I picked up a little over 200 cast lead bullets the other day. They look to be a SWC from Missouri Bullet Co. 0.355" diameter, they weigh in at 126 gr. I'm wanting to load up a light to medium range 9mm load using them. What is a good starting load? My only pistol powders at the moment are Accurate #5 (which I would like to use for these) and VV N320. I could find starting load data for cast RN, but I couldn't find any for this style of bullet. I haven't loaded this style of bullet, so any info would be appreciated. Max velocities, do they typically load shorter than RN, barrel leading, etc. Any information is good information, as I haven't loaded cast bullets before.
Missouri Bullet Co - SWC starting loads
- Thread starter BWrnd13
- Start date
- Status
Dudedog
Contributing Member
Never used those powders.
But working from memory (can't find my old notes on those and haven't used them in years) I seem to recall they needed to be seated deeper so I backed off 2/10s of a grain from RN data when using Universal.
I had no issues with leading but that is mostly bullet to barrel fit.
Since you already have the bullets I would go maybe .1 or .2 gr below the start charge for the RN of the same weight and work up.
Always a good idea to load 5 there, then maybe 5 more a little higher, 5 more....
That way if the first 5 are to light to give 100% function you don't have a bunch of bullets to pull.
Welcome to THR lots of great people here.
But working from memory (can't find my old notes on those and haven't used them in years) I seem to recall they needed to be seated deeper so I backed off 2/10s of a grain from RN data when using Universal.
I had no issues with leading but that is mostly bullet to barrel fit.
Since you already have the bullets I would go maybe .1 or .2 gr below the start charge for the RN of the same weight and work up.
Always a good idea to load 5 there, then maybe 5 more a little higher, 5 more....
That way if the first 5 are to light to give 100% function you don't have a bunch of bullets to pull.
Welcome to THR lots of great people here.
tightgroup tiger
Member
Sorry, there isn't a lot of people load SWCs in semi autos. Obviously, there could be feed problems.
I can't find any load data for what you want. I am sure someone loads for it or MBC wouldn't be making them unless they aren't .355" in dia.
The best I can advise is to measure the total bullet length of the bullet you have and look for load data with a bullet of the same length and use their OAL so the seating depth is the same.
The depth of the base of the bullet in the case is what you need to worry about as far as pressure is concerned, not the nose profile.
If weight of bullet is the same and the base of the bullet depth in the case is the same and it will feed through your gun, and you start with that minimum load and work up, then you don't have much to worry about.
So if you have some other, lead124gr bullet, that you already have loaded AA5 with, look at where the base of the bullet was seated with it and use that to calculate the seating depth for your semi-wadcutter and go from there.
I can't find any load data for what you want. I am sure someone loads for it or MBC wouldn't be making them unless they aren't .355" in dia.
The best I can advise is to measure the total bullet length of the bullet you have and look for load data with a bullet of the same length and use their OAL so the seating depth is the same.
The depth of the base of the bullet in the case is what you need to worry about as far as pressure is concerned, not the nose profile.
If weight of bullet is the same and the base of the bullet depth in the case is the same and it will feed through your gun, and you start with that minimum load and work up, then you don't have much to worry about.
So if you have some other, lead124gr bullet, that you already have loaded AA5 with, look at where the base of the bullet was seated with it and use that to calculate the seating depth for your semi-wadcutter and go from there.
Charlie98
Member
Accurate has data for a 124grn RN cast bullet and AA#5... that seems like a good place to start. Dudedog is right... I would only load 5 or so until you prove they will feed reliably. As far as the OAL, there isn't a whole lot of room for adjustment just looking at the bullet. There is .8grn difference in AA's load data... so there is some leeway, I would start at the bottom and crimp in the middle of the front driving band.
I agree on the N320; I thought I'd try to use the AA#5 for 2 reasons: The min-to-max load range is a little larger than the N320, giving me a little better fudge factor for an unknown bullet, and I got it cheap. For 200 rds though, I might just say screw it, and use my go-to powder (N320). Thanks for the input on the COL.
Charlie98
Member
I would probably try the AA#5, first... because of the workable charge range, you should be able to tell if you are having OAL related pressure issues pretty quickly... and then you can move on to the VV powder with that knowledge.
Dudedog
Contributing Member
Side note:
MBCs 9mm cone bullet shot much better for me than the 9mm SWCs, the SWCs did cut cleaner holes in the target.
