Short barrel 9mm defense ammo

[LOBO]

Usually a G26 or G43X are my preferred carry guns. Sometimes a 442. May get a G48 in the future and explore putting a MRDS on it.

It's getting close to time for me to restock my 9mm carry ammo. Federal HST is my preferred ammo. I've been carrying HST 124 gr standard pressure. I heard there was some sort of changes done to the 147 gr HST. Is the 147 gr still the preferred bullet weight in HST for shorter barreled guns or did the "change" to the 147 gr HST make it not as good as it used to be? I'm not opposed to carrying the +P 124 gr HST.

Thanks,

Chris

[revchuck38]

I’ve been using 124-grain +P HST in my P99Cs, which are basically a TDA G26. No issues, and they still run around 1150 fps from the 3-1/2” barrel.

[LOBO]

I’ve been using 124-grain +P HST in my P99Cs, which are basically a TDA G26. No issues, and they still run around 1150 fps from the 3-1/2” barrel.

Thank you for that info sir. I haven't been able to chrono any loads myself.

Chris

[Ghost Dog]

In those barrel lengths any HSTs will be fine.
If not super worried about optimum barrier penetration, 124 gr. Punch will also work great and was tested out of a 43. In even shorter barrels than that it may even be preferred due to softer lead and often higher velocity (than standard pressure 124 hst) from the real micro barrels (3"-3.3"). But you are splitting hairs. All will perform and upset as designed especially in the 3.4" barrels you listed.
As to newer vs old HST/147...farther penetration, slightly less expansion.

I can provide Punch data from a g43
And current 147 data from a g47

Once posts approved by mods.

[0ddl0t]

I also use 124 +P HST in my 3.1" barrel pistols, but wouldn't hesitate to use standard pressure 124 hst (or 124/124+p gold dot).

I would not use 147 HST based on them sometimes failing to expand out of short barrels (especially in clear gel after passing through heavy denim):
115090
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrIiclxyKKI

They did better in this test, but 1 of the 3 bullets looks like it was right on the edge of not expanding:
115089
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYTd1lNx_TQ


There are folks here who consider any test performed in clear gel invalid and I've never seen 147 fail a test using real ordnance gel, but I'd rather pick one of the many rounds that passes all the tests in any type of gel...

[the Schwartz]

There are folks here who consider any test performed in clear gel invalid...

...and with good reason.

The Clear Ballistic Goo has never been corelated to any human soft tissue; it under-represents bullet expansion, bullet yaw and fragmentation, temporary and permanent cavity effects, and over-represents maximum terminal penetration depth. These issues have been documented in depth by several authorities in the discipline (e.g.: Haag, Roberts, Ervin, Wood) and have been discussed at length in this sub-forum.

All are easily located by using the ''search'' function.


...but I'd rather pick one of the many rounds that passes all the tests in any type of gel...

Ignoring valid scientific methodology in favor of pseudo-scientific rigmarole provides nothing of value. It's an epistemological ''fool's errand''.

''The scientific method is not one of consensus, but rather one of using valid research to produce reliable, repeatable data that advances theory to law.''—me

[PNWTO]

Haggard likes these things.

115144

[Clusterfrack]

I haven't seen any convincing evidence against using 147 HST at any reasonable barrel length. I strongly prefer subsonic 9mm, especially if I might be shooting indoors without earpro.

[the Schwartz]

I haven't seen any convincing evidence against using 147 HST at any reasonable barrel length.

Neither have I.

In fact, when tested from barrel lengths of 4.49" (Glock 17), 4.01'' (Glock 19), and 3.1'' (S&W Shield Plus) in correctly prepared 10% ordnance gelatin that shear validates within correct range (8.5±0.4cm), the Federal 9mm 147-grain HST provides excellent performance through four layers of 16-ounce/yd² denim in accordance with the IWBA specifications as seen in the attached video:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xQg_D7mcVRw

When it is easy enough to use either 10% ordnance gelatin or water—both of which are proven soft tissue simulants—to obtain valid test results, it appears that both physical and intellectual laziness are significant factors that drive such individuals to rely upon the Clear Ballistic Goo. ;)

[CZ Man]

For sub compact guns I like the all copper loads from Corbon, Super Vel, Defiant Munitions and the like. If I couldn't find those I'd go with HST 124 +P.

