9mm load data?

[Texas10mm]

I've been reloading for over 40 years.

Just started loading 9mm in earnest the past few months, before that almost all my pistol shooting was .45 ACP.

The thing I've noticed is that many starting loads for the 9mm won't reliably cycle a 9mm pistol. With the .45 ACP I've never had a problem with starting loads cycling a stock 1911.

Has anyone else noticed the same or is it just my bad luck?

 

[CZ9shooter]

Hasnt much of a problem for me. Not with published data anyhow. When I intentionally down load further, then yes, sometimes. What handgun are you shooting?

 

[Charlie98]

I gave up on loading 9mm many years ago because of cycle and pressure problems. With the smaller case capacity of the 9, bullet seat depth is critical, along with powder selection vs bullet weight. I had loads go from short-stroking my BHP... to primer flow and having the hammer follow the slide back into battery. Crazy. I've just recently just started back loading for it... I haven't found what you describe... but it doesn't surprise me.

 

[tightgroup tiger]

I always start at lower midrange so it's not been a problem for me.

 

[glc24]

Well, hope I didn't make a mistake. A month ago, I bought a nice used Beretta 92FS. I got the wife's ok to get everything I'd need for my 550B to load 9mm. I guess time will tell.

 

[25-20 WCF]

If the spring in the OP’s 1911 is a full-power spring then it is not surprising that low-end loads won’t cycle. If he wants to use low-power loads he should change to a lighter ‘target’ spring - they are readilly available. Just remember to change back if he wants to shoot full power loads again.

.

 

[Whiterook808]

Well, hope I didn't make a mistake. A month ago, I bought a nice used Beretta 92FS. I got the wife's ok to get everything I'd need for my 550B to load 9mm. I guess time will tell.

That doesn't sound like a mistake to me! My M9 eats my handloads just fine.

 

[kidneyboy]

I've been reloading for over 40 years.

Just started loading 9mm in earnest the past few months, before that almost all my pistol shooting was .45 ACP.

The thing I've noticed is that many starting loads for the 9mm won't reliably cycle a 9mm pistol. With the .45 ACP I've never had a problem with starting loads cycling a stock 1911.

Has anyone else noticed the same or is it just my bad luck?

Not uncommon for 9mm, depending on your gun. Over time I have discovered that it's better for me to start up a tenth or 2 from published start loads when trying something new in 9mm. That usually eliminates the non-cycling or dribbling out of the ejection port issues. Generally the middle of published load data range works the best anyway.

 

[Walkalong]

A stock 5" 1911 will cycle with loads below max, not so much for many 9MM pistols. You are just spoiled by a .45 caliber 1911.

That said, they are not so bad to load for, start with data 1/3 to 1/2 of max and you shouldn't have any cycling issues. Work up slowly after that.

9MM is a little pickier for accuracy than .45 ACP. I too was spoiled by 1911s in .45 ACP before starting to load 9MM, and it took a bit to get used to working a little harder at it.

 

[mdi]

I've only been reloading the 9mm since '98. I started with a Chinese clone of a Tokerev and it does have pretty hefty springs, but never had a problem. Since then I got two plastic guns, a Ruger LC9s and an FMK. I always start with starting loads but neither of these pistols posed a cycling problem...

What gun and what load? I'd just up the charge 1/2 grain...

 

[Galil5.56]

That doesn't sound like a mistake to me! My M9 eats my handloads just fine.

Agreed. I load for my M9 and 92 FS with stock recoil springs, and can not EVER remember a single malfunction with handloads - Fairly mild to wild. Both love properly sized cast bullets too (.358"+) of almost any style ogive, and are not fussy with regard to OAL by virtue of long leades. The locking system design, action smoothness, along with basically an infinite ejection port = extreme reliability. Handload with confidence.

 

[thomas15]

Well, hope I didn't make a mistake. A month ago, I bought a nice used Beretta 92FS. I got the wife's ok to get everything I'd need for my 550B to load 9mm. I guess time will tell.

I see storm clouds on the horizon.

 

[kmw1954]

The thing I've noticed is that many starting loads for the 9mm won't reliably cycle a 9mm pistol. With the .45 ACP I've never had a problem with starting loads cycling a stock 1911.

Has anyone else noticed the same or is it just my bad luck?

