does in .380. And for .38 special there is only one round that passes barrier testing - the 135gr +P Gold Dot.

http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/self_defense_ammo_FAQ/#mozTocId634569

Did you just link to another website that has information from this website?

[perlslacker]

The problems, as I see it, with choosing a carry load for a short-barreled pistol are:

1. ATK/Winchester/etc only release test data w/ duty pistols (AFAIK)
2. YouTube testers who test in short barrels have sketchy methodologies. I don't trust their results.
3. Government entities who might do their own testing with backup weapons don't release their data.

Not that Chuck isn't a reliable and respected fella, but I hate that the best source of info we have is anecdotal forum posts.

[Navin Johnson]

So..... What law enforcement agencies or US government agencies does ammo quest do testing for?

His comparison to a 380 and a 115 gold dot ..... About as relevant as some idiot shooting 300 blackout through watermelons. How does that 380 or 115 gold dot do through barriers?

I would take a bullet that goes 23 inches any day before one that goes 10 inches.

No doubt the 147 gold Dot doesn't perform the best out of 3-inch gun..... Everything about a 3-inch gun is a compromise.... Reliability and accuracy are far far above the stupid s*** he covered in that video.

124+p may do better but the recoil would be ridiculous in a small gun I don't even like it g26.

Very few 9 mm pistols that are reliable and accurate and durable have three inch barrels.

If two non-height /weight proportional likely pre-diabetic gentlemen thought you had a pretty mouth and wanted to acquire some of your possessions with minimal or no compensation in the middle of nowhere..... 90 grain 380 or..... 147 gold Dot out of a 3-in barrel?

[Naphtali]

The problems, as I see it, with choosing a carry load for a short-barreled pistol are:

1. ATK/Winchester/etc only release test data w/ duty pistols (AFAIK)
2. YouTube testers who test in short barrels have sketchy methodologies. I don't trust their results.
3. Government entities who might do their own testing with backup weapons don't release their data.

Not that Chuck isn't a reliable and respected fella, but I hate that the best source of info we have is anecdotal forum posts.

You have an excellent resource for duty ammo that passes FBI / IWBA protocol gel testing. It's the Self Defense Ammo FAQ. Every round on it was tested with all protocols conforming to FBI standards and is the widely accepted gold standard terminal ballistics data for those rounds.

[Naphtali]

Did you just link to another website that has information from this website?

Did you just ask a question you know the answer to?

Does the answer to your question matter?

[revchuck38]

Navin Johnson - FWIW, 124 +P isn’t that bad from a small gun. I’ve got several hundred rounds of HST through my P99c, including the hundred I shot in one range session to vet it, with no problems or ill effects. I’ve also gone through most of two 500-round cases of Winchester NATO spec hardball (which chronos about the same as +P) in that gun, including a class with about 300 rounds. I’m not some buff warrior but a geezer. And that performance, from what I’ve read, is par for the course for most of the compact 9s.

[Naphtali]

Navin Johnson - FWIW, 124 +P isn’t that bad from a small gun. I’ve got several hundred rounds of HST through my P99c, including the hundred I shot in one range session to vet it, with no problems or ill effects. I’ve also gone through most of two 500-round cases of Winchester NATO spec hardball (which chronos about the same as +P) in that gun, including a class with about 300 rounds. I’m not some buff warrior but a geezer. And that performance, from what I’ve read, is par for the course for most of the compact 9s.

Agreed. 135+P Gold Dots through my .38 S&W J Frame is not bad.

[blues]

Agreed. 135+P Gold Dots through my .38 S&W J Frame is not bad.

Same with Winchester RA38B 130 gr +P in a 642-1 J frame.

I don't find HST 124+P in a Glock 26 problematic either. And the 124 standard (Gold Dot) is a reasonable alternative for those who might.

[Navin Johnson]

I find that 147's (and full wad-cutters in a J) are easier or more controllable SHO/WHO.

124+P 9 and 135+P .38 are fine just not as easy for me.

But I appreciate the encouragement.

[Bucky]

Navin Johnson - FWIW, 124 +P isn’t that bad from a small gun. I’ve got several hundred rounds of HST through my P99c, including the hundred I shot in one range session to vet it, with no problems or ill effects. I’ve also gone through most of two 500-round cases of Winchester NATO spec hardball (which chronos about the same as +P) in that gun, including a class with about 300 rounds. I’m not some buff warrior but a geezer. And that performance, from what I’ve read, is par for the course for most of the compact 9s.