MBCs 9mm cone bullet shot much better for me than the 9mm SWCs, the SWCs did cut cleaner holes in the target.
Last edited:
FWIW; The bullets in the pic appear to be "conical" or truncated cone, not SWC, if my eyes are working clearly with just 1/2 cup of coffee down. I would use starting loads for the Lyman 356402 (120 gr. with #2) as shown in my Lyman 49th. My 50th is out in the shop, 49th here on my desk...
Lyman's 50th anniversary powder manual for 9mm 125 JHP, 120 lead RN and 120 lead SWC all show a recipe for Accurate #5 as 5.4 to 6.0. So, if I were in your shoes I would work up a load just as I would with any new powder. Seating depth for 120 LRN is 1.065 and 120gr LSCW is 1.11. I also had a similar issue with 9mm 125 gr. HI-Tek MBC powdered bullets but with a different powder. 9mm isn't the best caliber for shooting hard cast bullets. Powder coat. though, is very forgiving. Your concern should be to use just enough powder for your gun to cycle and then maybe a tenth of a grain more.
Last edited:
Dudedog
Contributing Member
From the pic they appear to be the MBC SWCs, the cones don't have the edge at the front
Cones
SWC
Cones
SWC
Charlie98
Member
They are SWC's... there is a clear driving band at the front. I had to do a double-take meself the first time I looked at them. That is to the OP's benefit, it will make cartridge OAL a little less critical, particularly if he has a barrel with a short leade.
I suspect the (itsy bitsy, teeny-weeny) "shoulder" is a design anomaly, like the RCBS design round nose bullets, and a few others. A SWC had a definite shoulder, several thousandths larger in diameter than the "nose" section Their conical nose bullet 9mm-124-CN looks to be the same as the ones in the OP. No big deal, just hinting to the OP that there may be feeding problems due to the "shoulder" hanging up during feeding.
https://www.huntingtons.com/ref_bulletmould.pdf
https://www.huntingtons.com/ref_bulletmould.pdf
Charlie98
Member
I had that issue with some plated SWC 200's in my Kimbers... one fed them flawlessly, one had... well, issues. I've since swore off SWC bullets in my autos...
mokin
Member
Nice comparison photo Dudedog. My first purchase of Missouri Bullets was a few of their "Sample Packs" of 100 bullets. I found that the 9 Cones were much more reliable in my 9mms than the SWCs. I do load them longer but they still fit in the magazines and pass the plunk test. I've recently started loading them for .357 Sig. They work great but again, longer OAL just fit the magazines and pass the plunk test.
Dudedog
Contributing Member
Side note #2
I was thinking MBC used a blue lube (but haven't ordered any lubed lead bullets from them in a long time), also if they are MBC they should be .356, so maybe not MBC?
(not that it matters to the above discussion)
I was thinking MBC used a blue lube (but haven't ordered any lubed lead bullets from them in a long time), also if they are MBC they should be .356, so maybe not MBC?
(not that it matters to the above discussion)
Diameter varied from .3545" to .3555", with a cheap but reliable set of calipers.
The packing that they came in was a Tupperware container... So your guess is better than mine. A neighbor picked them up at an auction for about 5 cents apiece. I told him I'd try to dig up some info and if I found any, I'd give it a shot. I found a picture here on THR of various cast lead SWCs, and they seemed to match the MBC profile the best (almost exactly). MBC's website does show blue lube, but I wasn't sure if that changed between runs.
This is all a fact-finding mission at this time, so the more info the better.
Awesome info here. Thank you.
Dudedog
Contributing Member
Lyman data Thomasss posted is interesting.
For example looking at Hodgdons data in 9mm most of the charges for lead bullets are lower than their jacketed counterparts.
Here is Westerns data it also has lower charges for a lead bullet.
They list a 124gr lead conical -- 4.6 to 5.4 with AA#5, a lower MAX charge than all the other 124s (125 Sierra JHP is the same but has a short OAL)
The MAX they show for this bullet is the start charge for some other 124s.
Lead generally seals the bore better and uses a lower charge,
If it was me I would play it safe and use the more conservative data.
I forget which companies use red lube, no big deal other than if you wanted to get more.
When I started loading pistol having not read it was a bad idea, I started with 9mm and lead bullets.
Loaded 1000s before I saw 9mm is not a good choice to start with, lead is harder to load, and lead in 9mm might not be a good idea.
