Ammunition

[Will]

I'm sure this subject has been touched on a million times but a quick question. I have the PM9 and just finishing up the break in.... I am looking to carry the Remington (R9MM6) which is rated approx. 1250fps or maybe the Cor Bon (SD09115-20) JHP rated at approx. 1350fps. Both are +P rounds.... Do you think that the polymer frame will handle the +P loads?

[at_liberty]

Steichers carries the Speer Gold Dot Duty 9mm in 147gr JHP. That will be the heaviest bullet available. Even the hottest loads are subsonic (<1125 fps) and easier on your hearing in unplanned situations. Much of that bang is a sonic boom, the absence of which can make a .45 subtly more pleasant to shoot. The .40 is hotter and runs over 1125.

The short barrels like the PM9 don't likely reach full rated muzzle velocity.

We pretty well showed in the bowling pin matches using 9mm in the minor caliber class that the heavy bullets have better knock down power by quite a lot. That would mean slow and heavy is better than fast and light.

At the opposite end of the scale is the guy with the S&W 500 who spends $3.00 every time he pulls the trigger and destroys a bowling pin, sending it flying, even without a strong hit. He would cut a man in half.

[Michael W.]

I'm sure this subject has been touched on a million times but a quick question. I have the PM9 and just finishing up the break in.... I am looking to carry the Remington (R9MM6) which is rated approx. 1250fps or maybe the Cor Bon (SD09115-20) JHP rated at approx. 1350fps. Both are +P rounds.... Do you think that the polymer frame will handle the +P loads?

The frame will have no problem with either of those rounds although between
the two I'd favor the CorBon. This round reaches +P+ speeds but at +P
pressures and has excellent street cred. I would add the proviso that this
assumes you won't be shooting a steady diet of +P through the PM9 (even if
you could afford it).

Having said that, my personal choice for my PM9 carry load is the 147gr
Federal HST. This particular 9mm load has pretty spectacular expansion
characteristics without giving up penetration. The theory behind using light,
fast loads like the Corbon in a short barrel is to "make up" for velocity lost due
to the short barrel. The theory behind avoiding slower heavier loads in a short
barrel gun is that because if you bleed off the already subsonic speeds you'll
lose the velocity required for expansion. This makes sense.......on paper.

In reality the opposite has proven to be true. In short barrel guns, slower
loads actually lose LESS velocity as compared with longer barrels and faster
load lose proportionally MORE velocity in a shorter barrel. This is proven in
chronographed tests.

The reason is because in the slower load, because the bullet is travelling
slower there is more "dwell" time in the barrel and the powder is more
efficiently burned in the chamber and barrel where as on faster loads a good
part of the powder burns outside the barrel after the bullet has already exited
where it does no good. So the end result is that the modern 147gr bullets
designed with a much wider expansion velocity envelope than early 147gr
offerings may actually expand more reliably with adequate penetration than
the +P loadings. And they do it at standard pressures and muzzle blast.

Here's a link to a thread that discusses this. Note the chrono chart
in particular and the explanation by Paul Nowak of Winchester.

9mm 147gr and Short Barrels - M4Carbine.net Forums (http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=23210)

Just some food for thought.

Michael-

[Will]

Thanks guys for your responses.... I see that ya'll like the 147gr... Michale W. great info in your post... I'm going to look into 147gr bullets now. I have heard good things about the Hornady Critical Defense although its 115gr again.... What do you think?

[Michael W.]

Thanks guys for your responses.... I see that ya'll like the 147gr... Michale W. great info in your post... I'm going to look into 147gr bullets now. I have heard good things about the Hornady Critical Defense although its 115gr again.... What do you think?

The Hornady CD is a specialized round that relies on bullet
technology to ensure expansion. However, understand that you
are trading that expansion for penetration.

Hornady openly admits that the performance goal for the CD
series is not to try to develop a load that will meet the FBI penetration
standards both in terms of penetration and ability to defeat barriers.

This philosophy is not necessarily a bad one as it's hard to make a case
for civilian CCW to need a round that will perform to the FBI's standard
to penetrate car doors and windshields and still have terminal effectiveness.
However, I'm not completely convinced that the average penetration I've
seen in the CD calibers of ~10" is adequate.

As long as you understand the trade off's to be able to make as an informed
choice as possible.

