115 vs 147

Juliet Charlie: You and CaesarI have piqued my interest in this bullet weight choice. Could one of you please post the load(s) that qualify as the 'latest and greatest' in this weight? That way, those that are swayed won't end up buying an inferior choice. However, this still bugs me-If a 125gr. .357 @1450 is indisputably good, how is a 115gr .355 bullet @1350fps so bad?
 
If 147 grain was good, could you imagine a 300 grain 9mm? There would be room for just enough powder to get the thing going nearly 400 fps! Forget putting little holes in the target, this would be more like bowling.

Come to think of it, I'm going to switch to a 15 grain fiberglass bullet going 3500 fps! That's the ticket!
 
Since I'm limited to non-LE ammunition, I like the Federal 9MS. I believe it was the round the military selected for the M11 (Sig P228) for CID, OSI, NIS, etc. It works very well in my Beretta 92. (To be honest, I have been so satisfied with it that I haven't really experimented with anything else.) If I had access to LEO ammunition, I would probably go for the Ranger T.
 
Handy,

300gr or 15gr? Your e-mail is a VERY good one!

In any caliber there is a narrow band of rounds with optimum performance. Typically manufacturers offer a wide range of ammo including too light or too heavy for typical use.

It amazes me that some shooters assume the heaviest bullet is the most powerful when the heaviest or lightest bullet available in a caliber are the LOWEST power!

In 9x19, 115 gr ammo is still the most powerful and has greater potential for expansion than 124 and 147 gr ammo.

Regards,
George
In sunny Arizona
 
LOL

9X19 Stupid :D that is funny.

Last time we talked about 147's going above 1100fps, WESHOOT2, it was your statement that you didn't have issue with their lack of velocity:
"For me it's NOT the velocity (natch) of the 147g projectiles, but their sectional density."

Dare I say we've changed your mind on that issue?

As far as 147's going over 1100fps, it's not as dangerous as people suspect.

To quote MylHouse from the same thread:
"VihtaVuori lists a load using a 147 gr XTP loaded to 1.142" that will go 1,125 fps with N105 out of a 4" barrel. This is a max load, but not even a +P load"

The hottest commercial loader of 147's is PowerMax, they apparently load 147gr Gold Dots to 1150fps.

Fed 9MS WAS the round adopted by the Military for use in the M11. As far as which 147gr loads I recommend... there aren't any bad ones.

DocGKR on www.TacticalForums.com who, as I understands it works for the CHP recommends:
Fed 147 gr JHP (9MS & P9HS2), Rem 147 gr JHP (R9MMS & GS9MMC), Win 127 gr +P+ JHP (RA9SXTP), Win 147 gr JHP (RA9147HP, X9MMST147, RA9SXT, RA9T)

for guns in 9mm.

As a lowly civilian, I don't have much access to the Win. Ranger loads. Anything in 147gr works for me with a few exceptions.

I've been hearing bad things about the new generation of HydraShocks. Seesms they've sacraficed expansion for feed reliability. Shawn Dodson's post elsewhere confirms this. So no Fed HS. The other one which is lacking in large amounts of gelatin data is the Winchester 147 SXT (civilian version). The non-civilian version is the one I'd recommend most if we were all LEOs.

As far as the issue of the 125gr .357Mag being undisputably good... I'd dispute that. A full power 158gr .357Mag, is another story... (158gr 1450fps).

If penetration is so important in hunting, why isn't it important in self defense? Are human body's THAT different?

Regarding this whole "power" thing. I believe I've conclusively demonstrated that Kinetic Energy, while easy for the amateur to calculate is worthless in determining a bullets ability to either expand or destroy tissue.

How come your bullets are more effective, even though they have a smaller expanded diameter, and penetrate less tissue?

-Morgan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top