|
|
Post by HRFunk on May 30, 2017 8:34:42 GMT -5
Here's one to throw out to the group. I'll preface this by saying I am currently reading Stephen Camp's book, and he mentions some "Old Timey" loads in those pages. Specific to this post, he talks about the Federal 9BPLE 115 gr. +P+. This was my issued duty load for several years in the 1990's. At that time (and in the years that followed) I did quite a bit of ammunition testing for my department. Because of that, I can state categorically that we presently have very good premium defensive ammunition. All of which, to varying degrees, out performs the BPLE. Even so, for what it was, the old Federal load didn't perform all that poorly "back in the day", AND it had had a reputation for effectiveness on the street as well. So what do you fellas think? Would you still feel well protected by the BPLE, or do you think it's so far outclassed these days that anyone with any sense would avoid it?
|
|
|
|
Post by huntershooter on Jun 1, 2017 16:25:31 GMT -5
My thoughts: there are "better" loads available today- in terms of terminal performance, however I would NOT feel disadvantaged if the 9BPLE was all I had to carry.
A good load is a good load, irregardless of age.
|
|
|
|
Post by CXM on Jun 1, 2017 18:26:40 GMT -5
Hunter pretty well covers the subject... I mostly use 9BP Federal 115gr ammo for carry in my HPs... it has an excellent track record against E.D.s, is reliable and I bought a LOT of it just before the prices went through the ceiling... in SIGs, S&Ws etc. I usually carry Federal 9BPLE which is the same bullet loaded to +P+ levels... something I don't think is really important over all... and I prefer not to use +P+ in HPs even though I think a MKIII can handle it without problems.
FWIW
CHuck
|
|
|
|
Post by HRFunk on Jun 1, 2017 19:55:23 GMT -5
Hunter pretty well covers the subject... I mostly use 9BP Federal 115gr ammo for carry in my HPs... it has an excellent track record against E.D.s, is reliable and I bought a LOT of it just before the prices went through the ceiling... in SIGs, S&Ws etc. I usually carry Federal 9BPLE which is the same bullet loaded to +P+ levels... something I don't think is really important over all... and I prefer not to use +P+ in HPs even though I think a MKIII can handle it without problems. FWIW CHuck That pretty much sums up my opinion too. If I can get something better, I'll get something better. If the only thing I have availabe is the BPLE, then I won't feel overly worried about it. One thing I always noted when testing that load is that the bullet literally tears itself apart as it plows through test medium. Secondary wound channels, and whatever additional hemorrhage they induce, are pretty likely. HRF |
|
|
|
Post by CXM on Jun 2, 2017 6:53:45 GMT -5
I try to keep in mind the fact bullet placement is more important than technology every time...
V/r
Chuck
|
|
|
|
Post by rock185 on Jun 3, 2017 10:41:51 GMT -5
I was never issued 9BPLE, Darn it! My Dept. issued another old tech 9MM load, the Remington R9MM6 115 +P JHP. But I have used, and chronographed, a fair amount of 9BPLE in all kinds of 9MMs. I usually have some on hand, have carried it and would still be perfectly comfortable carrying it. I know it's a very old tech bullet, but I still wouldn't want to get in it's way. Pulled out some of my chronograph notes on the 9BPLE and similar, but slower, Federal XM9001 and 9BP as fired from a standard Hi Power. I suspect they all use the same old tech 115 grain bullet. 9BP=1153 FPS, XM9001=1246 FPS, 9BPLE=1273 FPS. For pistol caliber carbine fans, in a carbine with 16" barrel, these were the results, 9BP=1305 FPS, XM9001=1471 FPS, 9BPLE=1587 FPS.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jäger on Jun 3, 2017 16:02:25 GMT -5
Would you still feel well protected by the BPLE, or do you think it's so far outclassed these days that anyone with any sense would avoid it? I think it will work just as well today as it did back then. BUT... it is not going to work just as well as Federal's (or Winchester's, or Speer's, or Remington's, etc) current offerings. If your approach to self defense/service/military ammunition is "Well, it's good enough...", then you should feel fine with it. My approach is that, given the cost of service ammunition being relatively inexpensive, I will happily pay the $20 - $30 for a box of the latest, proven loads available. If it was all that was available in a pinch, the fact it wasn't more current offerings wouldn't be at the top of my worry list. But I prefer to take care of those issues long before any kind of pinch ever looms on the horizon. Consequently, Federal's 147 gr. HST (P9HST2) sits in the Hi Power and a spare box or two on the shelf; Black Hills loading of the 115 gr. Barnes Tax-XP resides in the Shield. Both are on Dr. Gary Roberts regularly updated list of loads which "demonstrate outstanding terminal performance and can be considered acceptable for duty/self-defense use". The BPLE round is no longer on that list to the best of my knowledge. It has disappeared as expectations of bullet performance have had the bar raised. One interesting thing is that supplanted ammunition models often sell for MORE after they are discontinued. My Black Talons sold at prices I was offered - I didn't ask for - that almost made me feel like a thief. Ditto for earlier flavours of Winchester service ammo. Super Vel after they originally ceased production. You can sometimes end up making a small profit replacing earlier ammunition variants with whatever the next generation is. It's one of those things that everyone has to make their mind up about as service ammunition continues to evolve and improve. |
|
|
|
Post by HRFunk on Jun 4, 2017 3:58:14 GMT -5
