Preferred 9mm bullet weight?

Help Support Ruger Forum:

KurtC

Single-Sixer
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
258
Location
New Jersey
The NATO StanAg is based upon energy. It must break 400 ft-lbs from a 20cm barrel (7.85"). This puts most compliant ammunition in the +P range. I've fired the M1152 out of several pistols. It is hot.
 
Joined
Dec 24, 2009
Messages
624
Location
Flat Rock, NC
When Georg Luger came up with the 9x19mm cartridge/firearm his bullet choice was 124 gr. They were loaded "hot" in Germany compared to the Frankford Arsenal loaded 9x19mm. In fact, the Ordinance Department required German loaded ammo for the "field trials" so the test firearms were reliable. Evidently the propellants available to the Ordinance Department weren't "spiffy" enough for this high-pressure cartridge.
 

RC44Mag

Buckeye
Joined
Jul 18, 2022
Messages
2,078
Location
Long Island
When I bought my Sig 228 in 90-91 I also bought a bunch of Corbon 115's @1350 fps. I've read that .357 125 gn pushed a bit faster were the ultimate man stoppers and the Corbon 115's are nipping on the magnums heels. Figured they would serve admirably if called upon for serious social work. I've fired a good amount of it over the years and still have a good amount left. I don't hunt with 9mm and would use heavier bullets for that task but for what the Sig is reserved for the 115's should do their job just fine and as accurate as any other quality ammo that I've fired over the years.
 
Last edited:

KurtC

Single-Sixer
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
258
Location
New Jersey
Been using these for awhile now. You can't beat the quality or price.

 

Bad Barlow

Blackhawk
Joined
Apr 3, 2022
Messages
645
Location
Norcal
Been using these for awhile now. You can't beat the quality or price.

You have to be careful with that bullet style,if you load them to the usual OAL , they can get stuck in the leade.
It's because full diameter bullet ends up further out of the case than a round nose. A fellow club member gave me a batch of "faulty ammo" that wouldn't let his Sig go into battery. They were @ 1.140", I reseated them to 1.060"and they worked fine, but I was careful to make sure that the pressure didn't go up enough to be a problem.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2017
Messages
1,876
Location
Idaho
KISS system will work for you in this quest. Which common bullet weight and make will be the most accurate. Doubt you will find much difference in 115, 124 gr when used at Normal SD range say up to 25 yds in a handgun. As a young man at about 20, I tried everything I could back than in a S&W 59 9mm about 1976. I shot paper and cement blocks at 15 yds. They all had about the same results. Fast forward to 1990 the dept when to 9mm and used 115 FMJ in practice and 115 JHP for duty. For a short time we had 147 JHP. Not that they were bad. They worked the same. As I recall it came down to cost and availability. The 115s are more popular.
I handload 9mm 115gr FMJs for practice and buy 115gr JHP Hornaday critical defense for carry. They both shoot inside a 4x6 inch circle at 15 yds. while standing or kneeling as long as I don't pull the shots low.
My opinion, the 9mm is so popular and so many different bullets work well in the handguns. Find one that is readily available at a price you like. Test a box for function and it likely will work just fine. Stick with it. Don't over think it.
 

vlavalle

Single-Sixer
Joined
Apr 10, 2022
Messages
331
Location
Chandler, AZ
When I bought my Sig 228 in 90-91 I also bought a bunch of Corbon 115's @1350 fps. I've read that .357 125 gn pushed a bit faster were the ultimate man stoppers and the Corbon 115's are nipping on the magnums heels. Figured they would serve admirably if called upon for serious social work. I've fired a good amount of it over the years and still have a good amount left. I don't hunt with 9mm and would use heavier bullets for that task but for what the Sig is reserved for the 115's should do their job just fine and as accurate as any other quality ammo that I've fired over the years.
This is a completely misleading statement about the power of the 9mm cartridge, especially when comparing it to the .357 Mag. The 9mm is essentially a pea shooter of ammo. Here are the facts: (1) the average 9mm ft. lbs. (its power rating) is 362. Corbon make 2 different 9mm 115 gr rounds of ammo - one with 399 ft. lbs., and the other with 466 ft. lbs., and both of these are considerably more powerful than the average 9mm. The MAX power of any 9mm is made by Buffalo Bore, and it delivers 500 ft. lbs. (2) Corbon makes two .357 Mag rounds of ammo with 125gr bullets. One produces 469 ft. lbs and the other produces 544 ft. lbs. But Corbon does NOT make powerful .357 Mag ammo at all. So, in your statement, there is indeed one Corbon 115 gr 9mm ammo that comes close to the lower end of the Corbon .357 Mag round in power, which is not indicative of these calibers at all! If you take this utterly narrow viewpoint, you could then say that the .22 Mag is more powerful than the 9mm! The average .357 Mag round delivers 539 ft. lbs. Buffalo Bore make one with 899 ft. lbs, and PPU makes one with 907 ft. lbs. There is NO comparison between 9mm and the .357 Mag.

I have created a ballistics file that covers 35 handgun calibers (and 25 rifle ones), with over 3,500 entries, where each entry is a link to an online retailer for that particular ammo. It contains about 200 unique 9mm entries (not duplicate ammo that is sold by different outlets), and for the .357 Mag caliber there are a little over 100 unique .357 Mag rounds listed. This is how I get my averages. If interested in this file, message me and I will send you this file (a PDF file).
 

RC44Mag

Buckeye
Joined
Jul 18, 2022
Messages
2,078
Location
Long Island
This is a completely misleading statement about the power of the 9mm cartridge, especially when comparing it to the .357 Mag. The 9mm is essentially a pea shooter of ammo. Here are the facts: (1) the average 9mm ft. lbs. (its power rating) is 362. Corbon make 2 different 9mm 115 gr rounds of ammo - one with 399 ft. lbs., and the other with 466 ft. lbs., and both of these are considerably more powerful than the average 9mm. The MAX power of any 9mm is made by Buffalo Bore, and it delivers 500 ft. lbs. (2) Corbon makes two .357 Mag rounds of ammo with 125gr bullets. One produces 469 ft. lbs and the other produces 544 ft. lbs. But Corbon does NOT make powerful .357 Mag ammo at all. So, in your statement, there is indeed one Corbon 115 gr 9mm ammo that comes close to the lower end of the Corbon .357 Mag round in power, which is not indicative of these calibers at all! If you take this utterly narrow viewpoint, you could then say that the .22 Mag is more powerful than the 9mm! The average .357 Mag round delivers 539 ft. lbs. Buffalo Bore make one with 899 ft. lbs, and PPU makes one with 907 ft. lbs. There is NO comparison between 9mm and the .357 Mag.

I have created a ballistics file that covers 35 handgun calibers (and 25 rifle ones), with over 3,500 entries, where each entry is a link to an online retailer for that particular ammo. It contains about 200 unique 9mm entries (not duplicate ammo that is sold by different outlets), and for the .357 Mag caliber there are a little over 100 unique .357 Mag rounds listed. This is how I get my averages. If interested in this file, message me and I will send you this file (a PDF file).
Wow, you really got yourself worked up you really didnt comprehend what I typed. I based my whole post on what was going on in my head about 30 years ago. At that time most of these newer .357 rounds weren't born yet and the .357 leader in one shot stops( against two legged predators) was a 125g @ about 1450. Think the stop percentage was in the mid 90% range.
the Corbons were 115 @ 1350 with 466 ftlbs and an almost equal stopping rate of the vaunted magnum. That's why I bought a bunch of it then, still have some and don't feel undergunned with it one bit, even 30+ years later.

No where did I even hint at solid hard cast, high pressured bear defense stuff and other very hot, heavy projectile modern ammo, I wasn't talking about averages along the whole range of the particular ammunition I was comparing apples to apples of two front leaders in man stoppers from 30 years ago and you're throwing in bananas and bicycle wheels, totally irrelevant to the point I was making.
 

vlavalle

Single-Sixer
Joined
Apr 10, 2022
Messages
331
Location
Chandler, AZ
Wow, you really got yourself worked up you really didnt comprehend what I typed. I based my whole post on what was going on in my head about 30 years ago. At that time most of these newer .357 rounds weren't born yet and the .357 leader in one shot stops( against two legged predators) was a 125g @ about 1450. Think the stop percentage was in the mid 90% range.
the Corbons were 115 @ 1350 with 466 ftlbs and an almost equal stopping rate of the vaunted magnum. That's why I bought a bunch of it then, still have some and don't feel undergunned with it one bit, even 30+ years later.

