Cycling issues with cast bullets

[Bumpa4719]

I have done a lot of reloading but not with cast bullets. I am having cycling issues. I had been reloading Berry's 115 RN plated 9mm with Unique (ran out of and not available near me) and now with Bullseye OL is 1.158. Both ran fine no problems in Sig P226 and P250 and S&W mod. 59.

I was given 2500 Missouri 125 gr SWC and I am loading them with 3.9 gr of Bullseye. I have tried them in all three semiautomatic and they have cycling issues in the Sigs. OL is 1.113. I have factory rounds that are shorter (1.111 and Federal JHP at 1.085) so I would not think it is length?? Looking into the open and locked chamber they appear to line up with the ramp fine. The seem to have plenty of punch. Could it be the SWC shape?

Anyone have any ideas? Can't imagine not using 2500 free bullets

 

[rcmodel]

Could you be more specific on what kind of 'cycling issues' you are having.

rc

 

[lysanderxiii]

Bullseye is a faster powder, you may not be getting the Vm you were with Unique....

 

[Bumpa4719]

The rounds seat in the chamber fine but some do not make it to the chamber. They do not seem to hit the "the ramp a running" and go into the chamber. It is almost as if the SWC geometry is hitting the ramp flat and causing it to go awry?

 

[Tcruse]

Cast bullets are usually a bit larger and the Crimp may need to be adjusted.

 

[steve4102]

Hard to tell without being there, but.

If the same thing is happening in three different handguns odds are it's your handloads and not the bullet design.

What does your crimp measure?

Have you read this thread on OAL.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=506678

Are you 100% sure of your powder charge?

 

[blarby]

SWC = Does not feed the same as RN

SWC = Very firearm sensitive to seating length/ feeding "off the shoulder"

 

[Schwing]

SWC = Does not feed the same as RN

SWC = Very firearm sensitive to seating length/ feeding "off the shoulder"

I have to +1 on this. While it is certainly possible to get SWCs to fire in many semi-autos, there are many semi-autos that are picky and require some tinkering. I even have an older springfield XD that won't reliably feed any SWC.

 

[GLOOB]

In some firearms, the feeding problem might be a little sneaky. The shoulder of the SWC can catch on the back of the empty case that is being extracted. This can slow the slide down enough to cause what look like feeding problems, even though it's really a problem of extraction/cycling. And the ammo might even feed ok when you cycle it by hand - in particular, the first round might always chamber, fine.

 

[A Pause for the Coz]

SWC are certainly different animals while trying to get them to feed from a Semi auto.
Some feed ramps work real well. my Taurus will devour any thing that hits the ramp.
I have another that is fussy with SWC. Still got it to feed just had to adjust the seating depth. Usually in.

Be mindful as you seat the bullet deeper you are increasing the rounds pressure.
Can be allot in the 9mm. So decrease your load to compensate.
Find the correct seating depth, then work the load back up to the performance you expect and is safe.
SWC are pretty darn accurate in the 9mm when you get them figured out.

 

[chris in va]

A SWC 9mm is a recipe for frustration and generally meant for 38/357 revolvers. Go back to LRN.

 

[mdi]

Unfortunately SWC bullets don't feed as reliably in a semi-auto as a round nose. From what you're saying (some enter all the way, some don't) it sounds like your bullets are larger in diameter and not fitting the throat and/or the case mouth is flared too much. Try the "plunk test" to see if the rounds will drop into the chamber and adjust the taper crimp die just enough to allow chambering (just remove any flare in the case mouth). Also, SWC may need to be seated deeper to get the full diameter deeper into the case away from the chamber mouth/end...

 

[Average Joe]

That's why I only use round nose in my autos. SWC are just to finicky.

 

[LiveLife]

+1 on first determining max/working OAL before doing powder work up for charge that will reliably cycle the slide - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=506678

Depending on the length of your barrel's leade/freebore and start of rifling, you will require different OAL/COL to fully chamber the finished rounds. With MBC 125 gr SWC bullets, I need to use shorter 1.07"-1.09" lengths for KKM/Lone Wolf 9mm barrels (see picture below) and they feed smoothly for both barrels.

 

[TimSr]

Lead bullets have less friction than plated or jacketed bullets, and will produce less back pressure.

