The Rohrbaugh Forum
Rohrbaugh Products and Accessories => Rohrbaugh Range Reports => Topic started by: DFG on October 21, 2011, 07:37:08 PM
-
Hi DDGator, I am a Rohrbaugh owner for several years and a reader of the forum. I am having a hard time deciding between the 115 and 124 grain Speer Gold Dot as my final choices. Both seem to perform better than the other in certain tests. I seem to lean towards the 115 for better petal expansion but the 124 seems to have better penetration in the non +P round out of the short barrel. Are you still carrying the 115? Any new wetpack or ballistics gel tests you are aware of out of the Rohrbaugh? Thanks, DFG
-
DFG welcome to the group.
I don't think you can go wrong with any of the Gold Dot rounds and I tend to lean towards the 124 & 147s myself.
I also like the Winchester Ranger LEs in both those weights.
-
DFG. I'm not DDGator, but did want to welcome you to the Forum. Welcome and enjoy! :)
-
DFG, welcome to the forum.
I seem to remember a thread where the bullets you bring up were tested side by side by an idividual. For that one R9, and the few rounds tested, one of them did out perform by a small margin.
I can not remember which one. I want to say the 115's came out on top.
But then, it was not exactly very scientific/statisticly significant either.
-
Found the thread in FAQ;s
http://www.acbsystems.com/boards/thr/r9s-tests-02/basefile/expand2.htm
And yes, the 115's do look better.
-
The 115 do open slightly better but the 124 penetrate slightly more in the few examples I can find. Wish someone would do more extensive wetpack or gel tests
-
I always go with the deeper penetrating round.
It can make the difference between getting to vital tissue or not getting to vital tissue.
I have some control over where the bullet hits - I know that under stress it is not going to be the same as training, but my point is, I do have some control over where the shots hit. I have no control over how deeply the round penetrates.
The is an argument I guess that if a round expands an extra .02" it might make the difference between knicking an artery or not. So really thats a matter of being too right or left, high or low on the target.
My thinking is, I can correct for that with follow up shots. What I can't really correct for - short of a head shot, are rounds that are just not reaching deep enough to disrupt vital tissue.
.
-
Good point Count0.
-
I would go with penetration and the heavier bullet. Even nicking an artery will only cause death/incapacity over minutes to hours. this is not like deer hunting where you will track the animal after the hit. A man with a knife or gun will take you out with multiple rounds in him that would eventually prove fatal. The only way to predictably put someone on the ground is to have a (lucky) head shot or to put a heavy calibre round into solid bone, most easily the pelvis. A 9mm is not likely to be heavy enough, but in any hit the heavier bullet with greater penetration is in my opinion the better option. A good compromise is the 124, but my primary carry when possible is the .45 ACP for that reason.
-
I am leaning towards the 124 for that reason but most who did the tests decided on the 115. Both seem to feed reliably in my gun. The 115 is closer to the optimal velocity of 1150 fps suggested by Speer for best bullet performance, but the 124 penetrated an extra inch or 2 in one persons wetpack test and expanded almost as well using an R9. I don't think I ever found a 2 bullet comparison in ballistics gel from an R9. Those testers used a longer barreled gun where both bullets achieved higher velocities and so they chose the 124. I think I have also seen some posts where people felt the 115 cycled more reliably through their R9 than the 124. Thus my indecision.
-
Good points all and no good answers are available. Go with what you trust, avoid risky behavior and practice situational awareness in the hope that we will never have to find out the answer!
John
-
I am leaning towards the 124 for that reason but most who did the tests decided on the 115. Both seem to feed reliably in my gun. The 115 is closer to the optimal velocity of 1150 fps suggested by Speer for best bullet performance, but the 124 penetrated an extra inch or 2 in one persons wetpack test and expanded almost as well using an R9. I don't think I ever found a 2 bullet comparison in ballistics gel from an R9. Those testers used a longer barreled gun where both bullets achieved higher velocities and so they chose the 124. I think I have also seen some posts where people felt the 115 cycled more reliably through their R9 than the 124. Thus my indecision.
DFG. As backup has said, you just have to go with what you trust. I'm sure either of the Gold Dots will do the job. Good luck with your decision on which to use.
-
It really comes down to what functions best in your pup and if both are the same which you can shoot the most accurate and have 100% confidence in. :D
-
It really comes down to what functions best in your pup and if both are the same which you can shoot the most accurate and have 100% confidence in. :D
+1 :)
-
DFG:
I'm of the "bigger rock" school of thought.