It goes without saying that all this discussion about 9mm loads, brands,
bullet designs etc come secondary....and I do mean a WAY back secondary
to a) shot placement and b) feeding reliabilty in your particular gun.

If you can't hit the target or the round won't feed, it doesn't matter HOW well
the round is theoretically projected to perform.

Michael-

[wyntrout]

Here are some PM9 ammo tests with velocities.
GUNS Magazine July 2010 (http://fmgpublications.ipaperus.com/FMGPublications/GUNS/GUNS0710/)
Wynn

[at_liberty]

Thanks guys for your responses.... I see that ya'll like the 147gr... Michale W. great info in your post... I'm going to look into 147gr bullets now. I have heard good things about the Hornady Critical Defense although its 115gr again.... What do you think?

Well, what is the answer you wanted? Do what you want to. You seem to be ignoring what was offered by going with 115gr. Pick the one with the prettiest box, most bling bullet, or most advertising and then find someone who will say it's wonderful. If Hornady offers it, obviously someone thinks it is a good choice. It is hard to be wrong with this. We are talking degrees and preferences, some of which could be critical differences when it really matters. It's hard to know.

The key statement Michael offered is - "In short barrel guns, slower loads actually lose LESS velocity as compared with longer barrels and faster load lose proportionally MORE velocity in a shorter barrel. This is proven in chronographed tests."

That means light bullets with hot loads are not as effective in short barreled guns, and the PM9 is certainly in that group. You would also be offering more muzzle flash as a target in the dark. You would be standing right behind it saying "shoot me!". Too dramatic maybe, but something to consider.

Here is an article in Guns&Ammo/Handguns (http://www.handgunsmag.com/ammunition/tap_101405/index1.html) magazine that covers the Hornady TAP FPD 147gr XTP/JHP cartridge.

[jlottmc]

Personally I tend to stay with the heavier side for a caliber. I'm not much of a fan of the 9mm, but my 40 is loaded with 180 gr Winchester Ranger's, my 1911 is loaded with 230gr Remington/Winchester HP's, my P345 is loaded with the same HP's as the 1911, the reloads are 165 gr Magtech SCHP's with a +P rating, my P45 is full of those same 165 gr SCHP's, and my GP100 is loaded light with 110 gr semi-jacketed hollow points. I chose the lighter load in the 357 due to it's legendary penetration capability, and frankly in an urban envrionment, don't want or need that kind hole making ability. The Magtech's I might replace, but may leave them alone as I was thinking that may be the only way to get a half way decent velocity and expansion out of my little P45. Other than that, my rifles and such are always on the heavy side. An interesting aside is the fact that most gun makers regulate their sights for the oldest/heaviest/cheapest load available. Just my thoughts.

[Will]

Thanks guys for all of your input..... Everybody made good points and I will consider them all. I have alot of information to sift through now. With that said I am leaning toward the heavier grains instead of looking for velocity. Need to find one now that will feed reliably through the PM9..... Thanks again

[Swat_dude]

Not to muddy the waters, but there are others (not me) that say the 147 grain 9mm round is the worst performing 9mm ever produced and to stear clear of it. I think if you shop around the internet you can find someone advocating or bashing just about every caliber and bullet type out there.

I personally like the 124 grain Gold Dot +P but I haven't gotten my PM9 back from Robar yet to test the function of this round with my new gun.

While some in the M4 thread say that the heavier bullets recoil less, that has definitely not been my experience. It still always boils down to personal preference I guess.

[at_liberty]

Not to muddy the waters, but there are others (not me) that say the 147 grain 9mm round is the worst performing 9mm ever produced and to stear clear of it. I think if you shop around the internet you can find someone advocating or bashing just about every caliber and bullet type out there.

I personally like the 124 grain Gold Dot +P but I haven't gotten my PM9 back from Robar yet to test the function of this round with my new gun.

While some in the M4 thread say that the heavier bullets recoil less, that has definitely not been my experience. It still always boils down to personal preference I guess.

Can you cite a reference for undermining confidence in the 147gr ammo?

[G26ster]

Based on reviews and comments in many forums, I picked up some Glaser Pow'RBall +P, 100gr, 1475fps ammo to run thru my PM9. Be interested in anyone's comments as to any feeding or other issues they may have had with Pow'rBall in their PM9, or comments in general.

