Confused and Concerned

93Harley · July 23, 2013, 05:24 PM

New to reloading and am a bit confused with seemingly conflicting data. Loading 9mm for Browning Hi Power and 9mm Kal Tec. I have a mentor who is guiding me, but still concerned. Using Winchester Small Caliber Pistol Primers, Unique Powder and Montana Gold 124 gr. bullets. The Alliant Website covering Unique Powder lists minOAL at 1.12 and 5.8 grains. Hornaday sets the powder for 124 gr. bullets between 4.0 & 5.0, so a conflict exists right from the beginning. I loaded 10 rounds for each pistol at 5.2, 5.4, 5.6 and 5.8 at a cartridge length of 1.118. We shot them through a chronograph and the results as follows:
5.2:
Browning 1120 fps Kal Tec 1068 fps

5.4:
Browning 1139 fps Kal Tec 1069 fps

5.6:
Browning 1157 fps Kal Tec 1099 fps

5.8:
Browning 1169 fps Kal Tec 1120 fps

To get a better feel for what was going on, I then shot 10 rounds of 124 gr Remington +P and 10 rounds of Winchester +P.
Remington = 1141 fps for the Browning & 1059 fps for the Kal Tec.
Winchester = 991 fps for the Browning & 1089 fps for the Kal Tec.

I want to load to 5.4 gr. but have no idea what pressure is involved, but one would think the 5.4 gr. would produce excessive pressure given the fps of the Remington +P and Winchester +P rounds. There were no signs of overpressure in the spent shell casings after being fired. I do not have a "target" fps, but would guess the numbers above are satisfactory. The question that I have is this...do I have a safe and reliable recipe that will not damage my firearms?

02bigdogs17 · July 23, 2013, 05:58 PM

When loading a bullet that is not in any reloading manuals you have to find one that best replicates the bullet you have. When you looked at Alliant's website they are basing there info from the Speer gold dot hollow point and hornady is using there specific bullets and none of them are exactly the same. So you always start from the bottom and work up watching for pressure signs. Also Allian't website only shows max charge weights never start out at that always drop a grain and work up. Also when looking at data in various loading books they all use different guns to shoot with and that makes a difference to. Just always start at the bottom of the data and work up. Most of the time you will find that the best powder charge for accuracy is not even close to max in the book.

PA-Joe · July 23, 2013, 06:08 PM

I believe that the Montana Gold are lead bullets. Therefore you should be using lead data and not jacket bullet data.

Jim Watson · July 23, 2013, 06:14 PM

The only Montana Gold bullets I have shot were jacketed. Jackets of cartridge brass, not gilding metal, hence "gold."

Their shape is close to Hornady.

Jim243 · July 23, 2013, 06:20 PM

The bullets you are using are "Plated" and your commercial test ones are jacketed. Lead and plated bullets have less resistance in the barrel than a harder metal jacketed. I am not surprised by your crony results.

HOWEVER, to avoid excessive leading in the barrel, it is generally a rule of thumb that you want to keep lead and plated bullets under 1,100 feet per second when not using gas checks on the base of the bullet. If they were hard cast bullets then you could go up in speed without the leading issue.

From your test results (I do not use the powder you are using) it would be safe for you to load then at 4.8 to 5.0 grains of powder and possibly get better results.

Good luck and stay safe.
Jim

93Harley · July 23, 2013, 08:16 PM

Jim is correct in that Montana Gold are brass or copper plated bullets and they closely resemble the Hornaday hollow points in shape. I've shot over 100 rounds in each pistol and the barrels appear clean. All rounds were shot from a resting position and were, for the most part, pretty consistent as far as accuracy. My decision to go with 5.4 grains was based on a slight appearance of being a bit more accurate. Not really sure what dropping a grain and working up really means if no pressure signs are present. What am I looking for and what should I set as a goal? From what I've read, I thought a round which dependably cycles through the gun and which is accurate and traveling at around 1,000 fps is ideal. Should I be setting my sights on an ideal round on any other data?

