Federal HST 147gn velocity data across platforms

[Auslander]

I'm throwing this out there, just because I thought it was interesting.  Compares a selected load across several weapons platforms. 

The LE Agency I work with is considering changing it's duty weapon.

Anyway, there is a committee that has narrowed down to a single platform, but two length barrels.  Of course, its a plastic-framed "Wonder-9."  I personally prefer my 75 based CZ weapons but I'm not just buying a weapon for me, hence the committee.  I've been there 27 years, and my job is to make sure the committee doesn't make any of the mistakes I've seen other agencies make.  Our resources are limited, and as a taxpayer I need to make sure that we are not wasting our time and money.  Changing out 300 weapons and making sure people are trained adequately should be a well informed decision.   

Well, after the history lesson, I'm getting to the meat of the issue.  When we transitioned to 9mm, we did a lot of ballistic testing and I have a ton of data as to the terminal ballistics of how our duty-load performs when fired from our duty weapon(s).  The ammo and weapon are part of a system.  The next steps in our selection process is to move on to officer testing.  Is there a tangible benefit to switching platforms and what will it cost in terms of procurement (weapons, mags, holsters, sim-weapons etc), armory changes and most importantly, training.  Is it worth it?  Concurrent with that, we need to determine if our duty-load performs the same.

I had hoped to forgo ballistic-gel testing.  It's a pain in the wazoo to do it right and maintain consistency with earlier testing protocols.  Unfortunately, as you'll see in the data, we are going to have to do it.   I don't want to assume efficacy of the round and if we have to transition to a new duty-round, it changes the cost analysis.

For the record, our duty-load is Federal HST, 147 grain - Standard pressure (P9HST2).  CCI Gold-Dot, 147gn (Standard Pressure) is also an alternate; however, we do not currently stock any.  Both performed very similarly during 2015 testing. (Very well across intermediate barriers and bare gel.) 

Federal lists the velocity of the P9HST2 round as 1000fps.  In speaking with their engineer(s), they market the HST projectile as "velocity tolerant," with a 75fps+/- window as a production spec.  If you use the 1000fps as a staring point, that gives you a 925fps to 1075fps window. (Email below).

When I did the velocity testing, I threw two of my CZ's into the batch for comparison purposes.  The CZ-75BD came the closest to Federal's listed spec.  I attribute this to tighter barrel tolerances.  Surprisingly, the PCR beat out the other weapons, even though they had longer barrels.  My particular PCR's barrel has an exceptionally short leade and I have to be careful with some projectiles with reloading.  For the record, the P9HST2 rounds were tested in the barrel and did not contact the rifling.  I believe the shorter leade may have contributed to the relatively higher velocities.  Not sure, I'm still learning.
     

Abbreviated test data (Listed by firearm):

Cartridge: 9mm Luger, Federal P9HST2 (147 grain - Standard Pressure) (Identical lot #)
OAL: 1.12" +/-
Pistol: See Below
Qty:  10 per weapon
Weather:  77 degrees, overcast, 29.9 in Hg
Date:  08/01/21
Chrono:  CE ProChrono DLX
Distance:  5 feet from muzzle

Weapon:             CZ75BD          CZ75D "PCR          P226           G17 (Gen 5) (A)    G45 (A) 
Barrel Length:     4.6"                3.75"                    4.4"            4.49"                    4.02
Shots:                10                  10                        10               10                        10
Average:            1004               973                      972             967                      958
ES:                    49                  41                        86               45                        45
SD:                    15                  12                        24               12                        14
High:                 1020               993                      990             1003                     958
Low:                  973                 952                      908             958                      923

The data has some outliers, so take values with a grain of salt, particularly with the P226 data.  I had one come out at 908 fps.  I don't know if this is my chrono or a bad round.  I also had the Glocks shot on a different day with a different Chrono (same ammo lot).    The individual data points were slightly lower (they shot 10 feet from muzzle), the values all maintained their ratio to one another.  Interestingly, we have an additional G17 and G45 that were shot on this second test. Their velocity values were significantly higher than the two other supposedly identical models.  All were US made with similar build dates.

