9MM RMR Bullets 124grn TC + Titegroup Analysis Paralysis

[Fidot]

Howdy there folks!

Long time lurker, first time poster.

Have been reading copious amounts of text in the past some months, and learning about reloading - including lots and lots of topis on this forum. Finally, I think I want to start actually doing something.

My victim round is going to be 9mm, and my current components of choice and availability (under my desk) are Titegroup, RMR 124 Truncated Cone FMJs, and some 9mm brass to be put together for my 1911 (I am sorry for putting 9mm thru a 1911 but ... I didn't know any better when I bought it ).

Here are the bullets: https://www.rmrbullets.com/shop/bul...gr-rmr-truncated-cone-flat-point-matchwinner/

Additionally, I do have a bag of RMR's hollowpoint in the same 124 grain (https://www.rmrbullets.com/shop/bul...hollow-point-multi-purpose-round-bullets-new/), which will become important in a moment.

I am sorry upfront for somewhat a ranty post.

I did read other topis on the subject here, specifically these guys, which aided my thinking:

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/need-help-with-124gr-rmr-matchwinner-load-data.869112/
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/sport-pistol-in-9mm.846103/

So, of course, having picked a bullet that's "unlisted" in Lyman, Hornady (ha!) and pretty much anywhere else, and from a manufacturer w/o load data, I have been trying to figure out my OALs and my charges.

The goal of this is to play at the range - and I would love to make this round accurate enough to practice up to 50 yards.

So first of, the charge.

From my understanding and common sense, charges listed for bullets are substitutable as long as:

- I am picking charge for the same material and jacket presence (ie, copper jacketed bullets are one category, cast are other, and plated are third out of three big ones).

- I am picking charge data for the same bullet diameter (read on - I had a fun epiphany)

- I am picking charge data for the same or larger weight bullet as mine. That last bit came from one of the pamphlets in one of the Lee diesets I have and it makes sense - heavier bullet charge data will assume less available "charge space", so you're not increasing pressure with using a heavier bullet charge data with a lighter bullet. Also, loading manuals seem to reduce powder charges with increase of bullet weights of the same type across the same powder type for at least the few data I have reviewed extensively (45C, 357Mag, and 9mm).

- I am ensuring that the "charge area" volume (space inside the case where my powder is) is the same or larger than the one in listed data.

--

Now, if I was to load RMR hollowpoints that I have, I would've used XTP data from Lyman book (for some reason Hodgdon's (and therefore Lee's), and Hornady's books don't list Titegroup charges for 124 grain bullets).

Now, Lyman. 3.8-4.1 grains for 124 XTP bullet. Oh, also the same charge range for 125 GR "HAP" bullet, but they seat it .015 further out (1.075 vs 1.060 COAL) so I guess they keep the same "charge space" and ignore 1 grain weight difference.

What gives a bit more confidence for using this specific data is 125 grain Sierra FMJ data from Hodgdon - with 1.090 COAL and 4.1-4.4 grains - though the reason why the charge "shifted" so much would probably be increase of "charge space" volume (FMJs would be shorter than hollowpoints, and they're seating it further out).

Browsing thru Lee's data, I find a red flag - Titegroup for "125 grain Jacketed bullet" listed 2.8-3.2. ??!?!. This directly contradicts Hodgdon, and logic - more "charge space" volume, smaller charge?

That was a headscratcher for a while, until I noticed an entry for Hornady HAP on Hodgdon's site: listing that same charge and COAL. The culprit? Bullet diameter for HAP is 0.356. Mine are .355, and Lyman and Sierra data is for .355 bullets as well. So I feel safe disregarding this much lower charge recommendation.

So now, to sane COAL

Lyman's hollow point lists 1.060 for that 3.8-4.1 charge. Is it safe for me to use this as a minimum?.

I am stipulating here that Hornady's XTP bullet used for Lyman's COAL data is going to be longer than mine, and therefore, I will have more "charge space" volume available - so using Lyman's charge + COAL I will be in the "safe zone".

