9mm load data?

[docv]

It isn't you. I have a custom 9 mm 1911. The smith told me I would end up reloading hotter and heavier. He was right. I have so-so cycling with starting loads in 124g FMJ. I have had better results with PB 147 FPs. My current stock of Acme 145g lipsticks over Autocomp shows potential. I use a 12 lbs spring most of the time but a 9 lbs spring on the light stuff helps.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

IMO, it's not the cartridge that's the problem, it's the powder being used. Additionally, the 9mm cartridge was never meant to move the mass of a 1911 slide. It can be done but with the correct loading.

 

[George P]

I have never started at the minimum for any handgun cartridge. I always start mid level and go from there.

 

[enine]

titegroup and unique starting load would cycle fine for me but 700x did not. So I'd say it depends on the powder.

 

[Dudedog]

Springfield 9mm 1911 (all steel), I played with how low I can go with a stock spring and still get function.
A 100gr bullet at around 1000 fps was about as low as I could go. (This gun is well broken in guessing 25K+ rounds)
Lower with heavier bullets.

Flip side, when my Kahr P380 was new it would not function with anything much less than a MAX load.
After a couple 100 rounds I was able to back off the charge a bit and still get function.

 

[armoredman]

I have had little problem with 9mm, and I've loaded cast bare, cast powder coated, plated and jacketed for a few years now. No worries. Only thing that ever gave me fits was Berry's target Hollow Point bullet.

 

[Riccochet]

The only bullets I have to adjust load on are Berry's hollow back plated. Their 115gr are longer than your typical plated or FMJ 115gr projectile. I don't seat them as deep and bump the charge up by .3gr.

 

[Walkalong]

Springfield 9mm 1911 (all steel), I played with how low I can go with a stock spring and still get function.
A 100gr bullet at around 1000 fps was about as low as I could go.

My 124 Gr 1050ish FPS load just does cycle my all steel 5" Colt 1911 and drops the brass at my feet. Accurate too.

Most any suitable pistol powder can cycle a 9MM handgun, it just depends on how low you start. I have not had a 9MM load not cycle a gun yet, but as others have mentioned, I am usually starting in the lower third to center of the data and not the very bottom. Depends on whether there is a lot of data available for a particular application. The more scarce the data, the more cautious.

 

[thomas15]

I don't know about all of this. When I first started handloading, as a complete beginner, I didn't read the much praised ABCs of Reloading even once never mind the recommended 2 or 3 times cover to cover. Instead I literally just browsed the first few chapters of the Lyman 49th and set up my stuff then proceeded to load some 9mm ammo. No one told me that it is in actual fact a highly technical thing. Loaded 5 rounds at the start load, then increased by .2 grains loaded 5 more rounds and so forth then tried them all out. I must have read that somewhere in the 49th, that standard procedure is start at the recommended start load then work up slowly. Maybe, maybe not I just don't remember.

The first 5 rounds loaded at the minimum were not enough to operate the slide on a Glock 17 would not cycle in a new round. So I tried the next higher load and presto. Maybe just dumb luck on my part but kind of figured out in my head that my particular gun needed a load of xx grains and to make sure I was loading reliable ammo I would settle on a bit more than the minimum that works in my gun, then proceed to fine tune for accuracy. My reason for getting involved in handloading wasn't so much to save boatloads of cash, rather I needed a source of ammo that wasn't jacketed.

My takeaway from all of this is everyone is trying to be considerate and all that, take The High Road which is of course fantastic. I'm I guess not a very nice individual in comparison because reading this thread makes me want to pull out the last few remaining hairs from my head, roots and all. I'm really, really trying to be helpful, honest I am, but I think it a great idea for us to once in a while as a refresher get out a beginner book or our favorite load manual and read the chapter on basic procedures and load development.

 

[Riccochet]

Agreed. Start at the minimum and work up. Reference multiple load data manuals. I always found in interesting that the data is usually off just a tad between manuals. ie: One manual might say to start at 4.1gr with a max of 5.0 and a COL of 1.160" while another manual might show a start weight of 3.9gr with a max of 4.8 and a COL of 1.110". So, which one do you use? Try both, a combination of the two maybe. Somewhere in there lies the balance you desire. But always ALWAYS check for pressure signs with any new load.

But, if you are at max recommended charge weight and it's not cycling your pistol, and there are no signs of over pressure, try bumping it up 0.1gr, or try a slightly shorter COL by 0.005".

This is what makes reloading fun for me. The adventure. I don't do it to save money. I like exploring potentials of different cartridge configurations.

