RMR 124 gr nukes......looking for consensus

[Howa 9700]

Consensus on........COAL.......and maybe load data to follow.

Consider this:



From left to right: - line on bullet is where nose stops when inserted into empty case......ballpark area where bullet will engage lands when fired:

Hornady 124 gr XTP recommended COAL = 1.060
RMR 124 gr Nuke recommended COAL = ???
Sierra 125 gr JHP recommended COAL = 1.030
Hornady 124 gr. XTP same

As can be seen, when loaded to same COAL, both the RMR nuke and Sierra are not going to be seated as deep. RMR nuke and Sierra are almost exact twins, except nuke is actually 0.005 shorter.

Well known warning......all things being equal, seating deeper can increase the pressure. If that is true, then it must follow that not seating as deep decreases pressure. Sierra and almost every other source of load data out there has this 125 jhp seated to 1.030. The lone exception I'm aware of is Lyman 50th, which has load data seated to 1.075. Their powder loads are jackeup up over what Sierra and other listing it show. But certainly not out to 1.120 or so that old nuke load data shows.

So lacking exact load data for the new RMR nuke, what to do? Use data for the old nuke, which had a longer nose profile? Use data for the Sierra, exactly as is? Use Lyman data for Sierra 125 JHP?

So far, I've been using load data for the Hornady 124 gr XTP......which is found in abundance...... and loading nuke to same 1.060, which it clearly does not match up to, but seems uber safe way to do it.

Stay with that plan or ????????

 

[NMexJim]

How to Determine Max OAL for a CZ/Dan Wesson Pistol

How to Determine Max OAL for a CZ/Dan Wesson Pistol

czfirearms.us

By one of our own. Might help your thinking.

This is the problem with using bullets w/o established data bases. RMR does have a blog, and the Nuke is discussed there although you won’t find a definitive answer.Read the reviews too.

What powder and what charge?

FWIW, I have 500 Nukes on my bench right now, but I won’t get to them soon. Great looking bullets that are really consistent.

 

[oncewaslost]

I get what you are saying. Have you considered how long you can load and still plunk? Then maybe start low and work up?

 

[Hartkopf]

I load all my Nukes to 1.070 so they chamber in all my 9mm guns.

 

[Howa 9700]

Very helpful. Basically same process as finding lands on a rifle/bullet combination by stripping the bolt and keep seating bullet deeper until the bolt closes.

Not sure why I didn't think of that before.

As for related load data, it seems to me if we knew what the OAL of the old nuke was, and what the new nuke is, if we seated the new nuke such that inserted depth of the base was the same (assuming that seating depth is OK as outlined above), then you would have published load data to work from.

Or......it could be if the design has changed as much as it seems to have, there may be no more relevance of load data for the old nuke as there is for any other 124 gr JHP bullet. Best option may be to pick a workable OAL, then a powder and work it up until things fall into place.

 

[BC17A]

I'd load the Nuke at the longest OAL that would fit your chamber then take advantage of the increased case capacity. Probably gain 30-40FPS over the XTP without increasing pressure.

 

[sparkyv]

Correct. That's why we work up our loads, right?

If that is true, then it must follow that not seating as deep decreases pressure.

BTW, I load my 124gr Nuke loads to 1.122" COAL to conform to my CZ chamber, the tightest of all my 9mms.

I load all my Nukes to 1.070 so they chamber in all my 9mm guns.

 

[armoredman]

How interesting - I fired my very first 124gr Nuke loads just a few hours ago.
COAL was 1.065 for my CZ "short chamber". Lee Factory Crimp Die was used to smooth it out. I only had time to shoot a few groups as the 111 degree heat was about to put my wife down for the count. 30 rounds total fired through a CZ P-10C with flawless functioning, loads were 4.9, 5.2 and 5.9 grains of CFE Pistol. The 5.2 shows the most promise so far. Hope that helps.

 

[kcofohio]

Entered the rabbit hole.

The load data is for CFE-P that is published for that specific bullet.

The 124 gr. Nuke COAL for me came to 1.090".
1st load work-up I used CFE-P. The max load was 5.3 gr. that averaged 1111 fps out of a 4.2" barrel.
The Nuke profile feeds reliably in the guns I have tried. And they're accurate.

 

[LiveLife]

RMR 124 gr nukes.......looking for consensus on........COAL

Depends on the barrel - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...col-for-reference.848462/page-2#post-12249361

RMR 124 gr Nuke is made from MPR nose profile/ogive which does not have the "typical" JHP profile as it has similar nose profile as RNFP and I need to load it shorter to clear the rifling. If you compare the RN loaded to 1.130" to MPR loaded to 1.050", MPR looks like RN with tip of nose taken off.

