load data for sport pistol for short OAL cz 9mm

[scarletfire]

hi guys,
hoping you could help with a starting load estimate for my 9mm cz75 spo1.

loaded up some Berry's 124 gr. RN's and RMR 124 gr.plated RN with 4.0 gr. of Alliant sport pistol with an OAL of 1.16

i need some help with the alliant sport pistol powder using an RMR 9mm 124 gr. jacketed hollow point bullet (their Multi Purpose Round)

https://rmrbullets.com/shop/bullets...e-in-house-by-rmr/?v=7516fd43adaa#prettyPhoto

to properly fit my cz, the OAL with this cartridge will need to be in the 1.060 to 1.065 range.

called Alliant and they didn't have any data or suggestions other than call RMR. He did say that sport pistol is similar to W231 characteristics.

http://www.alliantpowder.com/reloaders/powderlist.aspx?type=1&powderid=42&cartridge=23

(Note: the weight charge on the above list is max load with 10% less for a starting load according to the guy that i chatted with on the phone)

http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/data/pistol

the only similar load with a short OAL was the 125 gr. Hornady HAP.with 2.8 to 3.2 grs of W231.

do you have any thoughts that you'd like to share. I was hoping to test the 3 bullets with the same (Sport Pistol) powder.

As always,
thanks,

Bob

 

[ray15]

Due to the geometry of the RMR 124gr. MPR bullet, an OAL of 1.06" doesn't result in an excessively deep seating depth. I was able to use typical FMJ RN data for the powder I used with the MPR at an OAL of 1.03"; the velocities came out as published for a given charge weight. Your existing 4.0gr. charge should be applicable, as well as the published Sport Pistol plated and jacketed data you linked. Note their data is listed as max only - start 10% lower and work up.

The HAP bullet is jacketed and .356" in diameter and will take about less charge weight than most FMJ or jacketed hollowpoints before reaching max pressue. I wouldn't use its load data as a reference unless you are dealing with another jacketed .356" bullet (the MPR is typically .3555").

 

[Walkalong]

Due to the geometry of the RMR 124gr. MPR bullet, an OAL of 1.06" doesn't result in an excessively deep seating depth.

I agree, definitely not "excessive". Something to consider is all. Starting charges will be fine, watch as you work up.

 

[Walkalong]

I didn't try W-231, but I did run some over the chrono with Silhouette at a similar OAL. You could use those readings to compare to published data.

RMR 124 Gr MPR @ 1.070/1.075 OAL.
5.5 Grs Silhouette
CCI 500 Primer
Hi=1172
Lo=1133
Avg=1157
ES=39
SD=12

 

[Dudedog]

RMR MPR 124, Mixed range brass, S+B SP, charges as thrown after setting measure
5" 9mm 1911
String: 1
Date: 10/29/2017
Time: 9:37:06 AM
Grains: 124
Hi Vel: 1012
Low Vel: 981
Ave Vel: 998
Ext Spread: 31
Std Dev: 11
RMR 124 MPR JHP 4.1 HP38 1.055 5inch 1911
Velocity Power Factor Ft/Lbs
1002 124.248 276.413
995 123.38 272.565
981 121.644 264.948
1012 125.488 281.958
1004 124.496 277.518

 

[scarletfire]

thanks for all your responses and advice. it is always appreciated.

loaded up 5 different loads last night. 10 - 3.8 gr., 10 - 3.9 gr, 10, - 4.0 gr, 10 - 4.1 gr, and 10 - 4.2 gr.

weather looks pretty windy and cold for the next two-three days so won't get to try them out till the weekend ( i hope).
will report back later.

thanks again, Bob

 

[Ruger 15151]

Bob

I am surprised you have to load a RN @ 1.060. That's usually a standard recommend COL for JHP and FNs. You might want to have a gunsmith give you a little more freebore with a chamber finishing reamer so you can load a bit longer to avoid pressure issues. I had all my 9mm reamed so that I could shoot the same standard load in each one.

I have had really good results with load. This is a 5-shot group at 15 yards. Its loaded at 1.080 because I am using Berry's 124gr HBFN bullets which also shot very well for me.

You will like Sport Pistol. It's very close to W231 but is much cleaner. Great for minor power factor loads.

 

[Ruger 15151]

Here is a THR thread on Sport Pistol that might be helpful:

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/new-alliant-sport-pistol.816514/

 

[scarletfire]

Ruger, just as a clarification,

"loaded up some Berry's 124 gr. RN's and RMR 124 gr.plated RN with 4.0 gr. of Alliant sport pistol with an OAL of 1.16"

it was the jacketed hollow points that were needing to be loaded at 1.060 to 1.065.

as far as the link, thanks, but i have spent a lot of time on that thread also

I'l give the Berry's 124gr HBFN bullets a try that worked so well for you.
(does Cabela's have those on sale now and free shipping today????)

thanks again, Bob

 

[Walkalong]

i need some help with the alliant sport pistol powder using an RMR 9mm 124 gr. jacketed hollow point bullet (their Multi Purpose Round)

He's using a HP.