[deadhead1971]

A couple comments....

--Shot lots of 115 and some 124 grain fmj ammo...no problems
--Shot 100 rds of 147 grain cheap winchester personal defense hollow points...no problems, more recoil than 115 or 124 grains
--Shot 6 rds of 100 grain +P Powr' Ball...more recoil than 115 fmj..very dirty for crimson trace laser lens and no problems
--Shot 6 rds of 124 grain +P Gold Dots...recoil felt like 115 grain fmj (powr' ball had a lot more recoil than this) and no problems

[Michael W.]

Not to muddy the waters, but there are others (not me) that say the 147 grain 9mm round is the worst performing 9mm ever produced and to stear clear of it. I think if you shop around the internet you can find someone advocating or bashing just about every caliber and bullet type out there.

I personally like the 124 grain Gold Dot +P but I haven't gotten my PM9 back from Robar yet to test the function of this round with my new gun.

While some in the M4 thread say that the heavier bullets recoil less, that has definitely not been my experience. It still always boils down to personal preference I guess.

Not muddied and still a good topic to kick around even if some online caliber
warriors may think that it's been discussed ad nauseum.

One of the reasons the 147gr 9mm variant generates so much controversy
is that it has indeed had a checkered past and has had some spectacular
failures, particularly the 147gr Federal HydraShok. But if you dig a little deeper
most of the "data" where it exists is decades old.

The problem was that it was slow to the point that the bullets wouldn't
expand reliably and wind up over penetrating (and failing to stop).
To really understand the whole history you probably need to go
back the infamous 1986 FBI Shootout where the 115gr Silvertip failed
to perform miserably...but thats a different topic.

Bullet technology has come a long way in the past 20 years and the recent
crop of premium rounds such as the Federal HST, Winchester Ranger-T,
Golden Saber, Speer Gold Dot are all engineered to expand reliably at
subsonic speeds and have proven to do so both against gelatin based life
forms as well as on the street.

The advent of the 'tweener grained weights (124,125,127) was splitting
the difference between the slow/heavy Facklerites and the light/fast
Marshall/Sanowites and has also proven to be an excellent performer
especially when pushed to +P speeds. My favorite load is the Ranger-T
127gr +P+ in my Glock 19's.

However, in the context of this discussion we're talking about the very light
and very small PM9. I can shoot the powerhouse loads in my PM9 but
there's no denying that standard pressure loads allow for faster follow
up shots. So then the question becomes what is the best standard pressure
load for the PM9. I'd feel very well equipped with any of the 124 gr standard
pressure rounds mentioned above but from the performance results that
I've seen the 147gr edges them out by having similar expansion with better
penetration. My other candidate that I tested for my PM9 was the
Gold Dot 124gr +P and it will be my back up load should I ever blow
through my stash of 147gr HST's holding off the zombie hoards:)

So, yes, you can find a lot of opinions lambasting the 147gr 9mm
but look at the sources (when available) and the dates and the generation
of bullet designs involved. If you're still uncomfortable with it then there
are plenty of excellent 124gr loadings and 115gr loadings available.

As always, all the above assumes the proviso that
a) you can shoot well enough to hit your target
b) you have proven your selected load will feed/function in your gun

Michael-

Disclamer: I am not a ballistics expert......but like everyone else
I pretend to be on one the internet....:)

[Bawanna]

Disclamer: I am not a ballistics expert......but like everyone else
I pretend to be on one the internet....

Nice disclaimer, if you were an expert you'd carry your PM45 all the time and leave the mouse gun at home. Oh yeah, that's what you do now. We're good.

[WarEagleSig]

Hey guys, newbie here on this forum and new to Kahrs... I've been a Sig guys for 15 years, and mostly shooting .40 for the last 10 yrs. I appreciate this thread as I'm going through this debate with myself right now. I just bought a well broken in PM9 that's in pristine condition and it currently has Hornady CD in 115gr in it. I do find that the Hornady has less recoil and mussle flash than the Gold dots but now i'm questioning my decision. I may go upstairs and put the GD in it! I'm glad I found this forum..

[hsart]

Over the past few years I have read a lot of reports and articles on proper loads for various calibers. I agree with Michael W. that many of the negative stuff is years old, and the ammo makers have improved the process to make the 147gr very reliable. Nothing beats testing particular loads in your gun to get used to each bullets characteristics as far as recoil and suitability is concerned.

