FBI switching back to 9mm and their reasoning...

[phylodog]

How about hydra shock vs HST?

I switched to Critical Duty 2 or 3 years ago when it came out from Hydra Shocks. Now wondering if I should go back to Federal. My 92 always has grouped federal and then Hornady very well.

We weren't able to test Hydra Shok in 9mm this time around. Previous testing showed the HST as the better round and I don't know of any changes to the bullet design. We did test the .380 Hydra Shok against the new .380 HST and the Hyrda outperformed all the way around.

Federal will be adding a second cannelure to the HST in the near future. While I haven't seen any test data, it's supposed to improve the performance through barriers.

 

[Hohn]

A significant part of the technological advancements which have created the recent debates is in bullet design. Bullets are now designed to perform at a specific velocity and pushing them faster no longer means you will get improved performance. In fact, you may actually see bullet failure if you push a bullet designed for a standard velocity at +P velocities.

This is ultimately why I sold my G20. Yes, the 10mm has tons of potential. But EVERY modern projectile is designed for .40SW speeds, not the extra FPS of the 10mm. In many cases, what you get for all that extra bang and recoil, is bullet failure.

And since there are companies loading a 200gr subsonic .40, that load is almost all of what I want a SD 10mm load to do. A 200gr Nosler JHP at 900ish FPS is a force to be reckoned with-- tons of penetration, good expansion, and modest recoil.

ETA: here's an old post of mine linking to that FBI doc

 

[Denny347]

I do not currently own a 9mm, a non WW2 one anyway, as I am too cheap to buy practice ammo. However, I would not feel under gunned by carrying a 9mm what so ever.

 

[phylodog]

Technology scales with caliber. The only way that the technology can disproportionately benefit the 9mm (rather than .40 or .45) is if one could demonstrate that there is a particular level of ballistic performance above which no additional performance is beneficial.

I agree with this statement when considering only terminal ballistics. Things begin to shift a bit when you start to look at the size of the pistols frame, maintenance, durability, cost of ammo, recoil impulse and capacity which are all considered in selecting a suitable platform/caliber.

 

[oldpink]

This is ultimately why I sold my G20. Yes, the 10mm has tons of potential. But EVERY modern projectile is designed for .40SW speeds, not the extra FPS of the 10mm. In many cases, what you get for all that extra bang and recoil, is bullet failure.

And since there are companies loading a 200gr subsonic .40, that load is almost all of what I want a SD 10mm load to do. A 200gr Nosler JHP at 900ish FPS is a force to be reckoned with-- tons of penetration, good expansion, and modest recoil.

ETA: here's an old post of mine linking to that FBI doc

That may apply to a lot of bullets, but my own non-scientific experience shooting into water jugs, rotten logs, and field dirt indicates that the 155 grain Speer Gold Dot expands and holds together perfectly, even when fired with my max (my chrono says 1420 fps) handloads.

 

[phylodog]

That may apply to a lot of bullets, but my own non-scientific experience shooting into water jugs, rotten logs, and field dirt indicates that the 155 grain Speer Gold Dot expands and holds together perfectly, even when fired with my max (my chrono says 1420 fps) handloads.

Gold Dots have been around for a long time and still perform extremely well. I'd have no reservations carrying them in my pistols.

 

[BE Mike]

ISP carries .45s, the Sig P227. The issued gun before that was the .45 Glock 21.

I stand corrected, as my information is outdated. They used to carry Glock 22's and traded them in for Glock 17's. It looks like they have been changing firearms along with their underwear.

 

[Leadeye]

Meh.

 

[oldpink]

Gold Dots have been around for a long time and still perform extremely well. I'd have no reservations carrying them in my pistols.

Yep, and that's exactly why I carry that very bullet.
Short of my 12 gauge or .30-06 (impractical for EDC, obviously), it's probably the closest thing to rifle ballistics in a practical (that excludes Desert Eagle and the other giants) carry pistol.

 

[Sigsauerosarus Rex]

My two cents. 9mm has closed the gap between it and .45 the last few years. 9mm has plenty of stopping power, and because of that I carry a 357 SIG with Gold Dots. I originally cc'ed a 45, switched to 9mm to gain capacity, then I switched to 357 SIG when I found I shot much better at longer ranges with 357 SIG than 9mm and gained some extra muzzle energy with it, and a badder bark. It boils down with what you shoot best with. I definitely would feel good with a 9mm or a .45 when it counts.

 

[Hohn]

That may apply to a lot of bullets, but my own non-scientific experience shooting into water jugs, rotten logs, and field dirt indicates that the 155 grain Speer Gold Dot expands and holds together perfectly, even when fired with my max (my chrono says 1420 fps) handloads.

True enough of the 155 GDHP (I have some Underwood loads of this round).

But as I said, that bullet is designed for the 1200ish fps of the factory .40SW load. At the much faster velocities, the bullet expands so rapidly that you forfeit penetration.
TNoutdoor9's test of the factory 155gr GDHP penetrated <12".

Almost every GDHP load penetrates LESS as you crank up the velocity. Yes, you get a massive temporary cavity, but sacrifice penetration.


There are very few HP bullets out there that respond well to the higher velocities of the 10mm. The XTP is one that seems to do OK, still giving good penetration even at higher speeds. Barnes loads also seem to respond well to the extra kick. Golden sabres and such tend to waste much the extra velocity.