Why?

Hornady's XTPs are "conical" - I have some in 115 grain / .355 here and they are. But there's a hole in the XTP - meaning that either the cone will be longer, or the base will be longer.

So therefore, seating mine to 1.060+ should be fine.

Couple "confirming factors" here.

Hornady's book is useful in one important regard - it has full size pictures of bullets - including that same XTP that Lyman uses in theirs. I wouldn't put calipers to it, but I can ascertain roughly "bigger/smaller" and such. I have some 115 grain XTPs and it matches it's picture in the book perfect. By the way, wouldn't it be nice to have dimensional drawings for all the bullets? Sigh.

My bullet is shorter than 124 grain XTP, visually, when lined up with the picture; so therefore, it will seat less deep, giving a larger volume in the "charge space" than XTP.

And guess what? It matches perfectly with Hornady's (marked as discontinued) FMJ-FP #35567B - and while Hornady's book does not list charged for TiteGroup for 124 grain bullets, their 124 grain XTP shares the same load data with their FMJ-FP! And they seat it at 1.050 which is 10 thou less than what I'm planning using Lyman's XTP data (note that Lyman's XTP data matches COAL to Hornady's).

Will I have enough bullet engagement in the case?

My bullet is .550 - my brass is .745 (it's once fired), so 1.060 - .745 = 0.315 "stickout", with .550-.315 = .235 of the bullet in the cartridge.

Mr. McPherson in his "Metallic Cartridge Handloading" notes the reasonable minimum to be generally 1/2 bullet diameter - which means I have additional .057 (.235 - (.355/2)) to play with on the long side (assuming no chambering / feeding / "rounds shortening and bullets seated deeper" while chambering", exceeding SAAMI spec issues of course).


So bottom line is, seems that my brackets are 3.8 - 4.1 grains of TiteGroup with 1.060 - 1.117 COAL.

I would very much appreciate y'alls comments on my conclusions and approach...

 

[tightgroup tiger]

1.060 is awfully short for 124 gr TC bullets if you go to 4.1 gr of Titegroup, your chasing the maximum pressure the 9mm is rated for.
I use 4.1 gr of Titegroup for 124 gr TCs and JHPs at 1.100" so if my powder measure drifts a little Im still not over maximum pressure.
I would advise you to do the same.
Loads as short as you want to use don't feed well anyways.

 

[AJC1]

4.0 gr TG 1.090 and test. It should not blow your face off or have problems leaving the barrel. Make adjustments as required.

 

[NWcityguy2]

Hornady HAP and XTP bullets have low charge weights because they seat deeper into the case than most other bullets. It is not because of some HAPs being .356 instead on .355. There are many barrels out there that slug well over .355. There are also many plated bullets sized to .356 which have recommended charge weights higher than HAP/XTP.

You won't even know if your barrel is going to size a .356 bullet down at all without slugging it. And if it does, it's very unlikely to be of consequence.

Personally, if this is a concern to you, I don't know why you are using titegroup. There are plenty of forgiving medium burn-range powders out there. Titegroup is the powder equivelent of the Lord in the Old Testament. It doesn't mess around.

 

[Fidot]

Thanks very much!

So looks like generally I am in the ballpark - and larger OALs you all recommend will give me more charge volume == even less pressure than what published data shows for XTPs (which are longer than my TCs - so if I use XTP OALs, I am already less charge density than published XTP data).

Charge wise, I was planning to do 20 rounds at 3.8, 15 at 3.9, and 15 at 4.0, all hand-trickled; and test. I think I will, given your advice, try 1.090 - 1.100, picking the OAL based on feeding tests. I would like to remain on the low end of the spectrum if performance is good because then I can sleep better not over-stressing over minor drum measure discrepancies (due to precisely the same apprehension I have towards TG as NWcityguy2).

Thanks again! I will report.

