There's been some great info here. Serious question to those that have read evaluations of performance. For 9mm, has anyone demonstrated a noticeable difference between 124g and 147g? I shoot(hand loads) and carry(HST) 147g just because I like more of a thump than snap in my little LC9s.
It depends on the round....conventional wisdom says that the heavier bullet will penetrate deeper. Presumably that's why LEOs, for whom penetration and barrier performance are more important, are often issued 147gr 9mm. The FBI 'standard' is 12-18" of penetration in gel.....well that's a damn big range. People tend to believe that as long as it meets the minimum standard it's g2g but I think it's important to pick a round that penetrates to the high end of that range.
Is there merit in saying, 'I'm carrying a little 380 in my pocket for personal protection, if I have to use it, 2 or 3 rounds of 95gr going 8-10" into a bad guy is more than enough?" Certainly there is! It comes down to what you feel comfortable carrying and shooting. I personally think that people today are (really) big and that multiple attackers/intermediate barriers are a thing....if I can have the advantage anywhere, I'll take it.
To your point (finally...) The standard pressure HST expands well, to about .60" diameter, regardless of weight or pressure. For standard loadings the 124s actually penetrated deeper (18" vs 15") than the 147s. The heavier bullet isn't going as fast and if it's still expanding correctly you don't always get the additional penetration you'd expect to see.
Stepping up to the +P loads, the extra velocity allows the 147gr to penetrate deeper (to over 19") with the same expansion so if that's of paramount importance or your gun really likes heavier bullets, that would be the round I'd choose, HST 147 +P which Federal tags as P9HST4.
Take heed that the Speer Gold Dot in 147 FAILED, with no expansion. There were problems with other 147s and expansion as well so velocity becomes particularly important...pay attention. 115s are generally not recommended and will favor expansion greatly at the expense of penetration. Exceptions are the all-copper Barnes 115s, which have a good rep if loaded by them or I guess Corbon....also the Critical Defense that everyone loves which is only sold in a 115gr FTX and does fair also.
Note again this is based on one test with gelatin. It's a useful experiment but it can't replicate real world performance and neither can the FBI. You don't know how a round will perform against a given attacker/scenario until you actually take the shot. I hope I never have to find out how my stuff performs but I still want to carry ammo that's both tested in the lab and proven out in the wild.
One more note on my last point then I'll shut up. I noted some decent performance, esp with penetration depth, from the new Sig V-crowns and just looking at the data they seem to be a good choice. Yet I'm not currently aware of any departments carrying them and the track record on the street is basically non-existent....thus I'm not rushing down to BPS to pay 29.99 for 20 rds of V-Crown to carry right away just because it's got a pretty box, the Sig name and an impressive bunch of technical data.
LEOs are the ones who really have to rely on this stuff. They are the ones shooting actual people (and dogs...couldn't resist) with it and seeing the effectiveness first hand. I'm not them and I damn sure don't want to shoot anyone but I really believe that they've got a handle on what works and I want to carry what they do.
It's too early to internet. I know it's a mistake but I bet a lot of people would flip out - me, I just think it's hilarious.
