BE-86

[Ghost In The Fog]

Ruger 15151,

Not if my math was correct. i dont have the figures with me but no it should not be. The Chrono numbers also do not point to a compressed load. Please someone let me know if i am wrong on the math. The bullet measures at .560 so i am showing only .185 of seating depth.

LeftyTSGC

I hope you don't mind if I ask a question. If so, just ignore me I won't be offended. Maybe this should be a new thread but I will try here first.
This is where it all comes off the rails for me and I get so turned around.

I get the push test, plunk test, COL/COAL, feeding etc. etc.
According to the math, that would mean your case length is .743
I have loaded 6,000 of the Zero 125 JHP's - great bullet and very accurate but no expansion. I have switched to the RMR 124 Gr JHP and get excellent consistent expansion in water jugs and I am working up loads using BE-86 which is a great powder for what I am looking for.

I still have about 1,100 of the loaded Zeros left and use them for IDPA matches. I loaded the Zeros to 1.060 COL and I found them to be .563 in length and assuming I have a case length of .743 that would mean the bullet is seated .246 in to the case.
Wouldn't it stand to reason that if you have a COL that feeds and chambers into your guns without an issue that the seated depth should be far more important that the COL? If you are at .185 and I am at .246 I am going to have more pressure than you. It just seems this is sdrawkcab (backwards) that we are all focused on COAL rather than seated depth to really regulate pressure?

Is there a standard seated depth that we should be focusing on in conjunction with COL?
Shouldn't this be the one single thing that determines pressure? As long as the completed round functions in all of your guns it really does't matter what the COAL is. The COAL then becomes secondary.

Just thinking out loud here and hoping someone can explain this to me.

 

[LeftyTSGC]

Ghost in the Fog,

A lot of possible variations here. My understanding of Zero 125gn JHP are that they are made for competition not self defense so you should not expect much expansion, the same with Montana Gold and other bullets. A lot of them are for competition only.

If you are loading a 1.060, are you loading the 125gn JHP C? ( that is the conical model) I am loading the standard JHP. My understanding is that one should load a bullet as long as possible for their specific handgun, that means the longest you can seat your bullet and still load in the magazine and rack through your handgun.

With a base brass size of .754 and the bullet at .560 minus my OAL 1.120 that would leave .194 seated in the case. That is about normal for what i am loading. If you have a standard case o f.754 and bullet length of .563 they you would be seating at 1.060 then you would be .257 in the case.

You did not mention what powder load you are using, this would determine the amount of volume that you are using vs. the seating depth you are using. But if you are starting at 10% below max and using a Chrono to measure your FPS you should be getting a good idea of your load quality and if you are approaching limits.

Yes you are correct that there is a relationship between the seating depth and pressure. But it is harder to measure the seating depth than OAL. As mentioned though they are the same, but we use the COAL to identify our limits vs. seating depth. You think the way I do and others, but normally the seating depth is something that i use personally to compare my loads, but publicly it is easier to discuss COAL which is something that is easier to measure and relate to. I am not aware of a seating depth limit, because again it depends on what velocity you are looking to achieve. This will determine the amount of powder required and the volume in the case used. Maybe someone with more knowledge can explain this better than i can.

Bullet shape, size, diameter, crimp are also variables that can affect pressure.

Someone please correct me if i have misspoken here.

LeftyTSGC

 

[RealGun]

I hope you don't mind if I ask a question. If so, just ignore me I won't be offended. Maybe this should be a new thread but I will try here first.
This is where it all comes off the rails for me and I get so turned around.

I get the push test, plunk test, COL/COAL, feeding etc. etc.
According to the math, that would mean your case length is .743
I have loaded 6,000 of the Zero 125 JHP's - great bullet and very accurate but no expansion. I have switched to the RMR 124 Gr JHP and get excellent consistent expansion in water jugs and I am working up loads using BE-86 which is a great powder for what I am looking for.