Would you still feel well protected by the BPLE, or do you think it's so far outclassed these days that anyone with any sense would avoid it? I think it will work just as well today as it did back then. BUT... it is not going to work just as well as Federal's (or Winchester's, or Speer's, or Remington's, etc) current offerings. If your approach to self defense/service/military ammunition is "Well, it's good enough...", then you should feel fine with it. My approach is that, given the cost of service ammunition being relatively inexpensive, I will happily pay the $20 - $30 for a box of the latest, proven loads available. If it was all that was available in a pinch, the fact it wasn't more current offerings wouldn't be at the top of my worry list. But I prefer to take care of those issues long before any kind of pinch ever looms on the horizon. Consequently, Federal's 147 gr. HST (P9HST2) sits in the Hi Power and a spare box or two on the shelf; Black Hills loading of the 115 gr. Barnes Tax-XP resides in the Shield. Both are on Dr. Gary Roberts regularly updated list of loads which "demonstrate outstanding terminal performance and can be considered acceptable for duty/self-defense use". The BPLE round is no longer on that list to the best of my knowledge. It has disappeared as expectations of bullet performance have had the bar raised. One interesting thing is that supplanted ammunition models often sell for MORE after they are discontinued. My Black Talons sold at prices I was offered - I didn't ask for - that almost made me feel like a thief. Ditto for earlier flavours of Winchester service ammo. Super Vel after they originally ceased production. You can sometimes end up making a small profit replacing earlier ammunition variants with whatever the next generation is. It's one of those things that everyone has to make their mind up about as service ammunition continues to evolve and improve. Great points all the way around. I should probably mention that I was not advocating the use oF BPLE. Rather, I was throwing it out for a topic of discussion since I saw it mentioned in Mr. Camp's book. I carry Speer Gold Dots for all the reasons you mentioned above. |
|
|
|
Post by Jäger on Jun 4, 2017 13:31:49 GMT -5
I carry Speer Gold Dots for all the reasons you mentioned above. I suspect that, were Stephen still with us, his views on ammunition might have changed a bit with what is now available. He was inquisitive and always open minded about things. From what the SME's are reporting of late from their unending review of OIS reports, autopsy and trauma doc reports, etc., the differences in terminal ballistics in both caliber and bullet weight aren't enough to make a difference these days. Gold Dot versus HST versus Ranger T, etc... it's like your choice of what premium motor oil to use in your car. You can't really go wrong as long as you're sticking with the quality stuff from the big manufacturers. That causes some of the .45 ACP tribe to gnash their teeth and howl in disbelief, and to a lesser extent the high velocity guys. Which is fine - I don't care what somebody else thinks is their magic juju, and nobody is forcing them to carry something they don't want, just as nobody is trying to do that to me. But when it comes to making a choice, I put a lot more weight on the guys who study terminal ballistics performance of police/military service ammunition for a living, every working day, rather than "everybody knows" theories. I have no problem with my 1911 CBOB throwing 220 grain bear wrenches at just under 1200 fps, so the accusations that I simply can't handle anything bigger than a 9mm are nothing more than fodder for my personal amusement. Ditto when I'm told I oppose the calls for the military to return to the 7.62 because I can't handle it - the military apparently differed in their opinion, because they issued me one at various times over my 30 years of service. In fact, the .308 in my gun safe is almost the baby of the litter, if you ignore the rimfires, the AR15, and the 22-250. Lots of light 35 calibers in there, throwing bullets a 100 grains heavier than any military 7.62 load, and weighing a lot less than any military 7.62 extant. These days, in some places like the 1911 Forum, bringing up the topic of calibers and bullets for concealed carry has about the same results as "What oil is best for my motorcycle" in a motorcycle or truck forum. Instant fight... |
|
|
|
Post by sistema1927 on Jun 6, 2017 9:34:36 GMT -5
OK, maybe those of you in LE don't want to share all your secrets, but I did serve as an Albuquerque Police Chaplain for five years if that helps.
What exactly does E.D. stand for? I know that it is the perp, the target of your attention, but I have never seen that term, looking it up didn't help, and I didn't hear it on the street, even following officer involved shootings.
|
|
|
|
Post by CXM on Jun 6, 2017 10:23:14 GMT -5
E.D. = Evil Doer
It is a translation from German of what the Kripo called criminals...
V/r
Chuck
|
|
|
|
Post by sistema1927 on Jun 6, 2017 10:53:27 GMT -5
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by gt40doc on Jun 6, 2017 15:09:45 GMT -5
Me too, as I didn't know what E.D. stood for. |
|
|
|
Post by che on Jun 19, 2017 10:15:28 GMT -5
I was never issued 9BPLE, Darn it! My Dept. issued another old tech 9MM load, the Remington R9MM6 115 +P JHP. Same here. My Department used Federal in the early 1980s then we went to Remington about the time we adopted 9mm but we had R9MM1 the standard loading. About 1992 we went to Winchester products. Interesting they approve 9mm and 9mm +P+ as well as 40 S&W, 45 ACP and 38 Special. |
|
|
|
Post by BAM on Aug 9, 2017 20:54:46 GMT -5
Back when my department switched from model 686 S&W to 5906 S&W we used the Winchester 9mm +P+ load. About three years later I met a Federal area rep and we sat and talked quite a bit. Being that I was the department range officer I asked about 9mm ammo available. He had a sample of four different 9mm loadings sent to us and I got to test them out. The 9mm +P+ was really a great round when compared to any other make. IT was more accurate then the Winchester round. It expanded in sand at 25 yards as much as the Winchester round did at 7 yards. And it was a nickel plated case instead of just brass. The price was also just over half per case what the local Winchester distributer was charging. So we adopted the Federal round and as long as we had the 9mm it was the round for duty. When I retired the department switched over to a .45 H&K. The members of the department were not happy with the H&K but as I was retired I told them to make the best of it and practice. I still have some of the 9 +P+ and I have it in my Inglis that I keep in my safe for quick retrieving.
|
|
