9mm Cartridge Overall Length w/ 147 grain Projectiles

[DMW1116]

I’m preparing to load some test batches for a bag of RMR 147 grain Match Winner jacketed flat point bullets. I’m specifically loading them for use in a Canik Mete SFX and a Keltec Sub2000 with some tweaking of loads possible between the two. Available powders are Silhouette, HS-6, CFE Pistol, and W231.

In looking for load data I see COAL all over the place. RMR makes recommendations but only for length and not charge weight. Hornady gives charge weights but drastically different COAL for a FMJ (1.169”) and JHP (1.10”). My Lyman manual has 1.15 for a Speer 147 grain TMJ. I was planning on using 1.13 or Lyman’s 1.15. I know part of the issue is shallow chambering in some brands if 9mm, but I don’t have any of those brands to my knowledge. Any problems with these lengths or other recommendations?

 

[DMW1116]

Sorry Lyman has 1.115 for the Speer. I’ll probably go with 1.130 as listed for Silhouette from Hodgdens web site.

 

[sparkyv]

I load my RN 147 grainers longer than this, but they fit my firearms' chambers / magazines.

drastically different COAL for a FMJ (1.169”) and JHP (1.10”). My Lyman manual has 1.15 for a Speer 147 grain TMJ.

 

[DMW1116]

The round nose COAL for Hornady is max length. The XTP is 1.10. I can’t imagine the round nose is that much longer for the same weight and with a hole in the XTP. The flat nosed Match Wonners are shaped more like an XTP but seem like they’d be shorter.

 

[KB Hill]

If your Canik barrel is like mine (TP9SFX) the throat may be on the short side. I have two barrels and the RMR 124 MW hits rifling at 1.110. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison, but could be your barrel may dictate where the start point is. The shorter OAL give me velocities of 1050 +/- with 4.1 gn 231. The on-line 231 data seems to match my observed results closer than my Lyman data.

 

[DMW1116]

Interesting. I load round nose cast and plated to 1.125 but that’s a different shape. I guess I’ll find out. I may combine the Lyman COAL with the Hodgden charges. They are a couple tenths lower than the Lyman charges, though they overlap in the middle.

 

[LiveLife]

RMR 147 grain Match Winner jacketed flat point bullets. I’m specifically loading them for use in a Canik Mete SFX and a Keltec Sub2000

load data ... COAL all over the place ... planning on using 1.13 or Lyman’s 1.15

FYI, you can reference these max/working OAL for RMR 147 gr FP MW - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...col-for-reference.848462/page-2#post-12249361

• 1.135" - Glock 22, KKM 40-9 conversion barrel
  
• 1.130" - M&P Shield 9mm
• 1.075" - Glock 22, Tactical Kinetics 40-9 conversion barrel
• 1.065" - Glock 23, Lone Wolf 40-9 conversion barrel
• 1.040" - SIG P320 X5/Bar-Sto Match 5" Barrel

Consider that Canik TP9 SFX required 1.070" working OAL (1.090" max OAL) for RMR 124 gr JHP MPR and the same bullet required following max/working OALs:

• 1.115" - Glock 22, KKM 40-9 conversion barrel
• 1.105" - M&P Shield 9mm
• 1.070" - Canik TP9 SFX
• 1.055" - Glock 22, Tactical Kinetics 40-9 conversion barrel
• 1.040" - Glock 23, Lone Wolf 40-9 conversion barrel
• 1.030" - SIG P320 X5/Bar-Sto Match 5" Barrel

So 1.070" OAL is longer than 1.055" required for Tactical Kinetics barrel indicating that Canik TP9 SFX has longer leade length.

So if your Canik Mete SFX has same leade length as TP9 SFX, using shorter than 1.075" OAL for RMR 147 gr FP MW should work. (Of course you would need to check with Keltec Sub2000 to see if 1.075" would work as well).

