The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: The Semi-automatic Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 8, 2011, 11:14 PM   #1
dean1197
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2009
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 8
9mm federal hst 147gr vs. federal hst 124 gr

Any input onto the pros and cons of each, and ultimately, which would you recommend?
I would like to go with 147gr, but i've heard (keep in mind heard) things about them.

1. The first being that i've heard they over penetrate, which concerns me because not all of the bullets energy is being displaced into the target like it should be, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is true.

2. Another thing i've heard is that the bullets themselves lack the necessary velocity to expand reliably in the target.

So, between the 2 which would you guys recommend (my primary question) and also, is there any validity to my 2 assumptions concerning the 147 gr. listed above.

Last edited by dean1197; March 9, 2011 at 12:57 AM.
dean1197 is offline  
Old March 9, 2011, 01:01 AM   #2
JROD102
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2010
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 30
Just opinion,........

I personally tend to gravitate toward the 124gr as 147 I think to heavy for the 9mm cartridge to try to push,... well. 147 is I believe considered a sub-sonic round, which explains its over penetration and non-expansion. Take a look at this though, I found it interesting.
http://frag.110mb.com/

Even though his experiment went well the 124gr is tried and true and the 147gr could be questionable. YMMV. I know I want what has the best possible chance to expand with good penetration rather than the chance of not expanding and over penetration. Just my opinion for what its worth.
JROD102 is offline  
Old March 9, 2011, 01:09 AM   #3
egor20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 14, 2010
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 1,762
dean1197

What pistol do you shoot? My S&W 469 likes 147s I've had a few FTE's with 124s, my wife has a (new to her) 469 also, same thing.
__________________
Chief stall mucker and grain chef

Country don't mean dumb.
Steven King. The Stand
egor20 is offline  
Old March 9, 2011, 01:32 AM   #4
dean1197
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2009
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 8
I currently own an hk p30
dean1197 is offline  
Old March 9, 2011, 07:33 AM   #5
Qtiphky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 11, 2008
Location: Upper Michigan, above the Mackinac Bridge
Posts: 557
I too have questions

I am currently loaded with 147 Hydrashoks, the same loads that the Mi State Police used to carry, and was considering the 124's instead. I figured if the State Police were using the 147's then that must be a pretty darn good load. Why would the 147's have less energy than the 124's?
Qtiphky is offline  
Old March 9, 2011, 09:11 AM   #6
mavracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 3,086
First off the 147 garnered the reputation for plugging up and not expanding causing the overpenatration early on from old designed hollow points.the newer technology of reverse taper jackets and bonding has made this a thing of the past.the HST is a great bullet and will expand properly under a wide variety of circumstances. the 124gr works well too although I prefer the +p version IMHO that extra 100fps is a big plus.
That said you need to make sure they function in your gun, this includes POA=POI. as 147s tend to shoot a little higher.
I have a few 9mm some I use 147gr ranger-t some I use 124+p golddots I would switch either out to the same load HSTs in a heartbeat.

BTW Qtiphky the 147 hydra shok was one of the ones often sited for plugging up. I'd shoot em up and find something of newer design.
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6
Quote:
originally posted my Mike Irwin
My handguns are are for one purpose only, though...
The starter gun on the "Fat man's mad dash tactical retreat."
mavracer is offline  
Old March 9, 2011, 09:56 AM   #7
JCP281
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 349
Quote:
I am currently loaded with 147 Hydrashoks, the same loads that the Mi State Police used to carry, and was considering the 124's instead. I figured if the State Police were using the 147's then that must be a pretty darn good load. Why would the 147's have less energy than the 124's?
Simple answer to your question:

use K=.5mv^2 and go see for yourself if his statement is true.


my logic test using standard pressure speer gold dots:

147 speer gold dot: 985=v 317=k
124 Speer gold dot: 1150=v 364=k
___________________________________________


Calculations:

Calculating mass of 147 grain bullet:

(2)317ftlb=m
----------
985^2ft/s

m(147)=0.000653456672 slug


Calculating mass of 124 grain bullet:


(2)364ftlb=m
--------
1150^2ft/s

m(124)=0.000547448015 slug

*slug is the unit of mass for the English system
________________________________________________
Analysis:

You can see that the difference in mass for the 2 bullets is only 0.000106008657

Doing a quick calculation for % difference we can see that:

Answer:

Calculate percentage difference
between V1 = 0.00065345 and V2 = 0.000547448015

( | V1 - V2 | / ((V1 + V2)/2) ) * 100

= ( | 0.00065345 - 0.000547448015 | / ((0.00065345 + 0.000547448015)/2) ) * 100
= ( | 0.000106001985 | / (0.001200898015/2) ) * 100
= ( 0.000106001985 / 0.0006004490075 ) * 100
= 0.176538 * 100

= 17.6538% difference
______________________________________



Conclusion:

The reason that the kinetic energy of a 147grain bullet has significantly less energy is due to its mass. The extra mass is causing the velocity to decrease, which in this case velocity is a squared quantity. any time you increase mass in a system, the kinetic energy will drop significantly due to the amplified rate of change of the velocity.

Hopefully that answered your question.

Last edited by JCP281; March 9, 2011 at 10:08 AM.
JCP281 is offline  
Old March 9, 2011, 01:36 PM   #8
Qtiphky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 11, 2008
Location: Upper Michigan, above the Mackinac Bridge
Posts: 557
What?

OK, I am not an engineer and trust your math skills. That being said, you recommend the 124's?

Mavracer- thanks for the reply, I thought the hydrashoks were what they went to to improve expansion? Must have heard that backwards.
Qtiphky is offline  
Old March 9, 2011, 01:40 PM   #9
Coltman 77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2009
Location: NC
Posts: 1,244
Aren't many 9mm pistols designed for the 115/124 gr. round?
__________________
"A man can be destroyed but not defeated".
Ernest Hemingway

Protect our 2nd Amendment Rights -- Join the NRA
Coltman 77 is offline  
Old March 9, 2011, 01:41 PM   #10
grumpa72
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 5, 2009
Posts: 465
JCP281, now I need an aspirin - my head hurts. I have a hard enough time with basic numbers and haven't done equations like that in .... a long time.
grumpa72 is offline  
Old March 9, 2011, 02:16 PM   #11
mavracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
I thought the hydrashoks were what they went to to improve expansion? Must have heard that backwards.
they did and for the most part they work good. some however would get plugged with clothing or sheetrock or other stuff, the 147gr 9mm was [my opinion] more prone to this due to the lower velocity and small opening [my opinion] the 230gr 45 worked pretty good and the 240gr 44mag is awesome but it's running as fast as a 124gr 9mm

Also this is now why ammo testers do barrier penatration tests.
try this link I think you'll find it informative
http://le.atk.com/pdf/San.pdf
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6
Quote:
originally posted my Mike Irwin
My handguns are are for one purpose only, though...
The starter gun on the "Fat man's mad dash tactical retreat."
mavracer is offline  
Old March 9, 2011, 04:20 PM   #12
JCP281
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 349
Quote:
OK, I am not an engineer and trust your math skills. That being said, you recommend the 124's?
LOL dont worry, im not an engineer either. Im actually an education major. I got my AS in Engineering, but after working in the field for about 2 year decided thats not what I want to do with my life. But I still retaine all my problem solving/physics skills . Now I get to torture 8th graders in algebra haha.

Back on topic, I would (and do) choose 124 grain. Thats a whole lot of kinetic energy left on the table by using a 147 grain.

I tend to look at things a lot more scientifically to base my decisions off of. Numerically the 124 makes more since, but you know how people are with the bigger is better type mentality. In all actuality the 115 grain bullett hits with the most energy, but i worry sometimes that its to much velocity for its own good. So I chose the happy medium.
JCP281 is offline  
Old March 9, 2011, 06:15 PM   #13
Noreaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2011
Location: New England
Posts: 1,367
I carry the 147 grain for the performance and it's very similar to the +p 124 grain without the +p wear and tear on the firearm. I believe several PDs carry the +p or +p+ 124 grain, (Miami Dade, NYPD...) and don't have any issue with over use on the guns. You probably wouldn't shoot the expensive +p stuff all the time because of $ so excessive wear wouldn't be an issue. The 124 +p do appear to expand alittle better.

When looking at the 147 grain be carefull because the articles from the 80s and early 90s the ammo wasn't as good and didn't always expand. The stuff out there now seems to do very well.
Noreaster is offline  
Old March 9, 2011, 07:15 PM   #14
JCP281
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 349
How do you figure 147 grain standard pressure is similar to 124+P?

