quote:

Originally posted by CPTKILLER:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qXOQ0NeQIhk

Federal 124 gr. HST + P did pretty well.

This stuff is unobtanium in Phoenix. Scottsdale Gun Club has one 50 round box in their LEO discount display and won't sell it, even at civilian pricing, to non-LEOs. I can't stand the thought of paying for shipping on one or two boxes of this, so I'll just settle for SIG V-Crown until HST becomes easier to find locally.

I use 147 G2 in everything.

Jerry

do you know any online that is selling 147 G2 . We cant get it locally. Our state contract is set on Winchester.

quote:

Originally posted by officerdave:
Jerry

do you know any online that is selling 147 G2 . We cant get it locally. Our state contract is set on Winchester.

Try Kieslers in Indiana.

https://www.kiesler.com

https://www.thetruthaboutguns....-his-9mm-ammo-quest/

This is good on this question.

I don't recommend 147 G2 in a short barrel. I attended a ballistics shoot and G2 didn't open up at all from a short barrel. Did fine from a longer 4+" barrel. If you've seen different please let me know.

I'd lean towards federal HST in any flavor, I currently carry 147 hst or I've seen very nice results from Hornady critical duty.

A round which expands and doesn't penetrate is fairly useless. One which never expands but penetrates enough is one that does the job. If something can do both, great...but it's got to be on target and it's got to penetrate, or it has no value.

Gun rags have waffled on about expansion for so long it's like a religious mantra; a round is useless if it doesn't expand, so the thinking goes. Personally, I don't care it if it ever expands; if it goes where it needs to and goes deep enough, that's what I want.

The "temporary stretch cavity" bullshit has been done to death and it never held water. It looks pretty in gelatin, but it's not a hole. There's a lot of hype about "modern ammunition" making all cartridges equal, the assumption being that "modern ammunition" has greater terminal effectiveness. The counter argument is that if this isn't true, then why not use hardball?

Expansion is a bonus, not a requirement, and expansion of itself is not necessarily a good thing, when it limits penetration such that the bullet can't do what it was sent downrange to do. With reduced velocity in a short barrel, both penetration and expansion are hampered. A bullet that isn't expanding needs to be penetrating, and if it's going slowly to begin with, expansion is going to further hamper penetration; without penetration, why fire the shot?

The gun rags for years rabbited on about energy absorption and one-shot stops, second-strike capability, yada, yada. Marshall, Sanow, goats, etc. I think it's done a big disservice in creating a myth and an aura around expansion, leaving the impression that it's far more important than it really is.

The people from Federal and Speer (owned by same company) say that pressure and velocity are not indicative of degree of efficacy in terms of terminal ballistics. They do not make or sell ammo that does not work. In other words, standard pressure loads are engineered and manufactured to work. +P is not necessarily necessary in that it is not more likely to work or more likely to be effective, etc compared to standard velocity. They can and do create ammo that performs appropriately (penetration and expansion) at the rated velocity of the product.
This is the source of the information:
https://www.luckygunner.com/lo...allistics-gel-works/
including this video:
https://youtu.be/T6kUvi72s0Y