9mm Load Data


PDA






newrugersafan
January 5, 2010, 07:01 PM
Hello All

I have made a mistake and need to know if I should pull a bunch of bullets.

I have loaded some 9mm with 4.6 grains HP-38 and Hornady 115 gr. XTP bullets.

I used the wrong overall length and made them up at 1.025 I realize the manuals state 1.09 or 1.125 depending on which one you look at.

My question is .... can some one with a program run this load and tell me if it exceeds recommended CUP pressures?


Thanks for any and all help
Mike

If you enjoyed reading about "9mm Load Data" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Walkalong
January 5, 2010, 07:15 PM
You are fine.

rfwobbly
January 5, 2010, 07:34 PM
Ruger Fan -
Welcome aboard! Everyone makes mistakes. It's just that the smart ones realize the problem BEFORE they pull the trigger!

You'd do well to analyze the mistake and it's root cause. Obviously, you'd not like to repeat something like that again.
• If you mis-read your vernier caliper, maybe a digital set would help. Harbor Freight will have theirs on sale fairly soon for ~$13.
• Maybe you forgot to close and zero your digital set. That's a good habit to practice getting into.
• If it was in setting up your seating die, then try making a "test cartridge" with no powder and no primer. Then, next time you start to load you can set that in your shell holder, raise the ram, and lower the seater stem with finger pressure until it touches the top of your test round. That way you'll be within thousandths at the start.

Hope this helps!

newrugersafan
January 5, 2010, 07:54 PM
Thanks for the replies.

Actually I was loading 90 gr. XTP's at 1.025 which is a little longer then the Lyman manual suggests but I did not like crimping past the shoulder of the bullet. I checked when I changed to the 115 XTP but missed the error, digital read out would have helped.

I caught the mistake after setting the seating die back up after using it for another load.

Mike

ArchAngelCD
January 6, 2010, 03:05 AM
Considering Hodgdon lists a starting charge of 4.7gr and a Max charge of 5.1gr HP-38 I'm sure you will be fine. If you were bumping up against the Max charge it would have been more of a concern. Since you are just below the starting charge the slight pressure gain from the bullet being seated deeper won't cause pressure problems.

Welcome to the forum...

Randy1911
January 6, 2010, 03:35 AM
In order for the manual to be right on the OAL, you must be loading the EXACT SAME BULLET. In the front of the loading data they will tell you which bullets they used. The proper OAL will change with each type of bullet used. Otherwise you are just guessing.

Walkalong
January 6, 2010, 10:21 AM
Some manuals only list a min or a max O.A.L., and not the actual O.A.L. they used.

Some powder data (Midway Load Map for one) is done loaded at the Max O.A.L., which is silly, because not many folks load at the Max O.A.L.s.

Te OP is running a light enough charge that unless he is seating the bullet so deep it barely pokes out of the case, he will be OK.

helg
January 6, 2010, 10:33 AM
QL screenshot with your parameters is attached. You better double check there that the data match your load.

The shortened load is way overpressured, 47.8 kPSI, which is 136% of SAAMI max or 124% of SAAMI +P max. The same load with 1.125" OAL gives 28.8 kPSI or 82% max. 1.09" OAL gives 33.3 kPSI or 95% max.

Per QL calculations, I would recommend to disassemble these rounds.

newrugersafan
January 6, 2010, 02:23 PM
Thany you all for the responses.

I decided to test one of these in my 357 Blackhawk with the 9mm cylinder. There was a little primer flattening, no cratering and extraction was a bit sticky, not bad but enough of a concern that I don't want to use them in a Sig.

The Blackhawk cylinder has a lot of steel around the cartridge so while I don't advocate testing a possible over pressure cartidge by shooting it I felt safe in this case.

Helg , thank you for running the load in your program. I know the 9mm can build pressure quickley and wanted to be safe.

Thanks again and hey I'm not a Lurker anymore.

Mike

ArchAngelCD
January 7, 2010, 06:37 AM
WOW, is Quickload always correct? I find it very hard to believe such a small change in the OAL would cause that much pressure especially since his charge was below the recommended starting charge to begin with. We are talking about an OAL difference of only 0.065". The charge range is 4.7gr to 5.1gr and his charge was 4.6gr.

azar
January 7, 2010, 11:48 AM
Quickload is a program I'd like to own, although I've had a hard time justifying the money I'd have to spend. I have noted many who do own it have a big complaint that it shows pressure building too quickly by shortening the C.O.A.L. and pressure dropping too quickly by increasing it.

It was these experienced users opinions that QuickLoad's model greatly overestimated changes in pressure from seating depth changes. It does appear to be the case, but I'm no expert on the matter.

helg
January 7, 2010, 02:20 PM
Quickload manual discloses all the formulas that the program uses. Caliber-specific parameters for the formulas are in text files. There are no proprietary tricks there.