PS: Why TiteGroup? OKay; call it somewhat a beginners mistake. I did obtain a hefty quantity of it after trying to find something with good reports - seemed folks like it, it was cheap, and available). Not that it's not usable from what I understand, as long as it's given the reasonable amount of respect.

 

[AJC1]

Thanks very much!

So looks like generally I am in the ballpark - and larger OALs you all recommend will give me more charge volume == even less pressure than what published data shows for XTPs (which are longer than my TCs - so if I use XTP OALs, I am already less charge density than published XTP data).

Charge wise, I was planning to do 20 rounds at 3.8, 15 at 3.9, and 15 at 4.0, all hand-trickled; and test. I think I will, given your advice, try 1.090 - 1.100, picking the OAL based on feeding tests. I would like to remain on the low end of the spectrum if performance is good because then I can sleep better not over-stressing over minor drum measure discrepancies (due to precisely the same apprehension I have towards TG as NWcityguy2).

Thanks again! I will report.

PS: Why TiteGroup? OKay; call it somewhat a beginners mistake. I did obtain a hefty quantity of it after trying to find something with good reports - seemed folks like it, it was cheap, and available). Not that it's not usable from what I understand, as long as it's given the reasonable amount of respect.

Sounds like a solid plan
I use a lot of of TG and it's a good powder. It does demand respect to accurate measure and paying attention to what your doing. The reward is good cost efficiency and good accuracy for target shooting. Its hogdens version of bullseye imo. Interestingly it was the first powder I ever used.

 

[Otto]

Personally, if this is a concern to you, I don't know why you are using titegroup.

Ever noticed that the first powder noobs buy is TG?

 

[AJC1]

Ever noticed that the first powder noobs buy is TG?

Probably has a lot to do with availability and cost...

 

[NWcityguy2]

Ever noticed that the first powder noobs buy is TG?

I think one thing new reloaders don't fully understand is when it comes to reloading for pistols, all the money is spent on the primers and bullets. So seeing a cheap 8 lbs jug of powder for with load data published for basically all cartridges seems like a good deal. The hundreds of dollars in primers and probably one thousand dollars in bullets to burn through that 8 lbs of powder might not immediately register.

I've seen two guns running TG go down in competition with blown primers and stuck cases. And it's TG, so you know for a fact if the gun survived it wasn't a double charge. The best anyone could guess is some variation in the brass because it happened once and not a single other time with that box of ammunition. I've never seen that happen with any other pistol powder, so TG isn't for me.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I don't know why you are using titegroup. There are plenty of forgiving medium burn-range powders out there.

Ever noticed that the first powder noobs buy is TG?

Probably has a lot to do with availability and cost...

I think one thing new reloaders don't fully understand is when it comes to reloading for pistols, all the money is spent on the primers and bullets. So seeing a cheap 8 lbs jug of powder for with load data published for basically all cartridges seems like a good deal. The hundreds of dollars in primers and probably one thousand dollars in bullets to burn through that 8 lbs of powder might not immediately register.

That's all I can figure also. It isn't a very forgiving powder with it's narrow operating band...and it burns hot.

I think my second 8lb jug of powder was Titegroup...WST was my first...because I wanted to see what all the hoopla was all about. I think I loaded a couple hundred rounds with it , decided I didn't like it, and sold it for what I paid. Never really looked back.

I have a one pound bottle that I keep around in case someone suggest something that sounds interesting

 

[AJC1]

That's all I can figure also. It isn't a very forgiving powder with it's narrow operating band...and it burns hot.

I think my second 8lb jug of powder was Titegroup...WST was my first...because I wanted to see what all the hoopla was all about. I think I loaded a couple hundred rounds with it , decided I didn't like it, and sold it for what I paid. Never really looked back.

I have a one pound bottle that I keep around in case someone suggest something that sounds interesting

It does burn clean....