2nd Shoot

Weapon:          G17(A)          G17(B)           G45(A)          G45(B)
Average:          957.2            981                947               984
ES:                  50                 48                  55                86
SD:                  16                 15                 17                35 

In regards to the project, I'm pumping the brakes until we figure out how the weapons perform during ballistic gel testing.  No sense stirring up the line officers.  The variations in velocity may or may not have a significant effect.  We won't know until we test.  With HP ammo, sometimes increased velocity can reduce penetration and lower velocities can lead to too much penetration.  If we need to change duty-loads, its going to kill the project for the time-being.  I can sell our duty ammo back to the distributor for what we paid for it, but securing new ammo in today's environment will be difficult.   

I'm also a little concerned in regards to the barrel inconsistency with the Glocks.  Of course, I don't have a representative sample of CZ's either and we need to test our P226 inventory.  Its one of the reason we are looking to switch.  We've noticed some QC issues and supply issues since Sig started focusing on the P320 platform.  For us, the P320 is not suitable.  Internally, its missing a few things that the CZ P10 and Glocks have that enhance safety.  It's sear is not blocked like either the P10 or Glock, and without a tabbed trigger, its like carrying around a cocked Series-80 1911 with all of the safeties disengaged (My opinion). 

Maybe I can get the committee to consider the P10? Trouble is, CZ doesn't have very good name recognition outside the shooting circles.           

The main reason I posted this is to show the variations that different barrels can have.  Most people don't have the resources to compare a bunch of guns to one another. 

Email from Vista Outdoor (Names redacted):

Subject: Re: Federal HST, LOT# Q51E167Q43169

Greetings, Gents……

Velocities cited are always a guideline, an approximation. Given the vast differences in barrels, rifling designs, etc, one cannot be exact on velocity. At production, a certain cartridge’s velocity is typically a spec, ie 1,000 +/-75……. other largest variable usually is the powder lot. But, over-shadowing all of this is the fact that every day’s projectile production is upset-tested……the projectile is fired into bare gel, heavy clothing and windshield glass. Only when projectile performance meets expectation will the projectile lot be released to the loader. 

Furthermore, the HST 147/9 is one of the most velocity tolerant products we’ve ever made….. especially on the lower velocity spectrum. Which is why it is equally suitable in a full size duty pistol as well as backup/off duty guns such as G43, P365, etc.   

I hope this helps alleviate some concerns ?
XXXXXXX
Law Enforcement Ammunition
Federal Cartridge/Speer

[Wobbly]

Very interesting. Thank you for the post.

Another thing to possibly consider (as if you need any more on your plate) is the use of a third party 'drop-in' replacement barrel... which abound in the Glock market. What if the department standardizes on one handgun, and one or more officers carry the weapon with a drop-in barrel because they get better scores on their qualification tests.

So the officer might change the barrel for better accuracy, not realizing that it also changes the bullet velocity.

[BTW... I went though some of this with a nephew, who used a 40cal duty weapon in one county's sheriff's department, and wanted to transition jobs to another county where they used 9mm. I was able to buy a drop-in 40-to-9 conversion barrel, and then successfully load RMR 147gr Match Winner bullets to average 1000fps using BE-86.

Through all this he was able to effectively get in enough range time with a "9mm Glock" to qualify and make the transition to a much better paying position.]

Thank you for your service.

[Dred]

@Auslander ...

Yes, I find this interesting.  I have chrono data for the 147 HST and GD g2 out of a 5" M&P and 16" Sub 2000 to share.  It is labradar data so it shows how far velocities held in the effective range.

M&P 147g HST


M&P 147g GD


S2k 147g HST


S2k 147g GD


Ran these a few years ago settling on my 9mm defensive load.  I shared the carbine data 'cause these get delivered at their effective velocities from the carbine too - big deal for my defense.

[Fuzzy Sights]

Thanks for this post.  Did similar testing with high quality and expensive defensive ammo.  Found out quickly that most of the velocities were off 100fps off advertised and that many would not expand at 15 yds.  Most bullets showed little expansion.  The pistols used had 3.9 or 4 inch barrels.  Shorter barrel on 40, dropped another 50 fps.  5.2 inch target gun did get it near factory velocity and they would expand most of the time.  At nearly two bucks a shot I gave up and started loading my own defensive ammo. 

The one load in both calibers that did achieve advertised velocity was CCI Gold Dot. 180gr in 40 and 147 gr in 9mm.  Both expanded very well, and I can not find any more of either of them.  Back to the loading bench.

Best wishes to you and your department.

JW

[dwhite]

This was a fascinating and informative read. Like you, I'm obviously a fan of the CZs (especially the metal framed versions) and wish they got more respect in the LE community.

