Unexpected Results...

I'm wondering if this is because modern service pistols have a more aggressive rate of turn in terms of rifling (My SR9 is 1/10") to ensure reliable function/performance with the heaviest and hottest loads.

Not really, the 9x19mm cartridge was originally spec'd for about that rifling rate (1 in 9.84" to be precise). If you look at the grouping charts, bullet weight doesn't really seem to be a very defining point of accuracy (note the Speer 125gr Gold Dot turned in a 2.5" avg group, for example). I think your assessment is being colored by the two outside extremes of grouping, namely that the most accurate group by a decent margin is the Winchester 147gr, and by far the worst group is the Remington 88gr. The Winchester is indeed a very accurate load coupled with the SR9, more likely due to it's powder than bullet weight, but you only have 2 147gr loads represented here - hard to make a call based on so little data.
On the other hand, I think rifling twist rate has a great deal to do with why the 88gr Remingtons performed so poorly, as the 9mm was originally designed with a 115gr bullet.

I'll agree that the SR9 does seem to have a predilection towards heavier loads based on what little data is on hand, but I would speculate that it has more to do with the slower burning powders that accompany those heavier bullets than the bullets themselves.
 
I'll agree that the SR9 does seem to have a predilection towards heavier loads based on what little data is on hand, but I would speculate that it has more to do with the slower burning powders that accompany those heavier bullets than the bullets themselves.

Interesting. Why would the burning rate of a powder have a higher impact on accuracy? (Although I think the biggest impact on accuracy at this point is me). :rolleyes:
 
Why would the burning rate of a powder have a higher impact on accuracy?
Slower burning powders tend to burn (and thus generate gasses that propel the bullet) more evenly, allowing for less deviation when exiting the barrel. Of course it's just one of many factors and I may be totally off on this particular guess.

Although I think the biggest impact on accuracy at this point is me

that's true for 98% of us at any point :p
 
Another thing to consider is that, except for several outliers (the 88 gr. Remington, the Winchester 147 gr. FMJ, the Federal 115 gr. JHP, and the 115 gr. Hornady FMJ) the average group size for everything was between 2.50 and 3.00 inches. It's hard to know whether, or to what extent, that variation is significant, especially without more data, like sample size, number of samples, standard deviation, etc.

Personally, I find this sort of information academically interesting. But it doesn't necessarily tell you what to expect from a given ammunition in your particular gun (even if the same make and model as the test gun).
 
Incidentally, I've noticed that the most accurate rounds in this pistol are the heavier 147 gr. rounds.

Well one issue is "how much bullet is rubbing against how much inner barrel surface?". This is also known as "bearing surface".

In a 9mm gun you have to use a rounded nose profile in order to get decent feeding. So "full wadcutter" shapes are out - those can be very accurate (at least at short to medium ranges) because they maximize the bearing surface for their weight.

In a bullet shaped correctly for an autopistol, bearing surface will be limited to some extent. The heavier the bullet, the longer, and hence more bearing surface.

Which brings me to my second favorite projectile after the Gold Dot, the Barnes all-copper hollowpoints as loaded by Cor-Bon (what they call the "DPX series"), one or two loads by Federal and you can of course buy raw projectiles from Barnes. They tend to be very accurate, in part because (along with the Speer Gold Dots and Hornady XTPs) they're very well "spin balanced", and the Barnes slugs benefit from being all-copper in that for the same weight as a lead slug, they're longer and have more bearing surface as copper is less dense than lead.

Lead is about 1/4 extra density over copper so a 124gr copper slug would have the bearing surface of a bit over 150gr worth of lead (well, mostly lead) conventional jacketed bullet.

This isn't by any means the only factor in handgun accuracy, but it does have an effect.
 
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9mmluger.html


Jim Downey's website is a God send, since he actually tests current ammunition in real guns, AND test barrels.

The test barrel data gives you excellent data on how well the ammunition works in your barrel length. From this, you can figure out the speed of the powder used in the different ammunition.

General loading practices that lead to accuracy.
A full case of powder. This means consistent ignition, and burning, since the powder can't settle to the side of the case, or move away from the primer when it's slammed into battery out of the magazine.