 

[Erief0g]

I started with titegroup and a Dillon xl650. Started with 9mm. First 16lbs was titegroup. I hold a fondness simply for that fact. I hadn't found this resource (THR) until I bought my second keg. Ran 8lbs with xtreme 115 hps. Found thr and thru that found rmr. Next 8lbs was rmr 124 mpr jhp.

Then switched to rmr matchwinners and sport pistol. Still have some TG on the shelf and in sure it will serve me well when I pull it back out.

There are many safety checks i go through and I suppose so far so good. I guess the above statement proves otto"s the theory is noobs buy it as a first powder. I may have still been a noob on the second keg.

 

[Fidot]

Then switched to rmr matchwinners and sport pistol. Still have some TG on the shelf and in sure it will serve me well when I pull it back out.

Erief0g, does my approach make sense to you and what OALs are you running?
PS I guess I am a proof of that theory too; though technically I dabbled with some 12ga a while back with Red Dot if I recall right.

 

[lordpaxman]

Welcome to THR!

PS: Why TiteGroup? OKay; call it somewhat a beginners mistake. I did obtain a hefty quantity of it after trying to find something with good reports - seemed folks like it, it was cheap, and available). Not that it's not usable from what I understand, as long as it's given the reasonable amount of respect.

I’ll admit to looking through reloading manuals for the various pistols calibers I intended to reload and trying to find the one powder to rule them all. If you look at the surveys done at the major competitive shoots, they too point to have a predominate theme of using TG. How can one go wrong with all that???
Treat it and all powders with respect and you’ll be fine, but I’d recommend you do get at least one other slower powder to have as a backup. Sport Pistol, N320, W244, something in that range for target and mid load use.
It’s good to see you put some time in to determining the COL which is very important in 9mm. What I didn’t see in any posts is where you’re determining for your gun what your max and working COL should be. My A1 has the shortest max COL of all my 9’s. You wouldn’t want to load a test group, get to the range and find they wouldn’t chamber. I doubt anyone on this forum has ever done that...
Also, on the Hodgdon site, look at 125gr bullets in 9mm, you can use that as another data point.
One of my match loads is the 124gr RMR FP. MW, 4.1gr TG at 1.120” and it makes minor comfortably. Good luck.

 

[bersaguy]

Thanks for posting...I'm in load development right now for some cast 9mm (Lee 356-125-2R) dropping about 130gn and powder coated. I'm trying out 3.8gn of TG at 1.095. I have some other powders I'm trying as well (231, cfe-p, unique) I'm hoping either cfe or TG works well as my limited supply of 231 is earmarked for 38spl. I too started with Titegroup as my first powder. Loading 45acp during the Obama shortage. At the time Titegroup was all that was available and I loaded a mess of 45 with it....still do for blammo ammo. I like Bullseye for a little better velocity, or Power Pistol for top velocity. But love tg for soft shooting, economical 45 rounds

 

[Erief0g]

Erief0g, does my approach make sense to you and what OALs are you running?
PS I guess I am a proof of that theory too; though technically I dabbled with some 12ga a while back with Red Dot if I recall right.

This load is not your powder so grain of salt.
I've loaded about 15k of RMR MW 124gr with sport pistol. My oal length is 1.075 to accommodate my shortest lead gun. My cz shadow 2 and springfield xds have very short leads. With sport pistol at 3.9 gr i AVERAGE 1020 fps across my 9"s, some a few fps more some less. The charge weight is only of consequence if you decide to use said powder.

My data with titegroup is with 124gr mpr jhp and due to different profile and seating depth im uncertain that information will help

At any load development take the time to plunk test all your barrels. Get the shortest length where the bullet still touches the rifling and make sure you are less than that by more than the margin of error of your press. I believe, without referencing my notebook, that I maintain a .015 distance to my shortest barrel lead. That was my max oal and I could only go shorter if needed.

With that knowledge I load up a full mag of dummy rounds and function test all guns. Why a full mag? Because my load development failed when only two or three dummies were used in a 1911 trying to get some oddball 200 gr Plated swc bullets running. At a fully loaded mag the gun would fail to feed on the first three rounds. That changed my process albeit I've never had that issue with 9mm.