 

[Texas10mm]

Start loads based on what source?

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

All loads were using data from the powder manufacturer. 3.9 gr for the 231. I would cycle with the light RSA but not the stock.

Again, these loads were NOT fired in a 1911. A Canik TP9SFx.

What I was searching for was a soft shooting reliable load for use in my club's defensive pistol matches.

I loaded up 20 rounds of each minium published load for every powder I had on had, which was around 17-18 powders. Of that number about half would not cycle the pistol with the stock RSA.

Now, we have to note that inexpensive 115 gr bulk 9mm ammo can also have cycling problems in this pistol. Canik recommends 124 gr NATO spec ammo during the break-in period.

 

[Riccochet]

You could try 4.0gr of 231, or drop your COL by 0.050". I'm assuming you were at 1.150" COL for the 130gr LRN.

 

[Rule3]

Now, we have to note that inexpensive 115 gr bulk 9mm ammo can also have cycling problems in this pistol. Canik recommends 124 gr NATO spec ammo during the break-in period.

Well there in perhaps is a "clue" Seems like a "gun" related "issue"

 

[Toprudder]

All loads were using data from the powder manufacturer. 3.9 gr for the 231. I would cycle with the light RSA but not the stock.

Again, these loads were NOT fired in a 1911. A Canik TP9SFx.

What I was searching for was a soft shooting reliable load for use in my club's defensive pistol matches.

I loaded up 20 rounds of each minium published load for every powder I had on had, which was around 17-18 powders. Of that number about half would not cycle the pistol with the stock RSA.

Now, we have to note that inexpensive 115 gr bulk 9mm ammo can also have cycling problems in this pistol. Canik recommends 124 gr NATO spec ammo during the break-in period.

So, you tried 17-18 powders, but only at the min published load. Some would not cycle. Some would. No mystery here, for the ones that did not cycle, bump up the charge a little and try again.

If you are going for soft shooting loads, start with the fastest burning powder (from a burn rate chart) working up from a min charge until the gun cycles and locks open on an empty mag. It is better to use a fast burning powder towards the upper end of the charge range, than to load a slower burning powder at the bottom end of the charge range. The reason is that most powders burn more completely at the upper end of the charge range, and also will expand the brass to form a gas seal in the chamber.

 

[thomas15]

What I was searching for was a soft shooting reliable load for use in my club's defensive pistol matches.

I loaded up 20 rounds of each minium published load for every powder I had on had, which was around 17-18 powders. Of that number about half would not cycle the pistol with the stock RSA.

I don't know how to put together the correct sequence of words to describe the solution without offending but it is something like this.

Handloading at the minimum powder charge of a particular smokeless powder from a particular load manual using the specified bullet seated to the specified depth does not guarantee a reliable soft shooting load. There are other factors besides using the start load that determine if a round of ammo is a reliable and soft shooting for those who compete and desire such a load. And to make it more highly complex than it already is, it is possible that a load that is soft shooting in my handgun will be a monster in yours, or vis-versa.

Most, not all, but most looking for an action pistol event load which has a minimum power factor requirement and that is soft shooting will put the bulk of their efforts in developing a load using a fast powder with a heavy bullet. An example of a fast powder is Titegroup or Bullseye. An example of a heavy bullet in 9mm is 147 grains or 160 grains or somewhere in between.

I'm not saying that you cannot achieve a soft shooting accurate and reliable load that meets powder factor in your gun using a light bullet and/or a slow powder but trying to use minimum load book data to meet your requirements is not doing it the easy way.

ON EDIT: It is very possible that a reliable soft shooting load could be very inaccurate or do other undesirable things such as bullet tumble or dirty to the extent it gums up the works so the key here is to do load development and a lot of it. Load development consists of powder selection, powder load, bullet weight/profile/material/seating depth and to a lesser extent primer selection and/or case details and crimp or lack of.

 

[thomas15]

When we develop a load the first thing that needs to be determined is what is the actual application? Then we decide what are our personal requirements for this load, what are the desired characteristics?

Load manuals, and they are absolutely necessary to the handloader, but load manuals only guarantee that the load will go bang. Some load manuals denote which load is the most accurate in the test gun. Useful as a guide but unless your gun is the same as the test gun the help is limited.

Factory ammo is mainly concerned with meeting SAAMI specs and going bang every time the trigger is pulled. When you read reviews of brand x ammunition where the reviewer states that this if the most accurate ammo on the planet or this is the most inarccurate or unreliable or dirty round ever produced it cannot be forgotten that that opinion is based on the shooters particular gun and the shooters gun skills and habits.