[jlottmc]

If your range will allow different mediums to test the covered wet phone books work well I always thought. Having said that there do seem to be some gold standard round/weight/caliber combinations that have acquitted themselves well on the streets. For example 125gr Gold Dot's in .357 doing about 1250fps (357 Sig too) I would think that a 9mm close to that would be a good choice. In 45, 230gr Winchester Rangers seem to be the gold standard. Just what I've read, and what I've gathered from various places. The short barrel on the PM9 might be a problem getting that kind of velocity though.

[Bawanna]

As stated several times already, the ammo manufacturers have made great strides and continue to do so, seems they are always getting better.
I console myself with the fact that anything that will work in your particular gun is gonna ruin the bad guys day, be it 380 or 460.
For most of us we have to remember to keep our mission in perspective, stop the threat so we can run away or get help. Police officers are a different deal, they need decisive results for a variety of reasons.
We should also prefer the poleaxe round whenever possible, if you shoot you should plan on them dieing so it's not a decision to be taken lightly.
The bad guy ain't gonna notice a couple hundred feet of velocity difference because you got a short barrel and your not using +P++++ Cape Buffalo loads.

[jlottmc]

This is true too, and shot placement is more than critical as well. Personally, I don't like having to keep shooting something I've already hit, and hit, and again. I also don't like things that don't work. I know there have been great strides in the construction area, and that's why we test on a regular basis too. I'm always looking for stuff that works just a little better. That being said, I will play the game with what I brought, for I also think like the Israeli's do and think that better is often the enemy of good. I was throwing that out there kind of as observation and what the benchmarks are. Again before and now, just my opinions, and should be treated as such.

[BroncoAZ]

Here are some PM9 ammo tests with velocities.
GUNS Magazine July 2010 (http://fmgpublications.ipaperus.com/FMGPublications/GUNS/GUNS0710/)
Wynn

That link goes to a page with no text for me :75:

[Swat_dude]

Michael W, great post!

I am still a big proponent of velocity and energy so I haven't seriously considered the new Hornady rounds (although TAP 168 grains are my "duty" round in my .308). I have heard other "experts" like myself and Michael W stating velocity is overated and questioning the validity of Hydrostatic shock. This is preposterous to me as I have witnessed the devastating effects of relatively small bullets traveling at high velocities. i.e., high powered rifle rounds. For example, I think the choice is pretty clear between a larger diameter 230 grain bullet traveling at 900 fps and a smaller diameter 168 grain bullet traveling at 2700 fps... no contest. Of course velocity isn't the only consideration but with all things being equal, I'd prefer to push that little 9mm as fast as is practicable. With the PM9, you are already starting at a disadvantage on velocity with the shorter barrel so I prefer a +P or a "short-barrel" tuned round. I graduated from the dismal power of the Ruger LCP and even the +P rounds in the PM9 don't slap like the standard rounds do in the LCP so I feel like I am already ahead by upgrading to the PM9 for my front pocket gun.

[wyntrout]

That link goes to a page with no text for me :75:
It goes to a digital magazine and you can access the article from the table of contents or by paging over. There was a list of brands of ammo fired through the PM9 with chrono's velocities and group sizes in the article. I just posted the link that someone else posted earlier.
Wynn
There's good info in the whole review:
http://fmgpublications.ipaperus.com/FMGPublications/GUNS/GUNS0710/
You can click on the lower right edge of the page or use the menu at the top. From the Table of Contents, you can go directly to the article.
Uh, maybe you don't have Adobe Flash Player, or a new enough version. The magazine is a downloadable .pdf file. I use version 10... it's free:

http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/

[BroncoAZ]

It goes to a digital magazine and you can access the article from the table of contents or by paging over. There was a list of brands of ammo fired through the PM9 with chrono's velocities and group sizes in the article. I just posted the link that someone else posted earlier.
Wynn
There's good info in the whole review:
GUNS Magazine July 2010 (http://fmgpublications.ipaperus.com/FMGPublications/GUNS/GUNS0710/)
You can click on the lower right edge of the page or use the menu at the top. From the Table of Contents, you can go directly to the article.
Uh, maybe you don't have Adobe Flash Player, or a new enough version. The magazine is a downloadable .pdf file. I use version 10... it's free:

Adobe Flash Player (http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/)

Thanks for the info. I don't know why, but when I first clicked on the link it gave me a page with only the Guns magazine logo in the middle. I clicked around and found no links or text. A few minutes later I tried again and it came up with the magazine.

