New Duty Load

[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:



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

[Naphtali]

All except from short barrel:



(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/sel...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/sel...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?