Smokeless powder burning speed is proportional to chamber pressure. Shorter OAL means higher pressure at start, which increases burning speed, which, in turn, increases the pressure even more. Straight wall cartridges, where small change in OAL significantly change the volume, are extremely sensitive to the OAL.

azar
January 7, 2010, 04:09 PM
It's not a matter of proprietary tricks. It's a matter of having an accurate model. Just because they publish their formulas, doesn't make their formulas correlate with reality. While QuickLoad's model is obviously better than nothing and probably better than anyone other program out there, it still a computer simulation give a "best guess".

Yes, a shorter OAL will mean greater pressure and the smaller the case the greater the change. Nobody is disputing that. What's in dispute is the accuracy of the pressure change that QuickLoad gives for a given change in OAL. That's all.

Walkalong
January 7, 2010, 04:16 PM
WOW, is Quickload always correct? Couldn't possibly be. No program can match the real world, but I am sure it is a useful tool.

helg
January 7, 2010, 04:29 PM
It's a matter of having an accurate model. Just because they publish their formulas, doesn't make their formulas correlate with reality. QuickLoad did not develop powder burning model and the supporting formulas. The model is well known, and has been published long time before the program ever appeared. The rest, beside the powder burning model, is pure mechanics/thermodynamics that is not changing in centuries.

azar
January 7, 2010, 05:15 PM
QuickLoad did not develop powder burning model and the supporting formulas. The model is well known, and has been published long time before the program ever appeared.
It's not really important who developed it or when. It's still an imperfect (though useful) computer model. What QuickLoad says is not gospel, but a useful estimate.

Newtonian physics was developed by a man many, including me, consider a genius. His ideas help model the physical world in many ways. But Newtonian physics are not perfect and begin to break down when you start reaching relativistic speeds. It doesn't mean classic Newtownian physics aren't useful or wrong, just limited. All formulas that model the physical world are, QuickLoad included.

I think that QuickLoad is an amazing program and I'd personally love to own it, but I think the model it uses to estimate pressure changes due to COAL changes could be improved. I don't mean it to sound like an attack against the program, it's author, or the formulas it uses. Nor do I want to beat a dead horse or derail the original discussion by bantering about the possible pros and cons of quickloads pressure estimates. Neat program, not perfect.

Have a good day.

ArchAngelCD
January 8, 2010, 04:45 AM
Guys, please don't argue, that wasn't my intent.

I was just saying it seems very hard to accept that particular data. Hodgdon is reporting pressures of 25,300 CUP with a charge of 4.7gr HP-38 and 28,100 CUP with a charge of 5.1gr HP-38. I find it very hard to believe the pressures jump to 47749 psi when the bullet is seated less than 7 one-hundreds of an inch deeper especially when the charge used was only 4.6gr, .1gr lower than the recommended starting charge. That's all I was saying...

RidgwayCO
January 8, 2010, 06:05 PM
I've been following this thread with interest, since I also ran QuickLOAD with newrugersafan's data and discovered his load was above SAAMI max average pressure. The only reason I didn't post was because helg posted the applicable data correctly (and better than I would have...).

Let me summarize as best I can... newrugersafan posted a question asking for someone to use their "program" to check the pressure of a round that he had inadvertently screwed up by loading it to a COL that was less than recommended in his published, pressure-tested data.

helg then took the time to run the numbers through his software, and discovered that the pressure of the load in question could well be in excess of the SAAMI maximum. He then posted a warning to that effect.

And then helg got criticized because his software isn't perfect? What am I missing here?

Oh well, no good deed should ever go unpunished...

newrugersafan
January 8, 2010, 07:01 PM
Let me say again that I appreciate the help helg gave me and used the information to make an informed decision to pull the bullets and make the adjustment to 1.090 as the Lyman manual lists as the OAL.

Lyman suggests a start load of 3.5 grains @ 20,700 and max of 4.9 grains @32,000 c.u.p.
That is the manual I was using as it lists the 115 grain XTP bullet.

For the small amount of time needed to correct my mistake it just did not make sense to risk injury, destruction or at the least battering the poor Sig.

Thanks again for the help
Mike

ArchAngelCD
January 9, 2010, 01:30 AM
And then helg got criticized because his software isn't perfect? What am I missing here?

Oh well, no good deed should ever go unpunished...
I truly hope no one thinks I was criticizing anyone... I wasn't... I was only discussing the data and the possibility of it being in error, nothing more, nothing less. People can discuss data without it being personal, at least I can.

RandyP
January 9, 2010, 08:40 AM
Mike, sounds to me like you made a wise choice to pull the rounds and reload them.

Even if a computer model had 99.99% accuracy in the real world, I'd hate to be in that .01% and end up on a trip to kaboom land. lol

9mm is a rather small case, and what seem like 'small' changes in OAL do make a big pressure change. Too long would only be a feed issue, too short is where the danger les.