There are small guns, and then there are Small guns. I think there is a big difference in in the thicker chopped down full size guns, like the G26 or your P99C, in the slimline small guns like the G43, P365, etc. The latter will be more affected by the +P loads in terms of recoil, reliability, and wear.

[revchuck38]

Bucky - Good point, I don’t have anything that small.

[Brian T]

Did you just link to another website that has information from this website?

The information linked on that website has been available there longer than this forum has existed. Doc Roberts' data has been on Arfcom's Ammo Oracle for damned near 20 years.

[witchking777]

Why oh why Ammo Gods, couldnt you have given me a plentiful supply of my favorite load, 135gr+P Fed Tac Bonded.

Gunbroker has the Tac Bonded.

[witchking777]

Any new updates to this?

[PD Sgt.]

Sorry, a bit late to this discussion. The performance deficits out of short barrels discussed earlier for 147g GD are recognized by Speer. The below link includes a quote from a Speer rep stating as much.

https://www.guns.com/news/2019/04/30/speer-ammo-brings-gold-dot-g2-to-consumer-market

Our agency recently switched to the 147g GD as a duty ammo. I brought this article to the attention of our FTU sergeant, who had not heard of these issues before. Following a few phone calls as I understand it, those of us who are authorized compact or down sized pistols from the duty gun were authorized to continue with the 124g +P GD, our previous loading. Personally, I would prefer to just use the 124 for everything to avoid confusion and simplify logistics, but I will settle for little victories.

[Pit]

How does the Winchester Ranger T measure up to the HST / G2? The Winchester ammo is state bid in Illinois. Several area departments have been transitioning to it in 9mm 124 +p and 147, 40 S&W 180, and 45 ACP 230. Is this still the round used by LAPD? I don't believe in a magic bullet but do like to get the most for our department's buck. I just have to document why I would deviate from the state bid. Any verified info is appreciated.

JW

[witchking777]

How does the Winchester Ranger T measure up to the HST / G2? The Winchester ammo is state bid in Illinois. Several area departments have been transitioning to it in 9mm 124 +p and 147, 40 S&W 180, and 45 ACP 230. Is this still the round used by LAPD? I don't believe in a magic bullet but do like to get the most for our department's buck. I just have to document why I would deviate from the state bid. Any verified info is appreciated.
Other than Doc's testing HST outperforms Ranger T,both in expansion and penetration. Winchester has some spotty QC issues with their ammo too.
JW

[jd950]

"Other than Doc's testing HST outperforms Ranger T, both in expansion and penetration. Winchester has some spotty QC issues with their ammo too."

Well, that is kind of the point of this discussion, at least if we are talking about the 147gr. The testing was done on essentially a "different" cartridge and as far as I know, no one has performed appropriate tests on the new formula. According to some early posters in this thread, including Chuck Haggard, the current HST 147gr performs poorly. Perhaps even very poorly. Unfortunately, whatever the data or circumstances are that support the negative comments, they are state secrets, or something.

I suspect since 147gr is not the current hotness in duty 9mm, Doc is unlikely to test it anytime soon.

So maybe the Ranger is better now. Maybe not. No one knows and looking at earlier tests of the HST is apparently not worthwhile anymore. As far as I can tell, although Winchester has a poor QC reputation, that may be based on something from the past and no longer valid. According to a couple local agencies that issue it and in response to a question I posted here on PF, current duty-grade ammo seems to be reliable. It has apparently been approved for some federal federal contracts, so there is that, FWIW.

It is a shame, because the old 147 HST had a quality that not many other 9mm rounds could match; it performed equally well as a duty round out of a 4-5" barrel as it did in a backup of off duty gun with a 3" barrel. Apparently its weakness was that it did not do so well through windshield glass, so ATK tweaked it to do better in that situation but in the process, broke the performance in other areas. Please note that this is what I am taking away from what I have read in this and other threads and is not based on personal testing or observations.

And before anyone says it, yes, mindset and marksmanship matter more than the specific bullet, and Doc's advice to pick an "approved" round and test it, then rely on it and don't sweat the details, is good advice. But once one understands and applies the mindset and marksmanship, better performing ammo is, well, better performing, and usually costs about the same, so it is human nature to want that edge and to know how the ammo performs in testing and on the street.

[tlong17]

So is 147 just being shot up into berms and bullet catchers across America and removed from "the list"?

[blues]

So is 147 just being shot up into berms and bullet catchers across America and removed from "the list"?

Not by me...but that doesn't mean anything.