[wyntrout]

It might be that there was a lag in the video due to the streaming speed. Going from page to page is slower on the Internet than if you have the file on your computer.
I subscribe to a bunch of digital magazines and don't have piles of them growing everywhere. If I want a page I can print it. My hard drive space takes the hit, but eventually I'll clean that up or offload that stuff.
Wynn:)

[Michael W.]

Michael W, great post!

I am still a big proponent of velocity and energy so I haven't seriously considered the new Hornady rounds (although TAP 168 grains are my "duty" round in my .308). I have heard other "experts" like myself and Michael W stating velocity is overated and questioning the validity of Hydrostatic shock. This is preposterous to me as I have witnessed the devastating effects of relatively small bullets traveling at high velocities. i.e., high powered rifle rounds. For example, I think the choice is pretty clear between a larger diameter 230 grain bullet traveling at 900 fps and a smaller diameter 168 grain bullet traveling at 2700 fps... no contest. Of course velocity isn't the only consideration but with all things being equal, I'd prefer to push that little 9mm as fast as is practicable. With the PM9, you are already starting at a disadvantage on velocity with the shorter barrel so I prefer a +P or a "short-barrel" tuned round. I graduated from the dismal power of the Ruger LCP and even the +P rounds in the PM9 don't slap like the standard rounds do in the LCP so I feel like I am already ahead by upgrading to the PM9 for my front pocket gun.

The Gold Dot Short Barrel 124gr P+ is an interesting round.
It's actually slower than the standard Gold Dot 124gr +P
(1150fps vs 1220fps). While it's classified as a +P round
it barely squeeks above subsonic velocity and in fact is the same
velocity as the non-+P 124gr Gold Dot.

Speer Ammo - Ballistics Tables (http://www.speer-ammo.com/ballistics/ammo.aspx)

So in this case you are not relying on velocity to ensure expansion but rather
the tweaked bullet design of the "Short Barrel" series that is engineered to
expand more aggressively at lower velocities.

Basically exactly what Ranger-T and Federal HST has done with their
147gr offerings.

On the subject of wound channels, this pic is interesting and telling...

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Misc_Images/DocGKR/Handgun_gel_comparison.jpg

This of course is talking permanent wound channel and not temporary or
"hydrostatic" but I find it interesting that empirically what separates the
calibers in their given optimal loadings is less than one would think.
Kind of reinforces the idea that shot placement is certainly still
the biggest factor in being able to shut down an attacker in the
least possible time.

Michael-

[joshh]

has anyone tried the winchester pdx 9mm in their pm9? its available in 124gr+p or 147grLuger. i carry my glock22 with the pdx 165g .40 and would consider pdx rounds for my pm9 when it comes in...

[Michael W.]

has anyone tried the winchester pdx 9mm in their pm9? its available in 124gr+p or 147grLuger. i carry my glock22 with the pdx 165g .40 and would consider pdx rounds for my pm9 when it comes in...

The Winchester PDX1 Series is identical to their Bonded Ranger-T series.
except that its packaged in 20 rd boxes for "retail" sale. Meaning they can
charge a lot more for it:)

The corresponding "Law Enforcement" packaging of 50rd per box is
is the Ranger-T 124gr +P Bonded (RA9BAB) and Ranger-T 147gr Bonded (RA9B).
This is a much better value if you can find it.

The non-bonded versions of the same loads in 50rd packaging are easier to
find.

Just for giggles there a guy on the GlockTalk forum TWS G26 that has
done some extensive "backyard ballistics" testing of a number of popular 9mm
rounds including the Bonded Ranger 9mm. I don't suggest that his tests
are necessarily indicative of real world performance (I don't think even the
FBI ballistic gel tests are a true representation, there's just too many
variables to account for in a real shooting) however, TWS G26 uses a very
consistent methodology from test to test so you can see the *RELATIVE*
performance on a given round as compared to another.