I really thank you guys for taking your time to help me with this.

Wreck-n-Crew · July 23, 2013, 09:15 PM

The thing is that the speeds your getting for a 124 GRN bullet are +p speeds.

You should have speeds around the high 900's to not be in +p pressure ranges.

I would back it down to 5.0 GRN and recheck your fps on the chronograph. IT should not affect your accuracy and save excess and unnecessary wear.

Those speeds on a 115 GRN would have you right on, But once again they are 124 GRN.

I have found my loads when working up a load for my 9mm to be to light and increased them. found a nice spot around 1000 FPS 124GRN lead.

I am using a slightly faster burning powder the Winchester WST @ 4.2 GRN
Started with 3.5 and slowly worked it up.

WESHOOT2 · July 24, 2013, 05:26 AM

First, let's all agree that ANY shooting of ANY ammo adds wear to ANY firearm.

Next, the 'load' using Montana Gold (jacketed) 124s and insane amounts (5.4g

) of Unique:
Shoot good?
Feel fine?
Accurate?
Gun parts and pieces not flying off willy-nilly?

Good load.

93Harley · July 24, 2013, 07:29 AM

When shooting all of the test loads cited earlier, I didn't notice any "unruly" behavior in either pistol. All rounds cycled and accuracy was acceptable. And I was OK with any of these loads, but when I shot the +P loads and they were slower than my test loads, I started getting concerned that I was feeding my pistols too hot a round. I'll back the charge down and begin the process over trying to nail 1,000 fps with a lighter charge. I guess now I will have to play with seating depths as well. So one more question...for the present anyway...+P rounds attain their designation by additional charge and/or seating depths that are not listed in loading tables? I've never read exactly what powder charge constitutes a +P load.

Thanks for your input.

Shootest · July 24, 2013, 09:42 AM

Try an OAL of 1.130, it would be longer than the Min. 1.120 recommended. I don’t know why you would use a OAL of 1.118 as that would be short and cause pressure to rise.

Paul B. · July 24, 2013, 01:30 PM

I don't shoot the bullet in question. However I shoot the Lyman #356402 cast bullet in my 9MM handguns. This is a nominally 124 gr. bullet that I cast myself. I load them over 5.0 gr. of Unique and they work just fine. I agree with the others that while your loads appear to be safe, they are on the stout side. My bullets have no plating or gas checks, do a slight hair over 1000 FPS and groups very nicely at 25 yards. (2.5" when I do my part.) I cast a fairly hard alloy and bullets are sized to .358". Litte or no leading has occured.
Paul B.

93Harley · July 24, 2013, 06:05 PM

I really appreciate you guys sharing your knowledge with a me. Real world knowledge is a difficult commodity
to find. I'm going to load up another batch of test rounds and begin again. Based on what I believe I am hearing from each of you, I'll begin work as follows:

5 grains @ 1.120 OAL and 1.130 OAL, followed by 4.8 grains, 4.6 grains and lastly 4.4 grains. If I shoot 5 rounds with each of these recipes, I'll have 8 separate readings for each pistol. That will give me more insight as to what recipe I should begin loading.

Thanks again.

93Harley · July 25, 2013, 08:49 PM

Following up on the advise extended, I went back to the range today with the test loads outlined in my previous note and am really having trouble deciphering the data. I am really surprised the lowering of the charge did not produce as dramatic a reduction in bullet speed that I thought. For clarity, the 5 rounds used for each test segment were 124 gr. Montana Gold, Unique Powder and Winchester Small Caliber Pistol Primers in S & B cases. I will only include the data gathered from the Browning Hi Power and leave the Kal-Tec for another day, but as information, they were much slower.

4.4 grains @ 1.120 4.4 grains @ 1.130
Average 1021 fps Average 1019 fps

4.6 grains @ 1.120 4.6 grains @ 1.130
Average 1014 fps Average 1033 fps

4.8 grains @ 1.120 4.8 grains @ 1.130
Average 1028 fps Average 1032 fps

5.0 grains @ 1.120 5.0 grains @ 1.130
Average 1060 fps Average 1010 fps

I used a plastic storage box to help with steadying and aiming and was pleased with the grouping all eight of the test segments. No cycle problems were encountered. I will say that the 4.6 gr. & 4.8 gr. @ 1.130 seemed to be exceptionally tight.