BTW, I load my 124gr Nuke loads to 1.122" COAL to conform to my CZ chamber, the tightest of all my 9mms.

Perhaps tightest chamber but not shortest leade.

This listing is Max OAL for RMR 124 gr MPR for different pistols/barrels:

Beretta 92FS - 1.125"
Browning Hi Power Mark 2 - 1.125"
Canik TP9SFX - 1.090
Glock 22/KKM conversion barrel - 1.115"
Glock 22/Lone Wolf conversion barrel - 1.040"
Glock 22/Tactical Kinetics conversion barrel - 1.055"
HK VP9 - 1.080"
Kimber Micro 9 - 1.060"
M&P Shield 9mm - 1.105"
M&P Shield 9mm EZ - 1.040"
SIG P226 Legion SAO - 1.150"
SIG P320 X-5 - 1.100"
SIG P320 X5/Bar-Sto Match 5" Barrel - 1.030"
SIG P938 - 1.060"
Taurus PT-111 G2 - 1.085"
Taurus PT-809 - 1.040"

 

[41 Mag]

Best option may be to pick a workable OAL, then a powder and work it up until things fall into place.

I've run several dozen different bullets and weights through my own pistols in jacketed, plated, and cast from my own bench. About half or more arent listed in a manual. I usually start with the closest weight and then use the above as the overall starting point from which I begin.

 

[AJC1]

I run all 9mm at 1.090 and in most posts unless they are shooting a cz pistol everyone is longer. I've not had a pistol not plunk that length and it's the recommended length from my Lyman manual.

 

[Howa 9700]

As for consensus, its looking to me like a guy needs to get a couple things straight. First......as was recommended.....find out what the max COAL is for each gun bullet combination. A plunk test confirms it works, but that is all you know. You could be on the razor's edge of failing and not know that. Better to know exactly what you can get away with.....and what you can't. And finding out not that hard to do in comparison to the benefit you get out of it.

And second.......seating depth of the base is where the action takes place regarding pressure. Due to the various nose shapes and profiles, COAL by and of itself is meaningless. When evaluating use of a published load, need to know where the seated base of your bullet as compared to depth of bullet base in published load.

 

[AJC1]

As for consensus, its looking to me like a guy needs to get a couple things straight. First......as was recommended.....find out what the max COAL is for each gun bullet combination. A plunk test confirms it works, but that is all you know. You could be on the razor's edge of failing and not know that. Better to know exactly what you can get away with.....and what you can't. And finding out not that hard to do in comparison to the benefit you get out of it.

And second.......seating depth of the base is where the action takes place regarding pressure. Due to the various nose shapes and profiles, COAL by and of itself is meaningless. When evaluating use of a published load, need to know where the seated base of your bullet as compared to depth of bullet base in published load.

You can't mentally do anything with bullet base location other than compare it to other samples. Trying to extrapolate load data based on case volume is a computer modeling game. I do encourage people to download and play with GRT, but that's the only realistic way to use that information....

 

[Howa 9700]

So getting to bottom of consistent case volume is a problem. So here is a freebee solution I offer to someone to take advantage of.

It occurs to me the solution for that is a set of spacers you can place under a dummy bullet to setup your dies. That assures a consistent volume regardless of bullet shape.

Take an empty fired case, drop in the spacer you want then press bullet down firm onto spacer. Then setup seating die to that bullet. Bullet noses of various length run wild into space but case volume under them stays the same.. Seems that would be more consistent than random COAL measurements and consequent variable case volumes as is done now.

BTW, I actually tried this and it kinda sorta worked, except for my selection of spacer, which was a 0.320" lead #0 buckshot pellet. Was too soft to stay round. Force of bullet pressing down on it would flatten one side and changed depth. But that is in the ballpark of where these need to be. Probably a range starting around .310 and increasing in .005 increments..........so .310", .315", .320", .325" and .330" ought to do it.

 

[oncewaslost]

So getting to bottom of consistent case volume is a problem. So here is a freebee solution I offer to someone to take advantage of.

It occurs to me the solution for that is a set of spacers you can place under a dummy bullet to setup your dies. That assures a consistent volume regardless of bullet shape.

Take an empty fired case, drop in the spacer you want then press bullet down firm onto spacer. Then setup seating die to that bullet. Bullet noses of various length run wild into space but case volume under them stays the same.. Seems that would be more consistent than random COAL measurements and consequent variable case volumes as is done now.