I'm still carrying it...until I feel like switching some mags over to 124 or 124 +P

[Moonshot]

I wish we could put this uncertainty over the new 147gr HST to rest. I’ve got some of both, but I used up most of my earlier vintage HST in training and function testing, saving my newer boxes for carry. Now I wonder if I did this backwards.

I still hope the newer version retains most of what made it great, perhaps only giving up some expansion for better penetration and auto glass performance, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. The old HST proved you don’t need +P performance to get effective results, and I think +P power is somewhat wasted in my G26 barrel. I like how a standard pressure 147 feels and functions in my gun.

I’m hoping I don’t need to move back to the 124gr standard pressure HST, but if reports of poor performance in the new 147gr, as reported by Chuck Haggard and others are accurate, I think Federal has some explaining to do.

[witchking777]

Something interesting I found. It appears Federal put the smaller double cannelure on the longer heavy for caliber bullets. Look at these 180 gr pulled 40 caliber HST bullets.
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/879310120#carousel-modal-view-item
They also have the 165 gr HST bullets,notice they have a single cannelure because they're shorter. https://www.gunbroker.com/item/879307629#carousel-modal-view-item

[witchking777]

Also,notice the similar smaller double cannelure design of the new 135 hr Hydra Shok Deep 9mm load. 60644

Here is a picture of the current 147 gr HST bullet.
60645

Here's the previous design 147 gr HST.
60646

And finally,the 124 gr HST.
60647

[witchking777]

Here are some pictures of my own testing.
First is the test I did a few days ago,Heavy Clothing which consisted of a heavy tshirt with a heavy sherpa lined flannel shirt,covering cardboard half gallon milk jugs at 21 feet. Yes,I realize 10 ft is the FBI standard but I wanted to simulate a standardized "combat" distance.
Right is the 124 gr +p HST,Left is the 147 gr HST.Both of them penetrated 5 milk cartons and were stopped in the 6th.
60649
60650
60651

[witchking777]

Here are the same two rounds fired into cardboard milk cartons and water.
60652
60653
60654

Here is the comparison of the 124 gr +p straight water shot on the left compared to an earlier 4 layer denim test on the right,both shot at 10 feet.
60655
60656
60657

[witchking777]

And here is the same comparison with the 147 gr,straight water filled cardboard milk cartons on the left vs 4 layer denim on the right.
60660
60658
60659

[witchking777]

Here is a 147 gr HST round fired through a dead coyote's chest area.
60661
60662
60663

Here are some more 147 gr tests. Left and middle are 4 layer denim from two separate occasions, the right was recovered agter being shot through 3 jackrabbit chests stacked on top of each other.
60664
60665
60666

[witchking777]

As you can see,zero failures to expand when shot through various mediums,including different tissue density,depth,and bone structure. I have two instances of single shot drop on jackrabbits at 15 yds,with nice exit holes showing expansion, as well as a neck shot at 107 yds on another jackrabbit. This isn't to start a flame war,it's to simply show that they worked as advertised when shot through living things. I have both and feel comfortable carrying both,however my preference is the 147 since it's less recoiling and seems to be slightly more accurate.

[witchking777]

All of this was done with Gen 5 Glock 17 with the factory 4.5" barrel.

[tlong17]

witchking777 thank you for all the work you put in to do the shoots and post results

[witchking777]

witchking777 thank you for all the work you put in to do the shoots and post results

You're quite welcome.

[witchking777]

124 gr +p HST shot through a jackrabbit chest into dirt.
60834
60835
60836

[Wondering Beard]

124 gr +p HST shot through a jackrabbit chest into dirt.
60834
60835
60836

Which gun?

A lot of folks here carry short to very short barreled 9mm pistols and worry about the efficiency of HSTs in those small guns.

[blues]

Which gun?

A lot of folks here carry short to very short barreled 9mm pistols and worry about the efficiency of HSTs in those small guns.

What is considered short? Is a G26 short at 3.43"? Asking for...well...myself.

[Wondering Beard]

What is considered short? Is a G26 short at 3.43"? Asking for...well...myself.

That's an excellent question to which I don't have an objective answer.

For me, the G26 would be considered one. I'd say anything with a 3.5" barrel and under, but some say it's anything under 4".

[witchking777]

Which gun?

A lot of folks here carry short to very short barreled 9mm pistols and worry about the efficiency of HSTs in those small guns.

My bad,this was shot through my carry piece,Gen 5 Glock 17.

[Wondering Beard]

My bad,this was shot through my carry piece,Gen 5 Glock 17.

No worries, you have been extremely helpful already and that last "real life" shoot is good confirmation.

[Phattmatt1000]

witchking777

Another thanks for for all the effort and information.