Failure to extract with 9 mm Titegroup: not enough powder, or too much?

Status
Not open for further replies.
valleyforge.1777 said:
What I think is going on is that perhaps the burn temp of the powder is high enough that even in a safe range of pressure within the case/chamber and combined with the range pick-up brass probably has some cases that are work hardened enough to not spring back enough to allow easy extraction and the extractor is slipping off the rim for those few cases which amounted to about 1-2 out of each 15 round magazine. If the lower charges (my lower charges, 4.4-4.5 grains) allows the ammo and gun to function, I'll stay there. If not, I don't need to make this work and I can go back to Win 231. Titegroup worked fine for me in 38 Special, which I don't load anymore, and I just wanted to use it up.
Click to expand...

Not to beat a dead horse...

Many years ago, in my early reloading days, I started reloading 9mm for my Browning HiPower. I was a 'moarrr is better' person back then, and I used to start with, if not max loads, then pretty stout... and work my way up. I also liked heavy bullets... still do... ;) So, I'm running an unknown load with a 147grn bullet, with very little attention paid to bullet seating depth. I would get primer flow and short cycle in the same magazine of 13. It got so bad the hammer would follow the slide forward, assuming I even got a full cycle. I blamed the gun, swore off the 9mm, and gave my HiPower away. Hindsight is always 20/20... these days, looking back at that failed experiment, I can see about 20 things I was doing wrong, and I count my blessings I still have my fingers and eyes.

I started loading 9mm, again, about 2 years ago, for my Kahr pistols. I'm approaching it with a lot more due diligence these days, and am doing pretty good. The one bit of advise I would give anyone about the 9mm is bullet choice and bullet seating depth. Back Then, I treated any 115grn bullet, for example, as the same... with no regard to profile or OAL, not so much anymore, and as much as I don't care for the 'waste of time' it takes to work up a load, even for something like the 9mm, it is necessary.

No one is faulting your research... I see your data... but your methods are wrong. You cannot simply substitute one bullet for another without reducing and working up, particularly in a high pressure cartridge like the 9mm... you are asking for problems, and you are obviously getting them.
 
valleyforge.1777 said:
In defense of my practices: The manufacturer of the powder, Hodgdon, has the following data: 115 GR. SPR GDHP ... Starting Load Grains 4.5 ... Maximum Load Grains 4.8
Click to expand...
You can do whatever you want to do but we have seen way too many "Funny thing happened at the range today" threads where members posted blown up guns and injured body parts - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?media/albums/kaboom.24/

Here's a discussion thread on using over published max charges - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/p-loads.835309/#post-10808953

Be safe.
 
Last edited:
Charlie98, thanks, your advice is fair and I understand.

Let me ask a few follow up questions that is a related to this because so far I have not found actual load data for 115 grain FMJ bullets with Titegroup:
What is the loading difference, in general, between lead, plated, and FMJ bullets in terms of powder charge? I think it is that lead uses less powder, FMJ uses more powder, and plated is inbetween. Right?
What is the difference, given the same bullet weight, between FMJ and JHP? I think it is that the JHP has more of its mass in the rear end of the bullet and less at the tip compared to FMJ (because JHP has a hollow point and FMJ has a round or pointy point). Right?
So, what is the impact on case volume (and thus, resulting pressure in the case when the round is fired) for a given COAL between using FMJ and JHP bullets of same bullet weight? I don't know. I'm interested to hear what you can teach me about that. I'm guessing that case volume is pretty much the same, and thus the commonly heard advice to interchangeably use JHP and FMJ data.

I have been reloading a long time. Like everyone else, I have heard and understand the "start low and work up" and the similar "you should never start at max loads". But the manufacturer of the powder set the lower limit at 4.5 grains and I loaded 4.6-4.7, with the specified max of 4.8 from the manufacturer, and I used a longer COL of 1137 instead of the specified 1.125 and so I should have a slightly lower pressure in the case, but probably not significantly different than a round loaded to 1.125.
Speer's data is interesting because their max, albeit for a TMJ bullet is the minimum that the powder manufacturer specifies for a JHP. But Speer also lists lower velocities at their max load compared to the velocities that Hodgdon lists for its minimum load, although we all know that the achieved velocities with testing depend as much or more on the barrel length and actual shooting device used (gun, test barrel set up, etc) as it depends on the powder amount used. I'm just pointing out Speer's lower velocities to show that their lower range of load data is not completely incongruous with Hodgdon's higher range of data. And even if it was significantly different, who am I going to trust? The people who make the bullets I am not using or the people who make the powder I am using? That's too harsh. True, as someone pointed out, the better thing to do is use the more conservative data, try it and see if the gun functions and results are what you want, and if not then use the data from the manufacturer of the powder if it is higher than the conservative data. I accept that.
 
