Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 236

Thread: 9 mm 147 gr duty load testing

  1. #11
    Site Supporter DocGKR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    voodoo_man: No LE agencies here are using it, so we have had no requests to test it, not to mention the current loads already work very well out of 3.5" barrels....

    snakyjake: 30 sec searching with Google found this: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....-Handgun-Tests
    Facts matter...Feelings Can Lie

  2. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Un-United States of America (UUSA)
    It is interesting to see how much the results differ from other sources or different barrel size.

  3. #13
    Very Pro Dentist Chuck Haggard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Down the road from Quantrill's big raid.
    Quote Originally Posted by snakyjake View Post
    It is interesting to see how much the results differ from other sources or different barrel size.
    Not many people doing FBI/IWBA gel testing to specification.
    I am the owner of Agile/Training and Consulting
    www.agiletactical.com

  4. #14
    Site Supporter DocGKR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    For 9 mm, the results are essentially identical with barrels from 3.5-5", you get more variation in lot to lot differences than with barrel length.

    Many folks do NOT conduct testing correctly, some tips are here: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....istol-calibers

    Also, despite much ill-informed You-Tube comments to the contrary, there is NO such thing as "FBI spec Clear Gel blocks"; to the best of my knowledge, NONE of the synthetic gel substitutes have ever been correlated with living tissue. In our experience and that of the FBI BRF, NONE of the synthetic gel substitutes have proven as accurate as properly conducted, validated 10% gel studies.
    Last edited by DocGKR; 05-29-2016 at 01:15 PM.
    Facts matter...Feelings Can Lie

  5. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Un-United States of America (UUSA)
    The reason why I was bringing up the spreadsheet is for tracking the results. I'm trying to reconcile differences between this test and the tests here.

    DocGKR.....[P9HST2?]..9 mm Fed 147 gr HST BG: Pen = 13.8”, RD = 0.66”, RL = 0.35”, RW = 148.4 gr [the bullet gained weight?]
    Federal......P9HST2......9 mm Fed 147 gr HST BG: Pen = 12.0", RD = 0.85", RL = NA , RW = 147.0 gr

    Assuming both are correct, it tells me there's a lot of variance or inconsistency (something to be aware of).
    Last edited by snakyjake; 05-29-2016 at 01:37 PM.

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by snakyjake View Post
    The reason why I was bringing up the spreadsheet is for tracking the results. I'm trying to reconcile differences between this test and the tests here.

    DocGKR.....[P9HST2?]..9 mm Fed 147 gr HST BG: Pen = 13.8”, RD = 0.66”, RL = 0.35”, RW = 148.4 gr [the bullet gained weight?]
    Federal......P9HST2......9 mm Fed 147 gr HST BG: Pen = 12.0", RD = 0.85", RL = NA , RW = 147.0 gr

    Assuming both are correct, it tells me there's a lot of variance or inconsistency (something to be aware of).
    HSTs have been some of the most inconsistent defensive ammo I have used. Federal uses a cheaper flake powder that is flashy, and inconsistent. Not as flashy as Remington GSs, but much more flashy that Speed G2s or Winchester RBs. The older HST lots with the longer ogive cuts were of better quality in my opinion in that they were less flashy and had more consistent velocities on the chronograph. Now Federal Tactical Bonded seem to be of better quality from my chronograph and night shoot tests, but they are a little harder to find now days.

  7. #17
    Thank you for the results, if i may ask, is there any reason NOT to take 147gr over 124gr and 124g+p apart from availability? My training ammo is all 147gr handloads, but 147gr carry ammunition seems scarcer than 124gr.

  8. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Un-United States of America (UUSA)
    There does seem to be inconsistencies, not just with HST. I'm not sure if the load is inconsistent, the testing, or variable chaos (too many unmeasurable factors). It shouldn't be the test, otherwise the credibility of the testing comes into question. I'm also not sure if I trust the manufacturers tests more.

    But this all may come back to the root; they just need to pass the FBI test (penetration), everything else is too inconsistent to be given any important value. If so, I wish the results were just PASS/FAIL, because there's no point quantifying inconsistent results.

  9. #19
    Site Supporter DocGKR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    I prefer HST's in heavier weights and personally carry 147 gr. For some strange reason, west coast LE agencies, not to mention the FBI, have had no problems shooting 9 mm 147 gr over the past quarter of a century or so...

    "assuming both are correct, it tells me there's a lot of variance or inconsistency"
    Before looking at bullet performance variance, I'd take a strong look at inconsistency in measuring the recovered projectiles...
    Last edited by DocGKR; 05-30-2016 at 02:28 PM.
    Facts matter...Feelings Can Lie

  10. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Un-United States of America (UUSA)
    Quote Originally Posted by DocGKR View Post
    Before looking at bullet performance variance, I'd take a strong look at inconsistency in measuring the recovered projectiles...
    Good point, I'll take a look at that.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •