Help for a new guy 9mm

[1911in9mm]

bds,
I thank you. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and time to help advance my learning, it is truly appreciated.

You bring up very valid points and provide the links to read up on them. My wife’s favorite pistol thus far has been my Sig Pro 2022, a 3.9” barrel. Mine is a Government 1911 5”. So there’s a decided difference there.

And you bring up the PCC information preemptively, which is appreciated as I have a PTR roller delayed blowback on the way to our family as well. I freely acknowledge I have a ton to learn yet. But I’m getting there. I don’t just like the reloading because I can shoot more. It is an extension to shooting that I enjoy learning the “nuts and bolts” of how cartridges go together. And how to create cartridges to do exactly what I want to accomplish.

 

[LiveLife]

You are very welcome and wish you the best in your reloading journey.

And again, welcome to THR.

 

[forrest r]

Disclaimer: Following WST loads are unpublished by Hodgdon and use them at your own risk.


While WST produced accurate loads for me, it can get spikey at the top and Hodgdon does not publish load data for 9mm.

IME, charges higher than 4.3-4.5 gr will result in compressed powder loads (Depending on bullet type/OAL used) and likely 5.0 gr with HP bullet will compress powder charge even more. FYI, disclaimer guidelines for posting extra heavy loads - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...e-posting-extra-heavy-load-information.27444/

While higher charges than 4.3 gr is required to meet power factor, for posting purposes on THR, I use 4.0 gr load (Which is not a compressed load) that still produces one of more accurate loads. Below is comparison 25 yard groups of WST and BE-86 (Notice longer OAL used to prevent powder compression)

Actually 5.0gr of wst is on the light side.
Winchester never did any testing or published data for wst/9mm loads. They always pushed ww231 & hodgdon simply used their data when they bought out Winchester.

Now Hornady on the other had did a lot of testing with wst/9mm loads. They list a MAX LOAD 5.4gr of WST with a 124gr lead rn/jacketed rn & fp's bullet with a oal of 1.090

Hornady ='s 5.4gr wst 124gr lrn/jacketed rn & fp's 1.090" oal
forrest r ='s 5.0gr wst 125gr lrn hp 1.130" oal

That 5.0gr load od WST isn't spikey by any means. What it actually is is an excellent load that isn't position sensitive, is extremely consistent over a chronograph & chews bugholes in targets.

 

[LiveLife]

Thanks for posting the source load data.

Use of WST for 9mm is discussed quite a bit on Brian Enos forum and I respect member CocoBolo's experience with WST and comments where he cautions use of higher than 4.6 gr with 124/125 gr FMJ/RN, especially with shorter than 1.145" OAL DEPENDENT on groove-to-groove diameter of the barrel used - https://forums.brianenos.com/topic/144946-wst-for-9mm/?tab=comments#comment-1626833

Like Lyman 40S&W load data which lists higher start/max charges due to use of larger than typical .401" groove-to-groove diameter test barrel, we do not know the groove diameter of test barrel Hornady used for WST 9mm testing (Perhaps somebody does and they could share with us the groove diameter of test barrel).

When using different bullet than what was used for published load data, I tend to lean on safety side and use more conservative load data. When I know I am using significantly deeper bullet seating depth than published, I will often reduce my start/max charges by .2-.3 gr. I think if barrel's groove diameter is larger at .356"+, use of higher WST charges may be warranted but if barrel's groove diameter is smaller towards .355", then use of caution may be warranted for using lower powder charges.

Mind you, I am a fan of WST for 9mm as it produces accurate loads but there seem to exist a general consensus among match shooters that there are better suited powders when pushing higher velocities.

hodgdon simply used their data when they bought out Winchester.

I am not aware of Hodgdon buying out Winchester. I thought Hodgdon was licensed by Winchester to sell Winchester powders under Hodgdon label like W231 vs HP-38 - http://ns.hodgdon.com/history.html

In March 2006, Hodgdon Powder Company and Winchester® Ammunition announced that Winchester® branded reloading powders would be licensed to Hodgdon.

 

[fxvr5]

Like Lyman 40S&W load data which lists higher start/max charges due to use of larger than typical .401" groove-to-groove diameter test barrel,

bds, please stop posting this crap. It's pure BS. The last time you brought it up I posted data from the Lyman and Hodgdon websites (which you specifically pointed to) that proved you were wrong. Must I do it again?

 

[LiveLife]

Yes, you are still correct but fact is Lyman #49 used .401" groove diameter test barrel and if your barrel's groove diameter is more typical .400", chamber pressure generated will be higher.

Page 362 of Lyman #49 showing .401" groove diameter of test barrel

I do not have Hornady load data and curious what the groove diameter of test barrel used was.

BTW, Lyman #49 used .355" groove diameter test barrel and 9mm barrel groove diameter variance discussed in this thread - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...d-recently-established-at-355-for-9mm.812476/

 

[fxvr5]

Yes, you are still correct but fact is Lyman #49 used .401" groove diameter test barrel and if your barrel's groove diameter is more typical .400", chamber pressure generated will be higher.

How much higher?

It might not make a meaningful difference.

I do not have Hornady load data and curious what the groove diameter of test barrel used was.

Ask them.

 

[LiveLife]

I do not have Hornady load data and curious what the groove diameter of test barrel used was.

Ask them.

I may.

How much higher?

It might not make a meaningful difference.

As a precaution, I keep it simple.

Here's Lyman #49 40S&W load data which used .401" groove diameter test barrel.

• 180 gr Jacketed HP W231 OAL 1.115" Start 5.0 gr (927 fps) 20,400 CUP - Max 5.6 gr (1015 fps) 22,800 CUP

And here's Hodgdon load data. So starting at Lyman load data of 5.0 gr would put you at max charge of Hodgdon load data.

• 180 gr HDY XTP W231 OAL 1.125" Start 4.1 gr (797 fps) 23,800 PSI - Max 5.0 gr (947 fps) 32,900 PSI

If barrel's groove diameter is .401", I would be OK using Lyman load data. If barrel's groove diameter is more typical .400", I would use more conservative Hodgdon load data.

 

[fxvr5]

I may.

Here's Lyman #49 40S&W load data which used .401" groove diameter test barrel.

• 180 gr Jacketed HP W231 OAL 1.115" Start 5.0 gr (927 fps) 20,400 CUP - Max 5.6 gr (1015 fps) 22,800 CUP

And here's Hodgdon load data. So starting at Lyman load data of 5.0 gr would put you at max charge of Hodgdon load data.

• 180 gr HDY XTP W231 OAL 1.125" Start 4.1 gr (797 fps) 23,800 PSI - Max 5.0 gr (947 fps) 32,900 PSI

If barrel's groove diameter is .401", I would be OK using Lyman load data. If barrel's groove diameter is more typical .400", I would use more conservative Hodgdon load data.

And yet, the 40 S&W data with a 180 grain bullet for Universal powder is the complete opposite. Hodgdon's data with Universal has a higher start and higher max than Lyman. That shoots your hypothesis to hell because if the barrel's groove and bore diameter has an effect on pressure it would be the same for all powders. Clearly it doesn't.

Lyman data: start 4.8 gr, 815 fps, 18,500 CUP, max 5.5 gr., 941 fps, 22,800 CUP

Hodgdon data: start 5.0 gr, 973 fps, 26,500 psi, max 5.8 gr., 1046 fps, 33,400 psi.

I will reiterate what I see as making your conclusion spurious.

The manuals are using two different 180 grain bullets, and at different overall lengths. Lyman uses a Sierra 180 grain bullet, while Hodgdon uses a Hornady XTP bullet. You have falsely assumed they will produce the exact same results.

Lyman is using, for many of their 40 S&W loads, the old fashioned CUP measurements, and you can’t easily translate that into PSI, so the actually max pressures are not likely to be the same.

Let’s compare data with the same bullet, 135 grain Nosler JHP. Here, Lyman has lower maximum powder charges with 231 (6.7 gr) and HS-6 (9.0 gr). Hodgdon’s max loads are 7.0 gr and 10.2 gr, respectively. But again, they are loaded to different lengths. The Lyman loads to 1.085 and Hodgdon loads to 1.125. Thus one would expect that Hodgdon could add more powder before reaching max pressure limits, and the results are consistent with that.

You’re also probably not taking into account that the powders are from different lot numbers.

Lyman uses Winchester brass, and Hodgdon uses Hornady brass. But at least they are using the same WSP primer. Have you taken different brass into account?

When taking all this stuff into account, it’s difficult to imagine how you’re drawing your conclusion based on one powder and different bullets. Seriously.

No two manuals will agree. That’s reality. But to claim there is a problem with using a barrel that is 0.001” different is probably not valid. Data to support that requires that it’s done in the same lab by the same people with the same components, same, same, same . . . etc. And, as pointed out above, your claim is contradicted when looking at other powders and bullets.

In conclusion, please stop saying this. The data does not support your claim, and in fact contradicts it.

 

[LiveLife]

Yes, I agree there are pressure testing variables among published load data.

What I will repeat is "there are reloading variables and shooting variables".

And since most of us use mixed range brass with unknown reload history and condition of brass (when published load data were tested using brand new brass), with bullet type different than what published load data used (particularly when significantly shorter OAL/COL is used), I will lean towards side of safety and use more conservative load data for my INITIAL POWDER WORK UP as I can always go higher, especially when my barrels are on tighter side of .355" for 9mm and .400" for 40S&W.

This thread's OP is new to reloading 9mm and I think it's good practice to start out with more conservative loads for high pressure 9mm with small internal case volume.

If you want to discuss pressure testing/published load data differences, how about starting a new thread?

OK, enough of thread hijacking and apology to OP.

Peace.

 

[forrest r]

odd I use a .358" bullet for all my 9mm/38spl/357's anymore. I have 3 different 9mm's that I reload for and used to size bullets .356" for 2 firearm (tight bbl) and .358" for 1 9mm with a large bore. That got old real fast so I simply make all my 35cal bullets .358" & use them all in my 35cal pistols & revolvers.

I've chronographed loads using .356" & .358" bullets in the same firearm. No huge jumps in velocity & actually no change in velocity at all. No cases flying 20ft instead the normal +/- 5ft ejection patters. No flattened primers nothing/nada.

If I did see a change/increase in velocity when switching from the .356" bullet to the .358" bullets I would of immediately took a hard at the alloy I'm using. The change in velocity with the larger .358" bullet would tell me that my alloy is too hard and the .356" bullet was not bumping up/obturating/sealing the bbl.

Now comparing to different bullets of the same weight or changing the seating depth of the same bullets will make huge swings in pressure. Ramshot puts graphs like these in their reloading manuals for a reason.

 

[LiveLife]

Thanks for posting the pressure vs OAL chart which supports my practice of reducing powder charge when shorter than published OAL is used.

there are reloading variables

... when significantly shorter OAL/COL is used, I will ... use more conservative load data

 

[Dudedog]

Different Bullet RMR MPR HP
S+B SP (milder than CCI) Mixed range brass, charges as thrown after setting measure
5" 9mm 1911 with high mileage barrel

String: 9
Date: 8/26/2018
Time: 11:44:02 AM
Grains: 124
Hi Vel: 1044
Low Vel: 1004
Ave Vel: 1027
Ext Spread: 40
Std Dev: 15
4.6 N300 124 RMR MPR JHP 1.08
Velocity Power Factor Ft/Lbs
1034 128.216 294.35
1004 124.496 277.518 this one skewed the numbers
1044 129.456 300.071
1023 126.852 288.121
1032 127.968 293.213

String: 1
Date: 8/26/2018
Time: 11:32:13 AM
Grains: 124
Hi Vel: 1022
Low Vel: 998
Ave Vel: 1011
Ext Spread: 24
Std Dev: 10
4.4 N330 124 RMR MPR JHP 1.08
Velocity Power Factor Ft/Lbs
1022 126.728 287.558
998 123.752 274.211 this one skewed the numbers
1021 126.604 286.995
1012 125.488 281.958
1004 124.496 277.518

String: 7
Date: 8/26/2018
Time: 11:28:34 AM
Grains: 124
Hi Vel: 973
Low Vel: 951
Ave Vel: 961
Ext Spread: 22
Std Dev: 9
4.2 N330 124 RMR MPR JHP 1.08
Velocity Power Factor Ft/Lbs
965 119.66 256.376
953 118.172 250.04
964 119.536 255.845
973 120.652 260.645
951 117.924 248.991

Old RMR Plated FN 124
RMR 124 FN 4.7 Autocomp OAL 1.10
1090.00
1040.00
1086.00
1051.00
1060.00
Average 1065.40
ES 50.00
SD 21.86
PF 132.11

 

[forrest r]

Thanks for posting the pressure vs OAL chart which supports my practice of reducing powder charge when shorter than published OAL is used.

No problem charts like these have been out for a long time. Back in the day Hercules powder company (now alliant) used to put this out for the 38spl/wc reloaders. Too many kabooms going on with their bullseye powder.


What I do find odd is that mfg's have been putting out pictures like the 1 posted above or graphs for decades showing the relationship between case capacity and pressure for the same powder charge. But I have yet to see any mfg put out a chart showing differences in pressure between a .355"/.356"/.357"/.358" 9mm bbl for example.

 

[LiveLife]

But I have yet to see any mfg put out a chart showing differences in pressure between a .355"/.356"/.357"/.358" 9mm bbl for example.

My guess would be because .355" groove diameter test barrels were used for pressure testing even though factory barrels usually came larger at .356"-.357"+?

What I have noticed on some of the published load data is they tend to test conditions which created higher chamber pressures by using smaller groove diameter test barrels typical of "match grade" barrels and shorter OAL/COL that increased pressure. My thinking is this was done for safety reasons as if larger groove diameter and/or longer OAL was used, pressures would be lower and safe to use as reference load data. I could be wrong.

But in recent years, trend by gun manufacturers (Like how 1911s have gotten tighter over the decades) have been shorter and shorter leade length (or none like my Sig 1911) which required us reloaders using shorter and shorter OAL and this requires corresponding reduction in powder charges.

For these reasons, I started a THR group project to list max/working OALs of various factory/aftermarket barrels and specific brand bullets/nose profiles that THR members/guests can use as reference - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...let-max-working-oal-col-for-reference.848462/

Some of the working OAL that we must now use are quite short. When published load data used longer 1.120" to 1.150" OAL (Funny I am calling 1.120" OAL for 9mm longer), IMHO, powder charge reduction is warranted when shorter than 1.100" OALs are used.

 

[LiveLife]

I do not have Hornady load data and curious what the groove diameter of test barrel used was.

Ask them.

UPDATE: I just called Hornady customer service and talked to a technician.

When asked about groove diameter of test barrel used for pressure testing, he said he could not verify the actual groove diameter of test barrel used but suspect it was within SAAMI specs.

I told him thank you.

 

[fxvr5]

Reportedly from the Speer handloading manual #3 on bullet diameter and pressure:

 

[LiveLife]

But that's low pressure .38 Special loads at 12,000 to 14,000 PSI?

I wonder if bullet diameter vs pressure results would have been different if higher pressure (28,000 to 33,000 PSI) 9mm semi-auto barrel without cylinder gap was used?

 

[Walkalong]

I would love to see testing, real data from a lab, but I just don't see .355 vs .357 diameter making a big difference in 9MM, and certainly not more than changing seating depth. Far too many people get into trouble shortening 9MM loads IMHO than will ever get into trouble with realistic loads with bullets .002 over the barrels groove diameter, assuming a .355 groove diameter and a .357 bullet.

How much difference the diameter makes would be a great test, but I believe it it made a large difference we would have warnings all through the load manuals. Dunno though.

 

[LiveLife]

Maybe different groove diameter barrel testing wasn't done because larger sized bullets will simply be resized down to the groove diameter of the barrel hence no significant difference in muzzle velocity?

That's my guess.

As to finished OAL or "chambered" OAL post bumping of bullet nose on feed ramp being significantly shorter, yes I agree on increase in chamber pressure build.

 

[lordpaxman]

Reportedly from the Speer handloading manual #3 on bullet diameter and pressure:

Interesting this was a semi-jacketed test! I know I slugged my barrels and when I order from Bayou I do spec a .357 for the coated lead. I did not see any difference in velocity with a .356 vs .357 and not sure I saw any accuracy improvement either. I was tempted to try a .358 but I’ve already got too many permutations.
I sense another myth buster thread....

 

[Walkalong]

Maybe different groove diameter barrel testing wasn't done because larger sized bullets will simply be resized down to the groove diameter of the barrel hence no significant difference in muzzle velocity?

That's my guess

Me too.

 

[LiveLife]

I sense another myth buster thread....

Me too.

 

[Dudedog]

I haven't shot it or tried it but I think 5.0gr of WST or the LIsted load at 5.4 MAX of WST seems high.

Hornady ='s 5.4gr wst 124gr lrn/jacketed rn & fp's 1.090" oal
forrest r ='s 5.0gr wst 125gr lrn hp 1.130" oal

Here are Hodgdons current numbers for WSF (a slower powder that WST)

124 GR. LEAD RN Winchester WSF .355" 1.169" 4 945 22,200 PSI 4.7 1055 27,300 PSI
125 FMJ Winchester WSF 0.355 1.16 4.7 1015 27,700 PSI 5.3 1115 32,700 PSI

So they show 5.3 gr of WSF as a MAX with a 124 jacketed and 4.7gr as a MAX with a 124 lead.

Be careful out there.

 

[lordpaxman]

I haven't shot it or tried it but I think 5.0gr of WST or the LIsted load at 5.4 MAX of WST seems high.

I really like WST in 40, 45 and 38. I’d try it in 9 but am a bit scared due to the lack of published data or that Win doesn’t have recent data. I do appreciate the prior posts for the older data.
Would it be possible for someone with Quickload to model this and report here?