 

[Ruger 15151]

Cabela's does have them now and they are on sale for a great price and free shipping makes it an even better buy. The 250 box is listed as 124 gr HBTP and the 1000 box is listed as 124 gr HBFPTP. Both are the hollow back flat nose bullet. If you decide to pick them up later, I have found the best buy on Berry's bullets at Powder Valley.

Be sure to report back and let us know how they shoot!

 

[rfwobbly]

I'l give the Berry's 124gr HBFN bullets a try that worked so well for you.
(does Cabela's have those on sale now and free shipping today????)

thanks again, Bob

Bob -
IMHO this recommendation is in error. The Berry Mfg HBFP is going to load at about the same OAL of 1.060" due to the sharp shoulder of the conical shape colliding with the end of the freebore in the CZ chamber. You'll be much better off learning to reload the RMR bullets you already have. The RMR bllets being jacketed are simply going to shoot better. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 1.060" OAL with the RMR bullets. They shoot just fine.

Secondly, if you want to buy and load Berry Mfg products, then buy their 124gr Hollow Base RN. You previously stated you tried the Berry RN, but your OAL was too long to be effective. You'll get much better accuracy loading 124gr RN at OALs from 1.125 to 1.140". This because you need a certain proportion of the bullet seated into the case.

Lastly, you're getting much better answers on the CZ Forum. When you ask CZ specific questions on a general reloading forum like this, you get general answers that don't always apply.

 

[ray15]

Lastly, you're getting much better answers on the CZ Forum. When you ask CZ specific questions on a general reloading forum like this, you get general answers that don't always apply.

This question revolves around the specific characteristics of the RMR 124gr. MPR HP, not the CZ it's being used in. This is the most RMR-centric forum I know of. With this projectile it takes an OAL of 1.03" to fit a SAAMI-minimum chamber (no leade), with typical barrels accomodating 1.06-1.075". It appears the OP's CZ is typical in this regard. He got the real information in 34 minutes here; you'll get responses of varying quality on any forum.

 

[higgite]

This question revolves around the specific characteristics of the RMR 124gr. MPR HP, not the CZ it's being used in.

Read the topic at the top of the thread.

 

[ray15]

Read the topic at the top of the thread.

I did. Let me quote the parts you seem to be glossing over:

to properly fit my cz, the OAL with this cartridge will need to be in the 1.060 to 1.065 range.

the only similar load with a short OAL was the 125 gr. Hornady HAP.with 2.8 to 3.2 grs of W231.

This is the crux of his question - he was concerned about a source of load data due to the OAL of the MPR bullet being shorter than the reference data. The reason it needs to be loaded at 1.06" is due to the characteristics of the MPR bullet - not anything unusual about the pistol he is using it in. Any 9mm luger pistol will require an OAL in the range of 1.03-1.08" range with the bullet. I also verified for him that seating this bullet this deep does not generally obviate the use of published RN starting loads. The shorter OAL is simply to be expected with this projectile.

 

[higgite]

I did. Let me quote the parts you seem to be glossing over:

Sorry, but I glossed over nothing. I may have misinterpreted the topic line, “load data for sport pistol for short OAL cz 9mm”, or the OP’s sentence that you quoted, “to properly fit my cz, the OAL with this cartridge will need to be in the 1.060 to 1.065 range.” If so, my bad.

My interpretation may have been influenced by the short leade of my own CZ. I’m not making any judgement on the bullet in question as I haven’t tried it. I just thought rfwobbly’s comment had merit since the pistol in question is a CZ. We obviously disagree about that. And that’s okay. It happens.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

scarletfire, like already said, it's not the shorter OAL that might raise pressures, it's how deep the bullet is inside the case. Those HP bullets probably will not take up more case volume seated to your OAL as the bullets in the data at the longer OAL. This is the reason we load with a charge range, to start low and work up with the ability to compensate for slightly different bullets profiles.

Try not to go below the -10% starting charge weight. That's usually a bad idea and not recommended.

 

[ray15]

My interpretation may have been influenced by the short leade of my own CZ. I’m not making any judgement on the bullet in question as I haven’t tried it. I just thought rfwobbly’s comment had merit since the pistol in question is a CZ. We obviously disagree about that. And that’s okay. It happens.

My interpretation is shaped by having tried the bullet in question in a number of pistols, including my CZ. rwobbly pointed out some poor (and irrelevant) advice and I agree with that criticism, but draw the line at the point where the usefulness of asking this question here was dismissed.

The real answer determined through first-hand experience had already been posted and consumed by the OP at that point, so if you feel the make of gun used alters that balance disagreement is somewhat inevitable. Most reloading questions revolve around the use of a particular gun, and I do understand where that becomes a functional issue.

I object to the 'piling on' nature of your response, though. I put as much care into reading the OP as I did in formulating my response and naturally do not appreciate the implication of your first post. Disagreement is inevitable, and discussion is somewhat pointless without a variety of opinion, but the posting tactics were designed to be elicit a response, so it should come as no huge surprise you got one.