Keltec sub 2000 velocity test vs glock 17

mrblue357

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
133   0   0
Location
B.C.
I think some of you guys will find this interesting, I did a crony compare using 3 types of factory ammo through both guns.

Winchester 9mm 115g Value Pack
V 1190
E 362

Sub 2000
1) 1415
2) 1376
3) 1389
4) 1331
5) 1406
Average
V 1383.4
E 489

115g Glock 17
1) 1170
2) 1185
3) 1207
4) 1183
5) 1161
Average
V 1181.2
E 356


Winchester 9mm 124g
V 1140
E 358

Sub 2000
1) 1252
2) 1248
3) 1249
4) 1235
5) 1217
Average
V 1240.2
E 425

124g Glock 17
1) 1066
2) 1097
3) 1099
3) 1093
4) 1093
Average
V 1089.6
E 327


Winchester 9mm 147g
V 990
E 320

Sub 2000
1) 1132
2) 1139
3) 1136
4) 1127
5) 1102
Average
V 1127.2
E 415

147g Glock 17
1) 1018
2) 1025
3) 1017
4) 1026
5) 1034
Average
V 1024
E 342


Hornady Steel Match 125g HAP
V 1146

Sub 2000
1) 1271
2) 1341
3) 1306
4) 1336
5) 1314
Average
V 1313.6
E 479

I didn't get around to test this one with the glock
 
Last edited:
It's interesting how the bullet got heavier how it affected the velocity gain. With the 115g we are looking at 200fps, 124g go to 150fps and then the 147g were about 100fps gain.
 
Your loads are anemic.
From another review au saw the author was using Cor-Bon +P loads rated at 1350fps and was getting 1550fps.

Depends if you just want a big bang, or an accurate round that you can hit your target with. I have been reloading and shooting for 40 years and never found with either a hand gun or rifle that max loads were as accurate as slightly tamer loads.

But judging from my indoor pistol range, the max load big boom shooters that shoot dinner plate sized groups are more common then lighter load ragged hole shooters like me. Maybe the big boom will scare your target into submission...
 
Back
Top Bottom