Available powders are Silhouette, HS-6, CFE Pistol, and W231

As to referencing published OAL vs your working OAL and determining powder charge reduction for using shorter than published OAL, here are load data closest to 1.075" - https://www.hodgdonreloading.com/reloading-data-center

• 9mm 147 gr Hornady XTP CFE Pistol COL 1.100" Start 3.7 gr (864 fps) - Max 4.2 gr (963 fps)
• 9mm 147 gr Hornady XTP HS-6 COL 1.100" Start 4.3 gr (773 fps) - Max 5.0 gr (885 fps)
• 9mm 147 gr Hornady XTP W231/HP-38 COL 1.100" Start 3.0 gr (755 fps) - Max 3.4 gr (845 fps)
• 9mm 147 gr Speer TMJ (FN?)Silhouette COL 1.130" Start 4.2 gr (880 fps) - Max 4.7 gr (955 fps)

BTW, Speer load data for 147 gr TMJ indicates it is FN bullet profile (Note longer COL and higher start/max charges) - https://reloadingdata.speer.com/downloads/speer/reloading-pdfs/handgun/9mm_Luger__147_rev1.pdf

• 9mm 147 gr Speer TMJ FN CFE Pistol COL 1.130" Start 4.1 gr (897 fps) - Max 4.6 gr (980 fps)
• 9mm 147 gr Speer TMJ FN HS-6 COL 1.130" Start 5.0 gr (845 fps) - Max 5.5 gr (956 fps)

So if you are using longer than 1.100" for RMR 147 gr FP MW, since HP bullets are seated deeper than FP bullets, I would directly reference Hodgdon load data for Hornady 147 gr XTP. If you use shorter 1.075", I would consider reducing start/max charges by .3 gr for the initial powder work up as you can always go higher.

If you are using RMR 147 gr FP MW at 1.100" for Silhouette, since it is shorter than published 1.130" (Likely using FN TMJ as indicated by Speer load data), I would reduce start/max charges down by .2 gr from 4.2/4.7 gr to 4.0/4.5 gr. If you use shorter 1.075", I would consider reducing start/max charges by .3 gr down to 3.9/4.4 gr for the initial powder work up.

I hope this helped.

 

[DMW1116]

Sure did. Now I have a definite plan. First, narrow the powder choice to W231, Silhouette, and HS-6. My supply of CFEP is going to 357 Magnum with cast bullets.

That solves two issues. First, CFEP isn’t in my load manuals and on line data is lacking for the type of bullet I’m using. No problem. I can better use it elsewhere. Second, Silhouette isn’t either but I do have data for it from Ramshot/Hodgden.

Then I’ll follow the Lyman powder charges with the Silhouette COAL value. If they won’t fit I can modify from there. Without any real justification I think 1.13” will work. It will at least work in my S&W M&P9. I know my Shield will work with Berrys 147 grain plated but I can’t remember the length I used and it’s still a different shape.

 

[LiveLife]

I think 1.13” will work

Let me clarify.

Based on max/working OAL comparison between RMR 147 gr FN MW and 124 gr JHP MPR, I am guesstimating that 147 gr FN MW loaded to 1.075" will work in your Canik Mete SFX if it has same leade length as TP9 SFX from the reference thread. And perhaps even 1.080"-1.090" may work, but not longer.

So if your working OAL turns out to be 1.080"-1.090", shorter than published OAL of 1.100", I would consider reduction of start/max charges for the initial powder work up of .2-.3 gr.

 

[DMW1116]

Oh, well that changes things. I’ll have to try and see. I should say I hope 1.13 will work. A dummy round may be in order.

 

[Skgreen]

FWIW:

Hornady #11, page 863, indicates item # 35597B, 147 gr FMJ-RN-BT, has max. C.O.L. of 1.165".