I still have about 1,100 of the loaded Zeros left and use them for IDPA matches. I loaded the Zeros to 1.060 COL and I found them to be .563 in length and assuming I have a case length of .743 that would mean the bullet is seated .246 in to the case.
Wouldn't it stand to reason that if you have a COL that feeds and chambers into your guns without an issue that the seated depth should be far more important that the COL? If you are at .185 and I am at .246 I am going to have more pressure than you. It just seems this is sdrawkcab (backwards) that we are all focused on COAL rather than seated depth to really regulate pressure?

Is there a standard seated depth that we should be focusing on in conjunction with COL?
Shouldn't this be the one single thing that determines pressure? As long as the completed round functions in all of your guns it really does't matter what the COAL is. The COAL then becomes secondary.

Just thinking out loud here and hoping someone can explain this to me.

You load to the COL in the load source or, in the case of revolvers, fully engaged in the crimp groove, and call it good, assuming your gun will function. The variable is the bullet shape and size. If not using the same bullet as the load source, and you want to be accurate with case volume, you would have to know the comparative bullet specs and adjust your COL accordingly, yielding equivalent seating depths. A stark example would be semi-wadcutters versus FMJ.

 

[LeftyTSGC]

I hope you don't mind if I ask a question. If so, just ignore me I won't be offended. Maybe this should be a new thread but I will try here first.
This is where it all comes off the rails for me and I get so turned around.

I get the push test, plunk test, COL/COAL, feeding etc. etc.
According to the math, that would mean your case length is .743
I have loaded 6,000 of the Zero 125 JHP's - great bullet and very accurate but no expansion. I have switched to the RMR 124 Gr JHP and get excellent consistent expansion in water jugs and I am working up loads using BE-86 which is a great powder for what I am looking for.

I still have about 1,100 of the loaded Zeros left and use them for IDPA matches. I loaded the Zeros to 1.060 COL and I found them to be .563 in length and assuming I have a case length of .743 that would mean the bullet is seated .246 in to the case.
Wouldn't it stand to reason that if you have a COL that feeds and chambers into your guns without an issue that the seated depth should be far more important that the COL? If you are at .185 and I am at .246 I am going to have more pressure than you. It just seems this is sdrawkcab (backwards) that we are all focused on COAL rather than seated depth to really regulate pressure?

Is there a standard seated depth that we should be focusing on in conjunction with COL?
Shouldn't this be the one single thing that determines pressure? As long as the completed round functions in all of your guns it really does't matter what the COAL is. The COAL then becomes secondary.

Just thinking out loud here and hoping someone can explain this to me.

I went back to the range today and shot some 125gn ZERO JHP into jugs of water; just what i expected, since these are really more of competition bullets, i saw complete jacket separation and measured and avg of .570 in diameter of the lead core expansion.

LeftyTSGC

 

[peterk1234]

I started to enter various loads people have posted in this thread into a spreadsheet so I can figure out what loads may work for me. I am also starting to add ones I find on other forums. Not sure if anyone else will find it helpful, but I figured I would share. It is not all inclusive because I was going goofy after a while combing through this thread. Pete

 

[tightgroup tiger]

That had to be a lot of work. A lot of us will appreciate it, I know I will. The links are as important as the recipes so we can find what the COLs are since this thread is so big.
Thank you.

 

[peterk1234]

Just loaded my first ever 357 loads this evening. 7.2 grains of BE-86. Boy that stuff meters nice. Ten pulls and it came out to 72.0 grains; wow. Anyway, definitely not a full magnum load, but boy it burned nice and clean and accurate enough for me. I put a full crimp on it (or at least I think I did). I checked bullet number seven after firing off six rounds, it did not budge. This was shot out of 686 Pro Plus. I am going to make a box of this stuff to shoot later in the week, and another one at 7.6. I will have to check what my OAL was and report back. Did not really worry about it since it was going into my revolver.

 

[RealGun]

Just loaded my first ever 357 loads this evening. 7.2 grains of BE-86. Boy that stuff meters nice. Ten pulls and it came out to 72.0 grains; wow. Anyway, definitely not a full magnum load, but boy it burned nice and clean and accurate enough for me. I put a full crimp on it (or at least I think I did). I checked bullet number seven after firing off six rounds, it did not budge. This was shot out of 686 Pro Plus. I am going to make a box of this stuff to shoot later in the week, and another one at 7.6. I will have to check what my OAL was and report back. Did not really worry about it since it was going into my revolver.

