I see they are producing the 9mm in 147gr. I noticed this awhile ago but have not had time to research this "new" ? weight. Most likely its been around awhile and I have been out of the 9mm loop.I have read in a few gun rags or someplace else I can't remember that you should not exceed 124gr by too much for SD 9mm CCW's. I know before I retired from LE we used 124gr speer gold dots in our glocks. Is the 147gr 9mm a hunting round or is anybody using it for SD in their lineup? I use my Kahr pm9 for summer CCW and was using Remington GS 124gr with great results. I see rem GS also carry the 147gr. Thanks
147gr 9mm
- Thread starter Nykop
- Start date
It is a SD loading-admired by some despised by others. Personally I think that the 9 shines with bullets close to the traditional 124 grain weight (meaning 115gr -130gr) and see little point in going slower and heavier on the bullet and adding muzzle flip .......but 147gr loads are still very controllable and, no doubt, lethal.
#18indycolts
Moderator
They have been around for a while, but the bullet designs have only recently made it work. Back when they first came out the perfomance was pretty variable, some loads worked, some were best avoided. The new stuff seems to be better.
I think it's a neat idea, .38spl-ish ballistics, but way more than 6 at a time. But I haven't switched from the mid-weight stuff I carry.
I think it's a neat idea, .38spl-ish ballistics, but way more than 6 at a time. But I haven't switched from the mid-weight stuff I carry.
The 147s have been used for decades. The originals, weak, low velocity "subsonic" loads that sometimes weren't powerful enough to reliably work the action, sucked. They wouldn't expand on a sidewalk. OK, that's an exaggeration. But they sucked.
The new 147 gr loads are much better. They're not my first choice, but if they worked 100% in my gun and shot to the POA I like, I'd use them and not worry about it.
That being said, I much prefer the 115 - 127 gr +P+ loads.
The new 147 gr loads are much better. They're not my first choice, but if they worked 100% in my gun and shot to the POA I like, I'd use them and not worry about it.
That being said, I much prefer the 115 - 127 gr +P+ loads.
Might be a good idea to make sure a given load doesn't cause premature slidelock in you pistol. I had this happen with a Browning HP and one factory load.
A decade or so ago it was popular to say that 147 grain loads were for sub machine guns and no good in pistols. I don't know where this came from. The training officer of a large police department was receiving complaints from the line officers that a well-published stopping power researcher was saying that the loads were no good. He was confused about this because the department had been using the federal load in that weight for a number of years and it had demonstrated lethality in a large number of cases. An FBI agent told me that that agency had had very good results with one of the 147 grain loads.
I've started investigating loads iwth the speer gold dot bullet and so far have only tried a Speer handbook load with Blue dot. Velocities were mid 900s -slower than predicted in the manual and extreme spreads are about 100 fps. I'll try Unique next and predict much better consistency. In spite of the inconsistency of the blue dot load, I shot two consecutive bench groups of 1.5" at 25 yards. These were the only bench efforts with this bullet but I got a sub two-inch group with the full metal jacket speer 147 and the same charge.
Gold dot bullets are well engineered for expansion at their rated velocities and I suspect this one will open up very well when I get around to trying it.
A decade or so ago it was popular to say that 147 grain loads were for sub machine guns and no good in pistols. I don't know where this came from. The training officer of a large police department was receiving complaints from the line officers that a well-published stopping power researcher was saying that the loads were no good. He was confused about this because the department had been using the federal load in that weight for a number of years and it had demonstrated lethality in a large number of cases. An FBI agent told me that that agency had had very good results with one of the 147 grain loads.
I've started investigating loads iwth the speer gold dot bullet and so far have only tried a Speer handbook load with Blue dot. Velocities were mid 900s -slower than predicted in the manual and extreme spreads are about 100 fps. I'll try Unique next and predict much better consistency. In spite of the inconsistency of the blue dot load, I shot two consecutive bench groups of 1.5" at 25 yards. These were the only bench efforts with this bullet but I got a sub two-inch group with the full metal jacket speer 147 and the same charge.
Gold dot bullets are well engineered for expansion at their rated velocities and I suspect this one will open up very well when I get around to trying it.