[cosermann]

... the Clear Ballistic Goo. ;)

I feel like the goo has set the Internet back 20 yrs in this area.

These days when I come across an article, YT vid, etc., purporting to test a particular load, I'm disappointed the vast majority of the time after taking a look only to find out they used the goo.

[the Schwartz]

I feel like the goo has set the Internet back 20 yrs in this area.

Unfortunately, the 'net is awash in such bilge.


These days when I come across an article, YT vid, etc., purporting to test a particular load, I'm disappointed the vast majority of the time after taking a look only to find out they used the goo.

Yep! It's kind of like finding the puppy that your parents got you for Christmas lying dead under the Christmas tree. /sardonic humor

;)

[03RN]

Neither have I.

In fact, when tested from barrel lengths of 4.49" (Glock 17), 4.01'' (Glock 19), and 3.1'' (S&W Shield Plus) in correctly prepared 10% ordnance gelatin that shear validates within correct range (8.5±0.4cm), the Federal 9mm 147-grain HST provides excellent performance through four layers of 16-ounce/yd² denim in accordance with the IWBA specifications as seen in the attached video:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xQg_D7mcVRw

When it is easy enough to use either 10% ordnance gelatin or water—both of which are proven soft tissue simulants—to obtain valid test results, it appears that both physical and intellectual laziness are significant factors that drive such individuals to rely upon the Clear Ballistic Goo. ;)

I really wish he actually tested the 3" barrel.

I think I might need to shoot some from my 2" m10 into water @900fps to test out the bottom end of velocity.

[0ddl0t]

Neither have I.

In fact, when tested from barrel lengths of 4.49" (Glock 17), 4.01'' (Glock 19), and 3.1'' (S&W Shield Plus) in correctly prepared 10% ordnance gelatin that shear validates within correct range (8.5±0.4cm), the Federal 9mm 147-grain HST provides excellent performance through four layers of 16-ounce/yd² denim in accordance with the IWBA specifications as seen in the attached video:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xQg_D7mcVRw
He didn't test the expansion using the shield.

The only youtube test I'm aware of is this ~10 year old one from shootingthebull (note he had 975fps where TNoutdoors 9 had 933 fps):

https://youtu.be/K3VfWkWMzOI?si=nej_A86Ce3wO8xh4


When it is easy enough to use either 10% ordnance gelatin or water—both of which are proven soft tissue simulants—to obtain valid test results, it appears that both physical and intellectual laziness are significant factors that drive such individuals to rely upon the Clear Ballistic Goo. ;)
I'll take the additional data seeing that 147 hst bullets from 3" barrel pistols are very likely just above the expansion threshold in the "properly calibrated test" and reasonably conclude they may not expand:


Against increasingly fatter perpetrators with much lower average tissue densities than the average 1970s-1990s soldier for which 10% ordnance gelatin was calibrated (the whole reason the IWBA came up with the 4 layers of denim test was because CHP was seeing failures to expand when shooting 80s & 90s fat guys. 2020s fat guys are much fatter).
At distances greater than 10 feet (Elijah Dickens neutralized a threat at 120 feet which may lower 9mm bullet velocity as much as 10%)
With ammunition that has been stored under less than ideal circumstances: carried for years in sweaty & humid conditions, left in the trunk of a car in subzero weather and suddenly called to action (there is a ~50fps difference between 135°F ammo and 20°F ammo), etc.

[the Schwartz]

I really wish he actually tested the 3" barrel.

I think I might need to shoot some from my 2" m10 into water @900fps to test out the bottom end of velocity.

I'd very much like to see that.

Pictures if you do, please. :)

[03RN]

I'd very much like to see that.

Pictures if you do, please. :)

Will do. I might try to work up a little faster load. I just ordered some be-86 which might help

[LOBO]

Thanks so very much for the help fellows.

