Conflicting Data for W-231 and 9mm

[Palladan44]

Hodgdons website for 9mm loads in 124gr. bullets lists starting load at 3.7 and a maximum of 4.4

My go to Hornady book (it's about 30 years old) has starting at 4.7 gr with a max of 5.5 for the same wt. bullet. My go-to loads always have been the 4.5 ish range, and I thought those were about as weak as I could go.

What gives? Is today just more conservative than the past? I've never worked lower, as I thought I was lower than "starting charge" already. If I can still achieve the same accuracy and get 100% cycling, I'd go lower for less recoil for target loads.

 

[CMV]

Hodgdon data is for a plated bullet so that will often be slightly lighter than jacketed. My Hornady (8th) doesn't list HP38/W231 for a 124gr. but has 4.1 - 4.7 for 115gr so 4.7 does seem a little high for a starting load considering it's their max for a lighter bullet. Low-mid 4 gr W231 is what I do for jacketed 124gr and those are fine for cycling & basic range ammo purposes.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

From what they all claim the charge weights have gone down because the testing is more accurate than in the past. I feel the lawyers had a lot to do with it but that's just my opinion.

My current 9mm loads are 4.4gr W231 under a 124gr FMJ bullet for an AV of 1117 fps and 4.0gr W231 under a LRN bullet for an AV of 1090 fps.

 

[Dudedog]

Lyman data pretty much agrees with Hodgdon
Lyman 50
124gr JHP OAL 1.06 3.8 to 4.5 W231
125gr JHP OAL 1.075 3.9 to 4.4 W231

 

[tightgroup tiger]

Here is Hornady's 4th edition.
It's even a different min and max.
This seems rather hot to me.
I use 4.9 gr as a max for 115 gr at 1.1" Oal. My 124 gr loads are all Titegroup loads. The powers to be are certainly cooling our loads down.

 

[Stumper]

Some of the wide variations in maximum charges in 9mm parabellum are related to seating depth. The 9mm is extremely efficient but because of its limited powder capacity, deeper bullet seating can raise pressures dramatically as the combustion area is reduced. Overall length is what we usually measure but a change in bullet shape can mean a big difference in the actual bullet encroachment into the case with the same overall length. 9mm data is really bullet specificand seating depth specific data. IF you are swapping bullets of the same weight it is important to determine how your bullet compares to the tested bullet and not get the bullet base deeper into the case than the bullet used in the tested data.

 

[sparkyv]

Also my opinion.

I feel the lawyers had a lot to do with it but that's just my opinion.

 

[mdi]

I believe there is no "controversy/conflict." Comparing data that's 30 years old , done by different testing facilities, on much different equipment and different conditions? I would surely question the data if it were exacty the same. I'm not one to immediately blame manufacturer's for CYA tactics and/or "Lawyered down" data for fear of lawsuits. I think 30 years ago pressures were tested by Copper Crusher methods, consistent but less accurate than pizo electric, digital methods and velocity testing has come a long way too. But for my reloading if there is a legitimate difference in a load I'll start with the lowest, just common sense. I like reloadng so reloading a few test batches is just more fun...

 

[Archie]

As mdl mentioned, the main difference is the updated forms of pressure testing. Past information was according to the 'crusher' type testing and currently most organizations have moved to the electronic stress gauge type system. The latter, current method is claimed to be more accurate and repeatable.
Quickly I will add I have been reloading both pistol and rifle cartridges since 1971 and have fired 'many' (didn't log the number) rounds in the older, "hotter" type. None have ever blown up. Perhaps some have suffered accelerated wear on some parts, but I cannot seem to tell.
There are articulable facts regarding the pressure question. But I would hesitate to claim the fault is exclusively that of 'attorneys'. You're big kid, make up your own mind and do what you think is smartest.
I would also like to point out the various manuals are based on information from different guns or pressure devices, with different (specific boxes) components, on different days probably involving different temperatures. No doubt some of the work was done on a Monday or Friday. Different results? You don't say?

So. My recommendations regarding all this is:
Get new (or as new as is available) information from several different sources and - at least for a starting load - mentally average the low end and err on the side of the lesser. Work your way up and be safe. (As mdl also said about caution.)

 

[Thomasss]

Current Hodgden listing for Berry plated bullets is 3.9-4.4
Hornady 10th edition has no listing
Lyman 50th Anniversary only has 120 grain lead recipes:
120RN L is 3.0 to 4.1
120 SWC L is 2.9 to 4.4
Winchester Powder manual 2003
124L 3.3 to 4.4
FMJ 124 is 4.2 to 4.5

Reloader Magazine just had an article this year on the difference between cups, lups,
and newer pizo and digital testing equipment. Cups and Lups use peak pressure testing, and used a scale
of cups and lups.
Pizo and digital monitor pressure along the entire length of a test barrel. They use the scale of pounds per square inch (psi). Now digital is the most accurate, but the equipment is extremely expensive. Most powder Mfrs. use a Pizo method.
On top of this info. Powders themselves have changed their chemical formulations.
I was told that if one used the same loading recipe with Red Dot from 50 years ago, I stood a good chance of blowing up my gun. All powders change over time. The rumor has come up again this year that 231 is being phased out.

 

[Dudedog]

If I can still achieve the same accuracy and get 100% cycling, I'd go lower for less recoil for target loads.

In my 1911 I had good function as low as 3.7gr (noteHP38=W231 same powder different label)

Mixed range brass, S+B SP, charges as thrown after setting measure


String: 7
Date: 10/29/2017
Time: 9:33:55 AM
Grains: 124
Hi Vel: 995
Low Vel: 941
Ave Vel: 963
Ext Spread: 54
Std Dev: 20
RMR 124 MPR JHP 3.7 HP38 1.055 5inch 1911
Velocity Power Factor Ft/Lbs
941 116.684 243.783
959 118.916 253.198
995 123.38 272.565
964 119.536 255.845
958 118.792 252.67

String: 5
Date: 10/29/2017
Time: 10:07:31 AM
Grains: 124
Hi Vel: 1003
Low Vel: 962
Ave Vel: 983.2
Ext Spread: 41
Std Dev: 15.5
RMR 124 MPR JHP 4.0 HP38 1.06 5inch 1911 (hair longer OAL on this one)
Velocity Power Factor Ft/Lbs
986 122.264 267.656
975 120.9 261.717
990 122.76 269.832
1003 124.372 276.965
962 119.288 254.785


String: 2
Date: 10/29/2017
Time: 9:42:14 AM
Grains: 124
Hi Vel: 1068
Low Vel: 1004
Ave Vel: 1034
Ext Spread: 64
Std Dev: 24
RMR 124 MPR JHP 4.3 HP38 1.055 5inch 1911
Velocity Power Factor Ft/Lbs
1046 129.704 301.222
1021 126.604 286.995
1004 124.496 277.518 (this one seems a little low, maybe a little light charge wise?)
1068 132.432 314.026
1034 128.216 294.35

 

[DMW1116]

When I started reloading I got home with my brand new jar of CFE Pistol and the blue bound book of 9mm loads as well as the Lyman 50th edition manual. No data for CFE Pistol in any of them. Then I got some Winchester 231 and data was everywhere. And it’s all different. I don’t think it’s conflicting. Follow the COAL values and that seems to be the difference in some sources as well as bullet construction. I only had one source for CFE Pistol when I started. It reminds me of something I heard. A man with a watch always knows the time. A man with 2 watches is never sure.

I used 231 to go the opposite way of most. I found a load in the blue book for a 125 grain cast and started down. When I turned my M&P9 into a pump action I went up to the last load that ran it and called it good. I’m getting ready to do the same with a 357 revolver.

 

[Stumper]

Thomasss, No dispute with most of your post. Even the statement that powders have changed chemical formulations over time is supportable-Alliant themselves advertised Red Dot to have been reformulated for cleaner burning a few years ago.(I couldn't discern any difference in my loads so I don't think they changed much.) The only thing that you were misinformed about was that RedDot loads from. 50 years ago would blow up your gun. There ARE published overloads from decades ago. Some manuals contained a lot of unpressure tested data (they tested by shooting and examining the fired case to guesstimate that it was safe.) It isn't generally gun r wrecking data but some of it is over the SAAMI standards. The powders themselves have not changed in performance. The whole point of canister grade powder for handloaders has always been consistency. The manufacturer only distributes lots of that powder for handloading that are within a few percentage points of one another. It is entirely possible to develop a load and purchase a new lot of the same powder that happened to be on the other end of the acceptable variation and observe a notable change in performance but the allowed variance should never be a gun wrecker if the original load developed was within the max allowed pressure.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Some of the wide variations in maximum charges in 9mm parabellum are related to seating depth. The 9mm is extremely efficient but because of its limited powder capacity, deeper bullet seating can raise pressures dramatically as the combustion area is reduced. Overall length is what we usually measure but a change in bullet shape can mean a big difference in the actual bullet encroachment into the case with the same overall length. 9mm data is really bullet specificand seating depth specific data. IF you are swapping bullets of the same weight it is important to determine how your bullet compares to the tested bullet and not get the bullet base deeper into the case than the bullet used in the tested data.

100% correct.
This gives the MAX COAL before encroachment into the throat/lands and from there the MAX chamber area, and MIN seating depth for a brass, bullet and barrel combo. Using this you can compare published data with speculative data and calculate the correct min/max and avg seating depths without getting into the weeds.

It's the probably the same thing or close to what the commercial software does for you but I like to run my own measurements and calculations.

Works for rifle or pistol, any kind of action as long as you can get a mic/caliper into the chamber and have a breeching surface to measure against.

 

[splattergun]

When I first started loading 9mm Hodgdon's data showed max W231 for my 124 gn bullet was 4.7 gn. I found a sweet plinking load at 4.4 gn. Now Hodgdon's shows max W231 ins 4.4 gn. So a 1/10 gn varaible from the powder measure can put me over max. Know what? It doesn't matter to me. I still have data that shows 4.7 max, so that's the data I use.

 

[2ndtimer]

I used 231 to go the opposite way of most. I found a load in the blue book for a 125 grain cast and started down. When I turned my M&P9 into a pump action I went up to the last load that ran it and called it good. I’m getting ready to do the same with a 357 revolver.

So are you planning to load down until you stick a bullet in your .357 barrel, and then call the previous load good?

 

[n2omike]

I recently purchased a 9mm AR from Palmetto State Armory with a 10.5" barrel. I figured Perry much all 147 grain loads would be subsonic. I had some Remington factory 147 grain FMJ to test it with, and all 20 rounds I tried were Supersonic. I then went home and loaded 4.0 grains of W231. I took it to the range to test (forgot my chrono) and only 1 out of 100 rounds was supersonic and cracked the sound barrier. I was using Berrys plated bullets. Accuracy was lackluster. Should have checked out the RMR listings for their 147 FMJ, as the price difference is minimal. But, if anyone is in the market for any Berrys bullets, Powder Valley is the cheapest place to get them.

Anyway, thought I'd share as I was just playing with them last weekend. Overall length was 1.14".

 

[DMW1116]

So are you planning to load down until you stick a bullet in your .357 barrel, and then call the previous load good?

Obviously not. I’m planning to load down until I get to the minimum charge that doesn’t leave primers sticking out to impede the cylinder turning. I expect this will still be within the range of published data, just as the 9mm loads were. I would just go to the minimum but it wouldn’t cycle the M&P9.