There's only one Gold Dot (#4360, iirc) that I think would respond well to super high velocities, but it's a .357 sig load. I wonder how this would do in a 9x25....

 

[DRob]

There are certainly much better 9mm loads available than there were when the Famous But Incompetent switched to 10s. However, whatever 9mm load you may prefer, the FBI's recommendation is the last one I'd depend upon.

 

[Amishman44]

While I don't necessarily buy into everything that was said in that post, I do believe that 9mm is the easiest to "score" with. The performance, penetration, wound cavity,etc. of your chosen round is moot if you don't get a hit.

A lot of departments (federal included) want a round that their officers can most easily get hits with...modern 9mm JHP's do create a good wound patterns that achieve adequate penetration for disabling an aggressor. While I am personally NOT a big fan of 9mm...center mass hits with a 9mm is fairly similar to .40 and up when it comes to wound patterns and soft-tissue damage. The only real step-off using 9mm is when you get peripheral hits (way less damaging to soft-tissue than say, a .45 acp) or when trying to penetrate things like windshield glass (9mm has a tendency to ricochet rather than penetrate vs. say a .45 acp round) but, again, center mass, a 9mm will do the job (stop the aggressor).

One other reason may be grip size for a 9mm vs a .45 acp...the 9mm grip-size options for those with smaller to mid-sized hands is greater.

 

[singlemalt]

View attachment 41319

Sorry, couldn't resist!

No worries, I smiled. But I thought it was the handgun chambered in .50 BMG that put an end to the the debate.

 

[oldpink]

True enough of the 155 GDHP (I have some Underwood loads of this round).

But as I said, that bullet is designed for the 1200ish fps of the factory .40SW load. At the much faster velocities, the bullet expands so rapidly that you forfeit penetration.
TNoutdoor9's test of the factory 155gr GDHP penetrated <12".

Almost every GDHP load penetrates LESS as you crank up the velocity. Yes, you get a massive temporary cavity, but sacrifice penetration.


There are very few HP bullets out there that respond well to the higher velocities of the 10mm. The XTP is one that seems to do OK, still giving good penetration even at higher speeds. Barnes loads also seem to respond well to the extra kick. Golden sabres and such tend to waste much the extra velocity.

There's only one Gold Dot (#4360, iirc) that I think would respond well to super high velocities, but it's a .357 sig load. I wonder how this would do in a 9x25....

I've watched lots of tnoutdoors9's ammo test videos, but I don't recall him testing the Underwood 155 grain Gold Dot in 10mm Auto, and I should know because I went through all of them looking for one.
He tested the Underwood .40 S&W with that exact bullet, but unless he has made a video in the last three months (the last time I dropped in on his YouTube channel), he most definitely did not test the Underwood 10mm load with that bullet.
Also, you would be right about a given bullet penetrating less when it goes above a specific velocity, but only if said bullet had a core/jecket separation, which is a failure common to conventional jacketed bullets.
That's why John Nosler invented the Partition bullet, and that's why many modern rifle bullets either overcome that problem with bonding (Hornady Interbond is one example), or by bypassing the issue altogether by not even having a separate lead core at all, as is the case with the Barnes X-Bullet.
Barnes now makes a solid copper expanding bullet for handguns called the XPB, and there are a select few handgun bullets that employ core/jacket bonding.
The Speer Gold Dot is one of the latter type of bullet, as advertised by Speer themselves, and my own unscientific tests prove that, with the jacket tenaciously attached to the jacket, even all the way back over the expanded mushroom.
As long as your bullet stays together, all that extra energy has to go somewhere, and that means laterally into the sides of the wound channel and linearly into greater penetration.
A fully intact bullet that sheds little to none of its own weight and stays in one piece will penetrate more than will the exact same bullet going more slowly, full stop.
That's not opinion; that's simple physics.

 

[phylodog]

A fully intact bullet that sheds little to none of its own weight and stays in one piece will penetrate more than will the exact same bullet going more slowly, full stop.
That's not opinion; that's simple physics.

Don't forget about expansion though, expansion limits penetration as well. It's a balancing act between expansion, penetration and weight retention. 1.5x expansion (minimum), 14" - 18" penetration and maximum weight retention are the goals with defensive handgun ammo.

 

[Paul30]

If it isn't a 460 Rowland, I would not call it a man stopper. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5TQku01RbU

The .45 seems a bit weak. The 460 Rowland is similar to a 44 magnum in a glock or 1911 handgun. Personally, I'm good with a 9mm. I can make a few good hits fast, more ammo, lighter to carry, smaller frame. Anything that a 9mm doesn't stop, I'm moving to a rifle or shotgun.

 

[Paul30]

If it isn't a 460 Rowland, I would not call it a man stopper.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5TQku01RbU

The .45 seems a bit weak. The 460 Rowland is similar to a 44 magnum in a glock or 1911 handgun. Personally, I'm good with a 9mm. I can make a few good hits fast, more ammo, lighter to carry, smaller frame. Anything that a 9mm doesn't stop, I'm moving to a rifle or shotgun.

 

[BE Mike]

Don't forget about expansion though, expansion limits penetration as well. It's a balancing act between expansion, penetration and weight retention. 1.5x expansion (minimum), 14" - 18" penetration and maximum weight retention are the goals with defensive handgun ammo.

If the bullet expands. Pistol bullets aren't 100% reliable in the expansion department.

 

[phylodog]

Few things are