"Micro" rounds that are heavier?

Status
Not open for further replies.

JHZR2

Staff member
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Messages
52,636
Location
New Jersey
I saw the "micro" .38 spl rounds that are actually flat (bullet doesn't extend past the case) to minimize headspace in there and optimize powder burn. Unfortunately Cabela's was out, but I'm interested in trying them.

I was checking out the other defensive options, and noted the 150gr "micro" 9mm. Optimized for short barrels.

Then I saw this:



Seemed to not be that great from a Shield.

Lucky Gunner did better in an M&P9c

9mm150HSTp9HST5sFederal.jpg


Only one of those seems to have a big channel. The rest may have expanded and stopped, but not necessarily did the same type of damage. Not sure if a gel block has some effect on that after the first firing.

It just seems to me to be counter intuitive to go heavier in a short barrel when the length of burn is minimized. Is the heavier bullet used for more length, so a trick like the micro .38 is applied in a bullet where length is necessary for feeding?

Seems to me that a 124gr would be minimum, with a 115 or even +P variants being better.

I know some on here have mentioned how modern ammo like HST and gold dots are so good that differences aren't really there. But I'd assume that's really for service size pistols (Interestingly, another test I saw showed that the 150gr micro bullets worked well in a full size).

So really, the interest to me is if anyone is aware of the real logic going heavy in a 9mm bullet optimized for micro bullets. I get 1/2 mv^2 and the fact that speed is essential for bullets to open up. So mass is not the major player here. Id have thought that a 115ish long, deep seated +p design would be best.
 
Heavier bullets lose less velocity as a percentage in shorter barrels vs lighter bullets. Heavier bullets also penetrate more to make sure you meet that spec. I'd run the same thing in my Shield that run in larger guns.
 
I go for 124 gr for the higher velocity, which makes it shoot a bit flatter and gives better expansion.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I was checking out the other defensive options, and noted the 150gr "micro" 9mm. Optimized for short barrels.


Interesting!!

I'm always looking for the "ultimate short-barrel 9mm round"
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
Heavier bullets lose less velocity as a percentage in shorter barrels vs lighter bullets. Heavier bullets also penetrate more to make sure you meet that spec. I'd run the same thing in my Shield that run in larger guns.


Understand both. But in the above video, they over penetrated from a shield, due to no expansion. So they didn't accelerate enough for loss to be an issue.

In here they didn't penetrate as far as the 147 and 147 +P, and all three of those rounds were claimed to be inconsistent from a Glock 43:

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Another review of the Micro HST.



The shield is 3.1", glock 43 3.4" and m&p 9c is 3.5" iirc. That's off the top of my head and potentially incorrect. But could it be that these "micro" rounds are optimized really for 3.5" pistols, not shorter variants? It just seems to me the performance isn't compelling. I'd think that a lighter bullet would accelerate more with less powder burn, and since engagement distance (arguably) isn't really a meaningful parameter for self defense with a micro pistol, speed would be optimized to ensure energy and ability to open.
 
Originally Posted By: KJSmith
Originally Posted By: Linctex
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I was checking out the other defensive options, and noted the 150gr "micro" 9mm. Optimized for short barrels.


Interesting!!

I'm always looking for the "ultimate short-barrel 9mm round"


http://shopwilsoncombat.com/9mm-95-gr-Ba...o/A9-95-TACXP/#


The lucky gunner tests don't have this but do have 115gr, which does excellent from their M&P9c.
 
This is why I just go for either the 9mm HST 124 gr or Gold Dot 124 gr in standard load.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: hatt
Heavier bullets lose less velocity as a percentage in shorter barrels vs lighter bullets. Heavier bullets also penetrate more to make sure you meet that spec. I'd run the same thing in my Shield that run in larger guns.


Understand both. But in the above video, they over penetrated from a shield, due to no expansion. So they didn't accelerate enough for loss to be an issue.

In here they didn't penetrate as far as the 147 and 147 +P, and all three of those rounds were claimed to be inconsistent from a Glock 43:

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Another review of the Micro HST.



The shield is 3.1", glock 43 3.4" and m&p 9c is 3.5" iirc. That's off the top of my head and potentially incorrect. But could it be that these "micro" rounds are optimized really for 3.5" pistols, not shorter variants? It just seems to me the performance isn't compelling. I'd think that a lighter bullet would accelerate more with less powder burn, and since engagement distance (arguably) isn't really a meaningful parameter for self defense with a micro pistol, speed would be optimized to ensure energy and ability to open.



Looks like a poorly designed round. Another reason I don't do the bleeding edge latest and greatest.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: hatt
Heavier bullets lose less velocity as a percentage in shorter barrels vs lighter bullets. Heavier bullets also penetrate more to make sure you meet that spec. I'd run the same thing in my Shield that run in larger guns.