I'm a little unclear with your cycling problem. If it is ejecting properly, but not feeding, then you need to give them the "plunk test" - remove the barrel and see if they will drop properly into the chamber. If they fit okay in the chamber, then they are probably not throwing the slide back far enough when ejecting. This can be fixed by stepping it up a little. From what I can surmise from multiple data sources that don't specifically match your application, but are similar, you are on the low end of the spectrum for Bullseye. I load tons of the 125gr truncated SWCs and have yet to see a gun they will, not feed in, including a Tech-9 which is a worst case scenario that I've seen. That doesn't mean there are not any out there, but I've not run into it.

Personally, I dislike Bullseye for 9mm, and have never been satisfied with its accuracy in them, but It does seem to be popular among many.

 

[Dudedog]

Guns vary, but you may need to seat the SWCs a bit deeper. Some guns don't like SWCs however.
The bullet shape puts what is bore dia above the case right away when seated longer so this can cause issues a bullet with a different profile at that length wouldn't.

My Sig P226, Springfield XD Subcompact, Taraus PT99 and Springfield Loaded 9mm 1911 all feed the MBC SWCs fine at 1.063.
Since I am seating them deeper I tend to use a little lighter charge than I do with the MBC 125 cones.

I have used both 3.7 and 3.9 of Bulleye no issues with either load. I liked 3.7 a little better.
I like the bullet and they shoot well for me.
Hope you get it worked out.

 

[Bumpa4719]

Dudedog et al, thanks for all of the feedback. I do tend to think it is the OAL. I have done the plunk test and they are fine in that aspect. I thinks the forward shoulder on the SWC is causing the problem and I will use Dudedog's recipe since it is the same bullet and powder. Considering that some will cycle (60 -70%) I think it will only take a minor adjustment to correct.

As to the powder, in this day of tightly rationed powder in NE, I feel blessed when I can get my hands on any powder even if it isn't my first choice. I have some Titegroup and depending on how this adjustment works I may try some loads with Titegroup

 

[Bumpa4719]

Chris, I agree but being a frugal NE Yankee I can't see wasting 2500 FREE bullets. Once these get used up I will buy RN or Cone

 

[LiveLife]

While I like W231/HP-38, Bullseye and Titegroup have produced more accurate loads in 9mm with 124 gr bullet - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=7266869#post7266869

MBC 125 gr SWC does have substantial bullet base (see picture below) which will result in deeper seated bullet base and I use reduced powder charges compared to RN or CN load data.

I do tend to think it is the OAL. I have done the plunk test and they are fine in that aspect. I thinks the forward shoulder on the SWC is causing the problem

Sounds like it. While 1.09" - 1.07" works for my KKM/Lone Wolf 9mm barrels, I have a newer Lone Wolf 40-9 conversion barrel for my Glock 23 that has shorter leade/freebore with quick start of rifling like my Sig 1911 barrel. And for this barrel, I need to use even shorter 1.045" OAL or the shoulders will hit the rifling (MBC 125 gr SWC at far right of pic).

 

[rsrocket1]

Bumpa,
If you can't find a solution, sell the bullets and buy some truncated cone, round nose flat or round nose bullets. I'm sure you will be able to get more than what you paid for them <g>. Of course, you can spend time adjusting the seat depth until it works. There's a lot of satisfaction in solving a problem too.

I agree with your suspicion that it is probably a seat depth problem and not a powder charge problem. The typical SWC seat depth that I've heard from most 1911 shooters is a "thumbnail's thickness of the shoulder above the case rim should be showing" (whatever that means). I would start there and move out maybe 0.01" or 0.02" at a time to see if you can get 5 in a row to perfectly cycle.

You might also try dry cycling dummy rounds, but that does not fully duplicate the additional factors like the gun recoiling in your hands which changes the timing of the slide return.

 

[LiveLife]

The typical SWC seat depth that I've heard from most 1911 shooters is a "thumbnail's thickness of the shoulder above the case rim should be showing" (whatever that means).

Some 1911 barrels, especially match barrels, have very short leade/freebore and quicker start of rifling (start of rifling angle is very steep) and the square shoulders of SWC will hit the start of rifling unless the bullet is seated deeper in the case so only a tiny bit of shoulder protrudes above the case (about a thumbnail thickness).

The shorter leade and quicker start of rifling will allow faster chamber pressure build up/less gas leakage which tends to produce more consistent chamber pressures for smaller muzzle velocity variation (lower SD numbers) that translates to smaller shot groups.

That's the case with the newer Lone Wolf 40-9 barrel for my G23 and my Sig 1911. I believe all 5" Sig 1911s are built with match barrels and have tighter chambers and will require shorter 1.240" OAL for MBC 200 gr SWC when longer OAL will work in other 1911 barrels with longer leade.

MBC 200 gr SWC (IDP #1) seated to "thumbnail thickness" of shoulder above case

Sig 1911 barrel - Note almost no leade and sharp start of rifling angle

Lone Wolf 40S&W barrel with longer leade (white arrow) and more gradual start of rifling angle

 

[Dudedog]

I also loaded up some of the 9mm MBC SWCs with Titegroup. Started at 3.4gr, functioned fine. Used 3.4 and 3.6. Haven't decided yet with I like best as I had to take a break from shooting. (big bummer, unwanted break)
3.4 Seemed nice and soft in my Springfield 1911 9mm.

I agree with BDS. (great pics!)
They cut nice clean holes in paper targets, who knows you may want to order more instead of cones or round nose.
I did not seem to see much difference between the coated and uncoated ones as far as charge goes.

 

[Dudedog]

I also loaded up some of the 9mm MBC SWCs with Titegroup. Started at 3.4gr, functioned fine. Used 3.4 and 3.6. Haven't decided yet with I like best as I had to take a break from shooting. (big bummer, unwanted break)
3.4 Seemed nice and soft in my Springfield 1911 9mm.

I agree with BDS. (great pics!)
They cut nice clean holes in paper targets, who knows you may want to order more instead of cones or round nose.
I did not seem to see much difference between the coated and uncoated ones as far as charge goes.
I had no leading issues with the uncated ones but I do prefer the coated ones even tough they caost a bit more.

 

[Louca]

I used to shoot all kinds of cast SWC bullets in my Colt Series 70 1911. Then I got my HK 45C and tried to load MBC IDP #4-XD. I found that the rounds started out OK, feeding just fine, until about 60 rds. At that point, I began to experience several FTF problems.

It appears the rounds were slowly depositing lead onto the side of the chamber. There was lead buildup on the left side of the chamber and rounds definitely would not "plunk" anymore, until all the lead was removed.

I also noticed the rounds would not consistently fit into the case gauge. It appears the bullet is a little too large in diameter. As I look at a completed round, the case definitely seems to be fatter where the bullet is in the case.

I switched to plated bullets and have never had any failures since.

 

[LiveLife]

rounds were slowly depositing lead onto the side of the chamber. There was lead buildup on the left side of the chamber and rounds definitely would not "plunk" anymore, until all the lead was removed.

I do not think that's the case with the OP as lead deposit would prevent all the rounds from chambering but the OP is experiencing problem with just some of the rounds

some will cycle (60 -70%) ... OAL 1.113"

With MBC 125 gr SWC, using 1.113" length will cause the shoulders to stick out quite a bit. When using mixed range brass, resized case length will vary and amount of bearing surface of the bullet above the case neck will vary too. Some of the shorter cases with bullet sticking out more may affect feeding geometry.

With any new bullet, after I determine the max OAL/COL using the barrel, I feed the dummy round (no powder/no primer) from the magazine and incrementally decrease the length until I have reliable feeding/chambering which is the working OAL I use to conduct the powder work up. To compensate for variation in the mixed range brass case length, I will measure the resized length of a random sample and determine the range of variation then subtract this amount from the working OAL.

An example of this happened on the 40S&W Herco thread - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=9362819#post9362819

While 1.125"-1.135" OAL worked, I decided to test longer OAL to squeeze out as much accuracy. Although SAAMI max for 40S&W is 1.135", due to longer leade/freebore, Glock/M&P/Lone Wolf barrels will accommodate various TCFP bullet lengths to 1.149" max OAL but determined 1.145" to be the working OAL that fed/chambered reliably from the magazine. Due to variation in resized brass length of mixed range brass I was using, I ended up using 1.142" as my revised working OAL.