valleyforge.1777 said:
Let me ask a few follow up questions that is a related to this because so far I have not found actual load data for 115 grain FMJ bullets with Titegroup:

I have been reloading a long time. Like everyone else, I have heard and understand the "start low and work up" and the similar "you should never start at max loads"
Click to expand...
When I am conducting INITIAL load development and powder work up with a DIFFERENT bullet type than what the load data lists, I will reference more conservative published load data as you can always go higher.

So when you could not find load data for 115 gr FMJ and Titegroup but found load data for Speer Gold Dot HP and Speer TMJ RN, the reasonable thing to do is reference more conservative load data for load development.

FYI, Speer publishes the following for both Gold Dot HP and TMJ bullets - https://www.speer-ammo.com/download...m_caliber_355-366_dia/9mm_Luger__115_rev1.pdf
  • 9mm 115 gr Speer Total Metal Jacket Titegroup 1.135" OAL Start 4.1 gr (1061 fps) - Max 4.5 gr (1121 fps)
  • 9mm 115 gr Speer Gold Dot HP Titegroup 1.125" OAL Start 4.1 gr (1061 fps) - Max 4.5 gr (1121 fps)
And here's Hodgdon load data - http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/data/pistol
  • 9mm 115 gr Speer Gold Dot HP Titegroup 1.125" COL Start 4.5 gr (1,135 fps) - Max 4.8 gr (1,158 fps)
If you compare Speer and Hodgdon GD HP load data, you will notice that powder charge vs velocity seems linear continuation.

valleyforge.1777 said:
I ... understand the "start low and work up"
Click to expand...
And that's the notion of "start low" ... referencing and starting out with more conservative load data when reloading components like the bullet do not match the listed components in the load data exactly.

Despite what you posted of apparently understanding "start low and work up", you contradict yourself after you are provided with two sources of load data and DO NOT CHOOSE to reference more conservative load data, especially when bullet type used do not match with published load data.

valleyforge.1777 said:
The Speer data is interesting and I had not seen that before. They are using the same 1.135 COL as I am ... range is 4.1 to 4.5 grains.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that FMJ with lead base like your Montana Gold FMJ will expand the lead base when powder ignites to seal with the barrel. And you haven't done chrono testing with your loads which are over max of Speer load data.

Look at Slamfire's chrono data which uses same bullet type FMJ with lead base and his velocity obtained with 4.2 gr load (even at longer 1.150" OAL) correlates with Speer load data.
Slamfire said:
I would say, cut your loads. In my target 9mm I was looking for loads around 1150 fps, and if you look, factory is about 1200 fps ... M92 FS Beretta Bar Sto Barrel

115 gr FMJ Hornady 0.355" 4.2 grs Titegroup OAL 1.15" ... Ave Vel = 1108
Click to expand...

FWIW, gilding metal jacket thickness usually run .015"+ thickness and Speer TMJ copper plating thickness is around .015" and can be driven to jacketed load data - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ng-at-25-50-yards.808446/page-3#post-10470195
 
Last edited:
It has been a long time, I tried one can of Titegroup when new and had no trouble at Max - 0.1 grain.
But competitors wanting only Minor Power factor are down around 4.2 grains with 115 gr bullets.
 
All I see in this thread is a train wreck waiting to happen.

The OP appears to be cherry picking data. When presented with two sets of data he chooses the higher value set. That's neither smart nor prudent.

Pressures aren't linear. Going up 0.2 gr could easily double pressure with a powder like TiteBoom. A small change in seating depth can double pressure in a case like the 9mm. Lower the case volume and adding more powder can create a bomb.

Hollow point bullets have more bearing surface than non-hollow point bullets of the same weight. Bearing surface makes a difference. Also when loaded to the same OAL the hollow point bullet will have less case volume.

A small difference in case volume can make a HUGE difference in pressure. Especially when working with a cartridge like the 9mm where there is minimal case volume to begin with. Add in a powder like TiteBoom and you're heading for trouble very quickly.

I've been reloading over 40 years. I still have all ten fingers so I'm doing something right. Since I cast my own bullets I'm often working without any published data. I've very conservative when developing loads. I often have starting loads that won't function the pistol. Those get the bullets pulled and recycled. I NEVER start at what I would consider the middle range or top range.