I found the letter from Vista especially enlightening. I settled on the HST P9HST2 loading for my defensive guns years ago based on other people's tests. Unfortunately I don't have the equipment (chrono) or resources (convenient range where I can use a chrono) to do my own testing. The fairly wide expansion envelope of the P9HST2 loading is good to know.

Keep us informed on how your agency's testing and selection proceeds. And thanks again for sharing.

[SI VIS PACEM PARRABELLUM]

Nice too see there are those still in search of the "magic bullet". While all this info is very interesting it's all useless if you don't hit your target or a vital part of it. Shot placement is where it's at. I
pick my defensive ammo based on it's accuracy in my chosen weapons. So far I've not encountered any reliability issues in my CZ's with anything commercially available. A couple have Critical Duty in them and a couple have HST.

[Auslander]

No doubt on the "magic bullet" quest; there isn't one until someone figures out how to make a round that hits like a 20mm HEI but recoils like a .22.  The FBI and a lot of other agencies wasted a great deal of money chasing that unicorn.  Aside from the FBI, I found one State Patrol Agency that, in a span of 10-12 years, went from a Beretta 92 to Beretta 96 to G17 to G22 to G21 to P227.  I lost track after the P227 (Its been discontinued).       

Overall we were fairly conservative.  We used the P220/45ACP from 1991 to 2015.  I sorely miss the pistol (P226 just doesn't handle the same), but we found that 75% of our test group (15% officer population sample) shot the 9mm "better" than the .45.  You could almost say that everyone shot the 9mm better.  The remaining test officers were on the "better" end of the bell-curve to begin with.  Almost everyone's split times decreased. 

A lot has been done in the last 30 years in terms of bullet construction and we probably went a little long without reevaluating our program.   

I agree that shot placement trumps everything else.  A few thousands of an inch isn't going to matter much with the permanent wound channel if the shot is well placed.  Well, shot placement AND decision making.   

Of course, now that we cracked that door open, we are looking at plastic striker-fired weapons.  Preliminarily, it looks like the people on the lower end of the bell curve have an easier time and shoot them "better."  If that translates, we may be able to focus less on basic marksmanship in the academy and spend more training time on decision making. 

As an administrator, I'm hung up on transitional training for incumbents.  Going from a DA/SA weapon to a striker-fired one can be disastrous if not done appropriately. Incumbents can form a number of bad habits that a 10#, long trigger-pull can mask.  Interesting report out of LA County.     

https://oig.lacounty.gov/Portals/OIG/Reports/Unintended%20Discharge%20Report.pdf

           

       

[no.vale.la.pena]

Yes, I find this interesting.  I have chrono data for the 147 HST and GD g2 out of a 5" M&P and 16" Sub 2000 to share.  It is labradar data so it shows how far velocities held in the effective range.

Very cool to see the labradar data.  Appreciate the share!

Lots of interesting data points to consider in this thread.  Hoping to chrono some velocity differences between a standard SP01 and an SP01 with a CZ custom threaded barrel (SKU 30123) in the near future.     

[Auslander]

Following up on my earlier post. After communicating with Johann Boden at Federal and our ammo supplier, we conducted some ballistic shoots with 10% ordinance gel to compare simulated terminal performance across the different weapon platforms and velocities.

A couple caveats on the tests:

1.  The gel was not calibrated. We don’t have commercial refrigerators at the range and had to transport on ice. They were bleep near frozen and temps during the testing period were between 35 and 40 degrees.
2.  Due to the weather (rain), we had to shoot under cover with fluorescent lights. The Competition Electronics chronograph is worthless under these lights. Could not capture velocities.
3.  We only had 4 gel blocks. Stuff is expensive. Data samples are limited.

In the end, I believe we confirmed that the 147gn HST doesn’t care what it is shot out of. Subcompact to full-sized, this ammo does exceptionally well at the lower end of the velocity spectrum.

I can’t share the FBI data due to NDA, but our test data was only slightly off theirs on average. The conducted their test using a SAAMI test barrel at an average velocity of 1022fps. 

While I would have liked to capture individual shot velocities, I can relay that the CZ 75 used averages in excess of 1000fps while the G43 shoots on average around 940.

In the end, my concerns over velocities were moot. With the naked eye, you really can’t tell any difference between projectiles and the penetrations we’re all fairly close to one another.

If you are shooting steel, velocities certainly matter. This projectile, not so much.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk