Forum Home    ::    Active Topics    ::    Hi-Powers and Handguns    ::    Stephen Camp's Blog    ::    Contact Us
Go Back   Handguns and Ammunition Forums > Ammunition & Gunsmithing > Ammo Discussion
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06-17-2011, 08:20 PM   #11
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: If you have to ask...
Posts: 185
That was my experience with a Glock 27, 180's were brutal but the 155's were tolerable. In a Sig 229 the difference was less marked.
TXGunNut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 08:37 PM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadster View Post
My 1995 made P229 .40 S&W shoots to point of aim out to 25 yards with standard pressure 180 gr loads be they factory or my handloads. This pretty much holds true for 165 grain loads as well. The lighter 150 and 135 grain JHP factory loads I tried did not shoot to point of aim but at but at the closer ranges where most handgun combat shooting takes place the difference wasn't all that important.



As for myself, when I carry the P229 for serious social purposes I load it with the Corbon 165 gr JHP. This round is about as hot as any factory load available. I wouldn't use them as practice loads due to the expense and wear on the pistol but I have shot enough of them to trust that it will function without any problems.



The local cops carry the Speer 165 gr GoldDot HP in their S&W M&P's. Same load for the Sheriff's Dept in their Glock 22's. When I finally shoot up the last of the Corbon rounds this is what I will replace them with. One advantage to the Gold Dot is that it is usually available on dealer's shelves and it isn't quite as pricey as the Corbon/



Hope this helps.





Roadster
Buyer beware when it comes to 165 grain gold dot factory ammo. They make two different loads with that weight of projectile. Part number 53970 is 1150fps and part number 53949 hits 1050fps. The 53949 part number got a boost recently, it used to be sub 1000fps and rarely expanded. I still would not trust it as it is loaded at the absolute minimum velocity to make it expand.

If you do go with the 165 gold dot make sure it is the 53970 part number. Check the box before you buy it...........
boris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2011, 04:20 AM   #13
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 722
Quote:
Originally Posted by oberstlt View Post
th - I cannot see how a 180 grain bullet can have less recoil than a 155 grain bullet. This just flies in the face of physics. I can see how the 155 would have more blast, flash and noise but not recoil.
One would think that was true, but the 40 S&W 155gr JHP loads are hot. Remember the old 110gr .357 Super Vels or the 125gr JHP .357 Remington?

The new Federal 180gr JHP loads were chosen and tested for several factors, including reduced recoil.
The theory, in part as it was communicated to me, a minor range officer, was that the lower recoil of the new 180gr JHPs would make the phase out of the various 9mm pistols easier for some shooters. There had been no complaints in, uh, terminal phisiology.

I tested the recoil theory myself by alternating the 155 and 180 JHPs in the same mag. Another instructor from the local Sheriff's Department also participated. We both agreed that, yes, the recoil of the Federal 180gr JHPs were noticeably milder than the 155gr JHPs then in use (Speer, Remington, Winchester and Federal). The only thing that I can think of is that perhaps the 155gr JHPs are loaded to the max end of the SAMMI standard while the Federal 180gr JHP are not. I DO know that if I were tasked to shoot up an entire case of 40S&W in one range session, I'd druther the 180gr Federal over the 155gr loadings.

It is also interesting to note that the Glock 40 S&Ws were tested for acceptance for duty use and personal purchase use and failed because they did not tolerate the 155gr JHP load. Among the issues noted (some undisclosed) were bulged barrels.
In retrospect, I wonder if the failures evidenced were in any way related to the issues now being reported with some Glock 40 S&W variants.

In line with Your observations, Sir, I note that other agencies (CBP, for one) have switched to 135gr JHP 40 S&W ammo from the 155gr JHP to achieve the same lower recoil result, although I have also heard that some are exploring heavier weight bullets again as the 135 is felt to be too light.

I, personally, like the 155gr JHP load and still have a small stash that I shall husband for future use.

Last edited by tomhorn; 07-19-2011 at 01:21 AM.
tomhorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2011, 02:54 PM   #14
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Arid Zone A
Posts: 527
Remember that a good portion of recoil is the gasses escaping the end of the barrel. Higher pressure and/or more gas volume = more recoil. Also, bullet velocity can easily overwhelm the difference in bullet weight. The sharpest recoil I ever encountered in a 40S&W round was a Corbon 135 grain loading. My guess is it was running very close to the top of the SAMMI spec.
nuclear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2011, 09:24 PM   #15
pff
Member
 
pff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 2,617
And that energy is mass times velocity squared, and the powder gases may be escaping at up to five times bullet velocity.

Regards,

Pat
pff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2011, 12:00 PM   #16
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Tennessee
Posts: 622
I'm certainly no expert about these matters, but my experience was always that the 180gr was more punishing that the lighter loads. In other words, it hurt my hand. That, to me, means 'recoil.' What I have experienced from the lower weight premium loads is dramatically increased 'blast' and 'flash' and 'fright' and 'unpleasantness', but NOT punishment. I learned this in shooting courses with first a .40 Hi Power and then Glocks 27 and 22. The only way I could tolerate shooting the .40 in those courses was to lower the bullet weight to 165 or 155, and even that in the Glock was not fun; the BHP hammer bit my hand.

