Another change to the 147 HST?

[the Schwartz]

That why I included both the relevant original quote in whole, and bolded the segment I wanted to spring off of separately to clearly divide the point of discussion between your statement and my thoughts. Apparently I failed at that.

Nah, you're fine. As much as I would like to think that I achieve the semantic precision that I constantly strive for, the limitations of this medium make that almost impossible and usually require additional explanation. Since words have variable meaning, even in fairly disciplined forums like this, efficient communication is not always possible. For any failure in communication that might have occurred, I also bear equal fault.

[Molon]

I actually like these incremental, tiny changes over time. It most likely shows that Federal/ATK is continually improving the product based on available data.

Do you know for a fact that the change shown in the OP’s picture is an intended design change? Or is it just sloppy manufacturing?

@56kobra You might want to weigh some pulled bullets from the “newer” lot and chronograph this lot before loading up your carry pistol with it.

The Gen 1, 9mm 147 grain HSTs that I pulled had a weight of 147.0 - 147.2 grains. I pulled some bullets from a “newer” lot of the 147 grain HST. Some of them weighed nearly 149 grains. I haven’t chronographed this lot yet.







…

[LockedBreech]

Do you know for a fact that the change shown in the OP’s picture is an intended design change? Or is it just sloppy manufacturing?

I know for a fact that Federal has redesigned the HST at least once in the last couple of years, which has been discussed at length in other threads. I also know that, in my experience at least, Federal/ATK quality control has been generally outstanding. But every company can produce a crummy batch.

No, I do not know for a fact that there's an updated design here, I was generally commenting on the previous alteration and assuming this is another. Do you know for a fact that the change shown in OP's picture is sloppy manufacture and not an intended design change?

If not, seems we're both just spitballing and I'm curious to know the answer.

[Hambo]

Do you know for a fact that the change shown in the OP’s picture is an intended design change? Or is it just sloppy manufacturing?

@56kobra You might want to weigh some pulled bullets from the “newer” lot and chronograph this lot before loading up your carry pistol with it.

The Gen 1, 9mm 147 grain HSTs that I pulled had a weight of 147.0 - 147.2 grains. I pulled some bullets from a “newer” lot of the 147 grain HST. Some of them weighed nearly 149 grains. I haven’t chronographed this lot yet.

I've never pulled duty ammo to weigh bullets, but I've weighed a a fair number when reloading. If you're saying they weighed from 147-149, that's really good. How many did you weigh?


PS-I gave up weighing bullets, because separating them into groups within 1-2gr didn't have an effect of accuracy.

[56kobra]

I only posted this as it was an observation I made when I opened the box.
They may be better and/or perform exactly the same. Maybe it was a machine out of tolerance and there is no change. I just brought it to the forum to see if anyone else had noticed. Incidentally after posting this, I shot some water jugs with a folded t-shirt in front of them. Probably too much t-shirt material and it wasn’t flat but “ruffled.”

Now the oldest design and the newest design performed exactly the same. I’m fact they didn’t even expand properly in the same way and that’s the first times I’ve ever had any not do the perfect mushroom. I attribute this to how the clothing was folded and ruffled because I’ve had others from the same boxes test perfectly out of the same pistol
I don’t even know which of these two is the oldest and newest…

[Velo Dog]

I don’t even know which of these two is the oldest and newest…

The original 147gr. HST circa 2010 had a single cannelure.

Both of those bullets appear to have a double cannelure.

[56kobra]

I noticed that but they were purchased in 2015-2017 timeframe and have the old box so I figured they were the older one…

[56kobra]

I think the “re-design” that got all the attention was within the last couple of years.
I might be wrong.

[TC215]

I think the “re-design” that got all the attention was within the last couple of years.
I might be wrong.

The issues came to light in 2020(based on postings here).

Here’s a post I found from Chuck Haggard:

I know the Fuzz personally, he's not a goober or an idiot. He's actually an extremely well trained, experienced shooter and street cop.

Ref the 147gr HST. 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. This happened last year in my class in front of Cecil Burch, Lee, and Matt and Rob Haught. This first happened from a G43, so we tried Matt's Beretta for the longer barrel. Same thing happened.

I've learned over the years to "trust but verify". Do we recall Todd's blog on "Trust no one's gun"? Well, that applies to bullets as well IMHO.

The most glaring example is the Winchester Ranger-T line. The 147gr Ranger-T used to be a "rock star", to steal a term from an LAPD firearms instructor I know. Then, Winchester got lazy on QC, and bullets can't be counted on to expand. I've see the 127gr +P+ launched from a G34 fail to expand. That's a rather dramatic failure.

I did a good bit of legwork on this and made a bunch of phone calls. I can’t remember all the details, but found this post I made in the same thread:

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.

Spoiler alert— they never called.

We had two OIS’s last year using 147gr HST, and one of them was mine. One of my rounds bounced off a windshield right in front of the suspect, but it was an odd angle. People used that to complain about 9mm, but I think any caliber probably would have done that.

I don’t know of any issues with the bullets from the other OIS.

[witchking777]

The issues came to light in 2020(based on postings here).

Here’s a post I found from Chuck Haggard:




I did a good bit of legwork on this and made a bunch of phone calls. I can’t remember all the details, but found this post I made in the same thread:



Spoiler alert— they never called.

We had two OIS’s last year using 147gr HST, and one of them was mine. One of my rounds bounced off a windshield right in front of the suspect, but it was an odd angle. People used that to complain about 9mm, but I think any caliber probably would have done that.

I don’t know of any issues with the bullets from the other OIS.

With that in mind, are you still using the 147 or did you switch to either 124 or 124+p?