9mm self defense ammo recommendations

[Koda]

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/#9mm

What I like about these tests is that they concentrate on the two things I look for in self-defense/hunting ammo: penetration and bullet expansion. They don't make anything of the cavity in the gel - in my opinion that isn't really an objective or relevant measure. I want to know does the bullet expand reliably and does it penetrate far enough to get to vital organs despite barriers/depth.

^^exactly. This is all that matters and luckygunner is a great website for determining the best rounds to buy, and the data presented is the reason I don't see any need for +P ammo, it literally offers no advantages over many other normal pressure selections that perform equally as well (some even better) without the extra cost and recoil.


Ive had my fair share of +P ammo and I virtually never practiced with it due to cost. One time recently I decided to replace an old mag loaded with +P carry ammo with new +P so I bought another box and after feeling confident with a range day of training I fired the +P rounds and wow, what a difference in recoil, which did affect my point of impact. All I could think of was how glad I was I practice enough and investigated this now and not found out in that small chance in life that one actually needs a gun. That was the last box of +P I will ever buy for self defense carry ammo after looking thru luckygunner and finding several widely available premium hollowpoints that perform literally the same. I now try to match a SD round to the same weight and velocity of bulk FMJ training ammo.

 

[Medic!]

Just there isn't any need for self defense carry, not one single advantage. And if its not practical to use it for practice then why would anyone want to carry something for self defense that performs way different than what they use for practice?

Well my practice ammo is $9 a box 124gr NATO 9mm at about 1175-1200fps.
My carry ammo is 124gr GS bonded +p 9mm at about 1175-1200fps.

My Glock 43 has had nothing but a diet of this ammo. And shows no appreciable wear in 1000 rounds or so.
So you don't need it. But you can do it

 

[Koda]

Well my practice ammo is $9 a box 124gr NATO 9mm at about 1175-1200fps.
My carry ammo is 124gr GS bonded +p 9mm at about 1175-1200fps.

My Glock 43 has had nothing but a diet of this ammo. And shows no appreciable wear in 1000 rounds or so.
So you don't need it. But you can do it

Well then your doing it right what you carry matches what you train with. Although I'm confident in that little 43 it would shoot smoother with normal pressure loads that perform the same. I'll backpedal enough to say though that options are a good thing and I don't have a problem with +P per-se, for me I would use them for a woods load for hiking or something specific.

 

[The Heretic]

My understanding is that a lot of the NATO 9mm ammo is loaded to +P specs so if a person buys mil-surplus bulk ammo, then there is a good chance they are practicing with +P ammo.

That said, when selecting ammo, one should go by the results, not velocity or energy numbers - what is the end result. How far does it penetrate and how does the bullet perform in the gel, compared to other bullets. E.G., if a load penetrates the same distance, and the bullet expands the same amount, and it is the same diameter and mass, then velocity is just an input, not an outcome. Indeed, in some tests you can see where an increase in velocity results in a decrease in penetration because the bullet expands sooner.

Also, one should consider the gun that was used to test the ammo. If a person is carrying a Kahr PM9 with a 3" barrel and the ammo was tested using a SIG P226 with a 4.5" barrel, then the results may be significantly different in the carry gun. There is ammo out there now made explicitly for short barrel guns so that aspect should be explored.

 

[BillGabby1]

Hornady Critical defense is pretty much top of the charts on most lists, I like the sig V-Crown, remington gold sabers are a good selection. Speer gold dot are also pretty high on the chart.

I use this website to pick mine most the time:
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/#9mm

Check the link I posted earlier much better testing and beats LuckyG
Gabby

 

[5nmay5]

Check the link I posted earlier much better testing and beats LuckyG
Gabby

Dont actually like that youtuber, also it's a video that probably took 2 days to film. LuckyG has been constantly updating and researching ballistic studies for literal years. So "better" is VERY subjective.