A powder designed to work in your gun barrel length. If you use a slow powder, you end up with a lot of powder burning outside the gun, after the barrel, after the bullets departed, unless the bullet weighs 350 grains or more, then the rules change.

Finally, with 9mm, it's easier to have consistent loading practices with larger bullets. The little ones are hard to seat properly, and, are difficult to work with. Longer bullets also tend to correct errors that might affect a smaller bullet as it goes down the barrel. They are also a bit more likely to provide more resistance, therefore helping provide resistance, and, a more complete powder burn.

All that said, there are more ways to skin a cat then one. Light fast, mainly .357, with 125 grain bullets, at 1450 fps, or more, has a long proven track record of working. If you can get your 9mm to do this, go for it. That will depend on barrel length.

250 grains at 950 fps has also worked. Many different formulas, and, a couple different wounding types that both work.

Gerard, that's the owner of GS, is on to something. The speed at which the bullet impacts can determine expansion. Skin is actually pretty tough, and, when struck at high velocity, it can cause bullets, depending on design, to expand violently, and parachute in a shallow channel, shatter, or fragment.

It can, as his HV's do, all so be used to create a multi-fragmented bullet, that has tremendous impact, since the impact sheers off the 4 petals of the bullet, leaving behind those 4 projectiles to do damage, along with the core, which penetrates like a flat nosed wad cutter, straight and true, and, the core will also mushroom.

All of this is well and good, but, considering the only solid brass bullet on the market is the Barnes X something, for pistols, you have only one choice, and, generally, the velocities are not enough to sheer off the 'petals', but, it does
create some fun ideas...

9mm has some specific problems, and advantages. 9mm ball tumbles, in gello, so, in people, hitting bones, etc. this is a design to create damage.

HP's may not penetrate enough, depending on the size of your bad guy, since even the best HP's are still around 12-14" of penetration.
 
A powder designed to work in your gun barrel length. If you use a slow powder, you end up with a lot of powder burning outside the gun, after the barrel, after the bullets departed, unless the bullet weighs 350 grains or more, then the rules change.

It never occurred to me that one of the reasons for a slow burning vs. fast burning powder was barrel length, although if undirected gasses leaving the barrel can affect a bullets flight path it makes perfect sense. It would follow that a fast burning powder would be most desirable in a 4" barrel. I would also assume that finding a powder that would occupy the volume left by a properly seated bullet in the case would be a good thing in terms of even burning.

Hmmm, I think I feel a new hobby coming on... :) Although as I understand it, whether or not it's worthwhile to reload 9mm ammo is a debate in and of itself. Sure would be fun though!
 
I hate numbers,thats why it took me 4 years of High School to pass Algebra1 and Algebra2.
Paper and reality are 2 differant things in ballistics imo.
Once a bullet goes out the back side of a target it pretty much doesnt matter how it hit the front.Mass and expansion and keeping it from exiting are what im most concerned about.Most times that cant be maximised since the target mass can very due to size and clothing.
So for that reason i like high mass and lower speed as all that energy is transfered into the target in almost all cases.If i want more power i increase speed,not lower the mass.But as i said alot of energy can be wasted if it then exits.
See no numbers! Next post ill do in crayons as i keep it real.Real simple.
 
There is no value for momentum because no one's figured out how to satisfactorily calculate it.
Momentum is the product of mass and velocity--it's easier to calculate than energy.

Energy is the potential of a projectile to do work (cause damage if you will) while momentum tells how hard it will be to stop a projectile. Momentum generally relates to penetration.
 
It's counter-intuitive that the bullet with the least mass would have the highest energy, but then again, it is about 300 ft/sec faster than the rest.

Thoughts?

Energy isn't a good indicator of a round's effectiveness. It WAY overemphasizes velocity.
 
What fiddletown said:

So any of the good quality commercial JHP rounds would be a decent choice -- as long as they work in your gun.

What really matters at the end of the day is shot placement. You need to do your part and get the bullet to where it needs to be. There is no magic bullet, and no type of ammunition will make up for poor shot placement.

This is pretty much what I tell anyone who asks me "what is the perfect bullet for XYZ?" Yeah, there are pros and cons to this or that ammo, this or that weight - but you're looking at fairly marginal differences when compared to the importance of bullet placement. Sure, I like the extra little edge that some ammo might give, so I am willing to spend the extra money for it - but I try to never lose sight of the fact that I have to do my job before it can do its job.

