9mm 147 gr FN RMR Bullet Min OAL

[Texas10mm]

Be very careful here. Pressure is not linear. What seems like a small change in seating depth can more than double chamber pressure in the 9mm. You're deep into that territory.

Find a OAL that works then load the MINIMUM or below MINIMUM charge. Check the brass for signs of pressure.

 

[rfwobbly]

That explains several things. However, before totally giving up on that bullet,

As you stated - If the base of the bullet strikes that interior thickening, then the bullet will physically expand the case dimensions in the middle of the case.

That being the case, would it mean that the bullet would NOT chamber or pass the plunk test because it expands the case in the middle?

I ask because once I seated the bullet to 1.045 -1.05 the bullet passed the plunk test. After which I was going to go through the next step of reducing the powder load by ..1-2 grains

In this instance, because the bullet requires a shorter OAL (still within SAAMI tolerances) for a number of 9mm Semi's that I tested, I find it difficult to believe that it wouldn't work in 4 or the 5 9mm semi's in my inventory.

Yes. Two solids can't occupy the same space at the same time. Therefore there would be case expansion, which if beyond the SAAMI cartridge dimensions will keep the cartridge from head spacing properly inside the chamber. BUT you may be overlooking 2 important things...

► All chambers sold in the USA need to meet SAAMI specs, but SAAMI doesn't fully define all chamber dimensions... meaning that a Ruger chamber is not like a CZ chamber, which is not like a Glock chamber, which is not like a SIG chamber, which is not like..... You get the picture. Therefore, absolutely DO NOT equate your 9mm barrels. So I'm left wondering if you are using one chamber one day and another gun's chamber the next day. An oversight like that could completely mess up all your calculations.

To safely build ammo that fits all your guns, you'll need to do precise measurements using each gun's chamber EVERY time you get a new bullet brand, shape, or weight. What you'll probably find is that your polymer Springfield and CZ pistols will be your tightest chamber, while your Glocks may be the most forgiving.

► All brass is different in this dimension of where the internal taper starts. So you absolutely cannot make generalizations about brass. So if you are using "mixed brass" to do this testing, then you absolutely need to stop and start using a single brand. And then you need to tell us what it is.


In short you seemed to have never mentioned the brand of pistols or brass you are trying to do this loading with. In my reading you have only mentioned specific bullets. For this discussion to come to a happy ending you'll need to start mentioning specific brands. Because the gun and brass play just as big a part as the bullet in constructing usable ammo. What I'm saying is that the devil is in the details, and we need those details.

All the best.

 

[fxvr5]

I wonder if the Canik has a longer chamber than your other Pistols?

Not a longer chamber, but a longer throat.

 

[fxvr5]

Be very careful here. Pressure is not linear. What seems like a small change in seating depth can more than double chamber pressure in the 9mm.

Please show the data to support your claim.

Pressure can be linear when seating the bullet deeper. For example, here is data from Ramshot:

 

[Crazy Horse]

Yes. Two solids can't occupy the same space at the same time. Therefore there would be case expansion, which if beyond the SAAMI cartridge dimensions will keep the cartridge from head spacing properly inside the chamber. BUT you may be overlooking 2 important things...

► All chambers sold in the USA need to meet SAAMI specs, but SAAMI doesn't fully define all chamber dimensions... meaning that a Ruger chamber is not like a CZ chamber, which is not like a Glock chamber, which is not like a SIG chamber, which is not like..... You get the picture. Therefore, absolutely DO NOT equate your 9mm barrels. So I'm left wondering if you are using one chamber one day and another gun's chamber the next day. An oversight like that could completely mess up all your calculations.

To safely build ammo that fits all your guns, you'll need to do precise measurements using each gun's chamber EVERY time you get a new bullet brand, shape, or weight. What you'll probably find is that your polymer Springfield and CZ pistols will be your tightest chamber, while your Glocks may be the most forgiving.

► All brass is different in this dimension of where the internal taper starts. So you absolutely cannot make generalizations about brass. So if you are using "mixed brass" to do this testing, then you absolutely need to stop and start using a single brand. And then you need to tell us what it is.