 

[Thomasss]

"Stumper, post: (about Thomass thread)The only thing that you were misinformed about was that RedDot loads from. 50 years ago would blow up your gun."
I read that statement in one of my many gun magazines a few years ago and when one reads this stuff, I tend to take notice. Now thanks to an Alliant technician that I communicated with in 2017 and looking back to Lyman's 44th edition(1967) powder manual, I found a reduction in 9mm Red Dot loads for either 125 FMJ or 124 LRN to be almost 15%. In fact from 2006 to 2017 Alliant dropped Red Dot loads for 9mm from their powder books. To be fair the technician told me they dropped Red Dot out because the cleaner advertised formulation was very "light and fluffy." It didn't meter consistently through most reloader machines. Since I told him I only have a single stage press and weigh all my loads, he was kind enough to give me some 9mm recipes for all their powders. If you are interested Alliant said: 9mm Red Dot 125 FMJ load is 3.7 to 4.2 and 125 grain lead is 3.6 to 4.1
As for Hodgdens, their loads have changed a lot too. I'm starting to load PB in .357 mag. again and checking current internet listings, they have reduce my load for 158 grn. JHP by about .5 grains.

 

[AJC1]

Most loading manuals give pressure for a load. Hornaday doesn't and it drives me nuts. Evaluate the max load pressure vs sammi spec for the cartridge of intrest. Some loads build pressure very linear and others not at all. Plotting out your cronograph results should give you some good insight into the powders charastics in your load and platform. Know where there is room for more and no wiggle. If the book lists max sammi pressure your done. I have found a lot of lead loads are velosity limited and not pressure.

 

[Bronx kid]

I am always seeing posts that this manual and that manual show different min and max loads.
What I don't see listed in these posts is the recommended OAL. OAL is going to make a difference when it comes to charge weight.

 

[LiveLife]

I've never worked lower ... If I can still achieve the same accuracy and get 100% cycling, I'd go lower for less recoil for target loads.

I used 231 to go the opposite way of most. I found a load in the blue book for a 125 grain cast and started down. When I turned my M&P9 into a pump action I went up to the last load that ran it and called it good.

During powder work up, I "work down" if start charge reliably cycles the slide and extract/eject spent cases while producing good accuracy. I test incrementally lower powder charges until accuracy degrades while maintaining reliable slide cycling and spent case extraction/ejection.

Hodgdons website for 9mm loads in 124gr. bullets lists starting load at 3.7 and a maximum of 4.4 ... Hornady book (it's about 30 years old) has starting at 4.7 gr with a max of 5.5 for the same wt. bullet.

What gives? Is today just more conservative than the past?

From what they all claim the charge weights have gone down because the testing is more accurate than in the past. I feel the lawyers had a lot to do with it but that's just my opinion.

While I agree that we now have better pressure testing equipment, keep in mind that when old pressure testing methods were used, chronos already existed as even ancient load data always listed velocities ...

My guess/opinion is that older testing equipment perhaps had different shooting variables such as bore diameter (Lyman #49 showed .401" groove diameter instead of .400" for 40S&W for example), longer leade/freebore length, different barrel length, etc.

Speer load data - https://www.speer.com/reloading/handgun-data.html

• 9mm 125 gr Lead RN W231 COL 1.130" Start 3.8 gr (911 fps) - Max 4.1 gr (982 fps)
• 9mm 124 gr Speer TMJ W231 COL 1.135" Start 4.0 gr (887 fps) - Max 4.5 gr (998 fps)

Hodgdon load data - https://www.hodgdonreloading.com/reloading-data-center

• 9mm 125 gr Lead CN W231/HP-38 COL 1.125" Start 3.9 gr (1,009 fps) - Max 4.4 gr (1,086 fps)
• 9mm 124 gr Berry's HBRN-TP W231/HP-38 COL 1.150" Start 3.9 gr (920 fps) - Max 4.4 gr (1,037 fps)
• 9mm 125 gr Sierra FMJ W231/HP-38 COL 1.090" Start 4.4 gr (1,009 fps) - Max 4.8 gr (1,088 fps)

Since many lead/plated/jacketed bullet weights can vary up to 0.5-1.0 gr, I often interchange 124 and 125 gr load data. And when I face different published start/max charges for my INITIAL powder work up, I will often reference more conservative start charges (Particularly with faster burning powders) to identify possible light target loads as I can always go higher.