 

[Texas10mm]

We have no power factor at our matches.

The load I settled on was 2.7 gr Ramshot Competition under a 147 gr RN no lube groove bullet from a MP mold.

2.6 grains would cycle 99% of the time, but a slight loosening of the grip would cause a stove pipe. So I bumped up .1 gr and found the sweet spot. Published data for this bullet gives a load range of 2.6 gr to 2.9 gr.

With the red dot on the Canik you can fire a round, put the red dot on that bullet hole and hit it again as long as you're doing your part.

Personally I think part of the problem is some 9mm firearms are designed to work with the NATO standard 9mm load. Since that load is actually a 9mm +P load it would follow that a pistol designed with that load in mind would have cycling problems with less energetic ammo.

 

[Walkalong]

Bingo.

 

[MikeInOr]

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?

When I first started reloading 30 years ago I started with the suggested 9mm starting load... which would not cycle ANYTHING. Of course I loaded a few hundred before I actually went to the range to test the loads. Last year I bought a Ruger PC9 and was finally able to dispose of that ammo from 30 years ago.

My pickiest two 9mm pistols are a C96 (Broomhandle) Mauser and a P08 (Luger). Both like full power loads to function properly. Newer pistols like my Walther P38, Beretta 92 INOX and CZ75D compact are much more tolerant of lower power loads... but none of them liked the starting load loads.

My Springfield XDs doesn't like low powered 45 acp loads... but my 1911's don't have a problem with them.

 

[Ole Joe Clark]

Bump your charge weight up a tenth or two on about 50 shells and try them, and keep bumping it up until you are happy. Just don't exceed the recommended charge. I had the same problem with some mouse loads in .45. I adjusted the charge upward until it worked like it is supposed to.

Have a blessed day,

Leon

 

[Toprudder]

This thread reminds me of why I like revolvers chambered in typical semi-auto calibers. I have a S&W 625 chambered in 45acp that I can shoot up anything that does not cycle or feed reliably. Much more fun than pulling bullets.

 

[Galil5.56]

This thread reminds me of why I like revolvers chambered in typical semi-auto calibers. I have a S&W 625 chambered in 45acp that I can shoot up anything that does not cycle or feed reliably. Much more fun than pulling bullets.

I have no idea of what you are talking about...

 

[wanderinwalker]

To the OP, I also stumbled onto the fact that some starting loads with fast powders and light bullets wouldn't run 9mm pistols built to use NATO spec ammo, many years ago when I was first reloading in bulk. My Glock 17 and Walther P990 would only run with MAX loads of 231 and 115gr bullets.

To this day I have the bad habit of not starting with the minimum suggested starting load when loading for a semi-automatic. I usually end up somewhere in the middle to high range of the load data. I have also learned there's more leeway with medium to slow burning powders for a given application. A starting load of Unique or Power Pistol and a 115gr 9mm bullet will probably cycle fine. A starting load of 231 may or may not with the same projectile.

I have also found the .45 ACP to be much more forgiving for proper cycling. I chalk it up to simply having more recoil energy to work with in the first place.

 

[Jim Watson]

start with data 1/3 to 1/2 of max and you shouldn't have any cycling issues.

I don't think you meant what you said.

The usual "starting load" is simply 90% of the maximum. Lyman is the exception, they show some very light loads that would probably call for reduced recoil springs.

I have twice "worked down" 9mm for low recoil and gotten the same answer, years apart.
88% of maximum was the least that would function a SIG P225 and a Glock 17 with W231/HP38 and 115 gr bullets.
And that not very well, the Glock will not operate with them weak hand.
But my Pocket Rocket Glock 43 is 100%.

 

[thomas15]

With the red dot on the Canik you can fire a round, put the red dot on that bullet hole and hit it again as long as you're doing your part.

OK now you have made me curious.

Is it your particular Canik or is it The Canik?

Is it The dot or maybe a little of the dot and something else in addition? How about The factory trigger? What about The AS9100 Quality System? Does any of that play into it?

So how much of it is the Canik and/or other things and most important, is it repeatable? How about it in The Tanfoglio? Or The Glock (34)?

I ask partly because I'm curious and also partly because I have assembled all of the necessary hardware to put together a CO gun using The G17 as the platform, The EGW dovetail mount and The Burris FF3 for the target acquisition device and I'm to put if bluntly, worried that I'm making a fundamental error with my 9mm competition handloads. Thanks in advance.