New here/ reloading about 9mm

[fossitms]

I took the rounds to the range today, they all fired fine. I also brought a box of factory load to compare. I had better grouping with my reloads, but there was a lot of soot on the outside of the case. From what I gathered it means the pressure is to low. So my next batch I will shorten the coal with the same grains of powder. I’m following Hornady’s loads for Titegroup and there bullet. They say the coal should be 1.100 but also a max load of 4.1. I’m just gonna work my way down and see what I like.

[kmw1954]

Good for you! What you could do next is load 10ea at 1.130" or 1.125" with the same charge and then load 10ea. more at 1.115 and see what happens. This will also give you a feel for what the change has done to the load as far as recoil and accuracy.

You could just drop to the short length as Hornady suggests and be fine but again from my way of thinking is you will miss out on a learning opportunity as small as it might be.

[locknloader]

@fossitms - i ran into the same issue with titegroup and 9mm, the charge is too low. (but good on you for starting with the lowest charge, i did the same with my first 9mm loads) If you bump it up to the middle-higher end of the suggested load range on hodgdon website for titegroup it will reduce the soot.

HP-38 is a good alternative, its a little more flakey than titegroup but meters well and produces less soot at lower charges IMO.

Good luck getting things tuned in and stay safe.

[Nick_C_S]

I will shorten the coal with the same grains of powder.

Why shorten the COAL?

If they clear your mags, and the slide is going into battery, then I'm not seeing any reason to shorten the ammo.

[kmw1954]

Why shorten?

Because he is very low on pressure because of the over length suggested by Hornady so he is going to have to do one of 2 things. Either shorten length or increase powder charge.

I would rather see the 1st choice over the 2nd choice for a new person. Don't know if you would shoot sooty rounds but I wouldn't. Even if they did completely cycle the gun.

[jetinteriorguy]

For OAL first I load up a long dummy round and start plunking. Keep seating deeper until it plunks, then I go .01" deeper to allow for variance. This is where I start with a beginning load and work my way up. Especially with Titegroup, while its a good powder to use it can be very unforgiving. I've been handloading for over 30 years and a couple of minor mistakes added together using Titegroup blew the top off my 627 last weekend. After many thousands of rounds over the years and never any incidents it bit me. Luckily no one was hurt but was a real wake up call for me. I have a very redundant system for safety but found a flaw in my system that led to this happening.

[Don P]

Take it for what its worth. I load for consistency

So do I David R. I tested factory 380 rounds and my reloads against each other for chrono. Factory rounds varied as my reloads varied. When comparing the 2 printouts from chrono without knowing which was which you would not be able to tell the difference. My reloads were mixed headstamps and while shooting reloads shooters will not be able to feel or tell the difference when rounds are varying 30-50-80 FPS in chrono

[PPGMD]

Running a U die will take a lot of the inconsistencies out of mixed brass. There will still be some so if you are a bullseye competitor you might want to sort your brass, but even some of those guys say don't bother.

ETA: Yes I know that it is working the brass more, but the results are worth the shorter brass life. In addition to being more consistent on the target, the failure rate on the case gauge is extremely low (like less than one per a thousand). Besides 9mm brass is cheap, even if you are buying new.

[kmw1954]

jetinteriorguy the plunk test isn't always a sure fire method of determining length as I have one 9mm that with 124gr RN bullets I could load then all the way out to 1.180 and they will still seat. Only they will not fit in the magazine. Too long.

Funny thing is that as long as the lead is in the throat of this barrel it is still very accurate.

Don't get me wrong, I still use the plunk test on every new load with an unfamiliar bullet or new gun.

[Jim Watson]

The loaded round must
1. Fit the chamber. Bullet should be off the lands except in the special case of .45 ACP SWC target loads. Plunk test, barrels and bullets differ. You can hardly ever get to the MAXIMUM of 1.169" except with rather pointy RN.
2. Fit the magazine. Magazines differ, too. A friend had some foreign made hardball bought cheap for his STEN gun that would bind in the magazine of his Glock.
3. Feed from magazine to chamber. If I have an OAL that feeds, I am not going to mess with it. Contrary to KMW, I had rather see you increase the powder charge within tested limits than to seat deeper to avoid soot. Actually, I don't worry about soot, I load for
power factor.

[kmw1954]

Jim Watson in practice I agree with increasing powder charge but this fellow is brand new to loading and do not want to get him off on the wrong foot by suggesting loading past the recommended max charge. That seems to be the one thing I see preached everywhere. Follow the load, work up slowly and do not exceed max.

Another thought with short bullets and extended lengths is the amount of bullet entering the case. As the depth decreases where at what point does it start to effect neck tension?

[mikld]

Originally Posted by fossitms

I took the rounds to the range today, they all fired fine. I also brought a box of factory load to compare. I had better grouping with my reloads, but there was a lot of soot on the outside of the case. From what I gathered it means the pressure is to low. So my next batch I will shorten the coal with the same grains of powder. I’m following Hornady’s loads for Titegroup and there bullet. They say the coal should be 1.100 but also a max load of 4.1. I’m just gonna work my way down and see what I like.

Rather than mess with the geometry/dimensions of your reloads when you need/want higher pressure and velocity, just up the powder charge. K.I.S.S. By increasing the powder charge you will have a good idea how much your chamber pressure will increase, but shortening the seating depth is pretty much a WAG as I've never seen a chart of how much in either PSI or CUP chamber pressure increases with a specific powder charge, but smaller combustion chamber...

If you are at or near max. try another powder. Or live with soot on the case OD. How well do the rounds function? Are they accurate?