I am at 7.3/158 SWC and feel that is the sweet spot for how it feels to shoot it in a substantial gun. I classify it as Medium for my purposes. No chrony data but I do own the equipment and may use it someday. I tried 7.0 and 7.5 with no real issues with either.

 

[Walkalong]

I am at 7.3/158 SWC and feel that is the sweet spot for how it feels to shoot it in a substantial gun. I classify it as Medium for my purposes.

I have to agree. I didn't try 7.0, but did try 7.3 with a 158 Gr X-Treme SWC and it shot very well, was very clean, with very good powder forward numbers (Didn't lose much average velocity). I tried 7.5 after that and did not gain any real velocity to speak of (Average was virtually identical), with no gains in ES or SD numbers (As in not smaller).

I gave the 7.3 gr load three stars in my load log (.357 Load # 222) and it is my new "midrange" .357 load. I like BE-86.

Oh yea, 7.3 ran an average 1056 FPS @ 68 degrees and 67% relative humidity.

 

[eo1bart]

I am at 7.3/158 SWC and feel that is the sweet spot for how it feels to shoot it in a substantial gun. I classify it as Medium for my purposes. No chrony data but I do own the equipment and may use it someday. I tried 7.0 and 7.5 with no real issues with either.

Same here, 7.3gr with a 158 lead SWC is the sweet spot.

 

[tightgroup tiger]

I looked back through my notes and 7.3 was my most accurate load for .357 mag with 158 gr xtreem SWC. I think I covered 5 holes with that load with a quarter in a previous post. My OAL was 1.570 and it seems to be easier to shoot more accurately than my favorite load of 8.0 gr of Power Pistol with the same bullet and OAL, and I don't miss all that flash.

 

[peterk1234]

Just reloaded some 9mm with 4.8grains of BE-86 with an OAL of 1.135. Soft shooting load. No problem cycling the STI Marauder. Seemed accurate, shooting unrested at 50 fifty feet indoors. Shoot be hoot to plink steel.

 

[jell-dog]

Just reloaded some 9mm with 4.8grains of BE-86 with an OAL of 1.135. Soft shooting load. No problem cycling the STI Marauder. Seemed accurate, shooting unrested at 50 fifty feet indoors. Shoot be hoot to plink steel.

What weight and style/brand of bullets did you use?
Thanks!
JD

 

[peterk1234]

What weight and style/brand of bullets did you use?
Thanks!
JD

124 grain conical coated from MBC

 

[gojones]

Has anybody done any testing with B-86 165 grain GDHP in 40 cal.? I don't have a chronograph and I am at 6.8 - 7.0 grains with decent results. I want to stay efficient and go to around 7.3 but only if I am gaining velocity and keeping decent SD. At 12 yrds I have several 3.5" groups 7.0 grains which is very good for my ability. Sig P226.

 

[LiveLife]

Has anybody done any testing with B-86 165 grain GDHP in 40 cal.? I don't have a chronograph and I am at 6.8 - 7.0 grains with decent results.

I have 40S&W Montana Gold 165 gr JHP.

Walkalong asked for chrono testing of RMR 180 gr RNFP with 6.1 gr of BE-86 and I can add MG 165 gr JHP to chrono testing but Alliant's published max for 165 gr JHP is 6.5 gr - http://www.alliantpowder.com/reload...wderlist.aspx&type=1&powderid=38&cartridge=29

40 S&W 165 gr JHP OAL 1.120" BE-86 Max 6.5 gr 1,123 fps

 

[OilyPablo]

10mm - I'm going to try this soon. For a (generic) 180gr JHP. I use HAP 180gr. The fascinating part is not the nice velocity, but rather the 1.250" min. Most everyone except Alliant say 1.260" min. I think I will start at 1.260", or rather 1.255-1.260".