Last edited:
As others have noted, the 147-gr. 9mm has been around a long time. There is a popular myth not much newer than the load itself which states a lot of these heavyweights don't expand in tissue. That's been demonstrably proven false since at least the early 90's. One such study was authored by the late Eugene Wolberg, Chief Criminolgist for the San Diego PD prior to his death. He examined twenty-seven Winchester 147's that were removed during autopsy after police shootings. In each case the recovered bullets closely mimicked slugs tested in properly calibrated 10% ballistic gelatin. Expanded bullet diameters ranged between .46-.58" and penetration measured between 10-17." You can Google Wolberg's name and "147-grain" for a .pdf version of this summary article from 1991.
Is the 147 a "magic bullet?" Hardly. It performs well enough in terms of wound ballistics but is no better nor worse than a variety of other loads. Some pistols will shoot the 147-gr. weight more accurately than lighter offerings. I've seen this in my own 9mm pistols. The smallest one I own, a Kel Tec P11 pocket pistol, really likes the 147. But my service-sized FN USA FNP9 positively hates them. It shows a definite preference for 115-gr. loads and that's what I use for defense. Do I lose any sleep about lack of penetration or "stopping power?" Nope. Use whatever load is most reliable and accurate in your pistols.
Is the 147 a "magic bullet?" Hardly. It performs well enough in terms of wound ballistics but is no better nor worse than a variety of other loads. Some pistols will shoot the 147-gr. weight more accurately than lighter offerings. I've seen this in my own 9mm pistols. The smallest one I own, a Kel Tec P11 pocket pistol, really likes the 147. But my service-sized FN USA FNP9 positively hates them. It shows a definite preference for 115-gr. loads and that's what I use for defense. Do I lose any sleep about lack of penetration or "stopping power?" Nope. Use whatever load is most reliable and accurate in your pistols.
Last edited:
Tommy Vercetti
New member
the only way I would ever load any 9mm with 147 grain bullets is if there isn't anything else available
mec wrote:
"A decade or so ago it was popular to say that 147 grain loads were for sub machine guns and no good in pistols. I don't know where this came from. The training officer of a large police department was receiving complaints from the line officers that a well-published stopping power researcher was saying that the loads were no good. He was confused about this because the department had been using the federal load in that weight for a number of years and it had demonstrated lethality in a large number of cases. An FBI agent told me that that agency had had very good results with one of the 147 grain loads."
Indeed. That well-published stopping power researcher was taken to task a number of years ago in the pages of Petersen's Handguns. A brief 3 or 4 page article provided a lesson in physics, clearly showing 147-gr. loads actually transmitted more inertia for slide operation than lighter weight 9mm offerings. What was most surprising is that it appeared at all in this publication, which had previously been the primary bully pulpit for that well-published stopping power researcher. IIRC he didn't see much ink after that physics lesson.
"A decade or so ago it was popular to say that 147 grain loads were for sub machine guns and no good in pistols. I don't know where this came from. The training officer of a large police department was receiving complaints from the line officers that a well-published stopping power researcher was saying that the loads were no good. He was confused about this because the department had been using the federal load in that weight for a number of years and it had demonstrated lethality in a large number of cases. An FBI agent told me that that agency had had very good results with one of the 147 grain loads."
Indeed. That well-published stopping power researcher was taken to task a number of years ago in the pages of Petersen's Handguns. A brief 3 or 4 page article provided a lesson in physics, clearly showing 147-gr. loads actually transmitted more inertia for slide operation than lighter weight 9mm offerings. What was most surprising is that it appeared at all in this publication, which had previously been the primary bully pulpit for that well-published stopping power researcher. IIRC he didn't see much ink after that physics lesson.
Interesting.
Slide enertia can be a good thing with that sig 225 x5 comp. what with the recoil buffer, ejection is very sedate and some loads will not always lock the slide back on empty. I've found that I have to stick with the top listed loads in the speer or hornady manuals and have occasional failures to lock back with generic ball. Otherwise, the pistol functions perfectly well even though the cases eject very close to the gun.
Slide enertia can be a good thing with that sig 225 x5 comp. what with the recoil buffer, ejection is very sedate and some loads will not always lock the slide back on empty. I've found that I have to stick with the top listed loads in the speer or hornady manuals and have occasional failures to lock back with generic ball. Otherwise, the pistol functions perfectly well even though the cases eject very close to the gun.