I'll probably run a test (accuracy, felt recoil, etc.) between the standard and +P 124 gr HST ammo in my G43X. Then I'll order a case and forget about it :D

Chris

[Shawn Dodson]

Against increasingly fatter perpetrators with much lower average tissue densities than the average 1970s-1990s soldier for which 10% ordnance gelatin was calibrated (the whole reason the IWBA came up with the 4 layers of denim test was because CHP was seeing failures to expand when shooting 80s & 90s fat guys. 2020s fat guys are much fatter).

Type 250A ordnance gelatin was calibrated to match penetration in swine rear leg muscle.

The overwhelming force resisting bullet penetration in soft tissues is inertial force. Depending on the cartridge, the inertial force involved ranges from several hundred pounds to thousands of pounds resistance to bullet passage.

Whereas the different densities of various soft tissues is the result of shear force. The shear force resistance to bullet passage is less than 50 pounds. Shear force doesn't become a factor in bullet penetration until the bullet is near the end of its penetration path and has slowed substantially.

The huge difference between inertial force resistance and shear force resistance is the reason why criticism about "homogenous ordnance gelatin" is irrelevant.

Calibration of properly prepared Type 250A ordnance gelatin, with a BB fired at 590 fps penetrating 8.5 centimeters +/- 9 millimeters, verifies the gelatin possesses the same shear force resistance at lower velocities as typical soft tissues.

Properly prepared and calibrated 10% Type 250A ordnance gelatin is 90% water.

There are more hard barrier test events (windshield glass X2, sheetmetal, plywood, sheetrock) than the heavy clothing test event in the FBI's test series. Back in the day, this situation inadvertantly encouraged ammo manufacturers to design bullets that penetrated well against hard barriers than to design bullets that reliably expanded after passing through clothing. This flaw led CHP and Duncan MacPherson to develop the four-layer heavy denim cloth test.

[0ddl0t]

The overwhelming force resisting bullet penetration in soft tissues is inertial force.
Agreed. Since inertia is directly proportional to mass and mass is directly proportional density, we can reasonably summize a bullet will experience ~10% less inertial force in the first 3 inches of fat than in the first 3 inches of ordnance gel (fat having ~10% less density).

[the Schwartz]

Type 250A ordnance gelatin was calibrated to match penetration in swine rear leg muscle.

The overwhelming force resisting bullet penetration in soft tissues is inertial force. Depending on the cartridge, the inertial force involved ranges from several hundred pounds to thousands of pounds resistance to bullet passage.

Whereas the different densities of various soft tissues is the result of shear force. The shear force resistance to bullet passage is less than 50 pounds. Shear force doesn't become a factor in bullet penetration until the bullet is near the end of its penetration path and has slowed substantially.

The huge difference between inertial force resistance and shear force resistance is the reason why criticism about "homogenous ordnance gelatin" is irrelevant.

Calibration of properly prepared Type 250A ordnance gelatin, with a BB fired at 590 fps penetrating 8.5 centimeters +/- 9 millimeters, verifies the gelatin possesses the same shear force resistance at lower velocities as typical soft tissues.

Properly prepared and calibrated 10% Type 250A ordnance gelatin is 90% water.

There are more hard barrier test events (windshield glass X2, sheetmetal, plywood, sheetrock) than the heavy clothing test event in the FBI's test series. Back in the day, this situation inadvertantly encouraged ammo manufacturers to design bullets that penetrated well against hard barriers than to design bullets that reliably expanded after passing through clothing. This flaw led CHP and Duncan MacPherson to develop the four-layer heavy denim cloth test.

Thank you for your clarification as to why 10% Type-250A ordnance gelatin is a valid soft tissue simulant. There appear to be multiple competing 'narratives' being propagated across the 'net—driven either by ignorance of technical matter and/or an agenda intended to discredit the medium for certain commercial purposes—that need to be countered with a factual account of why ordnance gelatin is a valid test medium.

Unfortunately, the latter motivation seems to have been a large driver of the low quality—and misleading—test videos swamping the 'net today.