No where did I even hint at solid hard cast, high pressured bear defense stuff and other very hot, heavy projectile modern ammo, I wasn't talking about averages along the whole range of the particular ammunition I was comparing apples to apples of two front leaders in man stoppers from 30 years ago and you're throwing in bananas and bicycle wheels, totally irrelevant to the point I was making.
Well, it is nice to hear that your intent was not to glorify the 9mm, like so many people actually do here and elsewhere online, especially in the YouTube videos! But your words came across otherwise, especially when you were comparing the 9mm to the .357 Mag. Nor did I make any comment about hunting. I can only read and respond to your words, and not your intent. But I have been shooting .357 Mag ammo since 1965 (Ruger Blackhawk 6.5"), and it was VERY powerful back then as well. Keep in mind, that it was the MOST powerful handgun in the world from 1934 to the advent of the .44 Mag in 1955 - that's 21 years. I do not have any detailed ballistics on ammo sold back in the '60s, or even just 30 years ago, but from personal experience, the heavy loads of the .357 Mag gave a huge kick back then, as the rounds do now. I remember shooting at dusk back then, and it shot out a flame of about 1.5-2 feet! I started collecting ballistics ammo statistics 8 years ago - 2015. Again, if you would like to see this ballistics file, just PM me, and I can email it to you, or tell you how to get from my website online. If you buy ammo, this is a nice source of info to have.
 

RC44Mag

Buckeye
Joined
Jul 18, 2022
Messages
2,078
Location
Long Island
Well, it is nice to hear that your intent was not to glorify the 9mm, like so many people actually do here and elsewhere online, especially in the YouTube videos! But your words came across otherwise, especially when you were comparing the 9mm to the .357 Mag. Nor did I make any comment about hunting. I can only read and respond to your words, and not your intent. But I have been shooting .357 Mag ammo since 1965 (Ruger Blackhawk 6.5"), and it was VERY powerful back then as well. Keep in mind, that it was the MOST powerful handgun in the world from 1934 to the advent of the .44 Mag in 1955 - that's 21 years. I do not have any detailed ballistics on ammo sold back in the '60s, or even just 30 years ago, but from personal experience, the heavy loads of the .357 Mag gave a huge kick back then, as the rounds do now. I remember shooting at dusk back then, and it shot out a flame of about 1.5-2 feet! I started collecting ballistics ammo statistics 8 years ago - 2015. Again, if you would like to see this ballistics file, just PM me, and I can email it to you, or tell you how to get from my website online. If you buy ammo, this is a nice source of info to have.
Again I was comparing in the time frame of 3 decades ago when the two specific 357/9mm were compared head to head in armed man on man situations. My words were not at all misleading as I prefaced it by stating long, long time ago. You're the one who mentioned BB and PPU at high 800 to 900 ft lbs not me, those aren't target rounds or personal rounds. They're large game stoppers plain and simple.
Heres a similar list I was looking at 30 years ago to decide what to buy at that time. Good amount of these cartridges weren't even developed then but the somewhat slower Corbon 115 still has a very good 1 shot stop number without passing through 8 humans behind the skell who's targeted with one of those grizz planter 900 ftlb rounds!
 

vlavalle

Single-Sixer
Joined
Apr 10, 2022
Messages
331
Location
Chandler, AZ
Again I was comparing in the time frame of 3 decades ago when the two specific 357/9mm were compared head to head in armed man on man situations. My words were not at all misleading as I prefaced it by stating long, long time ago. You're the one who mentioned BB and PPU at high 800 to 900 ft lbs not me, those aren't target rounds or personal rounds. They're large game stoppers plain and simple.
Heres a similar list I was looking at 30 years ago to decide what to buy at that time. Good amount of these cartridges weren't even developed then but the somewhat slower Corbon 115 still has a very good 1 shot stop number without passing through 8 humans behind the skell who's targeted with one of those grizz planter 900 ftlb rounds!
Your words were completely misleading, although apparently not to you. But for just about any reader, they will be, as you can see from my response. And there was NO mention of hunting in my response, just what the average and max's are for each caliber, showing how much differences there are between the two calibers. And as for your constantly thinking that there weren't particularly powerful .357 Mag rounds then, the INITIAL caliber made in 1934 was a 158gr bullet traveling at 1525 fps, which delivered 688 ft. lbs. Of course, many variants have been made since, many less powerful and some a lot more.

As for your online list, it is woefully lacking, and therby quite misleading also, and not just in the calibers we were talking about, but with ALL of them. There may have been some reason for this particular list, but since this chart is just pulled out by itself, I cannot see the jest of what this is representing. It probably has some relevance to the topic it is related to. Here are some examples of it being 'way off': the .41 Mag goes up to 1,153 ft. lbs., .44 Mag goes up to 1,5.33 ft. lbs., and the .45 Colt (LC) goes up to 1,344 ft. lbs. And there are many rounds between the max I mention and the ones listed in your list. This chart is extremely stripped down. No wonder you were able to make the comparison with the 9mm to the .357 Mag. Get my file and get the real and comlete ballistics info.
 

RC44Mag

Buckeye
Joined
Jul 18, 2022
Messages
2,078
Location
Long Island
I don't care to see your list, I've heard enough and not going round and round with you on this subject. Have a great day
 

Latest posts

Top