Since I failed to read that before I started I just went blindly along the way shooting perfectly fine 9mm reloads with lead bullets
For example looking at Hodgdons data in 9mm most of the charges for lead bullets are lower than their jacketed counterparts.
Here is Westerns data it also has lower charges for a lead bullet.
They list a 124gr lead conical -- 4.6 to 5.4 with AA#5, a lower MAX charge than all the other 124s (125 Sierra JHP is the same but has a short OAL)
The MAX they show for this bullet is the start charge for some other 124s.
Lead generally seals the bore better and uses a lower charge,
If it was me I would play it safe and use the more conservative data.
They might be MBCs but more likely just cast from the same mold MBC uses.
I forget which companies use red lube, no big deal other than if you wanted to get more.
When I started loading pistol having not read it was a bad idea, I started with 9mm and lead bullets.
Loaded 1000s before I saw 9mm is not a good choice to start with, lead is harder to load, and lead in 9mm might not be a good idea.
Since I failed to read that before I started I just went blindly along the way shooting perfectly fine 9mm reloads with lead bullets
I've got this exact page printed out on my reloading desk at home.
I've got a sit-down planned this week with a guy who has loaded a similar bullet, I was planning on picking his brain and checking the reload manuals in his library.
How does the lead conical compare to the semi-wad cutter as far as seating depth? It seems like the SWC has more mass located behind the front driving band, and so would reduce the available case volume (increasing the pressure compared to the same weight lead conical). I'm planning on a lighter load, so I don't feel that this would be an issue, but I'd like to cover all my bases.
Dudedog
Contributing Member
Yes
Been years since I loaded them and can't find my notes, but as I recall the SWC gave me the same vel with a 1/10 or 2/10 gr less powder than the conical.
If you are not loading MAX loads it shouldn't be an issue. (and Western lists +P data for that bullet showing the MAX as 3/10s more with AA#5 so you have wiggle room)
Update for anyone who has been following this, or is interested in the future. Start low, work up, verify bullet seating depth, and so on....
4.4gr AA #5, 1.085" COAL, 126gr Cast Lead SWC; Avg velocity: 860 fps, Sd: 11 (5 shot string)
4.6gr AA #5, 1.085" COAL, 126gr Cast Lead SWC; Avg velocity: 924 fps (corrected average, shot in the dark w/ flashlights to get the chrono to work)
4.8gr AA #5, 1.085" COAL, 126gr Cast Lead SWC; Avg velocity: 923 fps, Sd: 7 (5 shot string)
I felt like omitting the 4.6gr loads, due to the inconsistencies/problems I had with the velocities, but figured I'd include it with a warning. This average velocity is not accurate. I had a flyer at around 1100 fps that pushed it's average up to around 950 fps, and with the darkness, the chrono wasn't working perfectly.
All shots were through a CZ SP-01 w/ lighter recoil spring, and were able to lock the slide back. COAL varied from 1.083"-1.093" due to the shape of the bullet and my Lee bullet seater die. All bullets were crimped w/ a Lee FCD. 4.8gr loads burned cleanly, with little smoke.
4.4gr AA #5, 1.085" COAL, 126gr Cast Lead SWC; Avg velocity: 860 fps, Sd: 11 (5 shot string)
4.6gr AA #5, 1.085" COAL, 126gr Cast Lead SWC; Avg velocity: 924 fps (corrected average, shot in the dark w/ flashlights to get the chrono to work)
4.8gr AA #5, 1.085" COAL, 126gr Cast Lead SWC; Avg velocity: 923 fps, Sd: 7 (5 shot string)
I felt like omitting the 4.6gr loads, due to the inconsistencies/problems I had with the velocities, but figured I'd include it with a warning. This average velocity is not accurate. I had a flyer at around 1100 fps that pushed it's average up to around 950 fps, and with the darkness, the chrono wasn't working perfectly.
All shots were through a CZ SP-01 w/ lighter recoil spring, and were able to lock the slide back. COAL varied from 1.083"-1.093" due to the shape of the bullet and my Lee bullet seater die. All bullets were crimped w/ a Lee FCD. 4.8gr loads burned cleanly, with little smoke.
Dudedog
Contributing Member
Thanks for the update.
I made a cheap chrono light kit,
details here
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/free-chrono-light-kit.799110/
I made a cheap chrono light kit,
details here
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/free-chrono-light-kit.799110/
- Status