[mikld]

FWIW; I've read a lot of opinions on 9mm FC brass being thinner and resulting neck tension, or lack thereof, can cause problems. I'm building my 9mm "just in case" stash and have about 200 rounds loaded using mixed brass so I went through the reloads and picked out all the FC (Federal) case rounds. I pulled out about 18-20, and measured the OAL. I'm using mixed brass, RMR 125 gr. JHP, mixed cases sized in Lee dies, M die expanded, Lee bullet seating die, case straightened with an RCBS taper crimp die, no "crimp". I measured, then pushed the cartridge against the bench and remeasured (I pushed fairly hard, leaning hard enough to start pain in my fingers). Not one out of the bunch moved, even .001"...

Jes thinking and my "testing"...

[kmw1954]

Headstamps, I sort mine too. Not that I believe it is necessary But just because I am retired and have the time. I figure it can't hurt and might help in a number of ways, if nothing more than adding another layer of consistency. When I load random headstamps I find were I can feel some cases being tighter or stiffer or ones that the primer pockets are tighter or looser. Then loading on a Lee press that uses a turret that has a tolerance in order to turn I find that these cases that are harder to size or have more resistance changes the press ever so slightly and contributes to COAL variances. It might only be .002"/.004" but it's there. I realize I am not making perfect ammo on a Turret press but it is still more accurate than me. Besides it doesn't cost me anything other than my time which I have plenty of.

So the other day I did spend time sorting brass, lots of it. All FC and R*P and I found that both have easily identified different stamps.

The FC I did I found this; Headstamp *F C*, headstamp F C 9mm and headstamp F C 9MM and among the 1st one and the Last one I also found cases with those headstamps that also had a cannelure in it.

The R*P also had three distinct headstamps.

I have loaded all three of the different FC headstamps and I certainly didn't notice a difference or problems.

[jetinteriorguy]

KMW1954, good catch. I did neglect to mention checking fit in your mags. In addition I also load up five dummy rounds to check for function by manually cycling the action. Once I have finished this process to determine OAL for a bullet I then start from the bottom of the suggested load and work my way up.

[Nick_C_S]

Why shorten?

Because he is very low on pressure because of the over length suggested by Hornady

I know there's a couple schools of thought here, and no answer is right or wrong, but . . .

I'm sticking with my thought process: If the rounds fit in the mag, and the slide goes into battery, I don't see a reason to shorten the OAL.

Low pressure certainly isn't a good enough reason. Increase charge or move to a faster propellant.

The the OAL "suggested" by Hornady isn't really a suggestion. It is simply what they used. I agree that Hornady is probably loading to an OAL that'll work reliably in just about any firearm, and that's a good thing. And when in doubt, it's probably a good way to go. I agree. But it would seem unnecessary for our new loader to shorten the OAL. He certainly may, but I don't think it's necessary.

[kmw1954]

I will agree that the OAL set by Hornady isn't a suggestion but it is what they used to establish a pressure range for this load. By changing the OAL either longer or shorter is going to effect that pressure range. In this case the OAL was set at 1.10" with a start charge and max charge to achieve a pressure curve. The OP extended the OAL out to 1.150" to 1.153" which in this case with the Titegroup powder is a significant .040"-.043" difference.

He then went on to state that the one test load was at the powder max charge of 4.1gr. Which again I always seem to find it preached to "Never exceed the max load". Which increasing the powder charge would be doing.

So to someone that is new to loading I will ask again, which do you suggest? Shortening the load to increase pressure or exceeding the max load suggested?

I will continue to support my original contention to this new reloader.

[PPGMD]

So to someone that is new to loading I will ask again, which do you suggest? Shortening the load to increase pressure or exceeding the max load suggested?

How about C, ignore the soot. Titegroup is known to be rather dirty. Part of the reason I want to try Sport Pistols after I get close to running out of Titegroup in a couple of years.

[kmw1954]

Suggesting C only sidesteps the question and doesn't solve the problem at hand.

[Nick_C_S]

So to someone that is new to loading I will ask again, which do you suggest? Shortening the load to increase pressure or exceeding the max load suggested?

A good point. Perhaps it would be better for our new loader stick with the book's OAL and charge weights.

Maybe a little further down the road of experience would be a more appropriate time to play around with such things.

[kmw1954]

Nick_C_S I think we can agree on that together. Once a bit more experience and understanding of how pressures work and what causes them and then how to manipulate them.

I am not going to make any recommendation because I have zero experience with Titegroup other than to know it can be very volatile and unforgiving as far as pressure curves go.

[Jim Watson]

Problem is, the New Reloader seldom buys the bullet shown in the book and then wonders why the "recipe" doesn't work.

[kmw1954]

Jim Watson, so true. Just as here and everywhere else I go that when the discussion turns to plated bullets I hear the parrot. Same as lead, use lead or jacketed data for same weight. I have quit arguing because I've used and seen enough to know that plated are not lead bullets and neither are they jacketed. A few of the powder manufacturers are starting to actually show this.

The very first load I found and used in 1980 was found in the Speer #10 book which I still have. It was for 357mag using Speer 158gr LSWC, CCI 500 primers and Hercules Bullseye powder. All of those materials were available at the local store.

[mkl]

If you are a new reloader you may not have run into Berdan primed cases yet. I'd suggest that whenever you find a headstamp you have not seen before to check for only one flash hole in the center of the case head. If you see two or three holes offset from the center, the case is not reloadable for all practical purposes.

[Nick_C_S]

I have zero experience with Titegroup other than to know it can be very volatile and unforgiving as far as pressure curves go.

I have a good deal of experience with TiteGroup.

It is indeed quite spunky (energetic) and by extension, unforgiving. TG would definitely not be my first choice for a new loader. All the more reason to stick with published data, dimensions, etc.

Lighter bullets allow more wiggle room.