There is a wealth of knowledge here and you will be guided well. Just remember... take all of this with a grain of salt and reference your manuals.

 

[Demi-human]

First, welcome to the forum, and handloading!

Second, it looks like you have a pretty firm grasp of it. And all the help you need, right here!

I have not loaded any nine millimeter, all of my 1911s are the proper caliber, , so no weird numbers would stick out to me. Your reasoning is sound though.

Many Happy Rounds to you!

 

[Dudedog]

Welcome to THR, lots of great people here.

and some 9mm brass to be put together for my 1911 (I am sorry for putting 9mm thru a 1911 but ... I didn't know any better when I bought it ).

I have 2 9mm 1911s (and a couple in .45)
An all steel 1911 in 9mm is just a joy to shoot.

Can't help with charges for Titegroup as I only used a couple lbs of it and just never cared for it.
Lot's of people like it but it is not known for being forgiving......
Sounds like you have a reasonable plan to work up.
Be aware of course by the time you see pressure signs in 9mm you are usually way to high.

 

[Fidot]

Once again thanks you all for notes and welcomes (and Happy New Year! ).

Just a couple of notes:

Welcome to THR!
...
Treat it and all powders with respect and you’ll be fine, but I’d recommend you do get at least one other slower powder to have as a backup. Sport Pistol, N320, W244, something in that range for target and mid load use.
...

I do have some Universal as well that I am planning to try with 45Colt once the bullets show up, but I can try in 9mm as well - because, experimenting! Thanks for other notes too. My first workup shall be TG though.

This load is not your powder so grain of salt.
I've loaded about 15k of RMR MW 124gr with sport pistol. My oal length is 1.075 to accommodate my shortest lead gun. My cz shadow 2 and springfield xds have very short leads.

Thanks. Yep, I did note you were using a different powder.

What I didn’t see in any posts is where you’re determining for your gun what your max and working COL should be.

Thanks for the reminder - I did mention that in the very first post; but it's at the very bottom and lost among all the other ranting .

At any load development take the time to plunk test all your barrels. Get the shortest length where the bullet still touches the rifling and make sure you are less than that by more than the margin of error of your press. I believe, without referencing my notebook, that I maintain a .015 distance to my shortest barrel lead. That was my max oal and I could only go shorter if needed.

So this is interesting. Sorry, I have to ask .

My absolute max OAL is 1.117 (longer than that and I'm getting too little bullet/case engagement).

I have some factory Fioccis here measuring at 1.157 (much bigger than my max) and Aguilas at 1.117 (same as my max) - but they're both RN FMJ, which means that they would engage the rifling sooner than a TC design. After having determined that, I wasn't going to play with finding the rifling and going "back" from there, satisfying myself with the "plunk" test and checking chambering (with slide returned by the recoil spring just like during normal operation) and ensuring no bullet setback after said affair. That's why I didn't write much about that in the first post - aside from alluding to it in the "no chambering problems etc" note at the bottom.

So - did you do that experiment with determining your rifling engagement and going back from it for determining your MAX and to be in the "safe zone", or are there significant accuracy implications here as well? (I understand rifle folks play with bullet jump a lot, but does that game make sense for pistols too)?

 

[Erief0g]

My reason was safety and function. Accuracy was found through testing multiple loads with all guns and picking the best combo.

Perhaps someone with better eyes can chase handgun accuracy that way but in usually tapped out at 25 yards. I can keep 17 shots in 2.5 inch circle with my Shadow 2 and that is surprising for my eyes.

Bds and rf wobbly have some great pics to compare but something to note. The shape of a 115fmj makes it narrower for a longer amount of the profile. I belive ogive is the term that measures it. I can load 115 much longer in the same guns without issue.