 

[BillGabby1]

Dont actually like that youtuber, also it's a video that probably took 2 days to film. LuckyG has been constantly updating and researching ballistic studies for literal years. So "better" is VERY subjective.

I don't know where you get the 2 day part, he took a long time to compile all those tests, I'm afraid you are letting your dislike for the man blind you to the results.

The major factor is he tests with a 3" pistol so you can see the results first hand, not a 3.5" or a 4" unless its designed for those length barrels! If you like a particular brand look to see if he's tested it. He always uses the same test materials, and distance so you can't cry foul.

He's a little annoying because he repeats himself but he does it for the first time viewers. It's easy enough to skip forward and ignore that part of it. I do all the time!
Gabby

 

[BillGabby1]

nobody, but I dont know what 357 magnum has to do with selecting a 9mm carry ammo.

Im just curious why NATO uses +P 9mm ammo, why +P?

It works in machine guns that require more power to cycle the action.

 

[5nmay5]

I don't know where you get the 2 day part, he took a long time to compile all those tests, I'm afraid you are letting your dislike for the man blind you to the results.

The major factor is he tests with a 3" pistol so you can see the results first hand, not a 3.5" or a 4" unless its designed for those length barrels! If you like a particular brand look to see if he's tested it. He always uses the same test materials, and distance so you can't cry foul.

He's a little annoying because he repeats himself but he does it for the first time viewers. It's easy enough to skip forward and ignore that part of it. I do all the time!
Gabby

I dont know where you are getting this "dislike the man" idea, I don't like his youtube channel, how he presents his data and yes the fact he repeats himself, but to say he is "better" than lucky gunner is about as subjective as it gets. Lucky gunner uses the same 9mm pistol for all their tests (smith and wesson m&p sub compact so... 3" barrel) and yes they keep all the same factors for all the same tests. Is it completely comprehensive? No, is it detailed? Yes.
I think your preference for youtube videos over spreadsheets is clouding your judgement. regardless this banter isnt helping the OP and I detest online dick measuring contests. So I bid you adieu.

 

[CaptJack]

I think you are fundamentally wrong. There is a distinct difference between self defense and practice. And sure you practice with what you carry to some degree, however you also practice with cheaper range ammo. The reason for practicing with range ammo is it is much cheaper and you can shoot (practice more). Also there is something to be said for repetitive shooting. You practice not just to improve hitting your target you practice to familiarize yourself with a gun, you practice to learn muscle memory, to become comfortable in various situations. And it is much cheaper to practice with less expensive range ammunition. If you are teaching someone who is just learning you do not want to shoot more expensive ammo teaching someone fundamentals. I believe you use the appropriate ammo for the training environment. I personally cycle thru my self defense ammo. If its been in the gun(s) for a while, then it becomes my practice range ammo and new self defense ammo goes in the gun. And like I always tell my friends. Any practice is better than no practice.

Just there isn't any need for self defense carry, not one single advantage. And if its not practical to use it for practice then why would anyone want to carry something for self defense that performs way different than what they use for practice?

 

[Koda]

I think you are fundamentally wrong. There is a distinct difference between self defense and practice. And sure you practice with what you carry to some degree, however you also practice with cheaper range ammo. The reason for practicing with range ammo is it is much cheaper and you can shoot (practice more). Also there is something to be said for repetitive shooting. You practice not just to improve hitting your target you practice to familiarize yourself with a gun, you practice to learn muscle memory, to become comfortable in various situations. And it is much cheaper to practice with less expensive range ammunition. If you are teaching someone who is just learning you do not want to shoot more expensive ammo teaching someone fundamentals. I believe you use the appropriate ammo for the training environment. I personally cycle thru my self defense ammo. If its been in the gun(s) for a while, then it becomes my practice range ammo and new self defense ammo goes in the gun. And like I always tell my friends. Any practice is better than no practice.

I think you may have taken my comments out of context, and actually validated what Ive been saying. To clarify, were talking about the need for +P ammo, not premium self defense ammo. Certainly, its important to cycle thru your carry ammo.