I tried TiteBoom a few years ago. I was very leery of it since it has such narrow load bands in a cartridge like the 9mm.

To the OP. Good luck. PLEASE reconsider your loading practices. PLEASE use a more conservative data set.
 
There’s lots of good advice here, please heed it? Most of my first loads for 9mm were with Titegroup and while it meters excellent, burns clean and hot, it can get out of control easily at the max range. You don’t know what that is even if there is published data, your chamber is not what they used to test it. Hence the start low and work up adage. I had a web blowout with Titegroup because I had a .020” shorter COL than published data. My mistake and fortunately learned from it without any damage.
I can’t explain your observation about the cases landing close by. Perhaps every case has a lot of stiction and is hard to extract, but those FTE have just enough stiction to cause the extractor to miss. Better to test the lower and safer load first, and see if that solves the problem. Good luck!
 
Might sound dumb bbbuuuuutttttttt, I always use a chronograph when working up new loads.

1 pull of the trigger and the op would of had his answer
 
The failures you're seeing are properly classified as type III malfunctions.

https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2015/11/clear-present-3-must-know-malfunction-clearance-drills/

If the case still in the chamber has been fired (this is your situation), some refer to it as a "failure to extract". If the case in the chamber is unfired, some call this a "doublefeed".

In either of these situations, the steps to quickly clear the malfunction are the same.

I've seen dirty/dry guns contribute to type IIIs. A good cleaning and some lube might help.
 
I loaded 100 rounds with 4.4-4.5 grains of Titegroup. Had to wait out a thunderstorm to be able to go to the range, so changed the powder measure to Win 231 and loaded 100 with that powder using my long-standing charge of 4.8 grains so I could test those as well to make sure my loading process and thought processes were working fine. As mentioned, I've loaded more than 75,000 9 mm rounds over the many years I've been doing this, all of that was with either Win 231 or HP38, and never had malfunctions, pressure signs on primers or brass, etc. Got to the range and fired the rounds with Titegroup through the Sig P228 and the Sig P365. No malfunctions. Then fired the rounds made with Win 231 today. No malfunctions and recoil impulse and brass landing piles were similar between the two sets of ammo. Loaded one magazine for each gun with 6 of the Win 231 loads on top and 6 of the Titegroup loads on the bottom of the magazine and fired the gun(s). No perceptible difference in recoil, sound, or even really the brass landing spots when transitioning from the Win 231 rounds to the Titegroup rounds. I've noted the whole experience in my log book for future reference. At this point, I've got the Win231 powder measure set up on the press and will just load from that and forget about the Titegroup for a while.
 
Good deal! One suggestion: When working out loads, reduce to a smaller test number like 10 rather than 100. Unless you like to press your luck or use the puller.
Titegroup has pros and cons and you’ll hear them all here. I’ve got many more than a few pounds on the shelf but have other fast powders I use more. If you want to run faster or similar to the 231 IMR Target, N320 and Sport Pistol have most of the pros of Titegroup and are a bit better behaved.
 
lordpaxman said:
One suggestion: When working out loads, reduce to a smaller test number like 10 rather than 100.
Click to expand...

Uh no.
The malfunction was occurring with the rate of 1or 2 per 15 rounds per magazine. Loading 10 would not even fill the magazine and would likely have not uncovered the problem with my original loads. Also, note that there were no signs of over pressure in the spent primers or the brass including the distance that the ejected brass was thrown from the gun. With 10 rounds, I'd have known nothing.

I did make a mistake relying on the data from Hodgdon. I don't think anyone on here thinks I misread or misinterpreted it, but it turns out that the data from Speer was a much more accurate match to what really seems to work for that powder with 115 grain FMJ and I did not know about that data until someone on here pointed it out to me. I don't have their manual, and don't routinely use their web data if the Hodgdon reloading data center has the powder I'm using. That was a mistake.