Jim D.
 
skoro said:
Energy isn't a good indicator of a round's effectiveness. It WAY overemphasizes velocity.


That all depends on what you want the bullet to do.

If my goal is to turn a woodchuck into pink mist then what I want is high kinetic energy and momentum is virtually irrelevant. If my goal is to reach the opposite shoulder on a quartering away water buffalo then what I want is high momentum.
Generally, larger, relatively slow(er) bullets are used for purposes where momentum is paramount and small, fast bullets where kinetic energy is paramount.

Two different numbers, two different purposes.

Quite frankly, handguns pretty much suck on both counts. (Normal handguns, not the super magnums)
 
Energy isn't a good indicator of a round's effectiveness. It WAY overemphasizes velocity.
Energy emphasizes velocity exactly the proper amount, the issue is that kinetic energy as it applies to bullet effectiveness is poorly understood.

Kinetic energy is a scientific quantity that is demonstrably equal to the potential of a moving object (projectile/bullet) to do work (cause damage/cause injury).

Whether or a projectile lives up to its POTENTIAL is another story entirely and depends on the particular circumstances of the situation in question. If it pokes a small hole and exits with half its energy remaining then it didn't expend its full potential causing damage. In that case one couldn't compare that round with another based on energy alone and have any prayer of getting any useful information from the comparison.

Even if a projectile does use its full potential to cause damage, it still makes a difference WHERE that damage is caused. For example, if all the energy is expended creating a shallow crater then it's likely no vital organs will be affected. Again, energy ALONE is not enough to tell the story.

Ok, a quick primer on physics.

Kinetic energy and momentum are physical quantities--scientific quantities relating to the properties of a projectile. They do not underemphasize or overemphasize anything, they simply are what they are. When I say scientific physical quantities I mean that one can demonstrate with repeatable experiments that the calculations for momentum and energy provide results that match the measured effects they are supposed to describe. Furthermore, it can be shown mathematically that the explanations and calculations of both kinetic energy and momentum are consistent with the laws of physics.

SO, a person who says kinetic energy tells you everything you need to know about the effectiveness of a bullet is not overemphasizing velocity or underemphasizing mass, he is merely demonstrating that he doesn't understand all the details of how kinetic energy applies to the effectiveness of bullets.

Similarly, a person who says momentum tells the whole story is not underemphasizing velocity or overemphasizing mass, he is simply letting you know that he doesn't completely understand how momentum relates to the effectiveness of a bullet.

Momentum and energy both tell you part of the story but the whole story is a lot more complicated than can be explained with either or with any combination of the two.
 
I think conservation of energy and conservation of momentum apply. You might look at:

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887

This comes from the 'jello shooters' testing of service calibers. For some reason it does not surprise me that the middle ground, so to speak, came out on top. Not the light higher energy bullet, nor the heavy higher momentum 147 grain bullet, but the middle road 124 grain bullet.

Bottom line seems to me to be it takes suffient kenetic enery to freak cellular bonds, while having enough momentum to get to the depth of significant organs.
 
This comes from the 'jello shooters' testing of service calibers. For some reason it does not surprise me that the middle ground, so to speak, came out on top. Not the light higher energy bullet, nor the heavy higher momentum 147 grain bullet, but the middle road 124 grain bullet.

I've come to the same conclusion. In this case the cartridge which happens to fit that criterion is Speer's 125 gr. Gold Dot. Looking at the data results, it's only off by 1/100th of the momentum value of the 147 gr. bullets, which (at least in the case of Ruger SR9), provides optimal momentum and energy delivery, in addition to accuracy.
 
Last edited:
aren't most semi-auto pistols today (including Glocks) modeled to some extent after Browning's famous blow-back design?

most semi-auto pistols today (including Glocks) use a variant of Browning's tilt-locking design. The Blow-back design is a different mechanism, and I'm not sure if John Moses Browning was the inventor of on that one (though he might've been).
 
most semi-auto pistols today (including Glocks) use a variant of Browning's tilt-locking design. The Blow-back design is a different mechanism, and I'm not sure if John Moses Browning was the inventor of on that one (though he might've been).

Thanks Chicago, I'm picking it up slowly yet surely... :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top