 

[CaptJack]

Maybe a bit mis-understood. but many self defense type ammo also comes in +p. I do not shoot any +p ammo regularly, but I would carry it for self defense. I currently have some .38 special JHP in +p. for a Ruger Sp101 as carry ammo. I would not shoot this at the range other than to cycle thru old carry ammo. I would however practice with regular .38 special ammo at the range. I just think +p has a place, just as self defense ammo does and likewise Ball or range ammo does. Everyone has an opinion. Thanks for the responses.

I think you may have taken my comments out of context, and actually validated what Ive been saying. To clarify, were talking about the need for +P ammo, not premium self defense ammo. Certainly, its important to cycle thru your carry ammo.

 

[Cerberus Group]

The only problem...I've not been attacked by a gel-block...and have found a lot of loads don't act the same when encountering human tissue, organs, and bone.

If one wants actual shooting data on loads, search the web for Dr. Gary Roberts or by his forum name of DocGKR

Here's a link that titsonritz posted in another thread. Good starting point.

Ammunition

 

[Tony617]

I am using Federal HST rounds in my 9mm. I was having FTE using 147gr Winchester Ranger-T rounds in my FNX-9, but using HST my gun is reliable now. I use 147gr +P rounds (P9HST4) when first ordered some but now I am using 147gr standard pressure rounds now. I also have some HST 124gr and a few boxes of 124gr +P but I prefer 147gr.

 

[The Heretic]

The only problem...I've not been attacked by a gel-block...and have found a lot of loads don't act the same when encountering human tissue, organs, and bone.

If one wants actual shooting data on loads, search the web for Dr. Gary Roberts or by his forum name of DocGKR

Here's a link that titsonritz posted in another thread. Good starting point.

Ammunition

Gel isn't a medium to compare to results on humans, it is to compare to other bullets in gel and it a lot more legal than testing on humans as you don't usually get many volunteers for that.

Seriously, you can use gel testing to compare to other projectiles/loads that are known to work on live animals, but you have to keep in mind, that even with a large sample, there are a lot more variables in actual self-defense shootings. With gel in controlled situations you have control over the variables and you can also see what actually happened, which is not the case in actual shootings. If a particular bullet fails to expand/penetrate 50% of the time in gel, then it probably won't work very well in a self-defense shooting either, even if getting shot with it results in death of the person being shot.

 

[Koda]

Yeah, I agree that gel is the best medium to test bullet performance.... And thats because it does remove all variables. i dont think there is a way to test performance with all possibla variable..... Well, there is the old Stasburo tests (spelling?) done years ago on sheep. But that was years ago with those old technology bullet designs, which iirc yielded at least 90% "one shot stops" (on sheep) in the 3 major self defense calibers (9, 40, 45).... With old school bullets.
Not certain I need more data than that.

 

[Cerberus Group]

Ballistic gel gives bullets an even playing field for comparison testing, as there's no variables in play, other than if the block wasn't made correctly each time.

The problem with no variables and an even playing field for all...it's not accurate in applying the results to actual performance in the field. Which leaves the down side, some will choose a particular make and model of bullet based on that alone...and then there's the marketing trap as well.

Actually there are many humans that volunteered for ballistic testing, those idiots that threatened LE and law abiding citizens.

In actual shootings you can see what actually happens, and get more information on the performance of the projectile, which sorely lacks in a lot of these posts about the best caliber to use. Those lack a lot of information to be relevant for anything other than adding more confusion.

To get an accurate view of the performance of a bullet, several things need to be taken into account; Distance, media encountered, physiological make up of the person as everyone is a bit different to the point where it makes a difference in bullet performance from one person to another.
Skin, bone and organ thickness, elasticity, and density. Physical condition, muscular or packing some pounds. Medication(s), age, past drug/alcohol and or tobacco use all factor into performance, but very little has been written about it. And animals are way different than humans in too many ways to be considered as a testing comparison.