In short you seemed to have never mentioned the brand of pistols or brass you are trying to do this loading with. In my reading you have only mentioned specific bullets. For this discussion to come to a happy ending you'll need to start mentioning specific brands. Because the gun and brass play just as big a part as the bullet in constructing usable ammo. What I'm saying is that the devil is in the details, and we need those details.

All the best.

rfwobbly,

My apologies. I stated later on in the message traffic. I tested the reloads on a CANIK TPSF - worked successfully at 1.130. Tested on my XDM, S&W Comact, and Taurus G3 all 4 inch barrels. On the latter three , the round would not chamber and lock up the slide once forward for 1.130,1.125,1.120,1.115 OAL..

It was until I went down to 1.045-1.05 that the rounds passed the plunk test on the G3 and XDM.

As far as brass is concerned, they're used cases. I don't keep such stringent accountability of brass as I have never had the need to. Magtech, Seller and Bellot, Winchester, & Federal.

So while I have gotten it to chamber at 1.045-1.05

The min powder is at 4.1 grains (Speer #15) for 897 FPS, but that is at an OAL of 1.130.

Without Quickload I cannot figure what the pressure generated by using 4.1 grains of CFE with a seating depth of 1.045-1.05 to ascertain if it is below SAAMI recommended specs.

Which where I'm at before deciding to give up on the load, an as you stated, 'the plain truth may be that those specific bullets cannot be used in your barrel."

But to accept that I would have to say that, that specific bullet will not work on any of my barrels (except for the CANIK) and take a pass.

Which is what led me to post the question in hopes that someone has used that type bullet (RMR 147gr FMJ FP "Matchwinner") and what their experience was in terms of issues, OAL utilized and powder used.

.

 

[rfwobbly]

My apologies.

Absolutely no apologies needed. I'm the one that missed it.

I stated later on in the message traffic. I tested the reloads on a CANIK TPSF - worked successfully at 1.130. Tested on my XDM, S&W Comact, and Taurus G3 all 4 inch barrels. On the latter three , the round would not chamber and lock up the slide....

So that tells us 2 things: This exact bullet can only be used in your Canik. And, it works at 1.130" with some brands of brass.

As far as brass is concerned, they're used cases. I don't keep such stringent accountability of brass as I have never had the need.

That was most probably yesterday's story. Never say never, because things are different now, my brother.

The min powder is at 4.1 grains (Speer #15) for 897 FPS, but that is at an OAL of 1.130".

And that OAL is where I would advise you to stay for 2 good reasons: 1) You have a load data at that OAL. 2) Any shorter and you'll probably get into bulge issues with a few of your brass. And you definitely don't want that because your slide will jam a live round half-way into your tapered 9mm chamber so hard you won't be able to fire it or extract it. A very dangerous situation.

Without Quickload I cannot figure...

You don't need it or want it. You've got a nice collection of short freebore chambers, and simply need to stay away from 147gr altogether, until you have more experience. I can tell you that the 147gr RN from Berry will most likely work in all your guns because it has a very slender ogive. Otherwise, stay at 135gr and lighter and you won't have these issues. Those bullets are lighter and thus shorter, so the issue goes away.

Which is what led me to post the question in hopes that someone has used that type bullet (RMR 147gr FMJ FP "Matchwinner") ...

Most here would have to be using that exact bullet, with your exact brass, in the exact same make and model guns. But most reloaders have 1 or 2 nines and only know what works in those exact guns. But that knowledge cannot be applied over all bullets in all chambers. IOW, you can't go generic on an issue like this, you need all the specifics.


BTW... If you'll set your calipers to 0.355" you can slide the inside measurement tines into different brands of brass. That will leave a small mark, which you can then use the depth probe mode to measure. I think you'll find some brands with surprisingly shallow seating allowances.

Hope this helps.

 

[Crazy Horse]

Rfwobbly,

Thanks for the advice. I would have given up earlier, but with backorders everywhere I thought I would give it a shot.

Did a quick look and as I suspected, berry's is on backorder everywhere I searched. Maybe when these shortages are over I'll give it another go with Berry's. Thx

 

[Chuck R.]

I ran into a similar problem with the RMR 147 RN bullets.