[jh9]

I'll take the additional data seeing that 147 hst bullets from 3" barrel pistols are very likely just above the expansion threshold in the "properly calibrated test" and reasonably conclude they may not expand:


Against increasingly fatter perpetrators with much lower average tissue densities than the average 1970s-1990s soldier for which 10% ordnance gelatin was calibrated (the whole reason the IWBA came up with the 4 layers of denim test was because CHP was seeing failures to expand when shooting 80s & 90s fat guys. 2020s fat guys are much fatter).
At distances greater than 10 feet (Elijah Dickens neutralized a threat at 120 feet which may lower 9mm bullet velocity as much as 10%)
With ammunition that has been stored under less than ideal circumstances: carried for years in sweaty & humid conditions, left in the trunk of a car in subzero weather and suddenly called to action (there is a ~50fps difference between 135°F ammo and 20°F ammo), etc.


I think the point people are driving at is that it doesn't actually test those edge cases you mention, because it still doesn't map to human physiology. That change in expansion or penetration doesn't correspond to what a bullet does in the body of a violent human. No matter how fat or cold or hot they are. It just... isn't data. It's a carny trick that presents well.

It's unfortunate that clear gel even remotely looks like organic gel because it invites comparing the two. Which is about as useful as comparing the expansion/penetration numbers in a block of ice (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?56013-Did-the-HST-357-Magnum-ever-come-out&p=1552241&viewfull=1#post1552241). If that's wrong I'm happy for someone like DocGKR to clarify.

[RJ]

Anecdote not data, but I have shot Speer Gold Dot 115, 124, 124+p, and Federal HST 124 and 147, all with no issues to speak of in my P365X, since Nov '21 / 1,187 rounds (not all hollow points, maybe half that.)

[the Schwartz]

I think the point people are driving at is that it doesn't actually test those edge cases you mention, because it still doesn't map to human physiology. That change in expansion or penetration doesn't correspond to what a bullet does in the body of a violent human. No matter how fat or cold or hot they are. It just... isn't data. It's a carny trick that presents well.

It's unfortunate that clear gel even remotely looks like organic gel because it invites comparing the two. Which is about as useful as comparing the expansion/penetration numbers in a block of ice (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?56013-Did-the-HST-357-Magnum-ever-come-out&p=1552241&viewfull=1#post1552241). If that's wrong I'm happy for someone like DocGKR to clarify.

Well said.

You're probably already aware of this, but Dr. Roberts has spoken to the issue before:


TISSUE SIMULANTS:

Currently, a variety of equally important methodologies are used for terminal performance testing, including actual shooting incident reconstruction, forensic evidence analysis, and post-mortem data and/or surgical findings; properly conducted ethical animal test results; and laboratory testing--this includes the use of tissue simulants proven to have correlation with living tissue. All of these areas provide important information. As noted earlier, the tissue simulant that has proven to most closely correlate with living muscle tissue is Type 250A ordnance gelatin at 4 deg C.

Other simulants fail to provide accurate replication of various facets of projectile terminal performance that occur in shots to living human tissue. Cadaver tissue lacks elasticity, tends to be disrupted by pressures that would simply push living tissue aside, and demonstrates exaggerated projectile effects leading to far more extensive damage than that produced in living tissue. Animal testing in cattle uses living tissue, but normal anatomic and physiological differences between individual animals leads to substantial differences in terminal effects; in addition, there are substantial differences in animal anatomy compared to human, animal testing is quite expensive and time consuming, and accurate data collection and comparison is difficult. Water is a good simulant to show maximum projectile upset, but penetration is 1.6-2 times deeper than in tissue and stretch effects are not visible. Inelastic simulants such as clay, duxseal, and soap can provide good estimates of penetration depth and bullet upset, but exaggerate stretch effects from the temporary cavity. Perma-gel and other synthetic polymer simulants can provide a reasonable result for bullet penetration and expansion, but under-represent bullet yaw, fragmentation, and stretch effects. Computer modeling may one day provide the best opportunity to study projectile effects outside the human body, however to date, the current models are overly-simplistic, use too many excessively averaged assumptions of anatomic and physiological factors, and fail to fully and accurately represent the complex dynamics of the interaction between living tissue and penetrating projectiles.



It's a carny trick that presents well.

What an awesome line. :cool: With—or without—your permission, I just might need to steal it. ;)

[Lyonsgrid]

We are currently using this round. Can't seem to find much info online about it. I'm sure it's quality stuff but just curious if anyone here has done or reviewed any testing?