As recently as yesterday while cleaning out my shop I happened upon old stashes of all kinds of .40 ammo to include 135 gr which I have never fired. If it doesn't rain today, I may try to get to the clay pits and do some more experimenting.

It would seem to me that increased 'gases' at the muzzle would also mean more 'blast' and 'flash' and things like that. Isn't 'recoil' or what I have always called 'kick', 'bounce', or 'jump' predicated more upon bullet weight? I recall the .357 Magnum in particular as being especially unpleasant in virtually any bullet weight, but the heavier bullets were always more 'punishing' while the 125gr HP's were unpleasant but, again, didn't hurt my hand as much. I can certainly see how all that increased 'gas' (and higher 'pressures') might be harder on the gun than just the gun kicking more. I've always been under the impression that 'recoil' was not what was causing those revolvers back in the old Super Vel days to wear out so quickly. Think of the difference on the wear and tear of the firearm between a 45-70 and a .338 Win Mag. They both 'kick' a plenty.

--Ray
romeofoxtrot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2011, 07:42 PM   #17
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Tennessee
Posts: 622
Just back from the clay pits:

I don't want to drift this thread too far from its original intent, but the issue of recoil may be a significant one. I took four loads (Magtech 180gr FMJ; Federal AE 155gr FMJ; Speer Gold Dot 155gr; & Federal 135gr Personal Defense) out to fire this afternoon and reached a few conclusions I'd like to share: First, I'm old and don't handle heat like I used to. Second, I shoot .40 caliber better outdoors than on indoor ranges; I think the noise and blast of the .40 caliber round are more distracting and intimidating indoors, and I never paid that much attention to that before today. Third, premium ammo is dramatically more accurate than burn-up stuff -- 'big surprise.' Fourth, the 135gr "kicked" less than all the others but is a screamer otherwise and extremely accurate; I LOVED IT!! If I can find some more, it may become my carry ammo in .40 caliber. Fifth, Speer Gold Dot 155gr "kicked" notably more than the American Eagle 155gr or the Speer 135gr but did not hit quite as hard as the Magtech 180gr in my hand. The 'good ole boys' I grew up shooting with used to talk about guns or rounds "shootin' hard"; that 180gr shoots hard to me, and my trigger finger actually hurt with the recoil. Still it wasn't as bad as I remember it being back when I was shooting more a few years ago. Also, this was only the second time I've fired my Glock 22 since Robar retextured the frame for me. They did a really topnotch job of that, and the firing experience seemed notably different because of it. FWIW.
--Ray
romeofoxtrot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2011, 10:31 PM   #18
Regulator
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,263
Gents,

I'd stay away from 135 grain loads in the .40 S & W. I used to be a big fan of 135's. The thought being that you could limit penetration somewhat, but still impart a lot of energy.

Twoguns and I shared some phone time and he convinced me that the 135 grain loading IS NOT the way to go...most loadings only give 7-8" penetration which is not sufficient. It may work on prefrontal shots, but is iffy in other scenarios.

I had to defer to Twoguns on this and now agree with him wholeheartedly.

I use 180 grain Winchester Ranger LE loads (RA40T) now in my .40 Hi-Power. It's a match made in heaven, IMHO.

As always, YMMV.

Wes
weshowe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2011, 11:26 PM   #19
pff
Member
 
pff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 2,617
When I had the hateful G27 the 135 Hydrashok was about the only load that was remotely pleasant to shoot. That, and the Ga Arms 155 FMJ that clocked rather slow which I used for range ammo.

At one time there was a page online that compared the various 135gr loads and the HydraSHok was the only one to give even minimal penetration.

The 155gr Silvertips I had a stock of were *brisk* to say the least.

180's were just plain hateful in the G27. Some folks enjoy recoil.


Regards,

Pat
pff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2011, 11:34 PM   #20
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Tennessee
Posts: 622
Wes--

I will gladly defer to you and TwoGuns about the 135gr. So is it penetration that makes the 180gr so much more effective? Would we be saying then that the heavier the bullet the greater the effectiveness in the .40? Would then the next weight down be next best --i.e., 165gr? What about the issue of relative recoil among the bullet weights?

--Ray
romeofoxtrot is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Search tags for this page
155 or 180 gr 40 cal for accuracy
,
40 cal ammo grain ranges
,
40 cal ammunition weight
,
best .40 ammunition for sig 229
,

best grain for 40 cal

,

best weight for 40 s&w ammo

,
lowest price speer gold dot 165 grain .40 le 50 rounds
,
most accurate for 40 cal walther, 155 grain or 165grain
,
top rated 40 caliber ammo
,

walther pps .40 s&w best ammunition grain

,
what grain is the best for 40 smith&wessno
,

what is the best grain for .40 cal

,

what is the best light weight 40 cal pistol round

,
what is the best weight for cal. .40 bullet
,
what's the best ammo for a 40 caliber smith and wesson

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Corbon DPX 140gr. incapacitation effectiveness? Mickey Ammo Discussion 1 06-24-2011 11:59 PM
BHP weight gumby The Hi Power Forum 15 05-14-2010 09:01 AM
bullet weight plinkster Ammo Discussion 7 08-20-2009 06:26 AM
Light weight HP35 The Hi Power Forum 7 11-24-2006 09:00 PM
Typical .40S&W cartridge weight? Reloading 0 05-07-2005 02:44 PM



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.