 

[DMW1116]

I just measured the bullets. The XTP is 0.654” long while the RMR is 0.640” long. So it would seem the RMR can be seated the same as the XTP at 1.1” COAL, maybe a touch shorter. I forgot I also tested some XTP loads in the Canik at 1.1”. I know that will work.

 

[Kaldor]

Its simple. Check "plunk" on both firearms. Run whichever "plunk" test says you need to be short.
Example: pistol needs a 1.16, but the PCC will handle 1.20, you run the 1.16 so it will shoot from the pistol.

 

[Tilos]

Its simple. Check "plunk" on both firearms. Run whichever "plunk" test says you need to be short.
Example: pistol needs a 1.16, but the PCC will handle 1.20, you run the 1.16 so it will shoot from the pistol.

Yep, the plunk test trumps all the theory/verbiage/assumptions stated so far in this thread.

Why the confusion about the discrepancy of published data for different bullets shapes.
Its different COAL is because the bullets are different Lengths BECAUSE of the different shapes, ie. FMJ/JHP/TMJ.
jmo,
.

 

[Kaldor]

Yep, the plunk test trumps all the theory/verbiage/assumptions stated so far in this thread.

Why the confusion about the discrepancy of published data for different bullets shapes.
Its different COAL is because the bullets are different Lengths BECAUSE of the different shapes, ie. FMJ/JHP/TMJ.
jmo,
.

Trying to find exact book data for pistol bullets is kind of a waste of time unless you the have same bullet and gun they shot. The book is nothing more than a rough guide for powder values, as your minimum and maximum may end up being different than the book. Same thing goes for OAL.

The thing I think people trip on the most is I have bullet A, but I cant find data. What do I do? Well a 147 is a 147 is a 147. Look in the book, get a rough idea and test a few. You have to use common sense and compare your bullet A versus bullet B they used in the book, and make an educated guess.

 

[LiveLife]

Its simple. Check "plunk" on both firearms. Run whichever "plunk" test says you need to be short.
Example: pistol needs a 1.16, but the PCC will handle 1.20, you run the 1.16 so it will shoot from the pistol.

Yep, the plunk test trumps all the theory/verbiage/assumptions stated so far in this thread ... Its different COAL is because the bullets are different Lengths BECAUSE of the different shapes, ie. FMJ/JHP/TMJ.

Yes.

And keep in mind the reference thread lists both "Max OAL" and "Working OAL" as the Max OAL that "plonks" in the barrel and spin without hitting the rifling may not reliably feed/chamber from the magazine and "Working OAL" could be shorter than "Max OAL". Sometimes, Max OAL can be the same as Working OAL. And if loading for multiple firearms, shortest OAL that will work in all firearms will need to be used.

So ultimately, your barrel/magazine will determine the working OAL that will be used for the powder work up. And if the working OAL is shorter than published OAL, then we may have to compensate by reducing the start/max powder charges.

 

[Kaldor]

Yes.

And keep in mind the reference thread lists both "Max OAL" and "Working OAL" as the Max OAL that "plonks" in the barrel and spin without hitting the rifling may not reliably feed/chamber from the magazine and "Working OAL" could be shorter than "Max OAL". Sometimes, Max OAL can be the same as Working OAL. And if loading for multiple firearms, shortest OAL that will work in all firearms will need to be used.

So ultimately, your barrel/magazine will determine the working OAL that will be used for the powder work up. And if the working OAL is shorter than published OAL, then we may have to compensate by reducing the start/max powder charges.

I agree, but you would have to see a pretty substantial shortening of the OAL to really drive pressures up. I would say more than 50 thou? And that is something you would catch while doing your test loads as well. Once again, working with unknowns and making guesstimates? You have to test.

I ran into the max mag length issue with some bullet on my 45. I had to seat it out pretty long to "plunk" but then when I tried to shoot the test loads, they were dragging the front of the mag. I shortened them all about 10 thou, and they fed fine. Didnt noticed any pressure issues because I wasnt chasing velocity anyway on that load.

