9mm Duty Ammunition

[Clay1]

I'm NOT LE. I always thought of the 147 grain loading to be used with suppressed firearms and the 124 a better choice for unsuppressed firearms. You could always call the ammo manufacturer and ask for a recommendation and the "why" to the answer.

[JBP55]

I'm NOT LE. I always thought of the 147 grain loading to be used with suppressed firearms and the 124 a better choice for unsuppressed firearms. You could always call the ammo manufacturer and ask for a recommendation and the "why" to the answer.

The 124gr. and 147gr. 9mm are both very much in use with LEA's that use 9mm pistols.

[Symmetry]

I'm NOT LE. I always thought of the 147 grain loading to be used with suppressed firearms and the 124 a better choice for unsuppressed firearms. You could always call the ammo manufacturer and ask for a recommendation and the "why" to the answer.

That's never really been the case. The original FBI load recommendation of the late 1980s was the 147gr JHP because it expanded to a larger diameter than the lighter bullets, and it had more reliable penetration in soft tissue and commonly encountered barriers. The 115gr and 124gr loadings were popular based on the theories of energy dump and stopping power, which for the most part have been discredited in the last 20yrs. With modern bullets, the 147gr is even better......still expanding to a larger diameter than 124gr, and shows better penetration through all commonly encountered barriers.

[Beat Trash]

OP,

Does your agency buy ammunition off of your state's contract? I'd go to see what loads are listed on your contract.

The Winchester RA9T and the RA9B are both excellent loads. We use the RA9T and are satisfied with it, out of 3"-4" guns ranging from M&P9's, M&P9c's and Shields. I wouldn't be too concerned about the 147 gr loads and the extra 3.5" of barrel that you get with the MPX over a Glock 17.

The 5.56mm 64 gr RA556B bonded loading is also worth looking at as a duty round for your 5.56mm guns.

[Chuck Haggard]

I am very fond of the 124gr +P Gold Dot after seeing numerous OISs where this load performed superbly, and with 100% reliability in both training and real world shooting scenarios. However, I'd carry anything on Doc's "list" and be comfortable with the choice.

At my old job we paired the +P Gold Dot with the 124gr Lawman or American Eagle FMJ practice ammo, this was a good systems approach to duty and training ammo.

[GRV]

I am very fond of the 124gr +P Gold Dot after seeing numerous OISs where this load performed superbly, and with 100% reliability in both training and real world shooting scenarios. However, I'd carry anything on Doc's "list" and be comfortable with the choice.

At my old job we paired the +P Gold Dot with the 124gr Lawman or American Eagle FMJ practice ammo, this was a good systems approach to duty and training ammo.

Interesting. Based on the technical stats on Speer's website, and some rumors floating about the interweb, I was under the impression that Speer intended the 124+P Gold Dot to be paired with the 115gr Lawman.

[Symmetry]

Interesting. Based on the technical stats on Speer's website, and some rumors floating about the interweb, I was under the impression that Speer intended the 124+P Gold Dot to be paired with the 115gr Lawman.

Why? You want identical bullet weights, and similar velocities between your duty and training ammo. This yields similar recoil characteristics, but also similar points of aim. In most pistols, different bullet weights will hit at different elevations on your sights. This is a frustrating concept to enforce in the Federal system, as they insist on using green 105gr+P frangible for training, and standard pressure 147gr JHP for duty.

[GRV]

Speer has stats on their site for POI at various ranges, muzzle velocity, muzzle energy, etc. Compared to the 124gr +P Gold Dot, the 115gr Lawman is closer in all displayed stats (IIRC) than the 124gr Lawman. Elsewhere on the internet---which granted is not a good source by itself---I had read of people calling Speer and being told that in fact the 115 pairs with the 124+P, I believe the 124 was intended for the standard pressure 124. I didn't really feel pressured to call to ask myself, but it sounded reasonable having looked at the stats.

In any event, I run the 115gr Lawman because its cheaper. But, lately, I've had the chance to get the 124gr for the same price, but didn't see a reason to.


EDIT: Here are the stats I am referring to:
Lawman 115gr: http://www.speer-ammo.com/ballistics...x?loadNo=53615
Lawman 124gr: http://www.speer-ammo.com/ballistics...x?loadNo=53616
Gold Dot 124gr +P: http://www.speer-ammo.com/ballistics...x?loadNo=23617

[ST911]

Why? You want identical bullet weights, and similar velocities between your duty and training ammo. This yields similar recoil characteristics, but also similar points of aim. In most pistols, different bullet weights will hit at different elevations on your sights. This is a frustrating concept to enforce in the Federal system, as they insist on using green 105gr+P frangible for training, and standard pressure 147gr JHP for duty.

The Lawman 115 (53650) isn't the mild training ball many others in that weight class are. I think it's closer to the 124 +P GDHP than than the Lawman 124 ball (53651) is. Both have been contract loads here, along with the 147. Pallet quantities. I agree that while training-duty recoil similarity is desirable and a good goal, I don't think it's as big of a deal as many think.

POI deviations, same thing. Nice to have, but the 8-10" spreads on targets at distance with most shooters are optimistic, rendering the issue a bit of a moot point.

A supported agency uses a 9mm Federal RHT training, paired with the 147gr HST. The disparities don't appear to have mattered in OISs or other field use.

[mag360]

Whats the experts take on 147 gold dot vs 147 hst vs ranger ra9b 147 bonded vs 135gr fed tactical bonded?