Someone suggested that I should shoot for bullet speeds of between 900 & 1,000 fps, which all of the tests indicate. Now for the question....do I need further testing? If not, which powder charge and OAL should I load to?

93Harley · July 25, 2013, 09:41 PM

Following up on the advise extended, I went back to the range today with the test loads outlined in my previous note and am really having trouble deciphering the data. I am really surprised the lowering of the charge did not produce as dramatic a reduction in bullet speed that I thought. For clarity, the 5 rounds used for each test segment were 124 gr. Montana Gold, Unique Powder and Winchester Small Caliber Pistol Primers in S & B cases. I will only include the data gathered from the Browning Hi Power and leave the Kal-Tec for another day, but as information, they were much slower.

4.4 grains @ 1.120 4.4 grains @ 1.130
Average 1021 fps Average 1019 fps

4.6 grains @ 1.120 4.6 grains @ 1.130
Average 1014 fps Average 1033 fps

4.8 grains @ 1.120 4.8 grains @ 1.130
Average 1028 fps Average 1032 fps

5.0 grains @ 1.120 5.0 grains @ 1.130
Average 1060 fps Average 1010 fps

I used a plastic storage box to help with steadying and aiming and was pleased with the grouping all eight of the test segments. No cycle problems were encountered. I will say that the 4.6 gr. & 4.8 gr. @ 1.130 seemed to be exceptionally tight.

Someone suggested that I should shoot for bullet speeds of between 900 & 1,000 fps, which all of the tests indicate. Now for the question....do I need further testing? If not, which powder charge and OAL should I load to?

SauerGrapes · July 26, 2013, 04:05 PM

If you like shooting lighter loads, {which I do}stick with the lower end. I would load 50 at 4.4 or 4.6. Clean gun before hand, check accuracy, poor powder burn and leading. If you like the results, load more and repeat. The paper will never know the difference.

If you find they are eccessivly dirty, bump up your powder a bit. Unique tends to be on the dirty side with lighter pressure loads. A cleaner alternate would be Universal.
I don't worry about dirty guns, just unburnt powder. Let's face it, they have to be cleaned at some point anyway.

If you load the low end, use the shorter OAL. If you load the higher end, go 1.130 to 1.135

BTW, forget about the +P ammo. If you feel the 9mm is lacking, grab yourself a .40 S&W.

93Harley · July 27, 2013, 12:08 AM

I've been looking at all this data and trying to figure out exactly what would work best and SauerGrape's advise certainly hits home with me. I believe I will load my Montana Gold practice rounds to 1.120 with 4.6 grains since I noted that recipe produced a nice grouping. I have some Speer Personal Defense rounds on the way and believe I'll center my testing at around 5.4 grains at 1.120. In previous tests, the Browning spit the Montana Gold rounds downrange at a 10 round average of 1139 fps when loaded at 1.118. From the information I can find, the Speer personal defense rounds function at their optimum at 1100 fps.

