Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36

Thread: Long barrel 9mm defensive ammo

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
    Yes, but a PCC might tend to be used at longer ranges than a handgun. That being the case, an higher muzzle velocity out of the PCC may keep the terminal velocity were it should be at longer range. Higher velocity may also keep the bullet on a flatter trajectory.
    Higher velocities and modern JHP pistol bullets really don't mix well. Some are going to over expand and penetrate less, some are going to fragment more (again less penetration), and some are going to expand okay, but have the petals fold back more along the bullet shank, and penetrate more deeply, but with less wound volume. You are right that velocity might be retained at longer range... but you may also be compromising short range performance. It's going to be very much dependent on what load you use.

    The flatter trajectory is not going to matter that much inside 100 yards... and beyond that, it's really not going to matter. The slightly higher velocities from a SMG or rifle don't really effect trajectory that much... its still a fat non-aerodynamic low BC bullet (compared to rifle rounds) and its still damn slow (compared to rifle rounds). I'd be surprised if the difference in trajectory for the same round fired from a handgun vs a rifle or SMG was more than 3-5" inside 100 yards. Beyond that, you might as well lob 60mm mortar rounds.

    If I was going to buy a PCC/SMG I'd probably stick with my same ammo choice that I use in my 9mm pistols right now: a modern 147 grain JHP. Its not going to gain as much velocity from the longer barrel, but the heavier bullets also retain velocity a bit farther out. I think they would stay in the effective window of velocity a bit better than the lighter options. In fact, I really really want to build a Glock mag fed 9mm AR with a 7-12" barrel and eventually put a can on it. Mostly for fun, but I could see it having uses for defense, within its known limitations.

    What I am getting at, is that there is no magic 9mm SMG/rifle load that I know of. Anything SMG or rifle specific is going to probably compromise performance from a handgun, which IMHO defeats the purpose of having a pistol/SMG/rifle combo using the same ammo/mags.

  2. #12
    Site Supporter the Schwartz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    The Luminiferous Æther
    Quote Originally Posted by STI View Post
    From reading, it looks like many 9mm actually slow down in a 16" back to similar velocities seen in ~5" barrels, and that the highest velocities come from ~9-11" barrels. I'd think velocity and terminal performance out of a 16" PCC using factory 9mm would be about the same as conventional duty pistol results.
    The 9mm seeming to 'suffer' in barrels approaching 16'' has been my experience too. For the price of an extra 1.5'' of barrel/slide length, the Glock 17L offers a significant increase without adding much excess bulk.

    For example, while the standard Federal 147-grain HST (P9HST2) leaves the 4.49'' barrel of my Glock 17 at an average of 1,016 fps, out of my Glock 17L (6'' OEM barrel) I get a muzzle velocity of 1,123 fps. For that extra 1.5'' of barrel length, which is not all that hard to conceal for me, I consider the additional 107 fps that I get from it to be well worth the trade-off.
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

    Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection. www.quantitativeammunitionselection.com

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by the Schwartz View Post
    The 9mm seeming to 'suffer' in barrels approaching 16'' has been my experience too. For the price of an extra 1.5'' of barrel/slide length, the Glock 17L offers a significant increase without adding much excess bulk.

    For example, while the standard Federal 147-grain HST (P9HST2) leaves the 4.49'' barrel of my Glock 17 at an average of 1,016 fps, out of my Glock 17L (6'' OEM barrel) I get a muzzle velocity of 1,123 fps. For that extra 1.5'' of barrel length, which is not all that hard to conceal for me, I consider the additional 107 fps that I get from it to be well worth the trade-off.
    Do you have reason to believe that HST 107 fps performs better than that load out of your 17?
    Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.

  4. #14
    “107 fps faster”
    Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.

  5. #15
    Site Supporter the Schwartz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    The Luminiferous Æther
    Quote Originally Posted by GJM View Post
    Do you have reason to believe that HST 107 fps performs better than that load out of your 17?
    Yep.
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

    Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection. www.quantitativeammunitionselection.com

  6. #16
    Member Moonshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    earth
    Not that my opinion matters much, but I think many of us who believe the PCC may offer some tactical advantages that outweigh their disadvantages aren't looking at ballistics. We know that no pistol round, even out of a rifle length barrel, will come close to a rifle round in performance. We're not even looking for better pistol ballistics from a 16" barrel vs a 3" to 5" barrel.

    A PCC with a 16" barrel can be...

    a) as short as an SBR, but doesn't carry the extra risk of running contrary to the NFA laws involving interstate travel (a real concern for those of us on the road every day)
    b) a shoulder fired weapon that should provide a higher degree of accuracy at longer ranges and at speed than from a typical handgun
    c) less investment than a rifle for a platform that will be a travel gun (as opposed to a dedicated HD weapon)
    d) in some cases (Kel-Tec Sub 2000) folds in half and will fit into an incredibly small space while remaining fast to deploy
    e) if it provides magazine interchangability with your CCW handgun, you now have greater redundancy and higher ammo reserves for either platform
    f) some of us don't like braced-equiped handguns, for multiple reasons

    These carbines are not intended to take the place of an AR15, AK47, 300 Blackout, etc. They are intended to augment a CCW handgun and offer a little more accuracy at distance while being easily transported. These aren't immedate action active response guns. They are travel guns to have with you when on the road, should something happen that might require you to remain away from home for an extended time.