To seat them deep enough for the throat of my CZ I get case bulges from the base of the bullet hitting the thickening brass. They also wouldn't work in my Walther's or HKs. Finally I gave up and shot all 2000 of them through one of my 5" M&Ps.

They've added this sort of disclaimer to both the 147 RNs and FNs:

This bullet requires a seating depth minimum OAL of about 1.10″ to chamber reliably in most handguns when loading 9mm. Most reloading manuals will specify a 1.13″ for a flat nose 147 and we’ve found that it works well in our guns. However, there are some handguns that have a very short leade that will not allow for the bullet to be seated that long. Glock Gen 5’s and CZ pistols are known for their short leades and this bullet may not work for them. For those guns we recommend the 124 grain MatchWinner.

 

[Crazy Horse]

Yes. I saw the disclaimer after the fact. I've had very good luck with RMR, so I was a bit surprised when they wouldn't work on any of my 9mm's except for CANIK. Have you tried RMR's FMJ RN Bullets? Or can I expect the same issues with that bullet as well?

 

[Chuck R.]

Yes. I saw the disclaimer after the fact. I've had very good luck with RMR, so I was a bit surprised when they wouldn't work on any of my 9mm's except for CANIK. Have you tried RMR's FMJ RN Bullets? Or can I expect the same issues with that bullet as well?

The RMR 147 RNs were the ones I had issues with. Multiple makes of brass and I'd get 15-20 out of 100 with case bulges when I seated them deep enough for my CZ.

 

[Crazy Horse]

All,

A quick update. I looked around my reloading stash and found a box of Speer 147gr TMJ FN bullets.

Wanting to compare I proceeded to use the Speer bullets and test them out on the Taurus G3 barrel. The first thing I noticed was how much thinner the bullet is compared to the RMR Matchwinner.

I set the OAL as recommended in the Speer manual 1.130. It looks different, and lo and behold, it passed the plunk test on the Taurus G3 barrel.

I also reset the RMR bullets to 1.130 and will use them on the Canik. Once I'm done with those, I won't be purchasing anymore Matchwinner bullets.

Thanks everyone for your comments. Hopefully this will help members in the future.

The first photos shows the Speer bullet on the left side and the RMR bullet on the right (please disregard the ring at the top. I didn't change out the seating die to the flat seater.



The second picture shows them side by side but seperate. Notice how much slender the Speer bullet is on the left.



The last pic is the top view. Notice how much more surface is on the RMR bullet.





Thanks again.

CH

 

[Crazy Horse]

The RMR 147 RNs were the ones I had issues with. Multiple makes of brass and I'd get 15-20 out of 100 with case bulges when I seated them deep enough for my CZ.

See my pics above. No issues at all reloading the Speer 147 grain TMJ bullets.

CH

 

[Chuck R.]

See my pics above. No issues at all reloading the Speer 147 grain TMJ bullets.

CH

Agree, I've loaded tens of thousands of other 147s (Extreme, MO Cast, Bayou, Berry's, etc.) without issue and to longer OALs, it's the ogive profile on the RMRs.

 

[rfwobbly]

See my pics above. No issues at all reloading the Speer 147 grain TMJ bullets.

See my post above. You've slipped back into talking in nebulous generalities rather than clear specifics. "No issues"... in which chamber ???

 

[Crazy Horse]

My post was a response to Chuck R's post (comments).

The topic has not changed and remains 9mm in 147 grains and there were no issues on utilizing the Speer TMJ RN projectiles compared to RMR's bullets.

Additional specifics are in the discussion that included the pics.

As you and Chuck R have indicated the issue is with the OGIVE on the RMR 147 grain FN bullets, which was confirmed -for me- when I utilized the Speer 147 grain TMJ FN projectiles.

THX

 

[Texas10mm]

Y
► All chambers sold in the USA need to meet SAAMI specs, but SAAMI doesn't fully define all chamber dimensions... meaning that a Ruger chamber is not like a CZ chamber, which is not like a Glock chamber, which is not like a SIG chamber, which is not like..... You get the picture. Therefore, absolutely DO NOT equate your 9mm barrels. So I'm left wondering if you are using one chamber one day and another gun's chamber the next day. An oversight like that could completely mess up all your calculations.