Point of fact, the precision delta 124 gr jhp also can be loaded longer as they are a narrower longer bullet than the shorter and fatter rmr.

 

[lordpaxman]

I do have some Universal as well that I am planning to try with 45Colt once the bullets show up, but I can try in 9mm as well - because, experimenting! Thanks for other notes too. My first workup shall be TG though.

Too funny, Universal was the second jug of powder I bought because, well, it’s universal. It does a decent job across a lot of calibers, including 9mm, but I’ve found better.

Thanks for the reminder - I did mention that in the very first post; but it's at the very bottom and lost among all the other ranting

I’m a bit thick this AM, but I still didn’t see where you actually did a plunk test with your bullet? I see your calculations, but whenever I get a new bullet in, for each of my barrels I do an actual plunk test to determine each barrel’s MAX COL. It turns out my A1’s barrel has the shortest leade of any and if I want a load that works across all my 9’s, determines the working COL for a load. I can run the RMR’s RN a bit longer than their TC MW, keep that in mind for future purchases, you may want to order a sample just to try. Good luck.

 

[tightgroup tiger]

I'm doing the same as Lordpaxman, and Erief0g. I use Titegroup for all my target loads and the biggest reason I arrived at 4.1grs of Titegroup at 1.10 OALis because it seemed to be the most accurate in my work up and fed really well with the truncated bullets.

I've probably burned 8 lbs of titegroup with this recipe and the OAL does fit all my 9mm guns with a 124gr truncated cone bullet and RMR's MPR. If I switch from XTPs to say Precision Delta's version of it, or RMR MPRs or matchwinners, I don't even think about changing my recipe because at 1.1 OAL the load is still well within the safety parameters of the pressure rating for 9mm and it still seems just as accurate for me.

That is in my 9mms and I have done the plunk tests on all of them. If you own a Shadow or a Kimber you will probably have to go shorter than 1.1 OAL.
They have notoriously short throats.

For full pressure loads when chasing velocity, I use BE-86 or WSF (Dudedog finally convinced me to try WSF) and I'm working up to maximum loads with them with the same 124gr bullets and I will stick with my 1.1 and see where that gets me as far as accuracy goes. So far it's looking good.

That's my reasoning for using that OAL. Mostly it's how good it feeds and the accuracy I get in my guns with it and I don't have to have different loads for some of my guns. I also don't have to worry about maximum pressure in my weaker guns.

I have a strain gauge I use to check my neck tension with, for setback and with this OAL, all the different head stamps I use are getting 50lbs plus neck tension so I'm not worried about not having enough bullet in the case at this OAL with a 124 gr bullet.

Maybe I'm getting lazy in my older age, but I like having one practice load that fits and shoots well in all my guns and with the Titegroup recipe and OAL I use, It's shoots clean, it's accurate, it universally fits all my guns, it's cheap, and it simplifies my life.

That's my approach to this for 9mm range fodder.

 

[Fidot]

My reason was safety and function. Accuracy was found through testing multiple loads with all guns and picking the best combo.

Perhaps someone with better eyes can chase handgun accuracy that way but in usually tapped out at 25 yards. I can keep 17 shots in 2.5 inch circle with my Shadow 2 and that is surprising for my eyes.

Gotcha, thanks!

I’m a bit thick this AM, but I still didn’t see where you actually did a plunk test with your bullet? I see your calculations, but whenever I get a new bullet in, for each of my barrels I do an actual plunk test to determine each barrel’s MAX COL.

No no, it was my wording. I meant it but didn't say it clear enough:

... which means I have additional .057 (.235 - (.355/2)) to play with on the long side (assuming no chambering / feeding / "rounds shortening and bullets seated deeper while chambering", exceeding SAAMI spec issues of course).

That ^^ sentence implied it (specifically, I meant plunk test as one of the tests to determine if my test dummies will have "chambering issues").

Good luck.

Thanks

 

[Fidot]

Howdy folks - I figured I needed to write something - would be weird after having received all the great advice not to do anything... right?