July 23, 2013, 05:24 PM	#1
93Harley Junior Member Join Date: March 30, 2013 Posts: 12	Confused and Concerned New to reloading and am a bit confused with seemingly conflicting data. Loading 9mm for Browning Hi Power and 9mm Kal Tec. I have a mentor who is guiding me, but still concerned. Using Winchester Small Caliber Pistol Primers, Unique Powder and Montana Gold 124 gr. bullets. The Alliant Website covering Unique Powder lists minOAL at 1.12 and 5.8 grains. Hornaday sets the powder for 124 gr. bullets between 4.0 & 5.0, so a conflict exists right from the beginning. I loaded 10 rounds for each pistol at 5.2, 5.4, 5.6 and 5.8 at a cartridge length of 1.118. We shot them through a chronograph and the results as follows: 5.2: Browning 1120 fps Kal Tec 1068 fps 5.4: Browning 1139 fps Kal Tec 1069 fps 5.6: Browning 1157 fps Kal Tec 1099 fps 5.8: Browning 1169 fps Kal Tec 1120 fps To get a better feel for what was going on, I then shot 10 rounds of 124 gr Remington +P and 10 rounds of Winchester +P. Remington = 1141 fps for the Browning & 1059 fps for the Kal Tec. Winchester = 991 fps for the Browning & 1089 fps for the Kal Tec. I want to load to 5.4 gr. but have no idea what pressure is involved, but one would think the 5.4 gr. would produce excessive pressure given the fps of the Remington +P and Winchester +P rounds. There were no signs of overpressure in the spent shell casings after being fired. I do not have a "target" fps, but would guess the numbers above are satisfactory. The question that I have is this...do I have a safe and reliable recipe that will not damage my firearms?

July 23, 2013, 06:20 PM	#5
Jim243 Senior Member Join Date: January 5, 2009 Location: Just off Route 66 Posts: 5,067	The bullets you are using are "Plated" and your commercial test ones are jacketed. Lead and plated bullets have less resistance in the barrel than a harder metal jacketed. I am not surprised by your crony results. HOWEVER, to avoid excessive leading in the barrel, it is generally a rule of thumb that you want to keep lead and plated bullets under 1,100 feet per second when not using gas checks on the base of the bullet. If they were hard cast bullets then you could go up in speed without the leading issue. From your test results (I do not use the powder you are using) it would be safe for you to load then at 4.8 to 5.0 grains of powder and possibly get better results. Good luck and stay safe. Jim __________________ Si vis pacem, para bellum

July 23, 2013, 08:16 PM	#6
93Harley Junior Member Join Date: March 30, 2013 Posts: 12	Confused and Concerned Jim is correct in that Montana Gold are brass or copper plated bullets and they closely resemble the Hornaday hollow points in shape. I've shot over 100 rounds in each pistol and the barrels appear clean. All rounds were shot from a resting position and were, for the most part, pretty consistent as far as accuracy. My decision to go with 5.4 grains was based on a slight appearance of being a bit more accurate. Not really sure what dropping a grain and working up really means if no pressure signs are present. What am I looking for and what should I set as a goal? From what I've read, I thought a round which dependably cycles through the gun and which is accurate and traveling at around 1,000 fps is ideal. Should I be setting my sights on an ideal round on any other data? I really thank you guys for taking your time to help me with this.

July 23, 2013, 09:15 PM	#7
Wreck-n-Crew Senior Member Join Date: March 8, 2013 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,820	The thing is that the speeds your getting for a 124 GRN bullet are +p speeds. You should have speeds around the high 900's to not be in +p pressure ranges. I would back it down to 5.0 GRN and recheck your fps on the chronograph. IT should not affect your accuracy and save excess and unnecessary wear. Those speeds on a 115 GRN would have you right on, But once again they are 124 GRN. I have found my loads when working up a load for my 9mm to be to light and increased them. found a nice spot around 1000 FPS 124GRN lead. I am using a slightly faster burning powder the Winchester WST @ 4.2 GRN Started with 3.5 and slowly worked it up. __________________ If you ever have to use a firearm, *you don't get to pick the scenario!*

July 24, 2013, 05:26 AM	#8
WESHOOT2 Senior Member Join Date: February 20, 1999 Location: home on the range; Vermont (Caspian country) Posts: 14,324	stop the madness First, let's all agree that ANY shooting of ANY ammo adds wear to ANY firearm. Next, the 'load' using Montana Gold (jacketed) 124s and insane amounts (5.4g ) of Unique: Shoot good? Feel fine? Accurate? Gun parts and pieces not flying off willy-nilly? Good load. __________________ . "all my ammo is mostly retired factory ammo"

July 23, 2013, 05:58 PM	#2
02bigdogs17 Senior Member Join Date: November 25, 2012 Location: Indiana Posts: 138	When loading a bullet that is not in any reloading manuals you have to find one that best replicates the bullet you have. When you looked at Alliant's website they are basing there info from the Speer gold dot hollow point and hornady is using there specific bullets and none of them are exactly the same. So you always start from the bottom and work up watching for pressure signs. Also Allian't website only shows max charge weights never start out at that always drop a grain and work up. Also when looking at data in various loading books they all use different guns to shoot with and that makes a difference to. Just always start at the bottom of the data and work up. Most of the time you will find that the best powder charge for accuracy is not even close to max in the book.