If only that were true. SAMMI isn't an enforcement organization. Very few 9mm chambers are cut to SAMMI spec. There's a reason why some people make good money cutting the throats to where they SHOULD be. I've yet to actually see a 9mm factory chamber with the correct throat dimensions.

Here is SAMMI's mission statement.

SAAMI was founded in 1926 at the request of the federal government and tasked with creating and publishing industry standards for safety, interchangeability, reliability and quality, coordinating technical data and promoting safe and responsible firearms use.

Also SAMMI does indeed define all necessary chamber dimensions.

 

[Dudedog]

The min powder is at 4.1 grains

Keep in mind that you can go below the min, it may be wise to (for example start lower than min if you have a shorter OAl)
In 9mm I would say the absolute min (call it min 1)is enough powder to get the bullet out the barrel.
The real min (call it min 2)is enough to make you gun function 100% of the time.
Some cartridges you do have to worry about the min charge, IMO 9mm is not one of them
In 9mm I think you just need to worry about min(1), of course you will want to load to at least min(2).
Would need to search but I believe Walkalong did a test in 9mm to find "real" min charges. (what I call min 1 and min 2 above)
{If Walkalong is feeling kind (he usually is) he may link it for me.}

Not 147s but
from Hodgdon/Win
125 FMJ Winchester WSF 0.355 1.16 4.7 1015 27,700 PSI 5.3 1115 32,700 PSI

My favorite match/plinking 125 PF 9mm load is 4.4-4.5gr WSF with a RMR 124 MPR at 1.09-1.10 (gives about 1030fps works out to 128 PF)
a shorter OAL and .3gr less than the "min/start" load-and higher vel that the 4.7gr start charge at the longer OAl.

At your short OAL the listed min/start charge for a longer OAL may be a MAX charge or more, don't get hung up on min/start, it is not a hard number just like the max is not a hard charge is not a hard number.

 

[Crazy Horse]

Keep in mind that you can go below the min, it may be wise to (for example start lower than min if you have a shorter OAl)
In 9mm I would say the absolute min (call it min 1)is enough powder to get the bullet out the barrel.
The real min (call it min 2)is enough to make you gun function 100% of the time.
Some cartridges you do have to worry about the min charge, IMO 9mm is not one of them
In 9mm I think you just need to worry about min(1), of course you will want to load to at least min(2).
Would need to search but I believe Walkalong did a test in 9mm to find "real" min charges. (what I call min 1 and min 2 above)
{If Walkalong is feeling kind (he usually is) he may link it for me.}

Not 147s but
from Hodgdon/Win
125 FMJ Winchester WSF 0.355 1.16 4.7 1015 27,700 PSI 5.3 1115 32,700 PSI

My favorite match/plinking 125 PF 9mm load is 4.4-4.5gr WSF with a RMR 124 MPR at 1.09-1.10 (gives about 1030fps works out to 128 PF)
a shorter OAL and .3gr less than the "min/start" load-and higher vel that the 4.7gr start charge at the longer OAl.

At your short OAL the listed min/start charge for a longer OAL may be a MAX charge or more, don't get hung up on min/start, it is not a hard number just like the max is not a hard charge is not a hard number.

THX. I don't get as hung up on the minimum as I do for the Max. Awhile back I was working with Bullseye and LSWC bullets. I went below the posted min charge, but that was only after it was recommended in this forum as a tried and tested amount.

The reason I mentioned min charge was because it was suggested that I start at the minimum charge. For that type of bullet and with the manual I was using it was 4.1. Of course a different manual had the min starting charge of 3.7 (different bullet of similar dimensions). My concern for going below a minimum level would be in trying to prevent a squib.

I don't typically go beyond what is published and stay between the starting to mid level loads when reloading. I'm fairly comfortable with that and have no real need to work loads up to their maximum level.

Now when you talk about max load. That's when I start to get a little concerned. Which is what caused hesitation when going significantly below OAL. In this case it was to prevent potential overpressure because of the lower seating.

Not to worry though as Chuck R stated -and I have to agree after using a different bullet - it more than likely the ogive that is the problem with the RMR 147 grain FN bullet.

THX