410~ ftlbs of energy vs 317~ftlbs. Thats a HUGE difference IMO(25.58% to be exact).

The standard pressure 124g already outshines the heavier 147 grain slug, I dont see your logic.
JCP281 is offline  
Old March 9, 2011, 08:03 PM   #15
mavracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 3,086
Because kenetic energy really is not the end all measurement for ballistics. It was pushed by Roy Weatherby and his hydrostatic shock theory. Momentum plays a large roll in penatration and the 147gr has more momentum. Since energy is defined as the ability to do work , part of the work done is to enter the body and exxpand the slug since more of the 124 gr bullets energy comes from velocity it loses more velocity preforming this work. Which is why if you look at wound chaannels the 124s will be slightly larger early in it's path. But now momentum takes over for penatration that's where big bullets shine because they're still heavier. Look at the various gel penatration test and check out the actual damage done they're a lot closer than energy figures.
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6
Quote:
originally posted my Mike Irwin
My handguns are are for one purpose only, though...
The starter gun on the "Fat man's mad dash tactical retreat."
mavracer is offline  
Old March 9, 2011, 08:17 PM   #16
JCP281
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 349
Quote:
Because kenetic energy really is not the end all measurement for ballistics. It was pushed by Roy Weatherby and his hydrostatic shock theory. Momentum plays a large roll in penatration and the 147gr has more momentum. Since energy is defined as the ability to do work , part of the work done is to enter the body and exxpand the slug since more of the 124 gr bullets energy comes from velocity it loses more velocity preforming this work. Which is why if you look at wound chaannels the 124s will be slightly larger early in it's path. But now momentum takes over for penatration that's where big bullets shine because they're still heavier. Look at the various gel penatration test and check out the actual damage done they're a lot closer than energy figures.
I disagree, heres my proof:

Kinetic energy=1/2mv^2

Momentum=mv


The difference in momentum between the 2 is 2.21% difference. Yes, a 147 grain slug DOES have more momentum, but 2.21% is negligible in real world conditions.

Furthermore, Momentum is a function of kinetic energy, and can be written as:

k=p^2/2m

This shows you that the momentum is a direct relative to kinetic energy, so
using momentum as a basis for this argument is a moot point, because it still comes back to kinetic energy.
JCP281 is offline  
Old March 9, 2011, 08:29 PM   #17
mavracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 3,086
Your proof is flawed
Momertum is a factor of kenetic energy.
Kenetic energy is a function of momentum.
Momentum is a real and can be measured.
Kenetic energy is theoretical and must be figured.
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6
Quote:
originally posted my Mike Irwin
My handguns are are for one purpose only, though...
The starter gun on the "Fat man's mad dash tactical retreat."
mavracer is offline  
Old March 9, 2011, 08:32 PM   #18
JCP281
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 349
Flawed how, that formula exists and is used to determine hard numbers.

I showed proof via physical law... until you show me different, ill stick with my hard facts.

EDIT: There is no formula that you can toss out that will prove anything I showed today incorrect. Mr. Newton has me covered on this one.

Last edited by JCP281; March 9, 2011 at 08:48 PM.
JCP281 is offline  
Old March 9, 2011, 09:03 PM   #19
mavracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 3,086
From the TFL library.

Quote:
Energy (of motion) - Kinetic energy or force carried by a bullet at that point in its trajectory. In common use and popular shooting literature it is expressed in foot-pounds, one ft/lbs being the amount of force required to lift a one-pound weight one foot above the ground. Formula: Energy ( in ft/lbs ) equals bullet weight ( in grains ) multiplied by the velocity ( in feet per second ) squared, divided by 450240. Often wrongly equated with killing power, energy is not a reliable gauge of this, as it does not take into account penetration or bullet performance.
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6
Quote:
originally posted my Mike Irwin
My handguns are are for one purpose only, though...
The starter gun on the "Fat man's mad dash tactical retreat."
mavracer is offline  
Old March 9, 2011, 09:40 PM   #20
mavracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 3,086
Sorry here is the link to the 9mm tests
http://le.atk.com/pdf/PortlandWoundBallisticReport1.pdf
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6
Quote:
originally posted my Mike Irwin
My handguns are are for one purpose only, though...
The starter gun on the "Fat man's mad dash tactical retreat."
mavracer is offline  
Old March 9, 2011, 11:23 PM   #21
JCP281
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 349
I never equated kinetic energy to killing power, I just showed the true physical relationships between the bullets and gave my opinion on the results. In a gun fight, I would rather have the potential to transfer the most energy into a target. Their organs will definitely feel it.
JCP281 is offline  
Old March 10, 2011, 06:28 AM   #22
WESHOOT2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 1999
Location: home on the range; Vermont (Caspian country)
Posts: 14,270
flawed beyond reason