115180

[Default.mp3]

We are currently using this round. Can't seem to find much info online about it. I'm sure it's quality stuff but just curious if anyone here has done or reviewed any testing?

115180Huh, I would assume that's just a +P version of Gold Dot G2, with the higher velocity to help it with expansion given the lower velocity of the shorter barrel; IIRC, the FBI had prohibited standard G2 to be used in 43/43X/26, and had to use the Critical Duty 135 gr +P, though I know others have said that it was also an issue with the Glocks having reliability issues in general. On the civilian side, they do make a Gold Dot G2 Carry Gun, but that's a 135 gr +P (specs claim to be a fair bit faster out the muzzle than the Critical Duty 135 gr +P at 1120 FPS versus Hornady at 1070 FPS, both out a 4" barrel), rather than the 147 gr.

But yeah, I would definitely be curious to hear more about this particular ammo.

[03RN]

Huh, I would assume that's just a +P version of Gold Dot G2, with the higher velocity to help it with expansion given the lower velocity of the shorter barrel; IIRC, the FBI had prohibited standard G2 to be used in 43/43X/26, and had to use the Critical Duty 135 gr +P, though I know others have said that it was also an issue with the Glocks having reliability issues in general. On the civilian side, they do make a Gold Dot G2 Carry Gun, but that's a 135 gr +P (specs claim to be a fair bit faster out the muzzle than the Critical Duty 135 gr +P at 1120 FPS versus Hornady at 1070 FPS, both out a 4" barrel), rather than the 147 gr.

But yeah, I would definitely be curious to hear more about this particular ammo.


https://youtu.be/CeVtwmHeRZQ?si=AePV2KR2pksCVLOz

[richiecotite]

I did some velocity testing a few weeks ago in various calibers. I’m currently using 124 hst in my 3.1” 365 and it chronos 1165 fps.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Outpost75]

I really wish he actually tested the 3" barrel.

I think I might need to shoot some from my 2" m10 into water @900fps to test out the bottom end of velocity.

This is Federal 147-grain 9MS fired from 1-7/8" S&W Model 940 at 900 fps with bullets recovered in 4th gallon water jug at 10 feet.

115271

[Default.mp3]

https://youtu.be/CeVtwmHeRZQ?si=AePV2KR2pksCVLOzThe problem with that video is that it is from 2015, which was before Speer had their Gold Dot G2 recall, which I believe specifically dealt with the issue of not expanding properly. In more recent years:

Should work fine in barrels 3.5-5".

[jandbj]

This is Federal 147-grain 9MS fired from 1-7/8" S&W Model 940 at 900 fps with bullets recovered in 4th gallon water jug at 10 feet.

115271

If ever I saw a centennial begging for a high horn grip, it’s every 940.
rhamre looking right at you! 😉

These help too:
115305

https://a.co/d/hRMKK2b

[Fsumach]

I have seen testing for the critical duty 135+p from 3.0-3.5 inch guns and it does well across tests in those barrel lengths. Expansion is limited, and it may be that the new GD2 +p is better, but the CD performance was certainly acceptable and that’s an easily found load. It also “feels” like a standard pressure, recoil wise, to me. I have found function very good in a 43x and P365 with no failures in 4-500 rounds across those platforms.

[Outpost75]

The two Ranger bands give useful additional bulk and cushioning to take the "sting" out of it without defeating concealability.

[Spectre3]

124 gr HST has been well established as a proven performer, even in short barrels, for a long time now. All of my handguns are in 9mm, and all of them use 124 gr HST. Until something that actually outperforms it and isn't a gimmick (looking at you Underwood) comes along, that's not going to change.

I'm not sure why people keep trying to reinvent the wheel so to speak when it comes to choosing defensive ammo.

[rhamre]

If ever I saw a centennial begging for a high horn grip, it’s every 940.
rhamre looking right at you! 😉

These help too:
115305

https://a.co/d/hRMKK2b
I can't wait to post images of things we're working on.

Let's just say, we're hoping we have a couple offerings that will appeal to the high horn crowd, the exposed backstrap crowd, and the enclosed backstrap crowd.

:)