BTW, I actually tried this and it kinda sorta worked, except for my selection of spacer, which was a 0.320" lead #0 buckshot pellet. Was too soft to stay round. Force of bullet pressing down on it would flatten one side and changed depth. But that is in the ballpark of where these need to be. Probably a range starting around .310 and increasing in .005 increments..........so .310", .315", .320", .325" and .330" ought to do it.

I have worked on a similar dilemma that your solution does not resolve. I have some 124g .355 speer gold dot bullets that average .540 in length. However, these bullets are concave on the bottom. Close to .020 deep on the concave. i have to seat them at 1.05 to plunk in my wife's M&P shield EZ slide.

 

[Howa 9700]

How to Determine Max OAL for a CZ/Dan Wesson Pistol

How to Determine Max OAL for a CZ/Dan Wesson Pistol

czfirearms.us

By one of our own. Might help your thinking.

This is the problem with using bullets w/o established data bases. RMR does have a blog, and the Nuke is discussed there although you won’t find a definitive answer.Read the reviews too.

What powder and what charge?

FWIW, I have 500 Nukes on my bench right now, but I won’t get to them soon. Great looking bullets that are really consistent.

OK, finally got a chance to follow process in link above to determine my MAX OAL. Not only for the 124 gr Nuke, but Hornady and Sierra bullets as well. Bullets below all seated to touch the rifling. So clearly do not all have same OAL. If my measurements and math is right, base of the XTP and nuke are still seated to within a couple thousands of each other. Sierra is seated deeper



But as for the RMR nuke, a case with nuke inserted touches the rifling at an OAL of 1.120, less a .015 margin of safety means I can load these out to 1.105. A dummy test round to that depth does plunk and spin.

Having said that, this is how much of the base of the bullet is inserted when seated to that depth:



I presume that is enough base left for case to get a bite.

But aside from that, now that I know how far I can go, what is next step to start load development?

Reminder I am getting about 1,075 fps using 7.2 gr Acc #7, and seated to 1.060. An easy shooting round with no signs of pressure. Just stay with that?

 

[NMexJim]

Know where your powder charge sits in the case.

You generally want to avoid seating on top of the powder. Compressed loads do exist, but those are to be worked into very carefully. I am really cautious with fine powder like the AAs - 2, 5 and 7. If you have room left on top of your powder charge, you could seat a little deeper.

One of the tests that I use in my reloading for seating depth is to push on the nose of the bullet sideways and see if it gives any at all. A test for neck tension if you will. You should get a solid feel. Depending on the bullet diameter and case rim thickness, you may be able to see a crease on the outside of the case where the bullet base sits in a loaded cartridge. I can see one on yours. Look for bullet set-back in your magazine.

Just be mindful of where increasing powder density (your load) sits in relation to your bullet depth. Work up in small increments.

Chronometers help here. Looking at a Sierra 125 grn, AA7 says that bullet loaded to max will run somewhere around 1035 fps. The listing for the same bullet in +P loading is 1086 fps.

At this point, it's a matter of feel using all the tools at your disposal. In my full-size service pistols, +P feels fine. Sub-compact bites hard. Make sure you know what your pistol is rated for.

 

[Howa 9700]

Can't say we have come to any consensus on any best way to load the 124 gr Nuke, but as for me personally.....I have come to my own resolution......loading to an OAL of 1.060 and using 124 gr Hornady XTP data as my guide. Had been drawn to the Sierra 125 jhp for load data as they are so similar, but for some reason, Sierra and most other load data OAL for those very short, and load data also way under most others......except for Lyman 50th. They went their own way and seated the Sierra 125 grain to 1.075, and in the 50th, the XTP and Sierra 125 jhp are shown side by side and they list nearly identical powders and loads for both. With the nuke more or less between them, that more or less gave me the green light and a pathway forward. Safe starting place anyway.

Also comforting to know what my max OAL is and I'm well under it. Could go longer, but don't see the need to.

 

[lordpaxman]

Consensus? Here?

loading to an OAL of 1.060 and using 124 gr Hornady XTP data as my guide.

As you determined, your seating depth is less than the XTP. The assumption is both bullets are similar enough, jacketed, hollow point, weight, that the data can be used safely. The one thing I’ll mention when you postulated a longer COL would result in a decreased pressure, that’s true up to a point where you contact the rifling. Since you measured MAX col you’ll be fine.

Could go longer, but don't see the need to.

Another rabbit hole. There may be an optimum COL for minimum group size. Some competitive folks like to load as long as possible with the fastest powder. It all depends. Would love to hear a range report.