I do have two serious follow up questions, this will not change what I am doing because I am just going to use the same Win 231 powder and data I've been using for a long time (4.8 grains), but I do wonder about these two things:
1. Seriously, why is there NO published data for 115 grain FMJ bullets for 9 mm? Is it because you really are supposed to just use the JHP data?
2. I'm not disputing people who say that Titegroup has a non-linear pressure curve with a very sharp incremental increase in pressure as charge weight goes up, but where do you guys get that from? Is that published as a chart somewhere with real data, particularly compared to any other powders, or it just one of those things that people keep saying over and over again so it is accepted as being true?
 
valleyforge.1777 said:
I do have two serious follow up questions, this will not change what I am doing because I am just going to use the same Win 231 powder and data I've been using for a long time (4.8 grains), but I do wonder about these two things:
1. Seriously, why is there NO published data for 115 grain FMJ bullets for 9 mm? Is it because you really are supposed to just use the JHP data?
2. I'm not disputing people who say that Titegroup has a non-linear pressure curve with a very sharp incremental increase in pressure as charge weight goes up, but where do you guys get that from? Is that published as a chart somewhere with real data, particularly compared to any other powders, or it just one of those things that people keep saying over and over again so it is accepted as being true?
Click to expand...

There is data for 115grn FMJ, you just have to find a source for it. Speer has it for their 115grn TMJ bullet. Hodgdon has it for 115grn lead RN bullets, but you can start low, adjust your OAL, and work up to FMJ velocities, watching for signs of high pressure. In the case of swapping data for a JHP (or FP) bullet vs a FMJ bullet, you can estimate how much longer the FMJ bullet is, adjust your OAL, start low and work up.

If you look at pressure data in the books that offer it, you can see the pressure increase over a very small powder charge increase, whereas curve might be longer for a powder like Unique, etc. Fast powders generically have fast peak pressure curves, even W231. TiteGroup has a high nitroglycerine content, so it is quite volatile.
 
valleyforge.1777 said:
Uh no.
The malfunction was occurring with the rate of 1or 2 per 15 rounds per magazine. Loading 10 would not even fill the magazine and would likely have not uncovered the problem with my original loads. Also, note that there were no signs of over pressure in the spent primers or the brass including the distance that the ejected brass was thrown from the gun. With 10 rounds, I'd have known nothing.
Click to expand...

Are you sure your problem is related just to Tight group? You have something going on for sure, but it seems pretty weird to be one or two rounds per magazine. I would start looking at more than just the powder. Powder measure maybe? Clumping powder throwing things off?
 
valleyforge.1777 said:
2. I'm not disputing people who say that Titegroup has a non-linear pressure curve with a very sharp incremental increase in pressure as charge weight goes up, but where do you guys get that from? Is that published as a chart somewhere with real data, particularly compared to any other powders, or it just one of those things that people keep saying over and over again so it is accepted as being true?
Click to expand...

Over 40 years of reading various reloading journals, magazines, and manuals. Talking to people who design powders.

NO powder is linear.
 
rskent said:
Are you sure your problem is related just to Tight group? You have something going on for sure, but it seems pretty weird to be one or two rounds per magazine. I would start looking at more than just the powder. Powder measure maybe? Clumping powder throwing things off?
Click to expand...
My experience with TG has shown that it's very prone to sticking to everything. It's very static sensitive, and leaves a lot on the colum in my chargemaster.
 
valleyforge.1777 said:
At this point, I've got the Win231 powder measure set up on the press and will just load from that and forget about the Titegroup for a while.
Click to expand...

Titegroup is fine if you use it as intended. I am of the opinion that Titegroup was made as a Bullseye substitute, but with a very high nitroglycerine content to make those who want a "clean" powder happy. As such, and has been noted, it is not appropriate for high end loads, it is peaky, and it runs hot. A number of the 2700 Bullseye shooters I know went over to Titegroup when Bullseye became hard to find. Their loads are equal to, or within a tenth, of their Bullseye loads. However, they are firing loads that just function the pistol and are stable at 50 yards. My 50 yard load with a 200 LSWC is going at 740 fps, but my 25 yard loads have been in the 680 fps range. I had to bump up the 25 yard loads because if the day was cold, the pistol would not function, but do you get my drift? For low end loads Titegroup is fine, that is loads on the minimum side of the loading recommendations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

valleyforge.1777
  • Locked
Can I use 357 Sig bullets in 9 mm brass to load for 9 mm handgun?
Replies
5
Views
898
Hondo 60
Hondo 60
M
  • Locked
Talk to me about Clays Powder
Replies
10
Views
919
peacemaker45
peacemaker45
P
  • Locked
Titegroup load data for handgun
Replies
3
Views
2K
Pelon
P
R
  • Locked
unique 9 mm with 115 grain jacketed bullets
Replies
15
Views
733
Potatohead
Potatohead
C
  • Locked
Unique VS Win 231 VS Titegroup
Replies
2
Views
2K
Crawfish1
C
Back
Top