I posted this back in May, to help folks cut through some of the confusion of ballistic testing;

Ballistic Research - A very short non-definitive study

My point of the post I made earlier in this thread, do not rely on gel testing as the only source for making a decision on what to carry.

Am not here to get sideways with anyone on the matter. I have been provided many opportunities in my career and wish to pay it forward.

Be well, and stay safe!

 

[Koda]

Ballistic gel gives bullets an even playing field for comparison testing, as there's no variables in play, other than if the block wasn't made correctly each time.

The problem with no variables and an even playing field for all...it's not accurate in applying the results to actual performance in the field. Which leaves the down side, some will choose a particular make and model of bullet based on that alone...and then there's the marketing trap as well.

Actually there are many humans that volunteered for ballistic testing, those idiots that threatened LE and law abiding citizens.

In actual shootings you can see what actually happens, and get more information on the performance of the projectile, which sorely lacks in a lot of these posts about the best caliber to use. Those lack a lot of information to be relevant for anything other than adding more confusion.

To get an accurate view of the performance of a bullet, several things need to be taken into account; Distance, media encountered, physiological make up of the person as everyone is a bit different to the point where it makes a difference in bullet performance from one person to another.
Skin, bone and organ thickness, elasticity, and density. Physical condition, muscular or packing some pounds. Medication(s), age, past drug/alcohol and or tobacco use all factor into performance, but very little has been written about it. And animals are way different than humans in too many ways to be considered as a testing comparison.

I posted this back in May, to help folks cut through some of the confusion of ballistic testing;

Ballistic Research - A very short non-definitive study

My point of the post I made earlier in this thread, do not rely on gel testing as the only source for making a decision on what to carry.

Am not here to get sideways with anyone on the matter. I have been provided many opportunities in my career and wish to pay it forward.

Be well, and stay safe!

This is good advice and a lot to take in (i clicked on the link too...). The hard part is applying all those different real world variables to an exact scenario a person has yet to encounter... Its impossible. For me, im applying a bit of "occams razor" philosopy to bullet selection, I simply want to know the round is similar or the same as what LEO uses and performs in gel as a final measure of performance on the bullets part. The rest is up to my training. I do agree that one shouldnt get stuck with "tunnel vision" when selecting gear, but im not certain how else to apply all those real world variables to some encounter that hsnt happened yet....?

A shorter way to look at it is: anyone getting shot with a 9mm, is having a very bad day.

 

[Cerberus Group]

I'm not discounting gel testing altogether, but I take it with a grain of salt, and as we both agree...it takes the variables out of the equation so you'll see bare performance in bare gelatin. Wasn't that desert food at some point in life?

As long as it can be taken for what it is, and what's involved, I think you'll be good to go. I also agree, if won't open up in bare gel and give impressive results, it surely won't in humans.

Some on my list I posted...a page or so ago, I actually witnessed being removed and can vouch for their performance...that being HST and Golden Saber. I must say the most impressive bullet I've seen that gives consistent performance thru many types of media is the Federal HST in the main calibers...9, 40, and 45.

As I tell my students...you can have the fastest car on the track, but if you can't drive, its all for naught. So goes with tools, in this case...the bullet. if you can't run the gun...it won't matter what you carry. One can not use tools to compensate for the lack of skill.

Shot placement will always win out.

 

[titsonritz]

I use 147gr +P rounds (P9HST4) when first ordered some but now I am using 147gr standard pressure rounds now. I also have some HST 124gr and a few boxes of 124gr +P but I prefer 147gr.

Do they still mak the +p versions, I'm only seeing P9HST1S & P9HST2S on the Federal web site, both of which are standard pressure.

I must say the most impressive bullet I've seen that gives consistent performance thru many types of media is the Federal HST in the main calibers...9, 40, and 45.

If you could only choose one in 9mm would you go with the 124gr or 147gr?