Galil5.56
January 9, 2010, 09:50 AM
As an FYI, and some insight into commercial loading, here is load data from ZERO:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v146/Abucaster/Zero9mmspecsheet.jpg

I'm NOT suggesting this data as safe for everyone, but I have used even more propellant worked up according to other published data. (Sierra & Nosler)

helg
January 9, 2010, 10:41 AM
As an FYI, and some insight into commercial loading, here is load data from ZERO
With no dependency on bullet length or bullet model, no identified headstamp (i.e. case length/volume), no published muzzle speed (not even thinking of publishing pressure) the load has to be way on the safe side.

I did not load with HP38, and can not judge how accurate the HP38 data are in the QL database. I have found that the data for 5 other pistol powders which I used in the 9mm, are adequate. I have emulated the data for the 6th, 700X, based on published load data for pistol calibers, and found the results consistent with my loads either. This build some confidence with the QL data for the loads that I use. As many people pointed above with published load data from various sources, this does not extend to the accuracy of QL verification on any load.

I am sorry for misguiding you.

Walkalong
January 9, 2010, 12:05 PM
I drug out my Midway Load Map, which has what is usually pretty stout data compared to other data (at least the one for .45 ACP is), but in this case it is more conservative than other data. (4.3 Max)

So, I looked up some more data.

Speer #12 goes to 5.7 with both HP-38 & W-231 with 115 gr jacketed bullets.

Speer #13 goes to 5.0 with W-231. (Doesn't show HP-38)

Hodgdon on line data goes to 5.1 with W-231 & HP-38 with a 115 Gr Gold Dot @ 1.125 O.A.L. for 1167 FPS @ 28,100 CUP.

The older Winchester online data (no longer there (http://www.wwpowder.com/data/handgun/9mmlug.php)) I have printed goes to 5.1 Grs W-231 with the 115 gr Gold Dot @ 1.125 O.A.L. for 1167 FPS @ 28,100 CUP

I would certainly think 5.0 to 5.1 was perfectly safe unless the bullets were seated way to deep.

Speer #12 said - "loads that produced 28,000 CUP went to 62,000 CUP when bullets were purposely seated .030 deeper!"

Hmmm....rethinking things here. Good news is the OP is at 4.6 Grs, well under what Hodgdon says is max.

Unfortunately, we only have how much shorter the O.A.L. is. (1.125 minus 1.025 is .100) Which is significantly shorter considering this is 9MM.

Since we do not know the length of the OP's bullet vs the GD used in testing, we do not know if it is deeper in the case, just that it is seated .100 sorter. We need the length of both the 115 Gold Dot and the 115 XTP bullets.

Anyone have them? The OP should be able to provide the XTP's length. We need them both to see if it is seated deeper, and if so, how much deeper.

This is a great time to have a chrono as well. If the pressure is more, it will show up as velocity. If we are getting unrealistic (too fast) velocities, we are obviously over pressure.

helg
January 9, 2010, 12:24 PM
Anyone have them? The OP should be able to provide the XTP's length. The 115 Hornady XTP 35540 is available in the QL database. According to the screenshot, which I posted above, its length is .545". Again, I do not have the bullet, and can not judge how accurate is this number.

Galil5.56
January 9, 2010, 12:34 PM
I drug out my Midway Load Map, which has what is usually pretty stout data compared to other data (at least the one for .45 ACP is), but in this case it is more conservative than other data. (4.3 Max)


Looks like someone put some "Clays" into their WW231... Something is just FLAT wrong here considering the propellant, and its pressure curve!

RidgwayCO
January 9, 2010, 12:35 PM
QuickLOAD shows the length of Hornady 115gr HP/XTP bullet at .545", while the Speer 115gr GDHP is listed as .544".

I can't confirm these measurements independently, as I don't load either bullet.

I also found your quote from the Speer #12 about seating depth in the 9mm Luger to be enlightening. Thanks!

Walkalong
January 9, 2010, 12:36 PM
Looks like someone put some "Clays" into their WW231... Does, doesn't it.

Walkalong
January 9, 2010, 12:42 PM
QuickLOAD shows the length of Hornady 115gr HP/XTP bullet at .545", while the Speer 115gr GDHP is listed as .544".

Hmmm.....XTP is .001 longer. Statistically indifferent. That puts it .101 deeper than the GD at 1.125 which is where Hodgdon tested the GD at. (Using the OP's O.A.L. for the XTP of 1.025)

That doesn't make it better for sure. Hard for us to outguess it. A chrono would help out. My guess is it is over pressure. It would be interesting to see some velocities.

newrugersafan
January 9, 2010, 02:34 PM
I measured several and am getting .540-.541 on the Hornady XTP.

I also weighed a couple and got 115 and 114.9 so they are pretty close in weight.

I do not have a chronograph but am not opposed to getting one. What does QuickLoad say for speed out of a 6.5 barrel ( Blackhawk single action) ?

Thanks
Mike

If you enjoyed reading about "9mm Load Data" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!