 

[Howa 9700]

Loading for pistols may be easier than it's made out to be, but there are a lot of moving parts that complicates things in a hurry. Complicated by the fact that normal rules that are not to be broken are broken all the time. Like max loads that aren't. Not when you have a max, then above that a +P max, and above that +P+/Major that has no max. But that seems to be a one way street. You can add powder to published loads......seat bullets farther out as long as it will feed and plunk.....but never seat deeper that a published load. Considering the dire warnings, I'm taking that one as gospel.

But when looking at all the data to get things sorted out........and with helpful links provided early in this thread......one can begin to see problems.....and solutions.

Case in point........following advice here, I found out I could seat these 124 grain nukes to 1.105. The Lee reloading book does not list the nuke itself, but does have data for a generic 124 grain jacketed bullet.....which technically the nuke is......., and the OAL listed for that load was 1.100. So if I was to follow the rules, the range of OAL I'd have a range of 1.100 to 1.105.......... a tight 0.005..........to work with. That problem shows up all the time in reloading data with bullets seated to 1.100+. Which is one of the reasons I opted for the XTP / Sierra JHP data. The range from there is basically wide open to play with. And I can do so safely. Or so they say.

There are a lot more questions I have for somebody as relates to accuracy of pistols when loaded close to lands, as is done with rifles........but will save that for another day.

 

[longdayjake]

Okay, so there is a big reason that we don't publish a recommended OAL for the NUKE. And that is that many of the newer guns (glock gen 5, canik, CZ, and a couple others) have decided that they don't want to buy throat reamers and they're sending out guns with pretty much no leade. I refuse to recommend seating a bullet all the way to the ogive. What we really need is about a million gun owners to shame those manufacturers into cutting leades into their barrels so that there's a little bit of wiggle room for loaders to play with.

 

[LiveLife]

Oops, duplicate post.

 

[LiveLife]

reason that we don't publish a recommended OAL for the NUKE

... newer guns ... [no] throat reamers ... with pretty much no leade.

Explains why there's such a wide swing in Max OAL of various barrels - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...es-looking-for-consensus.921688/post-12685932

Here's KKM 40-9mm conversion barrel with start of rifling reamed which BTW produces better accuracy with jacketed, plated, coated/lead bullets than other barrels I have (Lone Wolf/Tactical Kinetics/BCA and even factory Glock) and I use it as my "reference" test barrel for my range tests (FYI, longer throat/leade length also better supports 9mm Major rounds loaded longer)

KKM Glock 22/40-9mm conversion barrel supports Hornady 115 gr HAP to 1.145"/125 gr HAP to 1.125", RMR 115 gr FP MW to 1.155"/115 gr JHP Mini MPR to 1.140", and RMR 124 gr FP MW to 1.150"/124 gr JHP MPR to 1.115"

S&W M&P Shield barrel with reamed start of rifling supports Hornady 115 gr HAP to 1.130"/125 gr HAP to 1.120", RMR 115 gr FP MW to 1.145"/115 gr JHP Mini MPR to 1.110" and RMR 124 gr FP MW to 1.135"/124 gr JHP MPR to 1.105"

Lone Wolf Glock 23/40-9mm conversion barrel with no cut start of rifling supports Hornady 115 gr HAP to 1.070"/125 gr HAP to 1.045", RMR 115 gr FP MW to 1.085"/115 gr JHP Mini MPR to 1.060" and RMR 124 gr FP MW to 1.075"/124 gr JHP MPR to 1.040"

 

[Howa 9700]

Okay, so there is a big reason that we don't publish a recommended OAL for the NUKE. And that is that many of the newer guns (glock gen 5, canik, CZ, and a couple others) have decided that they don't want to buy throat reamers and they're sending out guns with pretty much no leade. I refuse to recommend seating a bullet all the way to the ogive. What we really need is about a million gun owners to shame those manufacturers into cutting leades into their barrels so that there's a little bit of wiggle room for loaders to play with.

If the reality is there is that much variation in chamber size in these pistols, then as far as I can see, the above is the consensus. There really cannot be a recommended seating depth. So the advice has to default back to proces outlined in the link NMexJim gave post #2. You have to determine max OAL for your particular barrel and go from there.

If Sierra and Hornady made the call to seat bullets deep enough to chamber in most pistols, including those with very short chambers, then that explains why Sierra has a seating depth of 1.030 for their 125 gr JHP. But even if we or me did the same, that gives us a starting place when it comes to load data for the powders.

The semi-related question then becomes why some gun makers have such shallow chambers? In the link, it was mentioned how accurate those pistols are. Perhaps they get something from a short jump? OTOH, have seen where dedicated target pistols have deep chambers, which would suggest long jumps to the lands.

From a very high altitude, I'm seeing similarities between chambers in 9mm and 308 win.