 

[LiveLife]

I agree, but you would have to see a pretty substantial shortening of the OAL to really drive pressures up.

with some bullet on my 45 ... I shortened them all about 10 thou, and they fed fine. Didnt noticed any pressure issues because I wasnt chasing velocity anyway on that load.

45ACP is low pressure large internal case volume cartridge and not affected as much by bullet seating depth, bullet setback, powder charge weight variance, etc.

9mm on the other hand is high pressure small internal case volume cartridge and readily affected by small changes in OAL, bullet setback, powder charge weight variance, etc.

From Ramshot FAQ - https://ramshot.com/faq/

18. Does the COL/AOL affect the internal ballistics?

It depends on the specific dimensions and capacity of the caliber and the proportion of the change. In the case of handgun calibers a 0.025” difference can have an affect as severe as 20% on the Peak pressure.

 

[lordpaxman]

I’m preparing to load some test batches for a bag of RMR 147 grain Match Winner jacketed flat point bullets.

Great choice. First thing I do is the plunk test, and then take a sized, not primed case and TC it to that length. I use a sharpie and mark the bullet and COL and that gets saved so I can use it as a setup aid when I switch bullets. My guns all can tolerate the FPMW at long lengths so I’m loading them at 1.150” at the moment.

I agree, but you would have to see a pretty substantial shortening of the OAL to really drive pressures up. I would say more than 50 thou?

I’d be really careful about making those assumptions - it depends on the powder and how close you are to the powder’s max for the given projectile in that caliber - not the book max. Titegroup is one powder that gets a bit erratic in this regard.

 

[Kaldor]

Great choice. First thing I do is the plunk test, and then take a sized, not primed case and TC it to that length. I use a sharpie and mark the bullet and COL and that gets saved so I can use it as a setup aid when I switch bullets. My guns all can tolerate the FPMW at long lengths so I’m loading them at 1.150” at the moment.

I’d be really careful about making those assumptions - it depends on the powder and how close you are to the powder’s max for the given projectile in that caliber - not the book max. Titegroup is one powder that gets a bit erratic in this regard.

I agree, thats why you have to test when things get outside the norms. @LiveLife had an excellent picture of pressure changes. Im of the mind I want to seat at "plunk" as it will let me know max OAL to avoid situations like this as it gives me the absolute max case capacity by seating at max length other than those weird situations where you might up some mag limited in OAL.

 

[Tilos]

For me, COAL is just a measurable reference that is, in fact, the position of the bullet base within the case.
The bullet base position within the case relates to case volume and the pressure within.

An extreme example of this would be a wad-cutter being seated flush in a 38 case, with that case having a diminished volume, the load data (powder charge) is greatly reduced compared to other bullets of the same weight seated out to traditional COAL.
That's how I view published COAL as it relates to developing a load.
jmo,
.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

To see the difference seating depth really makes, go here:
https://www.omnicalculator.com/math/cylinder-volume
...and run the calculator using your case/bullet exact numbers. This will tell you the total dV between two seating depths for each case volume and bullet size combination.
Math is your friend!

 

[Kaldor]

To see the difference seating depth really makes, go here:
https://www.omnicalculator.com/math/cylinder-volume
...and run the calculator using your case/bullet exact numbers. This will tell you the total dV between two seating depths for each case volume and bullet size combination.
Math is your friend!

Math is hard m'kay

 

[RashQuestion]

+1, 2, 3 on plunk and dummy rounds!!!! Test, test, test and then check, check, check!!! Safety always works best!!!

You have to find what works best in the firearms you're using!!!

 

[lordpaxman]

@LiveLife had an excellent picture of pressure changes

Just be advised that picture has straight lines. Rarely does nature work that way. My point was there’s usually an approximate linear relationship for well behaved powders in a certain range, but the non-linear portion can get dangerous very quickly. Also, the chart was for Zip only. It’s good data to have, but not applicable to other powders.