New Duty Load

[HCM]

You guys should stop worrying about this change. When it's all boiled down, ammo choice is probably no more than 5% of the factors in a shooting going well or not. YOU are the major factor in success or failure.

I liked this then unliked it so I could like it again.

[Wayne Dobbs]

I liked this then unliked it so I could like it again.

[ArgentFix]

You guys should stop worrying about this change. When it's all boiled down, ammo choice is probably no more than 5% of the factors in a shooting going well or not. YOU are the major factor in success or failure.

For Joe Gunowner who shoots 200 rounds a year, ammo choice probably makes no difference whatsoever. But if I, a moderately-skilled shooter who carries, can afford to change brands to gain 5% effectiveness while I continue actively training, why wouldn't I? I suspect for the more proficient shooters here, a 5% effectiveness increase may only be possible through gear/ammo choices.

I'm not dumping my HST2 supply and I agree 100% with your premise. One-Shot-Mega-Kill rounds are no replacement for skill but I see no harm in chasing a better round while continuing to train.

[ssb]

I understand the "training trumps all" angle. I have a few hundred hours of that myself. And yet, nobody reputable recommends carrying ball ammo when well-designed JHP is available... probably because there are good reasons for doing so (safety is the first that comes to mind for me - more likely to remain in the body due to expansion).

[Bucky]

You guys should stop worrying about this change. When it's all boiled down, ammo choice is probably no more than 5% of the factors in a shooting going well or not. YOU are the major factor in success or failure.

This is true, but still nothing wrong with stacking the deck in your favor.

[Hot Sauce]

I just got a call from a rep at Federal. He initially denied (adamantly) that any changes had been made to the bullet design. After I pressed him a bit, he finally admitted that they changed the design to a double cannelure 3-5 years ago (this is consistent with other information I've been given). I told him that I'd heard rumors about under-expansion recently with the 147gr, and he said those rumors were false. This is obviously inconsistent with what has been posted in this thread, and also information received from members here via PM where Federal reps have admitted to limited instances of under-expansion.

The quality manager from Federal is supposed to call me tomorrow.

Assuming Federal (outside of this rep) knows of the complaints... what's stopping them from going back to the previous design that earned the HST such high repute?

[TC215]

Assuming Federal (outside of this rep) knows of the complaints... what's stopping them from going back to the previous design that earned the HST such high repute?

FWIW, they never called me back or emailed me like they said they would.

[blues]

FWIW, they never called me back or emailed me like they said they would.

I'd like to say I'm surprised...but...

[0ddl0t]

How can you tell if you have the "old" good to go 147gr HST or the "new" stuff? I replaced my 124gr +p Gold Dots for 147gr HST in my G19 a couple of years ago.

Since the main problem with the new 147 seems to be unreliable expansion it is easy enough to test whether yours reliably expand by shooting some old jeans laid over some gallon water jugs (water is roughly the same density as the average human tissue). The SMEs look down on me for doing so, but aside from water I'll also shoot into a mixture of 3 parts water to 2 parts 70% rubbing alcohol - a concoction with about the same density as body fat (and a more difficult medium for bullet expansion).

This won't tell you precisely what kind of penetration you'd get in ordnance gel, but it is an easy pass/fail test of expansion.

Also very interested in this thread.

I took Doc’s advice three years ago, verified 147 HST ran in my Glock 19, bought a bunch, and got on with focusing on shot placement.

Now, in 2020, I’m evaluating a swap to a shorter barrel pistol (P365/P365XL) for EDC and competition / training. This thread now gives me pause as to what to use in these two guns. So far, I’ve verified Speer 115 GD in the P365 and Federal 147 HST in the XL (no issues). I’d prefer to select one load for either/both for logistics ease. My options include Speer 115 GD, 124 GD, 124+p GD, Federal 124 HST, and 147 HST (that I’m familiar with. I’ll check Doc’s list for other options but these are the loads I can reliably purchase online and shoot POA in my limited experience.)

Any or all SME discussion on this is much appreciated.

Not an ammo SME, but I've shot over 15,000 rounds through a P365 and have done a bit of backyard ballistics testing with it. I wouldn't hesitate to use 147 HST in a P365 that reliably feeds it (some examples don't - Sig has a couple different P365 feed ramp designs). 147 HST wouldn't be the defense ammo that I'd go out of my way to purchase, but I wouldn't throw away a case I already had.

Personally I went with 124 +p HSTs when my sole focus was reliable expansion, but if I had it to do again I'd get 124 +P Gold Dots for a bit more penetration (at the expense of just a tiny bit of expansion).

The Speer 124 +P GDHP just keeps on working. I like the Federal 124 +P HST a lot and have found it very effective and accurate. I would test any +P loads carefully in the short guns to make sure the functional reliability is there.

^This

If I remember correctly, Hornady's 135gr +P Critical duty is also on Doc's list and is one of the rounds adopted by the FBI. How is it in short barrel guns?

Critical Duty doesn't always expand in 3" barrels (Hornady created the critical "defense" line to fill that niche, but I don't believe it was intended for barriers like autoglass).

[4given]

Since the main problem with the new 147 seems to be unreliable expansion it is easy enough to test whether yours reliably expand by shooting some old jeans laid over some gallon water jugs (water is roughly the same density as the average human tissue). The SMEs look down on me for doing so, but aside from water I'll also shoot into a mixture of 3 parts water to 2 parts 70% rubbing alcohol - a concoction with about the same density as body fat (and a more difficult medium for bullet expansion).

This won't tell you precisely what kind of penetration you'd get in ordnance gel, but it is an easy pass/fail test of expansion.




Not an ammo SME, but I've shot over 15,000 rounds through a P365 and have done a bit of backyard ballistics testing with it. I wouldn't hesitate to use 147 HST in a P365 that reliably feeds it (some examples don't - Sig has a couple different P365 feed ramp designs). 147 HST wouldn't be the defense ammo that I'd go out of my way to purchase, but I wouldn't throw away a case I already had.

Personally I went with 124 +p HSTs when my sole focus was reliable expansion, but if I had it to do again I'd get 124 +P Gold Dots for a bit more penetration (at the expense of just a tiny bit of expansion).


^This


Critical Duty doesn't always expand in 3" barrels (Hornady created the critical "defense" line to fill that niche, but I don't believe it was intended for barriers like autoglass).

Thanks for the detailed reply. I have decided to move on and go back to the Speer 124gr + P Gold Dot in my G19. Tried and true. I have several boxes on backorder and will change out my ammo when it arrives.

I use 124 gr HST standard pressure in my P365. I'll stick with that for the forseeable future.