Minimum OAL (inches) = 1.25

Charge Weight(grains) = 8.2 gr

Velocity (fps) = 1,256

 

[gojones]

Thanks BDS. My rational for 7.0 and maybe up to 7.3 is the Alliant data for 165 grain GDHP lists Unique at 7.2 and Pistol Power at 7.8 max. I continue to believe that BE-86 burn rate is between Unique and Pistol Power and maybe closer to Unique. With that assumption, I further assumed that, maybe, up to 7.3 would be safe. I did start at 6.6 grains and worked up to 7.0 which was pretty snappy and also decent groups for me. Primers however looked normal after firing. Again, a lot of assumptions here and that is another reason I posted seeking guidance, such as yours. I was hoping maybe others had tested these and that would be further assurance that I was in the norm here.

 

[LiveLife]

gojones, while I agree with you on BE-86 burn rate being between Unique and Power Pistol, different powders may not have the same pressure build and peak curve. Alliant load data showing shorter 1.120" OAL tells me the test barrel used likely had shorter leade and my 40S&W Glock/Lone Wolf barrels with longer leade will leak more gas as they accommodate typical 165/180 gr TCFP bullet profiles to 1.149" max OAL (1.143" working OAL).

I could test 165 gr FMJ to 7.5 gr referencing load data for 165 gr FMC (Full Metal Case with disk to cover exposed lead base of FMJ) if muzzle velocity is consistent. However, 165 gr JHP which will get seated deeper in the case neck will get tested to 6.5 gr at 1.120" OAL unless chrono data shows different.

Perhaps Alliant stopped 165 gr JHP testing at 6.5 gr to not compress the powder charge. I will do max case fill weigh of powder charge with 165 gr JHP seated to 1.120".

40 S&W 165 gr JHP OAL 1.120" BE-86 Max 6.5 gr 1,123 fps
40 S&W 165 gr FMC OAL 1.120" BE-86 Max 7.5 gr 1,167 fps

 

[gojones]

Thanks for the reply bds. I think I will go back to the 6.8 grain load, which produced decent groups for me. I believe this is safe in my gun simply because I experience no issues while firing and the primers all look normal. Maybe someone else will work up and publish some loads using the 165 grain GDHP and I can compare.

 

[LiveLife]

Perhaps Alliant stopped 165 gr JHP testing at 6.5 gr to not compress the powder charge. I will do max case fill weigh of powder charge with 165 gr JHP seated to 1.120".

Update: Montana Gold 165 gr JHP bullet length averaged .585" - .586" and did my max case fill calculations using .586" for 1.120" OAL:

1.120" - .586" = .534"

.847" - .534" = .313" (Average resized case length .847")

I marked .313" down from case mouth with tip of calipers then filled the case with BE-86 to mark and the powder charge weighed 8 grains.

So for Montana Gold 165 gr JHP bullet length, up to 8 grains won't be compressed by bullet seating depth.

For Speer 165 gr Gold Dot HP bullet length of .560", powder compression won't be an issue at 6.5 gr - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/what-is-bullet-length-for-speer-165gr-gdhp.780007/

 

[gojones]

bds, I did not use the minimum OAL of 1.120. I actually started at 1.125 and then settled on 1.130. Both functioned well in my gun. I also functioned tested in my S&W shield without any problems. Sorry for omitting vital information and doing this piecemeal. I am a retired CPA and married to and rely on mathematics. Your calculations look spot on. I probably stumbled into a safe load with my logic, but I do believe that 6.8 thru 7.0 grains is safe in my gun using an OAL of 1.130. Because of the snappiness of 7.0 grains, I felt it wise and was reluctant to increase powder without some confirmation from members. You have confirmed that, at this time, 6.8 will be my max load without further confirmation. I am very interested in hearing from you and others who have worked with this bullet/powder combination and the resulting chronograph data. I was using CCI SP primers and WIN brass. I greatly appreciate your helpful input on this matter.

 

[LiveLife]

I assumed you were using 1.120" OAL. Yes, longer OAL can significantly affect chamber pressures.

Since you are using 1.130" OAL, I can do 165 gr JHP chrono testing at both lengths.