    My EDC gun is a G26. I practice and train with it frequently, but A-zone hits at speed at 50 yards is not an easy task. It's doable, but I need to work at it. Those same hits out of an S2K are far simpler and must faster.

    A Glock 34 MOS gen 4 with RDS might meet most if not all of the above criteria, and would be even more portable and more reliable, but would also cost easily twice what a PCC might cost.

    It's not always about ballistics.
    Last edited by Moonshot; 05-17-2019 at 04:42 PM.

  7. #17
    Slight segue but I still think a 8-10" barrel 9mm AR pistol, 5-6 lbs with red dot and WML, would be the easiest home defense tool to get fast accurate hits with for the completely untrained small/weaker shooter

  8. #18
    Site Supporter the Schwartz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    The Luminiferous Æther
    Quote Originally Posted by GJM View Post
    Do you have reason to believe that HST 107 fps performs better than that load out of your 17?
    Quote Originally Posted by the Schwartz View Post
    Yep.
    To provide a little more depth to my answer, I have run 4LD tests in water (using the Q-model) from both the Glock 17 and the Glock 17L (using ammo from the very same box) and obtained the following predictive data for the 147-grain P9HST2 load.

    The 5-shot test averages are as follows:

    From the G-17: 0.615''|147gr.|1,016fps = 12.04'' of penetration

    From the G-17L: 0.635''|147gr.|1,123fps = 12.00'' of penetration

    The 'extra' 107 fps that comes from the 6'' barrel of the Glock 17L gives me slightly greater expansion and (nearly) identical penetration depth (about 1mm difference between the two).

    For a 1.5'' increase in barrel length, I get a slightly larger expanded diameter with the same penetration depth. It is a small increase to be sure, but I am not proud and will take anything that I can get.
    Last edited by the Schwartz; 05-17-2019 at 09:07 PM.
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

    Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection. www.quantitativeammunitionselection.com

  9. #19
    Site Supporter the Schwartz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    The Luminiferous Æther
    Quote Originally Posted by Moonshot View Post
    Not that my opinion matters much, but I think many of us who believe the PCC may offer some tactical advantages that outweigh their disadvantages aren't looking at ballistics. We know that no pistol round, even out of a rifle length barrel, will come close to a rifle round in performance. We're not even looking for better pistol ballistics from a 16" barrel vs a 3" to 5" barrel.

    A PCC with a 16" barrel can be...

    a) as short as an SBR, but doesn't carry the extra risk of running contrary to the NFA laws involving interstate travel (a real concern for those of us on the road every day)
    b) a shoulder fired weapon that should provide a higher degree of accuracy at longer ranges and at speed than from a typical handgun
    c) less investment than a rifle for a platform that will be a travel gun (as opposed to a dedicated HD weapon)
    d) in some cases (Kel-Tec Sub 2000) folds in half and will fit into an incredibly small space while remaining fast to deploy
    e) if it provides magazine interchangability with your CCW handgun, you now have greater redundancy and higher ammo reserves for either platform
    f) some of us don't like braced-equiped handguns, for multiple reasons

    These carbines are not intended to take the place of an AR15, AK47, 300 Blackout, etc. They are intended to augment a CCW handgun and offer a little more accuracy at distance while being easily transported. These aren't immedate action active response guns. They are travel guns to have with you when on the road, should something happen that might require you to remain away from home for an extended time.

    My EDC gun is a G26. I practice and train with it frequently, but A-zone hits at speed at 50 yards is not an easy task. It's doable, but I need to work at it. Those same hits out of an S2K are far simpler and must faster.

    A Glock 34 MOS gen 4 with RDS might meet most if not all of the above criteria, and would be even more portable and more reliable, but would also cost easily twice what a PCC might cost.

    It's not always about ballistics.
    I agree. There is something to having a longer sight radius (where iron sights are used) or being able to mount an optic that won't fit/work on a handgun/pistol.
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

    Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection. www.quantitativeammunitionselection.com

  10. #20
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Canton GA
    Quote Originally Posted by STI View Post
    Slight segue but I still think a 8-10" barrel 9mm AR pistol, 5-6 lbs with red dot and WML, would be the easiest home defense tool to get fast accurate hits with for the completely untrained small/weaker shooter
    I have an 8 inch SIG MPX 9mm that I SBR'd - with a C More RDS is it amazingly easy and fast to get hits. I agree with you.

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
  •