I did dummies' tests.Plunk, magazine / "does it feed okay" tests passed of course.

Started with 1.100, cycled 5 rounds and did not like setback I got on a single chambering: up to 5 thou. Did not like that.

With 1.090 - adding 10 thou to bullet/neck engagement - improved the situation a ton. I was not able to get more than 3 thou setback after multiple cyclings of the same round. A few rounds out of 5 I made did not set back at all.

So I'm gonna stick with 1.090 and try that.

Couple days after that, I had the primer tube loaded and was gonna go size and prime my 50 cases for my test rounds... when got naturally interrupted by life for a couple days, and when I got back... after mulling this over, decided to put this whole project on hold. I have 1.5K small pistol primers - and two rounds for them to go into - 357mag and 9mm. Since 9mm is still obtainable relatively speaking for prices more reasonable than 357... and I have a ton of factory 9mm vs. very little of 357... decided to keep the primers with intent on using them in for 357, for now, to feed the 1873 (replica)... As soon as the boolits show up (ordered about a week back)

Because sure, I can spare 50 primers for just playing around with various loads (like I outlined a couple of posts back) but then I won't be able to use my loads anyway - because, well, primers ...

Sigh.

I'll report back when I get around to this little project. Once again, thank y'all for help.

 

[vaalpens]

I have not done a lot of load of 9mm workup with Titegroup, but following is what I have done so far using the RMR 124gr TC MW bullet. I did not see very accurate results, but the SD/ES numbers where very good throughout the load range. The key is to start low and then work up to the max. Your 1911 should have no problems handling any of the loads listed below. The COL is something you will have to decide on based on your gun. Be safe.

9mm, SP2022, 3.9"
Case: FC
COL: 1.065"
RMR, 124gr, TCFPMW, TiteGroup, 3.6gr, CCI500
Average: 933
ES: 22
SD: 8.2
Force: 240
PF: 115
Velocities: 931, 936, 920, 936, 942
Grouping @ 15yd: 1.23"
Test Date: 10/04/2020

9mm, SP2022, 3.9"
Case: FC
COL: 1.065"
RMR, 124gr, TCFPMW, TiteGroup, 3.7gr, CCI500
Average: 960
ES: 17
SD: 6.4
Force: 254
PF: 119
Velocities: 957, 963, 962, 952, 969
Grouping @ 15yd: 1.78"
Test Date: 10/04/2020

9mm, SP2022, 3.9"
Case: FC
COL: 1.065"
RMR, 124gr, TCFPMW, TiteGroup, 3.8gr, CCI500
Average: 969
ES: 20
SD: 8.5
Force: 258
PF: 120
Velocities: 976, 968, 979, 959, 963
Grouping @ 15yd: 1.07"
Test Date: 10/04/2020

9mm, SP2022, 3.9"
Case: FC
COL: 1.065"
RMR, 124gr, TCFPMW, TiteGroup, 3.9gr, CCI500
Average: 986
ES: 13
SD: 4.9
Force: 268
PF: 122
Velocities: 986, 979, 989, 984, 992
Grouping @ 15yd: 1.61"
Test Date: 10/04/2020

9mm, SP2022, 3.9"
Case: FC
COL: 1.065"
RMR, 124gr, TCFPMW, TiteGroup, 4gr, CCI500
Average: 1013
ES: 17
SD: 6.9
Force: 282
PF: 125
Velocities: 1009, 1023, 1017, 1006, 1010
Grouping @ 15yd: 1.85"
Test Date: 10/04/2020

9mm, SP2022, 3.9"
Case: FC
COL: 1.065"
RMR, 124gr, TCFPMW, TiteGroup, 4.1gr, CCI500
Average: 1039
ES: 19
SD: 6.9
Force: 297
PF: 128
Velocities: 1042, 1040, 1048, 1040, 1029
Grouping @ 15yd: 1.61"
Test Date: 10/04/2020