The most effective projectile weight for .355" bullets (by "effective" I mean for shooting people to make them desist) is 124g.
Also good are the 127s and some 115s.

The 147g renders itself in the 38 Special class.
__________________
.
"all my ammo is mostly retired factory ammo"
WESHOOT2 is offline  
Old March 10, 2011, 07:28 AM   #23
mavracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
I never equated kinetic energy to killing power, I just showed the true physical relationships between the bullets and gave my opinion on the results. In a gun fight, I would rather have the potential to transfer the most energy into a target. Their organs will definitely feel it.
Not only do you contridict yourself, you don't even belive what you say.

Quote:
In all actuality the 115 grain bullett hits with the most energy, but i worry sometimes that its to much velocity for its own good.
Quote:
The most effective projectile weight for .355" bullets (by "effective" I mean for shooting people to make them desist) is 124g.
You have any data that is not from 20 year old statistics that supports this.
IE you have any data showing the loads in question here.
The proof is in the pudding (or jello as the case may be)
If you look at the actual tests in my last post you will note that the 147 consistantly expanded similar diameters while out penatrating the 124 by an inch ot two.
one notable exception was the auto glass test the 124 did out penatrate the 147 but only because the 124 failed to expand.
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6
Quote:
originally posted my Mike Irwin
My handguns are are for one purpose only, though...
The starter gun on the "Fat man's mad dash tactical retreat."
mavracer is offline  
Old March 10, 2011, 07:29 AM   #24
mavracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCP281
I never equated kinetic energy to killing power, I just showed the true physical relationships between the bullets and gave my opinion on the results. In a gun fight, I would rather have the potential to transfer the most energy into a target. Their organs will definitely feel it.
Not only do you contridict yourself, you don't even belive what you say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JCP281
In all actuality the 115 grain bullett hits with the most energy, but i worry sometimes that its to much velocity for its own good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WESHOOT2
The most effective projectile weight for .355" bullets (by "effective" I mean for shooting people to make them desist) is 124g.
You have any data that is not from 20 year old statistics that supports this.
IE you have any data showing the loads in question here.
The proof is in the pudding (or jello as the case may be)
If you look at the actual tests in my last post you will note that the 147 consistantly expanded similar diameters while out penatrating the 124 by an inch ot two.
one notable exception was the auto glass test the 124 did out penatrate the 147 but only because the 124 failed to expand.
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6
Quote:
originally posted my Mike Irwin
My handguns are are for one purpose only, though...
The starter gun on the "Fat man's mad dash tactical retreat."
mavracer is offline  
Old March 10, 2011, 08:01 AM   #25
JCP281
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 349
LOL, how do I contradict anything I say? Your just grasping at dust in the air it seems to disprove my work(which is 100% accurate). All I did was show the relationship of mass to kinetic energy and velocity, thats it! Just because something has more kinetic energy doesnt mean that it will have the time to transfer it all into a target(hence what I said about a 115 grain). If you have that much velocity, your likely going to zip through your target with a bad shot instead of the bullet being able to slow down on the soft organs and transfer all the energy. That was pretty much implied by my statement, didnt think I needed to write it out.

You have provided nothing in this conversation in the realm of any mechanical relationship via physics. Your main argument was momentum(which I showed was a moot point), so I dont see how you keep saying im wrong.

Again, until you show me some some kind of physical relationship that disproves anything I said(which you cant because im right, look at any text book and it will show you the same thing), im pretty much taking anything you say with a big grain of salt.

Last edited by JCP281; March 10, 2011 at 08:09 AM.
JCP281 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13755 seconds with 9 queries