July 23, 2013, 06:08 PM	#3
PA-Joe Senior Member Join Date: June 9, 2010 Location: NEPA Posts: 909	I believe that the Montana Gold are lead bullets. Therefore you should be using lead data and not jacket bullet data.

July 23, 2013, 06:14 PM	#4
Jim Watson Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 18,541	The only Montana Gold bullets I have shot were jacketed. Jackets of cartridge brass, not gilding metal, hence "gold." Their shape is close to Hornady.

July 24, 2013, 07:29 AM	#9
93Harley Junior Member Join Date: March 30, 2013 Posts: 12	Confused and Concerned When shooting all of the test loads cited earlier, I didn't notice any "unruly" behavior in either pistol. All rounds cycled and accuracy was acceptable. And I was OK with any of these loads, but when I shot the +P loads and they were slower than my test loads, I started getting concerned that I was feeding my pistols too hot a round. I'll back the charge down and begin the process over trying to nail 1,000 fps with a lighter charge. I guess now I will have to play with seating depths as well. So one more question...for the present anyway...+P rounds attain their designation by additional charge and/or seating depths that are not listed in loading tables? I've never read exactly what powder charge constitutes a +P load. Thanks for your input.

July 24, 2013, 09:42 AM	#10
Shootest Senior Member Join Date: February 9, 2011 Location: Just outside Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 722	Try an OAL of 1.130, it would be longer than the Min. 1.120 recommended. I don’t know why you would use a OAL of 1.118 as that would be short and cause pressure to rise. __________________ The private ownership of firearms is an American Heritage. Anyone who disputes that is Anti-American and unpatriotic. NRA Life Member

July 24, 2013, 01:30 PM	#11
Paul B. Senior Member Join Date: March 28, 1999 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 3,802	I don't shoot the bullet in question. However I shoot the Lyman #356402 cast bullet in my 9MM handguns. This is a nominally 124 gr. bullet that I cast myself. I load them over 5.0 gr. of Unique and they work just fine. I agree with the others that while your loads appear to be safe, they are on the stout side. My bullets have no plating or gas checks, do a slight hair over 1000 FPS and groups very nicely at 25 yards. (2.5" when I do my part.) I cast a fairly hard alloy and bullets are sized to .358". Litte or no leading has occured. Paul B. __________________ COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!

July 24, 2013, 06:05 PM	#12
93Harley Junior Member Join Date: March 30, 2013 Posts: 12	I really appreciate you guys sharing your knowledge with a me. Real world knowledge is a difficult commodity to find. I'm going to load up another batch of test rounds and begin again. Based on what I believe I am hearing from each of you, I'll begin work as follows: 5 grains @ 1.120 OAL and 1.130 OAL, followed by 4.8 grains, 4.6 grains and lastly 4.4 grains. If I shoot 5 rounds with each of these recipes, I'll have 8 separate readings for each pistol. That will give me more insight as to what recipe I should begin loading. Thanks again.

