+P in 45. worth it?

[Relatively Ninja]

Actually in some ways this proves velocity does effect the wound channel. The 147 grain 9mm flat out sucks compared to a 124. 147 is too HEAVY for 9mm....makes it go too slow.

I don't see your logic... The 147 grain sucks because it penetrated further than the 124 grain?

 

[thompal]

I don't see your logic... The 147 grain sucks because it penetrated further than the 124 grain?

In the examples where there are different weight/speed samples of the same caliber, it looks like the heavier/slower round performs better (at least in ballistic gel).

I guess I'm just not seeing the advantages to a lighter/faster bullet in any given caliber.

 

[Relatively Ninja]

In the examples where there are different weight/speed samples of the same caliber, it looks like the heavier/slower round performs better (at least in ballistic gel).

I guess I'm just not seeing the advantages to a lighter/faster bullet in any given caliber.

What about a heavier/faster bullet? Something like say... 147 grain 9mm +P (or +P+). I would love to see how those rounds compare to some of the others, but they are so uncommon that nobody (that I've come across) has tested them.

 

[WebHobbit]

I don't see your logic... The 147 grain sucks because it penetrated further than the 124 grain?

Uh....yeah. Too much penetration in an urban environment is a Bad Thing. Also look at the picture again the 147 grain wound channel is slimmer than the 124s.

 

[WebHobbit]

The simple truth is bigger holes leak more fluid even if the projectile is only moving at 850fps

This is true...but a smaller bullet expanded to 70-90 caliber leaves an even BIGGER hole. More velocity HELPS (but doesn't ensure) reliable expansion.

Also there is the phenomenon of temporary shock.

 

[Relatively Ninja]

Uh....yeah. Too much penetration in an urban environment is a Bad Thing. Also look at the picture again the 147 grain wound channel is slimmer than the 124s.

I agree, too much penetration is a bad thing, however, I don't think the extra inch or so that the 147 grain bullet traveled is enough to cause you to worry. Plus, with all the complexities and various densities of parts that make up a human body I would rather have that extra inch than not have it. The "slimmer wound channel" that you speak of is merely a representation of the temporary cavity of the gunshot. This exists because of differences between the properties of ballistics gel and human tissue. It is a non issue.

This is true...but a smaller bullet expanded to 70-90 caliber leaves an even BIGGER hole. More velocity HELPS (but doesn't ensure) reliable expansion.

Also there is the phenomenon of temporary shock.

Again, I don't quite follow your logic... What small bullets do you know of that will expand to .7-.9 inches in diameter? You may be confusing the "tumbling" of a small rifle round like 5.56 with the "expansion" of a type of round such as a JHP (of any caliber). As far as handgun caliber ammunition is concerned, I believe that there are other aspects besides velocity that are more important in determining bullet expansion. For one, the design of the bullet matters a great deal. An FMJ round simply won't expand like a JHP will. Another issue would be the clothing worn by the assailant. It is possible for the depression in a hollow point round to become clogged with denim or some other material from the target's clothing, preventing the expansion of the round.

What is this phenomenon of temporary shock? Do you mean hydrostatic shock?

 

[XtremeVel]

So wouldn't it stand to reason that if you wanted to compensate for a shorter barrel, you would increase the velocity of the round? That way carrying a +P load in a 3-inch barrel would be similar to carrying a standard load in a 4-inch barrel just with more recoil.
.

If minute velocity increases are really important to someone, A good experiment would be to compare what you are saying here against a standard load specifically made for short barrels and see which generates the higher velocity.

There are more ways to increase velocity other than simply using more powder. Trying different powders with different burn rates would be the first thing that would come to mind, especially in SD ammo where excessive muzzle flash would be a concern in shorter barrels.

This is true...but a smaller bullet expanded to 70-90 caliber leaves an even BIGGER hole. More velocity HELPS (but doesn't ensure) reliable expansion.

Also there is the phenomenon of temporary shock.

If you get a .355 dia bullet to expand that big, I would say you will have a major penetration issue.

Like so many have already said, it all really doesn't matter. The difference between standard loadings and +P is not great enough. Now, if you want to possibly make a difference, I would start to consider your argument if we were talking the difference between a 124-125 gr bullet out of a 9mm and the same weight coming out of a .357 mag coming out of a longer barrel. Here, the difference in velocity would be signifigant, but still at a cost.

 

[Relatively Ninja]

If minute velocity increases are really important to someone, A good experiment would be to compare what you are saying here against a standard load specifically made for short barrels and see which generates the higher velocity.

Like this? These types of ammo aren't from the same manufacturer, so it doesn't take into account variations between powder mixtures from different companies, but it does have muzzle velocity for 124 gr +P, 125 gr, and 124 gr short barrel loads.


There are more ways to increase velocity other than simply using more powder. Trying different powders with different burn rates would be the first thing that would come to mind, especially in SD ammo where excessive muzzle flash would be a concern in shorter barrels.
That part is a little over my head, but that sounds good for someone who loads their own ammo. I'm no reloader, I buy my ammunition already assembled, lol.

.

 

[XtremeVel]

Yes, that chart is along the lines of what I was saying. I am a bit shocked it wasn't until the barrel got down to 2 in before the standard short barrel loading over took the +P loading in the comparable 124/125 weights.... But saying that, the difference we see are still small and trivial, especially when considering the cost of potentially more muzzle flash...

Well, I buy my carry ammo also simply because I don't have the acsess to some powders and/or blends that the manufactures do. Saying all that, the point I was trying to make is rather simple. As a reloader, and in the case of wanting to compensate for a shorter barrel, many times you would benefit more by changing to a different powder with a different burn rate, rather than using more powder. As a reloader I like to experiment. A example to all this would be running a .357 sig load using a max charge of a slower burning powder thru a G35 ( 5.3 in bbl). This load would be hard to beat in terms of pure velocity thru this length barrel. Now, when I shoot that same load thru a G32 with a 4 in barrel, the results are very disappointing. i can actually meet the same results in the same G32 barrel by using a much tamer load of a faster burning powder with much less flash and waste of powder.

 

[WebHobbit]

I agree, too much penetration is a bad thing, however, I don't think the extra inch or so that the 147 grain bullet traveled is enough to cause you to worry. Plus, with all the complexities and various densities of parts that make up a human body I would rather have that extra inch than not have it. The "slimmer wound channel" that you speak of is merely a representation of the temporary cavity of the gunshot. This exists because of differences between the properties of ballistics gel and human tissue. It is a non issue.

You could be right...but either way I don't see using a bullet that is heavier (and a bit slower) than the STANDARD loading to be any sort of advantage. I use 124 grain +P. 9mm recoil is super mild to me even at +P so why not?

Again, I don't quite follow your logic... What small bullets do you know of that will expand to .7-.9 inches in diameter? You may be confusing the "tumbling" of a small rifle round like 5.56 with the "expansion" of a type of round such as a JHP (of any caliber). As far as handgun caliber ammunition is concerned, I believe that there are other aspects besides velocity that are more important in determining bullet expansion. For one, the design of the bullet matters a great deal. An FMJ round simply won't expand like a JHP will. Another issue would be the clothing worn by the assailant. It is possible for the depression in a hollow point round to become clogged with denim or some other material from the target's clothing, preventing the expansion of the round.

No I'm not confusing handgun stuff with rifle stuff. I know very little about rifles and don't have much interest in them.

Admittedly I was a little over generous with the expansion size....but there are plenty of good handgun loads that hit .50 -.75.

What is this phenomenon of temporary shock? Do you mean hydrostatic shock?

Yeah I think that probably is the proper term.