When I first started with my 9mm I was using Berry's 124gr RN and HP-38 powder. When I went to Hodgdon's site the load data they had was for the Berry's 124gr Hollow base. So I took that data and loaded up 15 rounds at the starting load which I believe was 3.9gr.. These were also loaded a little on the long side so I am sure pressures were even lower. The results were they all fired and ejected but would not lock the slide back on the last round. I also had 2 other test loads with me, one was loaded to 4.0gr and another loaded to 4.0gr and loaded a .010" shorter. The second load was better but still wasn't getting full cycling and the 3rd load worked flawlessly. Later when I tried loading some 115gr I ran into the same issue with the HP-38 but I didn't experience that when I tried AA#5 powder.

The pistol I was starting with is a Taurus PT92C. It shoots lights out. It just doesn't like really light loads or loads made with CCI primers.

 

[Blue68f100]

What you noticed is true for a lot of 9mm guns. My Sig 229 was that way. I just started the load around the mid range and worked from there.

 

[Nature Boy]

This is funny because I found 9mm less problematic than I did 45 Auto, but my experience with both is very limited. I need to shoot my pistols more so I can get more practice loading for them.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

OP, can you give us details? Powder, powder charge, primers, bullets and bullet weight?

It's probably just too light a charge weights you might have left more case space which can reduce the pressure, sometimes by a lot.

 

[Toprudder]

This is funny because I found 9mm less problematic than I did 45 Auto, but my experience with both is very limited. I need to shoot my pistols more so I can get more practice loading for them.

My experience as well.

I did find one published load for 9mm, using the now discontinued PB powder, that would not cycle the gun at max charge. I found very few powders that did not cycle at min charge, but did find a mid-range load that worked.

 

[Lee Q. Loader]

I had that happen to me with Bullseye. Not enough umph to cycle the action. It was a Berry's 124 HBFP and a min charge of Bullseye. I decided I didn't like the Bullseye and went back to Unique.

 

[rfwobbly]

Mr Texas -
Several things to remember....
► First thing is that Ruger, S&W, and other manufacturers make (or have made) revolvers in 9x19 Luger. Revolvers don't have the requirement of having to operate the "action".

► Second thing to remember is that load testing is done primarily to gain knowledge of chamber pressure... which has nothing to do with operating the action of a semi-auto. The loads shown in your manual are a lot like the chalk lines on a sports field. They tell you if you play within these established limits, then you'll be OK.

► Also remember that loads are developed in a single-shot chunk of steel bolted to a workbench. While it is technically a "gun", it is anything but a handgun, and most definitely NOT a semi-auto. They look like this...



Hope this helps.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

I rarely load 9mm at starting level so I don't have issues with cycling. With 147 and heavier bullets seating depth can be an issue. It's easiest to just load for the COL that will work in all my 9's.
I suspect a good percentage of the 45ACP data is specifically for standard 1911's.

 

[Rule3]

I've been reloading for over 40 years.

Just started loading 9mm in earnest the past few months, before that almost all my pistol shooting was .45 ACP.

The thing I've noticed is that many starting loads for the 9mm won't reliably cycle a 9mm pistol. With the .45 ACP I've never had a problem with starting loads cycling a stock 1911.

Has anyone else noticed the same or is it just my bad luck?

Very broad statement without knowing what firearm, what powder and what bullet where the load data came from.
Hornady, RCBS Lyman are not the same data. 9mm load data and OAL are all over the place

Luck is not involved

 

[Texas10mm]

Gun is a Canik TP9SFx with stock RSA.

Bullet was a 130 rn lead and a 147 gr rn lead.

Powders were WSF, 231, Titeboom, Ramshot Competition (under the 130), and Vectan A1.

Some loads wouldn't even cycle the gun with the lightweight RSA.

As a side note I've found many "starting" loads for .45 ACP can easily and safely reduced and still cycle a stock 1911.

 

[Riccochet]

Reduced loads of W231 under a Xtreme copper plated 115gr RN cycle my M&P9 and SR9 just fine. Though I seat deeper than specified in most load data in books.

 

[Casefull]

You are probably on the right track with the loads being a little light. I have reloaded too much 9 and 45 to count in the last 40 years. I use unique cause it works great for me. My stuff is always on the hotter side of things. Equal to plus p or a little better. I like the fact that you can fill up the 9mm case compared to the 45acp. Good luck with the 9mm.

 

[Rule3]

Gun is a Canik TP9SFx with stock RSA.

Bullet was a 130 rn lead and a 147 gr rn lead.

Powders were WSF, 231, Titeboom, Ramshot Competition (under the 130), and Vectan A1.

Some loads wouldn't even cycle the gun with the lightweight RSA.

As a side note I've found many "starting" loads for .45 ACP can easily and safely reduced and still cycle a stock 1911.

Start loads based on what source?

"Some" loads it's all a WAG So what was your load for W231?? Etc Etc.