July 25, 2013, 08:49 PM	#13
93Harley Junior Member Join Date: March 30, 2013 Posts: 12	Interpreting Data Following up on the advise extended, I went back to the range today with the test loads outlined in my previous note and am really having trouble deciphering the data. I am really surprised the lowering of the charge did not produce as dramatic a reduction in bullet speed that I thought. For clarity, the 5 rounds used for each test segment were 124 gr. Montana Gold, Unique Powder and Winchester Small Caliber Pistol Primers in S & B cases. I will only include the data gathered from the Browning Hi Power and leave the Kal-Tec for another day, but as information, they were much slower. 4.4 grains @ 1.120 4.4 grains @ 1.130 Average 1021 fps Average 1019 fps 4.6 grains @ 1.120 4.6 grains @ 1.130 Average 1014 fps Average 1033 fps 4.8 grains @ 1.120 4.8 grains @ 1.130 Average 1028 fps Average 1032 fps 5.0 grains @ 1.120 5.0 grains @ 1.130 Average 1060 fps Average 1010 fps I used a plastic storage box to help with steadying and aiming and was pleased with the grouping all eight of the test segments. No cycle problems were encountered. I will say that the 4.6 gr. & 4.8 gr. @ 1.130 seemed to be exceptionally tight. Someone suggested that I should shoot for bullet speeds of between 900 & 1,000 fps, which all of the tests indicate. Now for the question....do I need further testing? If not, which powder charge and OAL should I load to?

July 25, 2013, 09:41 PM	#14
93Harley Junior Member Join Date: March 30, 2013 Posts: 12	Interpreting Data Following up on the advise extended, I went back to the range today with the test loads outlined in my previous note and am really having trouble deciphering the data. I am really surprised the lowering of the charge did not produce as dramatic a reduction in bullet speed that I thought. For clarity, the 5 rounds used for each test segment were 124 gr. Montana Gold, Unique Powder and Winchester Small Caliber Pistol Primers in S & B cases. I will only include the data gathered from the Browning Hi Power and leave the Kal-Tec for another day, but as information, they were much slower. 4.4 grains @ 1.120 4.4 grains @ 1.130 Average 1021 fps Average 1019 fps 4.6 grains @ 1.120 4.6 grains @ 1.130 Average 1014 fps Average 1033 fps 4.8 grains @ 1.120 4.8 grains @ 1.130 Average 1028 fps Average 1032 fps 5.0 grains @ 1.120 5.0 grains @ 1.130 Average 1060 fps Average 1010 fps I used a plastic storage box to help with steadying and aiming and was pleased with the grouping all eight of the test segments. No cycle problems were encountered. I will say that the 4.6 gr. & 4.8 gr. @ 1.130 seemed to be exceptionally tight. Someone suggested that I should shoot for bullet speeds of between 900 & 1,000 fps, which all of the tests indicate. Now for the question....do I need further testing? If not, which powder charge and OAL should I load to?

July 26, 2013, 04:05 PM	#15
SauerGrapes Senior Member Join Date: March 22, 2009 Location: S.E.PA. Posts: 920	If you like shooting lighter loads, {which I do}stick with the lower end. I would load 50 at 4.4 or 4.6. Clean gun before hand, check accuracy, poor powder burn and leading. If you like the results, load more and repeat. The paper will never know the difference. If you find they are eccessivly dirty, bump up your powder a bit. Unique tends to be on the dirty side with lighter pressure loads. A cleaner alternate would be Universal. I don't worry about dirty guns, just unburnt powder. Let's face it, they have to be cleaned at some point anyway. If you load the low end, use the shorter OAL. If you load the higher end, go 1.130 to 1.135 BTW, forget about the +P ammo. If you feel the 9mm is lacking, grab yourself a .40 S&W. __________________ NRA member, DCF&S member, PAFOA member, USPSA member, NSCA member R.I.P.____Murphy

July 27, 2013, 12:08 AM	#16
93Harley Junior Member Join Date: March 30, 2013 Posts: 12	I've been looking at all this data and trying to figure out exactly what would work best and SauerGrape's advise certainly hits home with me. I believe I will load my Montana Gold practice rounds to 1.120 with 4.6 grains since I noted that recipe produced a nice grouping. I have some Speer Personal Defense rounds on the way and believe I'll center my testing at around 5.4 grains at 1.120. In previous tests, the Browning spit the Montana Gold rounds downrange at a 10 round average of 1139 fps when loaded at 1.118. From the information I can find, the Speer personal defense rounds function at their optimum at 1100 fps.