My subcompact/micro guns run fine on both 124 and 147. I prefer 147 generally and particularly in a tiny gun. Not sure why subcompacts should be avoided...Originally Posted by JAD
My subcompact/micro guns run fine on both 124 and 147. I prefer 147 generally and particularly in a tiny gun. Not sure why subcompacts should be avoided...
Is that personal preference or does 147 help with something on subcompact guns?
I can probably get the 147 if it's much superior to the 124 and sell the 124 pack to recoup $$.
I only use 147gr HST or Win Ranger for defense ammo. Having a subsonic load is a big advantage, with no measurable disadvantages.
“There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
Other than in a suppressor-equipped pistol, what's the advantage? 147s shot high for me when I tried them, most sights seem to be regulated for 124s.
No suppressor involved. 147 are just not as loud as 124 or especially 124+p.
Sights: I haven't found that--especially in Glocks. Mine shoot POA at 20yds with 147 HST
“There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
Okay, got it.
In priority order for me:
1) most people shoot service pistols better than subcompacts
2) gun handling (drawing, reloading, clearing malfunctions, running controls) is easier and therefore more reliable with service pistols
3) subcompacts are more vulnerable to shooter induced malfunctions, which are common for even well trained people with reliable pistols in actual shootings
4) bullet expansion may be a factor in terminal performance, and expansion is less reliable in short barrels
5) magazine capacity is generally much less for subcompacts
Ignore Alien Orders
It is personal preference and if I could not carry 147, I would not fret over using 124. I find that the 147gr stuff usually has "less" or "better" recoil, and I shoot it better. That is more noticeable to me in tiny guns. The difference is not night and day. I also find that most 147 grain loads have a bit less blast and flash than the 124gr. More objectively, 147 grain defensive ammo has less of a velocity drop as barrel length shortens, compared to lighter bullet loading. So, one "loses" less when going to a smaller gun. This can be confirmed by going to places like the Federal and Speer ballistics charts on their websites, ballistics by the inch and similar internet sources. I doubt there is any measurable effectiveness difference between good 147 and 124gr ammo. Proper bullet design, proper function in your gun, ammunition quality, etc., matters far more.
Generally, I tend to go for the heaviest standard weight in most auto pistol calibers (.40-180 / .45-230) because I think they work well and tend to have a recoil impulse that makes them easier to shoot. For me. I would advocate adding a box of 147 and shooting both weights in your gun, even mixing them in a single magazine some, to see how they do for you and pick what works best for you. If that is not feasible, don't sweat it, spend the energy on being as good as possible with the gun and ammo you have chosen.
In another discussion, @GJM referenced this interesting thread on 147 / 124 115 in the G48 and G43, might be relevant to this discussion:
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....ths-with-a-G48
This is the impetus that led me to choose GD 115 for Mrs. RJ's P365, and switch from 147 HST to GD 124+p (carry)/AE 124 (range) for my G48. The G48 is particularly interesting, as it has a 4.1" barrel, but the RSA of the G43/43X. Odd beast.
I still have the multiple boxes of 147 HST put by. In today's climate, I am hanging on to them; since they will run in my bigger Glocks (which include a 19.5 and a 34.5) You know, in case of Zombies.
Thank you for expanding on your comment.
1) most people shoot service pistols better than subcompacts
-True, to a point.
2) gun handling (drawing, reloading, clearing malfunctions, running controls) is easier and therefore more reliable with service pistols
-I am not so sure about drawing, since we are probably talking about drawing from concealment, but otherwise, I tend to agree. Shorter guns can be much easier/faster to draw.
3) subcompacts are more vulnerable to shooter induced malfunctions, which are common for even well trained people with reliable pistols in actual shootings
-Highly dependent on gun, caliber and shooter
4) bullet expansion may be a factor in terminal performance, and expansion is less reliable in short barrels
-Highly dependent on caliber, bullet weight, cartridge design
5) magazine capacity is generally much less for subcompacts
-Somewhat caliber dependent, but otherwise I agree. However, this only matters if one feels the greater capacity is of sufficient value.
Like so many things in life, it is a question of compromise. Would I rather be armed with a P226 than Kahr PM9 or MK9 if I had to defend myself with a handgun? Clearly, yes. But, which gun am I likely to carry when I run to the grocery store or go out to dinner (back when we used to be able to go out to dinner)? Which of those would I want to have attached to body armor on duty as a BUG? Which of those can I put in a pocket of sweat pants, shorts or jeans in a little kydex pocket holster?
And of course, life is more complicated than that. If I am in an environment where concealment is not important, and I am wearing slacks or 5.11-type pants, but the threat is low, such as working in an administrative or teaching position in a secure environment, I am likely to carry a compact gun in an owb holster and if I am in the mountains where I may have to contend with two or four legged problems, I am likely to carry something else altogether. As the Brits say, "horses for courses."
I don't think either of us is wrong, we just choose slightly different compromises. I appreciate hearing your thoughts and you make some good points.
Reply With Quote