Understand both. But in the above video, they over penetrated from a shield, due to no expansion. So they didn't accelerate enough for loss to be an issue.

In here they didn't penetrate as far as the 147 and 147 +P, and all three of those rounds were claimed to be inconsistent from a Glock 43:

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Another review of the Micro HST.



The shield is 3.1", glock 43 3.4" and m&p 9c is 3.5" iirc. That's off the top of my head and potentially incorrect. But could it be that these "micro" rounds are optimized really for 3.5" pistols, not shorter variants? It just seems to me the performance isn't compelling. I'd think that a lighter bullet would accelerate more with less powder burn, and since engagement distance (arguably) isn't really a meaningful parameter for self defense with a micro pistol, speed would be optimized to ensure energy and ability to open.



Looks like a poorly designed round. Another reason I don't do the bleeding edge latest and greatest.


I think you said you have a shield - what do you run? I was under the impression that some of the last-gen rounds were poorer performing. At least with respect to short barrel guns that can't make full design velocity.

Just generally curious. Primarily my interest is in service size pistols - I do live in NJ after all. I just happened upon this round looking for those "sunk" .38spl rounds. But may be useful to others. I found the mass to be curious so it's a matter of curiosity to me.
 
I'm using old Winchester 147 HPs that I had a supply of. I don't carry it much. When I get around to placing an ammo order I'm going to buy 124 +p Gold Dots.
 
JHZR2 said:
I saw the "micro" .38 spl rounds that are actually flat (bullet doesn't extend past the case) to minimize headspace in there and optimize powder burn. Unfortunately Cabela's was out, but I'm interested in trying them.

Seems to me that a 124gr would be minimum, with a 115 or even +P variants being better.
==========================================

For 9mm, by far the lighter projectiles 124's are the preferred followed by 115's for velocity and foot pounds of energy. The heavier 147's are noticeably lower on foot pounds of energy due to the loss in velocity, but do penetrate a little deeper. 124's +p, Federal HST, Speer Gold Dot, Winchester Ranger.


As for the 38 Special, the projectiles you reference are called "Wad Cutters" and "Hollow Base Wad Cutters"

They are used for target shooting purpose only. The reason they are seated flush with the end of the case is to burn fast burning powder more efficiently. They are only used at lower velocities, and the hollow base has a very narrow range because the base is hollow and expands, if you put too much powder behind it the base will melt and lead your barrel in a few shots. Lead will splatter! The "Non" hollow base wad cutter will be a double ended bullet, you can load it either end facing out, thats why they call them double end wad cutters. I use them a lot! They punch perfect round holes.
 
Ive seen the deep-seated wadcutters. What I was looking at for .38spl was these:

IMG_8416_0.JPG


JHPs in a deep seated configuration to optimize powder burn. I did not that there are other non defense variants of this configuration.
 
Originally Posted By: KneeGrinder
For 9mm, by far the lighter projectiles 124's are the preferred followed by 115's for velocity and foot pounds of energy. The heavier 147's are noticeably lower on foot pounds of energy due to the loss in velocity, but do penetrate a little deeper.


Modern 147 Federal HST is hugely popular. Its one of the best performers on the market. Followed by 124+ p from many manufacturers. 115 grain JHP is almost universally shunned by any ballistics expert as it usually offers minimal penetration.
 
As to the question at hand, 150 grain HST. I'm not even sure why Federal makes this round. I don't understand it. 147 HST works in duty pistols, it works in compact pistols, and it works great in sub-compact pistols. AND HST 147 can be found in 50 round boxes for $18 a box (36 cents per round), while HST 150 is only sold in 20 round boxes for about $1 per round.

My guess is that they wanted a round to sell in gun stores in 20 round boxes, at increased profit.

My best, honest advice? Skip this stuff. Just buy boxes of 147 HST online. Its cheaper. Its works. And its cheap enough to practice with. You should be putting 200 rounds of your defensive ammo through your gun, at least. At $1 a round, 150 HST would be prohibitively expensive.
 
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
Originally Posted By: KneeGrinder
For 9mm, by far the lighter projectiles 124's are the preferred followed by 115's for velocity and foot pounds of energy. The heavier 147's are noticeably lower on foot pounds of energy due to the loss in velocity, but do penetrate a little deeper.


Modern 147 Federal HST is hugely popular. Its one of the best performers on the market. Followed by 124+ p from many manufacturers. 115 grain JHP is almost universally shunned by any ballistics expert as it usually offers minimal penetration.


What basis do you have that 147 outperforms 124 overall?

Not fighting with you, just curious per the lucky gunner link posted below and that I looked at and mentioned above by Spasm3 and by my self up top...

Link:

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

Pic for convenience:


Source: LuckyGunner at link above

No Federal 115s, but it does seem like the only lighter 9mm rounds that perform in those tests are the all copper bullets.

Anyway, just curious.

Thanks!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top