I've been loading 9mm with 115gr LRN for almost 1,000 rounds. The one on the left is an example of what those look like.
Yesterday I picked up a box of Hornady 115gr HP/XTP .355's just for grins.
According to Hodgdon's loading data the OAL length for the LRN's is 1.100". Those because of the ogive of the bullets I have down to 1.062" and they work great, not only that, but they actually look like I think they're supposed to. They work good and chronograph right in the ballpark with the published data.
Now comes the HP/XTP's:
The round you see on the right is a dummy load (1 of 8). These measure out to 1.120" (published data is 1.125"). I've drop tested them in the chamber and everything clears well, no contact with the rifling by probably .015" at least. I've also loaded them into the magazine and cycled them all through the gun (S&W Model 39-2) with no issues.
My problem is, they just don't look right to me. But I'm paranoid about getting them too short and causing pressure problems so here's what I'm thinking.
The LRN's I load are approximately .038" shorter than Hodgdons OAL of 1.100". I think what I would like to do is shorten these up to 1.085" which is approximately .040" shorter than published. Then load them up with the absolute minimum charge and increase by .2gr up to .4gr above minimum, chronograph and test for accuracy with each load combination.
Basically, I'm new enough at this that I need someone to pat me on the head and say, "You'll be fine Joe, chances are what you're planning on doing will not result in grave bodily injury or death."
I do not have access to a Hornady loading manual, I'm using Hodgdons data published on the internet. Which incidently matches Lee's data for the same weight bullet. The powder is Universal by the way.
Yesterday I picked up a box of Hornady 115gr HP/XTP .355's just for grins.
According to Hodgdon's loading data the OAL length for the LRN's is 1.100". Those because of the ogive of the bullets I have down to 1.062" and they work great, not only that, but they actually look like I think they're supposed to. They work good and chronograph right in the ballpark with the published data.
Now comes the HP/XTP's:
The round you see on the right is a dummy load (1 of 8). These measure out to 1.120" (published data is 1.125"). I've drop tested them in the chamber and everything clears well, no contact with the rifling by probably .015" at least. I've also loaded them into the magazine and cycled them all through the gun (S&W Model 39-2) with no issues.
My problem is, they just don't look right to me. But I'm paranoid about getting them too short and causing pressure problems so here's what I'm thinking.
The LRN's I load are approximately .038" shorter than Hodgdons OAL of 1.100". I think what I would like to do is shorten these up to 1.085" which is approximately .040" shorter than published. Then load them up with the absolute minimum charge and increase by .2gr up to .4gr above minimum, chronograph and test for accuracy with each load combination.
Basically, I'm new enough at this that I need someone to pat me on the head and say, "You'll be fine Joe, chances are what you're planning on doing will not result in grave bodily injury or death."
I do not have access to a Hornady loading manual, I'm using Hodgdons data published on the internet. Which incidently matches Lee's data for the same weight bullet. The powder is Universal by the way.
), flat point bullet nose profiles will load shorter than round nose profiles while providing greater bearing surface to stabilize the bullet in the barrel/rifling.