YouTube - tnoutdoors9's Channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/tnoutdoors9#p/c/727CAFF8A6C0D3BF)

Plus....it's just fun watching people shooting stuff and watching it blow up:)

Michael-

[jlottmc]

That'll do. Enough rounds on target will make for a good day. Though I find myself wanting a cornfield to play in now.

[cgo99]

The Gold Dot Short Barrel 124gr P+ is an interesting round.
It's actually slower than the standard Gold Dot 124gr +P
(1150fps vs 1220fps). While it's classified as a +P round
it barely squeeks above subsonic velocity and in fact is the same
velocity as the non-+P 124gr Gold Dot.

Speer Ammo - Ballistics Tables (http://www.speer-ammo.com/ballistics/ammo.aspx)

So in this case you are not relying on velocity to ensure expansion but rather
the tweaked bullet design of the "Short Barrel" series that is engineered to
expand more aggressively at lower velocities.

Basically exactly what Ranger-T and Federal HST has done with their
147gr offerings.

Michael-
MIchael, have you tried this ammo on your PM9? I have been curious about it for while but it has proven difficult to find around here :mad:.
Besides the bullet performance it is also supposed to reduce flash and recoil.

[cgo99]

I had seen this video a while back and I finally found it again. Just another example of home made ballistic testing, that been said it looks like they went thru a variety of brands.
YouTube - AT2 - 9mm Luger - Results Comparison (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGXlfXKghhE)

http://www.youtube.com/user/andreleger2001#p/c/A4162ACE23C9C12D/14/-gULaSslSvk

[Michael W.]

MIchael, have you tried this ammo on your PM9? I have been curious about it for while but it has proven difficult to find around here :mad:.
Besides the bullet performance it is also supposed to reduce flash and recoil.

No I have not. I can't find it locally either but usually ATG has them in
stock. Frankly, they don't interested me all that much.
For my longer barrel 9mm's I prefer the tried and true 127gr +P+ ranger
and for my G26 and PM9 my latest infatuation is the HST 147gr.

M-

[OldLincoln]

The Gold Dot Short Barrel 124gr P+ is an interesting round.
It's actually slower than the standard Gold Dot 124gr +P
(1150fps vs 1220fps). While it's classified as a +P round
it barely squeeks above subsonic velocity and in fact is the same
velocity as the non-+P 124gr Gold Dot.
Michael-The SB ammo was tested with a 3.5" barrel and the Non-SB a 4" barrel. I suspect the Non-SB would test slower than SB in the 3.5".

[Michael W.]

The SB ammo was tested with a 3.5" barrel and the Non-SB a 4" barrel. I suspect the Non-SB would test slower than SB in the 3.5".

Hmmm....interesting....that muddies the water even more:)

Suffice to say that the Short Barrel version of the Gold Dots
are designed to achieve reliable expansion at the slower velocities
achieved in shorter barrels by tweaking the hollow point cavity and the
jacket of the standard Gold Dot and also by using more efficient burning
powders such that more of it is burned in the chamber and bore to
mitigate velocity due to shortened dwell time.

Whether or not it actually does all this, I have no idea. I
don't think I've ever come across anyone testing this round.

M-

[joshh]

great links! i am sold on the ballistics of the win. pdx/ranger but i was more concerned with the pm9's performance with these rounds. more so comparing the 147gr vs 124+p. from what ive been reading they say with the shorter barrell you should use the heavier round because it allows for better fuel burn. maybe my pm9 will come in soon so i can grab a couple boxes (at $25/box here in p.r.o.mass.)and do my own comparison.lol..

[cgo99]

No I have not. I can't find it locally either but usually ATG has them in
stock. Frankly, they don't interested me all that much.
For my longer barrel 9mm's I prefer the tried and true 127gr +P+ ranger
and for my G26 and PM9 my latest infatuation is the HST 147gr.

M-
Good to know, I'll give them a try with my guns. I still want to try the short barrel stuff just for the heck of it.

[Michael W.]

Good to know, I'll give them a try with my guns. I still want to try the short barrel stuff just for the heck of it.

Check this out......I juts stumbled across this cut sheet
from Speer re: the SB bullets.

http://glarp.atk.com/2005New_Product/speer2005.pdf

M-

[cgo99]

Check this out......I juts stumbled across this cut sheet
from Speer re: the SB bullets.

http://glarp.atk.com/2005New_Product/speer2005.pdf

M-
Nice, thanks for this.