 

[rsrocket1]

gojones,
It would be a good idea to get a chrony. I thought I was shooting a nice tame 900 fps load using 5.6g BE-86 with the Lee 401-175-TC (mine are 180g) in my M&P 40. The recoil was very mild and I was drilling the bullseye consistently. My thought was that I was shooting a light load. When I chronied the rounds, I was averaging 1004 fps across two 10 shot strings with very consistent speeds. Strangely enough pumping the charge up to 6.0 and 6.4g, I only increased the speeds to 1015 and 1042 fps respectively so the speed went up slower than I thought. 1000 fps is plenty fast for me and since it's so comfortable, I'm sticking with 5.6g as the standard load. It simply felt a little lighter than my 5.0g Unique loads which are typically in the low to mid 900's. These are seated to 1.135" COL which is a 0.258 seat depth.

 

[Low Left]

BE-86 Load Data for PCC
I scoured the Internet for BE-86 data for a USPSA PCC load recipe and couldn't find anything very useful, including contacting Alliant and Extreme for assistance. Here is some load data that I developed, use/enjoy at your own risk. Shot from a CMMG MK9T rifle with 16" 9mm barrel and JP Compensator. Bullets used are Extreme 124gr plated RN seated to 1.125 OAL. A friend's Caldwell G2 Chronograph.

Chronograph Notes for 4.2, 4.4 and 4.0 gr of BE-86 (in that order) Below

Notes 1: BE 86, 4.2g, OAL 1.125

Notes 2: Extreme small pistol primer

Distance to Chrono(FT): 10.00

Ballistic Coefficient: 1.000

Bullet Weight(gr): 124.00

Temp: N/A °F

BP: N/A inHg

Altitude: 80.00

# FPS FT-LBS PF

10 1046 301.30 129.70

9 1014 283.15 125.74

8 1055 306.51 130.82

7 1045 300.73 129.58

6 1047 301.88 129.83

5 1051 304.19 130.32

4 1087 325.38 134.79

3 1050 303.61 130.20

2 1073 317.06 133.05

1 1112 340.52 137.89

Average: 1058.0 FPS

SD: 26.8 FPS

Min: 1014 FPS

Max: 1112 FPS

Spread: 98 FPS

Shot/sec: 1.1

True MV: 1059 FPS

Group Size (in): 0.00



Created: 04/06/17 17:58

Description: PCC

Notes 1: BE 86, 4.4g, OAL 1.125"

Notes 2:

Distance to Chrono(FT): 10.00

Ballistic Coefficient: 1.000

Bullet Weight(gr): 124.00

Temp: N/A °F

BP: N/A inHg

Altitude: 80.00

# FPS FT-LBS PF

10 1109 338.69 137.52

9 1087 325.38 134.79

8 1098 332.00 136.15

7 1140 357.89 141.36

6 1096 330.79 135.90

5 1129 351.01 140.00

4 1086 324.79 134.66

3 1071 315.88 132.80

2 1124 347.91 139.38

1 1078 320.02 133.67

Average: 1101.8 FPS

SD: 23.0 FPS

Min: 1071 FPS

Max: 1140 FPS

Spread: 69 FPS

Shot/sec: 1.1

True MV: 1103 FPS

Group Size (in): 0.00



Created: 04/06/17 17:49

Description: PCC

Notes 1: BE 86, 4.0g, OAL 1.125

Notes 2: Extreme small pistol primer

Distance to Chrono(FT): 10.00

Ballistic Coefficient: 1.000

Bullet Weight(gr): 124.00

Temp: N/A °F

BP: N/A inHg

Altitude: 80.00

# FPS FT-LBS PF

9 1014 283.15 125.74

8 997 273.73 123.63

7 1041 298.43 129.08

6 965 256.44 119.66

5 979 263.94 121.40

4 1003 277.04 124.37

3 1031 292.72 127.84

2 950 248.53 117.80

1 1011 281.47 125.36

Average: 999.0 FPS

SD: 29.9 FPS

Min: 950 FPS

Max: 1041 FPS

Spread: 91 FPS

Shot/sec: 0.7

True MV: 1000 FPS

Group Size (in): 0.00