147grn 9mm loadings came about shortly after the '86 Miami FBI shootout. Basically, it was a way to get better penetration out of the primative 9mm JHP's then available (lack of penetration in the 115grn Winchester Silvertip was the FBI's scapegoat for the '86 shootout). Penetrate they did but the early ones did not always expand reliably due to the rather primative bullet designs then available. Bullet technology has improved by leaps and bounds since the 80's and the 147's expand more reliably while the 115's and 124's penetrate more deeply. Personally, I don't care much for the 147's because they are only available from most makers in standard pressure loadings with relatively low velocities and energies (while I don't think it's the be all end all I do think that kinetic energy plays some role in handgun effectiveness). I might consider 147grn bullets if they loaded to more useful velocities as Buffalo Bore and Double Tap do. Outside of that, I think I'll stick with my 127grn +P+ Winchester Rangers.
deadcoyote
New member
My agency issues 147 grain JHP's by federal for our issue ammo. They seem to work fine on paper.
This is from memory. I have not been able to find documentation for my statements to come.
I think that the 9mm 147 grain loads were created to be sub-sonic rounds for suppressed weapons. The suppressed H&K MP5 comes to mind as a weapon that the military and law enforcement used the 147 grain load in to reduce the muzzle report.
I believe that there were several manufacturers that produced a 9mm 147 grain load before the infamous 1986 Miami FBI shootout. Subsequent to that shootout agencies were looking for answers to what happened and what lessons were to be learned form so many LEO deaths. Some say that there were conclusions drawn from the shootout which were not supported by the evidence.
There have been two major schools of thought on handgun ammo performance. One holds that big and slow is best; the other holds that fast and light is best. To some extent the poles have come closer together with the improvement in handgun bullet design and manufacture, and therefore performance. At the time of the FBI Miami shootout hollow point bullets were less dependable in their terminal performance compared to today's premium hollow point bullet designs such as Speer's Gold Dot, Remington's Golden Saber, Federal's HST and others.
If we assume that all defensive handgun cartridges are under powered for stopping a human threat, that we will shoot at least twice to center of mass then assess the situation and continue to shoot if necessary; then shot for shot how much difference of effect is one bullet's performance in a hypothetical shot string? For example, if you assume that it took three shots fired of a 9mm in any bullet weight to stop a threat, each bullet is only one-third of the equation.
I believe that most people agree that bullet placement is critical, bullet penetration is part of placement in the third dimension (height, width and depth).
So, the 147 gr bullet was not designed as a hunting round (unless you are military hunting humans).
It is not a new loading unless you consider a 30+ year old loading new.
If you read enough, you will find an article proposing an aspect of the entire spectrum of carry weights in 9mm handguns.
bluetopper
New member
While it seems everybody is worried about trying to kill somebody with the 147gr bullet, I find the 147gr cast lead bullet weight works best for me in my reloads for bullseye target shooting in my 9mm 1911.
My firearms are for recreation and my shooting pleasure, I don't intend them as weapons.
My firearms are for recreation and my shooting pleasure, I don't intend them as weapons.
A wise choice as recreational shooting presupposes much more enjoyment and a longer lifespan than gunfighting. Gunfighting is all in the planning, practice and anticipation whereas pleasure shooting is well,... pleasant.
I do like a reliable expanding bullet for encounters with the occasional small to medium varmint but like the 9mm for its mild temperment and the availabilty of {relatively} inexpensive ball ammunition.
I do like a reliable expanding bullet for encounters with the occasional small to medium varmint but like the 9mm for its mild temperment and the availabilty of {relatively} inexpensive ball ammunition.
stormyone,
I think Webleymkv meant that the newer 147 grain loads expand more reliably than earlier 147 grain loads, and newer 115 and 124 grain loads penetrate more deeply that previous 115 and 124 grain loads. At least that's how I read it. If so, I agree.
If not, then you're right.
I think Webleymkv meant that the newer 147 grain loads expand more reliably than earlier 147 grain loads, and newer 115 and 124 grain loads penetrate more deeply that previous 115 and 124 grain loads. At least that's how I read it. If so, I agree.
If not, then you're right.